[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES ACT AND THE
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND
MANAGEMENT ACT
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
April 4, 2001
__________
Serial No. 107-15
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
71-554 PS WASHINGTON : 2002
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska, George Miller, California
Vice Chairman Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Elton Gallegly, California Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Samoa
Joel Hefley, Colorado Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Ken Calvert, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Scott McInnis, Colorado Calvin M. Dooley, California
Richard W. Pombo, California Robert A. Underwood, Guam
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Adam Smith, Washington
George Radanovich, California Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Islands
Carolina Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Mac Thornberry, Texas Jay Inslee, Washington
Chris Cannon, Utah Grace F. Napolitano, California
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Tom Udall, New Mexico
Bob Schaffer, Colorado Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Mark E. Souder, Indiana James P. McGovern, Massachusetts
Greg Walden, Oregon Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho Hilda L. Solis, California
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Brad Carson, Oklahoma
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Betty McCollum, Minnesota
C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, Idaho
Tom Osborne, Nebraska
Jeff Flake, Arizona
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana
Allen D. Freemyer, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeff Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland, Chairman
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Samoa
Jim Saxton, New Jersey, Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Vice Chairman Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Richard W. Pombo, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North
Carolina
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on April 4, 2001.................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Abercrombie, Hon. Neil, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Hawaii, Prepared statement of..................... 3
Gilchrest, Hon. Wayne, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Maryland.......................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Pallone, Hon. Frank, Jr., a Representative in Congress from
the State of New Jersey.................................... 4
Underwood, Hon. Robert A., a Delegate to Congress from Guam,
Prepared statement of...................................... 2
Statement of Witnesses:
Crockett, Lee R., Executive Director, Marine Fish
Conservation Network....................................... 27
Prepared statement of.................................... 29
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 127
Gilford, Dr. James H., Chairman, Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council......................................... 13
Prepared statement of.................................... 14
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 88
Hogarth, Dr. William T., Acting Assistant Administrator for
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S.
Department of Commerce..................................... 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 68
Houde, Edward D., Professor, University of Maryland Center
for Environmental Science, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory 36
Prepared statement of.................................... 38
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 137
LeBlanc, Justin, Vice President, Government Relations,
National Fisheries Institute............................... 18
Prepared statement of.................................... 21
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 105
Additional materials supplied:
Furlong, Daniel T., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council, Letter from Western Pacific Regional
Fishery Management Council submitted for the record........ 65
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, Response to
questions submitted for the record......................... 146
Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, Response
to questions submitted for the record...................... 151
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES
ACT AND THE REAUTHORIZATION OF THE MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY
CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT
----------
Wednesday, April 4, 2001
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans
Committee on Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:03 p.m. in
Room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Wayne
Gilchrest [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE WAYNE T. GILCHREST, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Mr. Gilchrest. The Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and
Oceans will come to order. Welcome, everyone, to the hearing.
This is one of many hearings that we will have dealing with the
extraordinarily complex Magnuson-Stevens Act, and I hope it
will be productive. I want everyone to know all of the interest
groups--that throughout the coming hearings, everyone will be
represented. We received a number of letters yesterday and
today from a number of groups that wanted to remind us of their
interest, and I hope they don't feel slighted.
The Coastal Conservation Association of Maryland, Virginia
and North Carolina has sent us a letter. They would like to
have input in this process. Mr. Pallone has sent us a letter on
this issue dealing with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and
recreational fishing; the Recreational Fishing Alliance, I
believe maybe the constituent. At any rate, as we hold these
hearings, throughout process, everyone that has any interest in
this issue, and I know there are many, they will be thoroughly
represented, and their voice will be heard.
As most of you know, in 1996, Congress passed the
Sustainable Fisheries Act, which contained a number of
substantial changes to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, including
provisions dealing with the identification and rebuilding of
overfished fisheries; the description and identification of
essential fish habitat; the minimization of bycatch to the
extent practicable; a study on the use and effects of
individual fishing quotas (IFQs); the clarification of the
community development quota program; the modification of the
Fishery Management Council procedures; the establishment of a
fishing capacity reduction program and the establishment of a
Pacific Insular Area Fishing Agreement procedure.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act now needs to be reauthorized
again. This hearing is the first in a series of hearings which
will focus on how the 1996 amendments have been implemented and
the issues Congress should address in this effort to extend
this landmark fishery conservation law. As the new Chairman of
this Subcommittee, I am committed, as are the staff and other
Members and, I am sure, an extraordinary number of people from
around this country, to thoroughly, carefully scrutinize and
examine every aspect and the very fabric of this act.
This hearing, which is round one--I never was really a
boxing fan, but that is, I guess, an apt description based on
some of the dialogue and discussion and exchange of information
we have had in the preceding days. This hearing, which is round
one, will hopefully frame and clarify some of the issues that
the Subcommittee should look at in more detail during the
process.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today, and we
will take your message to heart and deal with it effectively
and also continue a dialogue with all of the witnesses, I hope,
over a long period of time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilchrest follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Wayne Gilchrest, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans
I would like to welcome our witnesses to the first of what I hope
will be a number of hearings on the important topic of the
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act.
As most of you know, in 1996, Congress passed the Sustainable
Fisheries Act which contained a number of substantial changes to the
Magnuson-Stevens Act including provisions dealing with: the
identification and rebuilding of overfished fisheries; the description
and identification of Essential Fish Habitat; the minimization of
bycatch (to the extent practicable); a study on the use and effects of
Individual Fishing Quotas (IFQs); the clarification of the Community
Development Quota (CDQ) program; the modification of the Fishery
Management Council procedures; the establishment of a fishing capacity
reduction program; and the creation of a Pacific Insular Area Fishing
Agreement procedure.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act now needs to be reauthorized again. This
hearing is the first in a series of hearings which will focus on how
the 1996 amendments have been implemented and the issues Congress
should address in this effort to extend this landmark fishery
conservation law. As the new Chairman of this Subcommittee, I am
committed to carefully examine every aspect and the very fabric of this
Act.
This hearing, which is round one, will hopefully frame and clarify
some of the issues that this Subcommittee should look at in more detail
during this process.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today and in
subsequent Magnuson reauthorization hearings.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. I will ask unanimous consent that the
ranking member, Mr. Underwood's, statement be submitted for the
record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Underwood follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Robert Underwood, a Delegate to Congress
from Guam
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today on the
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act.
The last reauthorization of this law, the Sustainable Fisheries Act
passed in 1996, made broad changes to almost every aspect of our
fisheries management system from the requirements to reduce bycatch and
end overfishing to the new requirements to protect fisheries habitat.
Much of this effort was driven by a decline of fish stocks in many
areas of the country and a desire to ensure that fisheries disasters
like that which occurred in New England in the mid-90's would not occur
elsewhere.
Without question, the implementation of these new provisions was a
challenge for both the National Marine Fisheries Service and the
Fishery Management Councils. The lack of adequate scientific data with
respect to stock abundances and habitat needs has made this task even
more challenging, as well as somewhat frustrating for those on the
outside who have an interest in seeing these stocks managed in a
sustainable manner, be it the conservation community or the fishing
industry.
Perhaps even more frustrating is the fact that while implementation
has continued, the very fisheries disasters we sought to avoid have
continued to occur. Some will argue that this is because the
Sustainable Fisheries Act did not go far enough, and more changes are
needed. Others will say that SFA has not had sufficient time to have an
effect and we should not rush to impose more restrictions. Regardless,
of your view on this, I think all sides will agree that we must have
strong conservation and management of our fishery resources if they are
to be truly sustainable.
To that end, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today on
how we can improve our fisheries management system and to bring an end
to the cycle of fisheries disasters, whether through new legislation or
better implementation of existing law. I also look forward to the
hearings we will hold in the months to come, and pledge to work with
you, Mr. Chairman, to ensure the long-term health of our fisheries and
our fishing industry.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. I now recognize Mr. Abercrombie.
Mr. Abercrombie. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have
not usurped Mr. Underwood's position but rather, given the
schedule of the Congress, there is a competing obligation he
has which he could not avoid, and so, I am taking his place
today with your kind permission. And I just want to tell you
that it is a pleasure to be with you and particularly the
gentleman from New Jersey as well. It is always a great
opportunity to work together to accomplish good things, and
thank you for entering Mr. Underwood's statement.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Abercrombie.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Abercrombie follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Neil Abercrombie, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Hawaii
Thank you Mr. Chairman, and good morning. I want to stress how
pleased I am that we are holding this hearing today, and that further
hearings are planned, on the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the underpinning of
our nation's fisheries management system. I would also like to thank
the panel members for taking time out of their schedules to explain to
us their views on the current fisheries management program and how we
can improve it.
One of the original main purposes of the Magnuson-Stevens Act was
the exclusion of foreign fishing fleets that were overharvesting and
decimating our national resources. Obviously we were successful at
achieving that goal, and we have now an extensive domestic fleet. I
think it is important that we work as hard as we possibly can to
implement and enforce laws and regulations that ensure the long term
survival and sustainability of our fisheries stocks at levels that
allow continued commercial and recreational harvests for our own
fishermen.
It is important to remember in these hearings that though we may
hear different views on how best to manage these precious commodities,
we all want the same thing. We want fish that live and breed at levels
high enough to sustain both themselves and this fishing industry. How
we reach this goal seems to be the subject of most of our debates.
The need for adequate science cannot be ignored, nor can the need
for fishermen to have the ability to continue to support themselves and
their families. Conservationists fight for the rights of the fish not
to be driven to extinction, and all viewpoints must admit that
extinction would serve nobody's purpose.
This is an issue which in the past has been extremely divisive, but
in this new Congress, with our emphasis on bipartisanship, I think it
very important that we work together and keep our eyes on the end goal
- to keep all commercial and recreational fisheries a sustainable part
of our economy for the foreseeable future. To do that, we must have
healthy resources. Thank you.
______
Mr. Saxton, opening statement?
Mr. Pallone?
STATEMENT OF HONORABLE FRANK PALLONE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to
thank you for holding the hearing today on this important
legislation on the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and I think it will
probably be the most important issue that we consider in this
Subcommittee this year.
The 1996 reauthorization of Magnuson-Stevens, the
Sustainable Fisheries Act, was intended to ensure that our
fisheries would be managed on a sustainable basis. Without a
strong fishery resource, you can't have a strong fishing
industry. To that end, it required that the councils reduce
bycatch and end overfishing in the fisheries they manage. It
also required them to identify the habitat these fisheries need
to survive and thrive and reduce the impact that fishing had on
these habitats.
Yet, Mr. Chairman, the latest Status of the Fisheries of
the U.S. report from the Secretary indicates that more than 100
stocks of fish are considered to be overfished, and we continue
to see fisheries decline and disasters declared. In turn,
Federal tax dollars must be spent to provide disaster
assistance and to buy out fishing vessels to reduce the fleet.
So what is happening? Were the provisions that we
established in 1996 not strong enough, or have the councils and
NMFS not been as diligent in their implementations as we
believed they would be? Or is it, as some believe, too early in
the process to determine the effectiveness of the Sustainable
Fisheries Act? Clearly, we need to answer these questions if we
are going to bring an end to fisheries disasters and the need
for taxpayer-funded buyouts and bailouts.
Mr. Chairman, I think we also need to look at the
deplorable status of our fisheries data. The Status of the
Fisheries of the U.S. report indicates that there are more than
600 stocks for which the biomass is either unknown or
undefined, thereby making it impossible to determine if the
fishery is overfished. This should be of great concern. Also of
concern for many in the fishing industry, I know, are numerous
stocks that are considered to be overfished and are being
managed with data that is 2, 3 or even 4 years old, perhaps
even older, requiring quota restrictions that some feel are
unnecessary.
We need to give serious consideration to what needs to be
done to improve our data collection and restore the confidence
of the fishing industry and the environmental community in the
data we use to manage these resources. Now, again, Mr.
Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this hearing. I know
there are going to be others, and I really think this is a
critical issue, as you know, not only for New Jersey but for
the rest of the nation as well. Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Pallone.
Our witnesses today are Dr. William Hogarth, acting
assistant administrator for fisheries, National Marine
Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration from the Department of Commerce--welcome, Dr.
Hogarth; Dr. James Gilford, Chairman, Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council--welcome, Dr. Gilford; Mr. Justin LeBlanc,
vice-president of government relations, National Fisheries
Institute--welcome; Mr. Lee Crockett, executive director,
Marine Fish Conservation Network--welcome, Mr. Crockett; and
Dr. Edward Houde, professor, University of Maryland Center for
Environmental Science Chesapeake Biological Laboratory. Dr.
Houde, thank you very much for your attendance here this
afternoon.
We will begin with Dr. Hogarth.
STATEMENT OF DR. WILLIAM T. HOGARTH, ACTING ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR FOR FISHERIES, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE,
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATIVE, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Dr. Hogarth. Thank you, Chairman Gilchrest, Members of the
Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on
the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries
Conservation and Management Act. I am Bill Hogarth, the Acting
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries in the Department of
Commerce.
Mr. Gilchrest. Dr. Hogarth, can you pull your microphone a
little closer, please?
Dr. Hogarth. Okay.
Mr. Gilchrest. Is it on?
Dr. Hogarth. Is it on?
Mr. Gilchrest. Yes, it is on.
Dr. Hogarth. Let me say up front that we feel that the
future health of the nation's fisheries is anything but bleak.
The U.S. consumers spent an estimated $52 billion for fishery
products in 1999. The commercial marine fishery industry
contributed $27 billion to our gross national product, while
recreation fishermen spent $9 billion, which translates into
more than $25 billion to the U.S. economy.
Mr. Chairman, we believe that these numbers will improve as
we continue to meet conservation mandates under the Sustainable
Fisheries Act (SFA) of 1996.
First today, I would like to update the Subcommittee about
NOAA's fishery actions to implement three key conservation
provisions in the SFA: overfishing, bycatch and essential fish
habitat. NOAA Fisheries continues to address overfishing
through improved conservation guidelines and establishing
updated overfishing definitions for virtually all Federally-
managed fisheries. We have worked closely with the Regional
Fishery Management Councils to resolve overfishing criteria and
their management, as well as, flexibility in the process, and
we are moving ahead with new management programs.
I am pleased to report that we have seen tangible stock
improvements in our 75 approved rebuilding plans. According to
our most recent annual report to Congress on the status of
fisheries in the U.S., the number of stocks with acceptable
harvest rates and those that are not overfished both increased
last year. We expect this trend to continue, and in fact, by
December of this year, we expect to have all 92 overfished
stocks to have a rebuilding plan underway.
NOAA Fisheries and the councils are also making major
progress at reducing bycatch. In the Gulf of Mexico and in the
South Atlantic Fish-Shrimp Trawl Fishery, fishermen now use
bycatch reduction devices which have resulted in a decline in
finfish bycatch level even up to about 50 to 60 percent in red
snapper bycatch in the Gulf. NOAA Fisheries continues to work
closely with the industry through the Gulf and South Atlantic
Foundation in research on fishing gear to reduce bycatch.
We have also identified and described the essential fish
habitat in all 40 existing fishery management plans. However,
three major issues have emerged since we began implementing the
essential fish habitat (EFH) provision. First, a number of
parties have asked why the EFH designations appear to be so
expansive. Second, some environmental and fishing groups
believe NOAA Fisheries and the councils have not gone far
enough to minimize fishing impacts of EFH. And third, a
coalition of nonfishing industries have expressed concerns
about the consultation process with Federal agencies.
Mr. Chairman, I address these three issues in my written
testimony, and I would be happy to answer any questions today.
In fact, we have a GAO report which was released last year
which says to date, there is little evidence that the
consultation process has adversely affected planned projects or
that the broad designations have resulted in the most valuable
habitats being overlooked. They looked specifically at the
Southeast Region of nine projects and showed that none of them
had caused any delay in any projects and that they were being
implemented as Congress had intended.
The SFA also provided for many annual and one-time reports.
NOAA Fisheries has submitted four annual reports to Congress on
the Status of Fisheries of the U.S. In addition, the National
Research Council (NRC) prepared a report on individual fishery
quotas and the community development quota program in Western
Alaska, and the United States Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission coordinated a report on the Government's role in
controlling harvesting capacity.
Another report prepared by the NRC, Sustaining Marine
Fisheries, examined a wide range of management systems and
evaluated their potential contribution to sustainable
fisheries. The agency has completed several SFA-mandated
reports and helped shape and direct some critical scientific
missions.
As you know, NOAA Fisheries completes a large volume of
rulemaking and makes determinations on any given action under
six statutes and three executive orders, including the National
Environmental Policy Act and the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Many of these determinations open the agency to judicial
challenge. We have initiated an agency-wide project to make our
decisions more litigation-proof and to more fully take
advantage of the decision making tools provided.
I would like to turn now to the Magnuson-Stevens Act
reauthorization. As you know, we are in a new administration,
and we have not had time to develop an official position on the
reauthorization. However, I would like to touch on a few issues
that the stakeholders have raised to us as we have been talking
around the country. The fundamental benchmark of the SFA is
provision of mandate and the elimination of overfishing in
Federally-managed fisheries. Since issuing national standard
guidelines in May 1998, NOAA Fisheries has been helping the
councils find the needed flexibility to create overfishing
definitions, but there is still some confusion, and there may
need to be some clarification in this area.
The SFA also established a 4-year moratorium on the
submission of new individual fishery quotas (IFQs) and mandated
reports of both IFQs and community development quotas (CDQs.)
These reports conclude that IFQs and CDQs have conservation and
economic benefits and should be a management tool. However,
concerns remain about their use.
Since Section 312 of the SFA provides for public and
private partnerships and fishing capacity reduction programs,
our efforts to implement these provisions have revealed some
time-consuming complications that are discussed further in my
testimony. The SFA also addresses the hardship associated with
disaster relief in Section 312(a). The broad and flexible
nature of the program have caused some of our constituents to
raise questions about the criteria applied to the designation
of a commercial fishery failure and a fishery resource disaster
and the Federal and State Government process for approving
funded activities.
Section 305(h) calls for the creation of a central registry
system for limited access permits, the so-called lien registry.
This provision continues to be the subject of stakeholder
discussion and is being reviewed pending resolution of various
issues associated with implementation. As for seabird
protections, the Endangered Species Act is the primary
statutory authority for addressing the incidental take of
listed seabirds. Although the Magnuson-Stevens Act provides
NOAA Fisheries with authority to reduce seabird incidental
takes, there is no specific requirement, since seabirds are not
identified as bycatch.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, in simplifying and tightening up the
approval process for FMPs and amendments in 1996, the SFA
inadvertently created two distinct review processes that
resulted in timing discrepancies in regulatory actions. On
occasion, the Secretary has had to make an approval decision of
a plan or amendment without having the benefit of public
comment or has been unable to return an inadequate plan
immediately to the council for modification and timely
approval.
In conclusion, NOAA Fisheries has made great strides in
implementing the SFA, but we have a long way to go. I want to
thank you for the opportunity to testify today and discuss the
implementation and reauthorization. I look forward to working
with you and other Members of the Committee on this and other
fishery-related issues in the 107th Congress. I am prepared to
respond to any questions you and the Members may have.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Hogarth follows:]
Statement of William T. Hogarth, Ph.D., Acting Assistant Administrator
for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Department of
Commerce
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
inviting me to this hearing on reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). I am
William T. Hogarth, the Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries in
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/Department of
Commerce. In your invitation of March 19, 2001, you indicated this
initial hearing would focus on three items: (1) progress in
implementing the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA) amendments; (2)
reports mandated by the SFA; and, (3) some issues that our stakeholders
have suggested be reviewed during the reauthorization process.
THE 1996 SFA AMENDMENTS: NEW DIRECTIONS IN U.S. FISHERIES POLICY
The Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA) redirected U.S. fisheries
policy in many important areas, but particularly away from promoting
growth in the harvesting sector, toward conservation and sustainability
of fisheries. NMFS and the regional fishery management councils have
worked hard the last 4 years to implement those changes. Since 1996,
NMFS has:
Lestablished new overfishing definitions and thresholds,
and developed detailed guidelines for implementation of national
standard 1, as well as for the new national standards, in particular
national standards 8 and 9 on impacts on communities and by-catch
issues;
Lplaced much more emphasis on producing sound and fair
regulatory economic and social impact assessments (some in response to
Magnuson-Stevens Act mandates, and others pursuant to different laws);
Lidentified and described essential fish habitat (EFH) in
all 40 existing fishery management plans;
Lcontinued to promote and implement some form of limited
entry in practically all Federally managed fisheries; and
Lplayed an active role in the preparation of a number of
reports (some of them annually while others just once) that help us
monitor progress in meeting SFA goals and consider all the implications
of complex and contentious policy issues.
I would like to describe in more detail our efforts to respond to
three key provisions of the SFA that are critically significant in
addressing long-term conservation goals: (1) overfishing, (2) bycatch,
and (3) essential fish habitat. All three deal, directly or indirectly,
with the management of fishing operations, and all of them place a
priority on resource conservation. I use the word conservation in the
broad sense to include conservation, protection, and/or rebuilding of
directly targeted fish stocks, of fish and other marine life that is
taken incidentally in fishing operations, and of the marine habitat
that is vital to targeted stocks, protected species, and to all living
marine resources.
Overfishing
The future health of the Nation's fisheries is anything but bleak,
as some might have us believe. Although there is much work still to do,
we have made great strides in establishing the framework to meet
conservation mandates under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and in
implementing new management programs to ensure fisheries at sustainable
levels in the future. The foundation for progress is now in place with
the publication of revised guidelines for conservation and the
establishment of updated overfishing definitions for virtually all
Federally managed fisheries. Where differences have occurred regarding
overfishing criteria and their measurement, we have worked with the
Councils and others to overcome those differences and move ahead with
new management programs.
We have seen tangible improvements in many stocks. Our annual
report to Congress on the Status of Fisheries in the United States
provides a snapshot of how the Nation's marine fisheries are faring and
progress we have made in their management. We now have 75 approved
rebuilding plans, of which 45 have been implemented in just the last 3
years. According to the latest report, the number of stocks with
acceptable harvest rates and those that are not overfished both
increased appreciably in the last year. In fact, nine stocks have been
removed from the overfished list, and we expect many more will be
similarly reclassified in the coming years. Rebuilding efforts will
continue for many of these stocks until they reach maximum sustainable
levels. Examples of Federally managed fisheries that have exhibited
substantial resource recovery are Northeast scallops and haddock, and
King mackerel in the Southeast.
As I mentioned earlier, although progress has been made, we have
much more work to do. While the number of stocks that are not
overfished increased last year, the number of stocks that were found to
be overfished increased significantly also. This may, at first, appear
contradictory. However, most of the increase was not because of a
sudden decline in those stocks, but resulted either from new
overfishing definitions or new stock abundance data becoming available.
As this data becomes available, the total number of stocks for which
determinations can be made changes. For example, there were an
additional 37 stocks found to be overfished in 2000. However, 32 of
those were reclassified from unknown/undefined to overfished because
new overfishing definitions or biological information became available.
Increases in the number of overfished stocks are to be expected as we
continue to transition to the higher standards of the SFA.
Before leaving this topic, I would point out that rebuilding
overfished stocks is just one part of the management equation. The law
requires us to consider the plight of the fishing industry and
dependent communities as we make management decisions. With the
additional funding that Congress has provided, we have expanded our
efforts to collect necessary economic and social information, and have
significantly improved our impact analyses. We have also revised our
guidance in this area, and are working closely with Council and NMFS
staffs to implement that guidance. During the current fiscal year, we
will hold at least six workshops around the country to discuss the new
guidance and help apply the guidance to regional issues. With the
continued support of Congress, we hope in the near future to have
comprehensive data bases, as well as analytical models and other
techniques, to enable us to complete more thorough impact analyses for
decisionmakers.
Bycatch Issues
The SFA added national standard 9, which stipulates that
conservation and management measures shall minimize, to the extent
practicable, bycatch and mortality associated with bycatch. Incidental
harvests of finfish remain a major concern in the Gulf of Mexico shrimp
trawl fishery where measures to combat this problem pre-dated the SFA.
In recent years, bycatch has become a national issue that affects many
gear types, principally trawls and longlines, in a growing number of
Federally managed fisheries.
We believe that NMFS and the Councils are making meaningful
progress in dealing with bycatch, although the problem is highly
specific to individual fisheries and gear types and, therefore, resists
uniform solutions. In the Gulf of Mexico shrimp trawl fishery,
regulations requiring the use of Bycatch Reduction Devices (BRDs) have
been implemented progressively, with the result that bycatch levels of
finfish, in particular red snapper, are declining. Regulations
addressing bycatch problems have been instituted in many other
Federally managed fisheries.
The agency has continued to support gear research that focuses on
this problem. One example is NMFS-supported research on technical means
to reduce seabird mortality in longline fisheries. This work has been
applied domestically and in the 1999 FAO-sponsored International Plan
of Action for Reducing the Incidental Catch of Seabirds in Longline
Fisheries.
Also of critical concern is the bycatch problem in a number of
Federally managed fisheries involving incidental takings of protected
species. In these situations, several laws may apply. Issues related to
some seabirds fall under the Endangered Species Act and those related
to turtles and marine mammals often are addressed by both the ESA and
the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). In some cases, other laws such
as the Migratory Bird Act apply. Examples abound, but the best known
are sea turtles in the shrimp trawl and many finfish fisheries;
seabirds in long-line fisheries; and, marine mammals in some commercial
fisheries using various gear.
Essential Fish Habitat
The provisions addressing EFH in the 1996 SFA created new
responsibilities for NMFS and the Councils. Section 303 (a) (7)
requires that each fishery management plan describe and identify EFH
and minimize to the extent practicable the adverse effects of fishing
on EFH. In addition, the SFA requires that we identify other actions to
encourage the conservation and enhancement of EFH for Federally managed
fisheries. The SFA also assigned to the Secretary of Commerce the roles
of consulting and coordinating with other Federal agencies with respect
to actions that may adversely affect EFH. NMFS has heard both praise
and concern from our constituents over the increased emphasis we are
placing on habitat conservation to implement the EFH provisions of the
SFA. We are making progress and are expanding research on identifying,
protecting and understanding EFH which is hampered by the limited
available information about the habitat requirements of managed fish
species.
The EFH provisions of the SFA provided important new tools for NMFS
and the Councils to manage sustainable fisheries. By law, we now must
ensure that our fishery management decisions consider the potential
effects of fishing on the habitats needed by commercially and
recreationally important species of fish for their basic life
functions. Likewise, we must ensure that our recommendations to Federal
and state agencies regarding non-fishing activities are focused on
measures needed to conserve the habitats that support managed
fisheries.
Three major issues have emerged regarding implementation of these
EFH provisions. First, a number of parties have asked why the EFH
designations appear to be so expansive. It is true that EFH
designations encompass most of the coastal waters and EEZ. However, it
is important to realize that a map of all currently identified EFH in
U.S. waters comprises the aggregate of separate EFH designations for
more than 700 managed species, each with 2 to 4 distinct life stages
and seasonal differences in habitat requirements, and many with EFH
designated as only bottom habitats or only surface waters. For
individual species or life stages, EFH is generally a subset (often 50
to 70 percent) of the total available habitat. The specificity of EFH
designations depends on the amount of information available. Much more
scientific information is necessary to identify the type and quantity
of habitats necessary to achieve a desired level of fish production, or
even to specify which habitats contribute most to the growth,
reproduction, and survival of the target species. NMFS is continuing to
work with the Councils, scientific and research communities to revise
and refine EFH designations as additional information becomes
available.
Second, some environmental and fishing groups have said that NMFS
and the Councils have not done enough to minimize the adverse impacts
of fishing on EFH. Unfortunately, there is limited information to
demonstrate a direct link between physical habitat disturbance from
fishing gear and decreases in productivity, survival, or recruitment of
managed fish species. Where sufficient information is available, NMFS
and the Councils are incorporating measures into our management
decisions to minimize the effects of fishing on EFH. In addition, NMFS
is working in partnership with other agencies and institutions to
conduct new research to improve our understanding of the effects of
fishing on bottom habitats. NMFS and the Councils are also preparing
new environmental impact statements for most of our FMPs to evaluate in
detail the effects of fishing on EFH and a range of measures that could
be taken to minimize adverse effects. NMFS also is organizing a
symposium on the effects of fishing activities on benthic habitats,
tentatively scheduled for early 2002.
Third, a coalition of non-fishing industries has expressed concern
about the process for consultations between NMFS and other Federal
agencies whose actions may adversely affect EFH. The EFH consultations
and commenting provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act are the only
existing mandate that requires Federal agencies to address specifically
how proposed actions might affect the habitats needed by Federally
managed fish species. To streamline the efforts and enhance efficiency,
NMFS has strongly urged Federal agencies to wrap EFH consultations into
existing environmental review procedures under other laws, and most
consultations are being handled with that approach. Federal agencies
are assessing the impacts of their actions on important fish habitats,
and their decisions are responding to NMFS recommendations on how to
avoid or minimize those impacts. NMFS considers this process a
significant opportunity to provide scientific advice to other agencies
and improve the management of sustainable fisheries.
REPORTS MANDATED BY THE SFA
Associated with these strengthened and new Magnuson-Stevens Act
conservation objectives are many reporting requirements. There are two
kinds of reports on which I would like to comment. First, there are
annual reports that NMFS is required to prepare, for example, the
annual reports to Congress on the Status of Fisheries of the United
States, which we have now issued four times. The second type of report
is typically a one-time study with broad policy implications. Examples
include reports prepared by the National Research Council (NRC) on
individual fishing quotas and the community development quota program
in western Alaska, and a report coordinated by the Atlantic State
Marine Fisheries Commission on the government's role in controlling
harvesting capacity. We have completed and carefully considered all the
reports and studies that were mandated by the SFA. The reports are all
unique in that they deal with specific issues for different
programmatic ends, but they have in common that they have served highly
useful purposes and provided us substantial direction toward more
sustainable fisheries.
The agency has completed other SFA-mandated reports that have
helped shape and direct some critical scientific missions. The Fishery
Research Plan has assisted in guiding and prioritizing our fisheries
science programs, and the Fishery Ecosystem Management Study supported
NMFS efforts to do the science required for this more comprehensive and
holistic approach to management. Another report prepared by the NRC,
Sustaining Marine Fisheries, examined a wide range of management
systems, evaluating their potential contribution to sustainable
fisheries. Increasingly, these studies advocate a broad view of how to
deal with fisheries management issues. In addition, the agency has
successfully completed reports on (1) bycatch and incidental harvest
research, (2) peer-reviewed red snapper research and management, (3)
stock-specific identification of salmon in ocean fisheries, and (4)
harvest capacity reduction in New England fisheries.
Some one-time reports, such as the NRC studies of rights-based
management systems, have enabled us to examine complex issues like
individual fishing quotas (IFQs), through the eyes of outside experts
and our commercial, recreational, and environmental constituencies.
Still other reports, like the Federal Investment Study on the
governmental role in the expansion and contraction of fish harvesting
capacity, were valuable mainly because they concentrated on the
implications and effects of government programs.
Finally, I think these mandated reports have helped us identify
more clearly the scientific and technical issues that need additional
study and further deliberation. An obvious example is rights-based
management systems, which many agree involve sensitive issues. With the
completion of the NRC report on IFQs, Sharing the Fish, NMFS and the
Councils have a much better understanding of the economic and social
issues that will have to be addressed as we develop a national policy
on rights-based management systems. NMFS will continue its review of
these and other management systems as it works toward sustainable
fishing in all Federally managed fish stocks.
MAGNUSON-STEVENS ACT REAUTHORIZATION
The SFA formally reauthorized the Act through 1999. The
Administration will be developing its position on Magnuson-Stevens Act
reauthorization. Accordingly, we have established an internal process,
including a designated working group, for soliciting inputs from the
NMFS headquarters and field offices and from the eight Councils.
Because of Native American interests in certain fisheries and their
roles and responsibilities as co-managers of associated resources, our
process for soliciting input will also include potentially affected
tribal governments. As we move through the reauthorization process,
NMFS will provide specific comments on these issues. The issues
surrounding reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act are vitally
important to those who are engaged in the fisheries.
We have heard from many of our constituents and the Councils
regarding their concerns. Based on those discussions and our management
experiences, the following is a list of issues that may be considered
during the reauthorization process.
Overfishing Definitions and Thresholds: National Standard 1 and Section
304 (e)
A fundamental benchmark in the 1996 SFA is the provision that
mandates elimination of overfishing in Federally managed fisheries.
NMFS has devoted substantial time and effort since 1996 to create
overfishing definitions and thresholds that conform with the Magnuson-
Stevens Act mandates and can be applied to many different types of
Federally managed fisheries.
We believe that we succeeded substantially in meeting this charge
with the issuance in May 1998 of guidelines for implementing national
standards, including national standard 1, which deals with the
prevention of overfishing. We have worked and continue to work closely
with all the Councils to help them implement these guidelines in their
work on FMPs.
During this process, we received questions from fishermen,
environmentalists and all our constituencies on new definitions and
thresholds and our annual report on the status of stocks that applies
these standards to about 900 distinct fisheries. Some are concerned
about a perceived lack of flexibility in developing these definitions
and associated management measures. Others feel that in moving from
recruitment- to maximum sustainable yield-based definitions, we have
effectively raised the conservation standard too high, unnecessarily
depriving commercial and recreational users of fishing privileges.
Individual Fishing Quotas: Section 303 (d)
The SFA established a 4-year moratorium (to October 1, 2000) on
submission of new IFQs and mandated reports on IFQs and CDQs, which
were completed in 1998. These reports, conducted by the National
Research Council (NRC), concluded that existing IFQs and CDQs generate
conservation and economic benefits, including mitigation of
overcapacity, but that many fishing industry constituencies have
concerns about their implications, in particular for small fishermen
and fishing communities. The NRC report on IFQs, Sharing the Fish,
recommended that IFQs be made available as one tool among others that
the Councils could use if desired, and that the Congress and NMFS
should develop policies on several related issues, such as
consolidation and transferability of quota shares. Late last year,
Congress extended the IFQ moratorium to October 1, 2002, but, in the
interim, authorized two Councils to study and prepare for them. We will
continue to work with the Councils, Congress and our constituents to
make these tools available in a manner that is appropriate for the
regions and stocks under consideration.
Fishing Capacity Reduction Program: Section 312 (b-e)
Government programs that buy out and thereby reduce overcapacity
are another means of achieving a fundamental goal of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act. Most of these buyouts have been funded with public
resources, but another variety would include private sector
participation through the payment by industry of fees to pay off the
loans required to fund the buyouts. Such public and private buyout
partnerships were provided for in the 1996 SFA Section 312 (b-e)
provisions that detail the rules for the Fishing Capacity Reduction
Program. However, efforts to implement these provisions have revealed
concerns that those requirements may be too complicated and time-
consuming, particularly with respect to changes in the relevant fishery
management plans and the mandatory regulatory assessments.
Disaster Relief: Section 312 (a)
The resource downturns that are evident in so many of our Federally
managed fisheries have caused hardships for many fishermen and their
respective fishing communities. One SFA program that addresses this
need and can also support conservation is fisheries disaster relief.
Federal payments to fishing communities and industry groups have been
made increasingly frequently under Section 312 (a), the SFA provisions
that deal with Fisheries Disaster Relief. The program is much broader
and more flexible than most, and some of our constituencies have raised
questions about the criteria or standards that govern the designation
of a commercial fishery failure and a fishery resource disaster, the
use to which disaster relief funds are put, and the Federal and State
governmental process for approving activities funded under Section 312
(a).
Central Registry System for Limited Access Permits: Section 305 (h)
The SFA in Section 305 (h) calls for the creation of a central
registry system for limited access permits, the so-called lien
registry. This provision continues to be the subject of discussions
among stakeholders and is being reviewed pending resolution of various
issues associated with implementation of the registry.
Seabirds and the Management of Bycatch
The ESA is the primary statutory authority for addressing the
incidental catch of seabirds in fisheries that may potentially take an
endangered seabird species. Although the Magnuson-Stevens Act provides
NMFS with authority to implement measures to reduce seabird incidental
takes, the Act does not specifically require the implementation of
measures to reduce incidental catches of seabirds, since seabirds are
not currently defined as bycatch. It should be noted, too, that the
United States has agreed in 1999 to a United Nations Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO)-sponsored international plan of action
to reduce seabird mortality in longline fisheries, and committed to
develop a national plan to implement the FAO agreement.
Timeliness of the Management Review Process
In simplifying and tightening up the approval process for fishery
management plans and amendments in 1996, the SFA created two distinct
processes: the review process for plans and amendments, and the review
and implementation process for regulations implementing those plans and
amendments. This new system has resulted in timing discrepancies. On
occasion, the Secretary has had to make an approval decision on a plan
or amendment without having the benefit of public comment on the
proposed regulations. Concerns have also been raised about the
Secretary's inability to return an inadequate plan immediately to the
Council, so that it can make changes and have the plan approved in a
timely fashion.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. Again, I want to thank
you for the opportunity to testify today and discuss the implementation
and reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The Administration
looks forward to working with you and other Members on the Committee on
this and other fisheries-related issues in the 107th Congress. I am
prepared to respond to any questions you and other Members of the
Committee may have.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Dr. Hogarth.
Dr. Gilford?
STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES H. GILFORD, CHAIRMAN, MID-ATLANTIC
FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL
Mr. Gilford. Thank you, Chairman Gilchrest.
I am here on behalf of the chairman of the eight Fisheries
Management Councils. I want to thank you for the opportunity to
present our views. The council chairmen believe that--
Mr. Gilchrest. Excuse me, Dr. Gilford. Some of our Members
up here can't quite hear you, sir.
Mr. Gilford. The council chairmen believe the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, as amended in 1996, fundamentally is a good piece
of legislation. We also believe it is working. Many of our most
important fisheries are recovering, and we are seeing
significant improvements in a majority of the overfished stocks
which are under management. In the past year, winter flounder,
white hake, American plaice and yellowtail flounder were
removed from the National Marine Fisheries Service list of
overfished fisheries. I anticipate that loligo squid, summer
flounder and scup will likewise be removed from that list in
the very near future, perhaps by the end of the year.
From the council chairmen's point of view, the changes
suggested in our written testimony would serve to enhance and
improve the act. Our testimony, incidentally, concerns only
reauthorization issues on which the council chairmen have
reached consensus. Some of the concerns that council chairmen
recommend for consideration by the Committee are
administrative, while others relate more directly to management
measures. With respect to management matters, we recommend the
following: resolve problems that are associated with MSY-based
definition of overfishing. The council chairmen would very much
appreciate the opportunity to work with the Subcommittee in
seeking some resolution to that problem.
Secondly, modify the definition of essential fish habitat
or provide specific guidance on how to use different types of
data in defining and designating essential fish habitat. Third,
give the councils authority to regulate vessels involved in
nonfishing activities that adversely affect fisheries or
essential fish habitat. Four, allow the councils greater
latitude in specifying rebuilding periods for overfished
stocks. Five, end the prohibition on the use of IFQs or ITQs,
and allow the councils maximum flexibility in designing IFQ
systems and setting fees to be charged for the initial
allocations, first sale and leasing of IFQs and allow the
councils discretionary authority to establish fees to help fund
observer programs.
With respect to those items which relate more directly to
administrative matters, we recommend the following: authorize
locality pay for council members in the continental United
States; authorize councils to receive funds or support from
local, state and Federal agencies and nonprofit organizations;
three, authorize councils to hold closed meetings for the
purpose of reviewing research proposals; four, authorize the
National Marine Fisheries Service to collect economic,
proprietary or confidential commercial or financial information
relevant to the development of fishery management measures;
five, mandate the National Marine Fisheries Service to consult
with the relevant councils before disapproving fishery
management plans, amendment and framework actions submitted by
the councils for National Marine Fisheries Service approval;
six, allow concurrent approval of plans and amendments as well
as regulations and provide a 15-day disapproval process. Also,
allow the councils the opportunity to resubmit responsive
measures rather than submit a complete fisheries management
plan or amendment as now required.
Seven, exclude the National Marine Fisheries Service
regional administrators from voting on emergency or interim
actions requested by the councils; and eight--
Mr. Gilchrest. Could you say that again? I am sorry; could
you say that last--
Mr. Gilford. The last one?
Mr. Gilchrest. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gilford. Yes, sir. Exclude the National Marine
Fisheries Service regional administrator from voting on
emergency or interim actions requested by the councils. I will
explain that later if you wish me to, sir.
Eight, expand cooperative State-Federal enforcement
programs and consider establishing permanent funding for such
programs.
There are four matters in addition to the council
chairmen's recommendations that I hope the Subcommittee will
consider, namely, one, a seat for the State of New York on the
New England Fishery Management Council; two, eliminate the
requirement of newspaper notifications of meetings; three,
permit the direct transfer of council funds from the National
Marine Fisheries Service; and lastly but most importantly
mandate a mechanism to assure compatible state and Federal
management measures for interjurisdictional stocks managed by
both the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission and the
Mid-Atlantic and New England Fisheries Management Councils.
Thank you again for the opportunity to present the
recommendations of the council chairmen for your consideration,
and let me also make one last comment, and that is that the
council chairmen are very appreciative of the support and the
effort we have in working jointly with the National Marine
Fisheries Service. They are very capable, competent and have a
high degree of integrity. Nothing in our comments is meant to
reflect differently.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Gilford follows:]
Statement of James H. Gilford, Ph.D., Chairman, Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council
On behalf of the other seven Council chairmen and myself, I thank
the Members of the Subcommittee for the opportunity to present our
views. First let me say the Council chairmen believe the Magnuson-
Stevens Act as amended in 1996 is fundamentally a good piece of
legislation and it is working. Many of our most important fisheries are
recovering and we are seeing significant improvements in a majority of
the overfished stocks under management. During the past year winter
flounder, white hake, American plaice, yellowtail flounder were some of
the species removed from NMFS' list of overfished fisheries. Loligo
squid, summer flounder and scup should likewise be removed from that
list by the end of this year. The changes I am suggesting today are not
substantial, but they will serve to enhance and improve the Act. The
numbered points I make in this presentation concern only the
reauthorization issues on which the Council chairmen reached consensus.
The positions I will cover were developed in June 1999 and have been
modified slightly since they were first presented to the Committee on
Resources in July of 1999 by Joseph Brancaleone, then Chairman of the
New England Fishery Management Council. These items are sequenced
consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act's table of contents, and
although numbered they do not reflect any prioritization convention. I
will be glad to answer questions on any of the issues I am bringing
before you on behalf of the Councils, or on issues of specific concern
to the Mid-Atlantic Council.
1. Section 3(29) and Section 304(e) ... Redefine Overfishing
The chairmen believe there are a number of problems related to MSY-
based definitions of overfishing. For example, data deficiencies may
lead to inappropriate calculations of MSY, which in turn skew
overfishing definitions. Ultimately, this could lead to unnecessary
social and economic dislocation for fishermen who are subject to
measures that are tied to stock rebuilding schedules skewed by
unrealistic overfishing definitions. We would like to work with the
Subcommittee in seeking solutions to our concerns as the
reauthorization process proceeds.
2. Section 302(d) ... Council Member Compensation
The Act should specify that Council member compensation be based on
the General Schedule that includes locality pay associated with the
geographic locations of the Councils' offices. This action would
provide for a more equitable salary compensation. Salaries of members
serving in Alaska, the Caribbean, and Western Pacific are adjusted by a
COLA. The salary of the Federal members of the Councils includes
locality pay. The Department of Commerce has issued a legal opinion
that prohibits Council members in the continental U.S. from receiving
locality pay. Congressional action, therefore, is necessary.
3. Section 302(f)(4) and (7) ... Receipt of Funds from any State or
Federal Government Organization
Currently Councils can receive funds only from the Department of
Commerce, NOAA or NMFS. The Councils routinely work with other
government organizations to support research, workshops, conferences,
or to procure contractual services. In a number of cases, complex dual
contacts, timely pass-throughs, and unnecessary administrative or grant
oversight are required to complete the task. The Councils request a
change that would give them authority to receive funds or support from
local, state and other Federal government agencies and non-profit
organizations. This would be consistent with Section 302 (f)(4) that
requires the Administrator of General Services to provide support to
the Councils.
4. Section 302(i)(3)1Al(ii) ... Review of Research Proposals
The Act should be amended to include a provision for the Councils
to close meetings to the public for the purposes of reviewing research
proposals. Some of the Councils now provide and administer funding to
researchers and fishermen for data collection and other research
purposes. The proposals submitted to the Councils for funding may
contain proprietary information that the submitters do not want to make
public for various reasons. It will be in the best interests of this
process if the Councils have the ability to close meetings to consider
these proposals.
5. Section 303(a)(7) ... Essential Fish Habitat
The 1996 Act required the Councils to identify and describe EFH,
but gave little direction on how to designate EFH. The EFH definition,
i.e., ``those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning,
breeding, feeding or growth to maturity,'' allows for a broad
interpretation. The EFH Interim Final Rule encouraged Councils to
interpret data on relative abundance and distribution for the life
history stages of each species in a risk-averse manner. This led to EFH
designations that were criticized by some as too far-reaching. ``If
everything is designated as essential then nothing is essential,'' was
a common criticism throughout the EFH designation process on both a
national and regional scale. Either the EFH definition should be
modified, or the guidance on how to use different types of data should
be more specific.
6. Section 303(b) ... Regulating Non-Fishing Activities of Vessels
The Council chairmen recommend that Section 303(b) of the Act be
amended to provide authority to Councils to regulate non-fishing
activities by vessels that could adversely impact fisheries or
essential fish habitat (EFH). One of the most damaging activities to
such habitat is the anchoring of large vessels near habitat areas of
particular concern (HAPC) and other EFH (e.g., coral reefs, etc.). When
these ships swing on the chain deployed for anchoring in 100 feet of
water, 10 to 20 acres of bottom may be plowed up by the chain dragging
over the bottom. Regulation of this type of activity by the Councils
should be authorized.
7. Section 303(b)(7) ... Collection of Economic Data
The Magnuson-Stevens Act specifies the collection of biological,
economic, and sociocultural data to meet specific objectives of the
Act, and requires the fishery management councils to consider this
information in their deliberations. However, Section 303(b)(7)
specifically excludes the collection of economic data, and Section
402(a) precludes Councils from collecting ``proprietary or confidential
commercial or financial information.'' NMFS should not be precluded
from collecting such proprietary information so long as it is treated
as confidential information under Section 402. Without this economic
data, multi disciplinary analyses of fishery management regulations are
not possible, preventing NMFS and the Councils from satisfying National
Standard 2: ``... conservation and management measures shall be based
upon the best scientific information...'', National Standard 8: `` ...
to the extent practicable, minimize adverse economic impacts ...'', and
other requirements of the Act and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA).
The chairmen recommend resolution of these inconsistencies by
amending the Magnuson-Stevens Act to eliminate the restrictions on the
collection of economic data. Amending Section 303(b)(7) by removing
``other than economic data'' would allow NMFS to require fish
processors who first receive fish that are subject to a Federal fishery
plan to submit economic data. Removing this current restriction will
strengthen the ability of NMFS to collect necessary data, and eliminate
the appearance of a contradiction in the law requiring economic
analyses while simultaneously prohibiting the collection of economic
data necessary for such analyses.
8. Section 303(d)(1) ... Rescinding the Congressional Prohibitions on
IFQs or ITQs
Section 303(d)(1) of the Act prohibited a Council from submitting
or the Secretary from approving an Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ)
system before October 1, 2000. More recently, through the fiscal year
2001 Appropriation Act, this moratorium on IFQs/ITQs was extended for
an additional two years. If the reauthorization process is completed in
2001, the Council chairmen support rescinding these provisions before
the year 2002 deadline. If this does not occur, then the chairmen
oppose extending the moratorium on IFQs/ITQs beyond 2002.
9. Section 303(d)(5) and Section 304(d)(2) ... Establishment of Fees
The Council chairmen are opposed to the imposition of fees that are
not regional in nature and established by the Councils. However, we do
support the National Academy of Sciences recommendation that
Congressional action allow the Councils maximum flexibility in
designing IFQ systems and allow flexibility in setting the fees to be
charged for initial allocations, first sale and leasing of IFQs.
10. Section 304(a) ... FMP Review Program
The chairmen believe that NMFS, in its review of proposed plans,
amendments and framework actions has failed to adequately communicate
to the Councils perceived problems in a timely manner. We propose the
inclusion of a mandate in the Act to require through an abbreviated
rule-making process that NMFS consult with the Councils before
disapproving fishery management plans, amendments, or framework actions
submitted by the Councils for NMFS approval.
11. Section 304(a and b) ... Coordinated Review and Approval of Plans
and their Amendments and Regulations
The Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA) amended Sections 304(a) and (b)
of the M-S Act to create separate sections for the review and approval
of plans and amendments, and for the review and approval of
regulations. Accordingly, the approval process for these two actions
now proceeds on separate tracks, rather than concurrently. The SFA also
deleted the 304(a) provision allowing disapproval or partial
disapproval of an amendment within the first 15 days of transmission.
The Council chairmen recommend modification of these provisions to
include the original language allowing concurrent approval of plans and
amendments as well as regulations and providing for the initial 15-day
disapproval process. The Councils would also like the ability to
resubmit responsive measures rather than having to submit a complete
fishery management plan or amendment as is now required by subsection
(4) of Section 304(a).
12. Section 304(e)(4)(A) ... Rebuilding Periods
The Councils should have greater latitude for specifying rebuilding
periods than is provided under the National Standard Guidelines. Social
and economic factors should be given equal or greater consideration in
determining schedules that result in the greatest overall net benefit
to the Nation.
13. Section 305(c)(2)(A) ... NMFS Regional Administrator Emergency or
Interim Action Vote
For the purpose of preserving the Secretary's authority to reject a
Council's request for emergency or interim action, the NMFS Regional
Administrator is currently instructed to cast a negative vote even if
he/she supports the action. While we recognize the extreme sensitivity
in recommending a change to the voting responsibilities of our partners
in the National Marine Fisheries Service--we certainly do not wish to
appear to be disparaging the Regional Administrators in any way--the
Council chairmen believe that Congressional intent is being violated by
this policy. We suggest a modification to the Act as follows (new
language in bold):
(A) the Secretary shall promulgate emergency regulations or
interim measures under paragraph (1) to address the emergency
or overfishing if the Council, by unanimous vote of the members
(excluding the NMFS Regional Administrator) who are voting
members, requests the taking of such action; and
14. Section 311(a) ... Enforcement
The Council chairmen support the implementation of a cooperative
state/Federal enforcement programs patterned after the NMFS/South
Carolina enforcement cooperative agreement. We applaud the inclusion of
fifteen million dollars in the 2001 NMFS budget to expand the program
to other states. While it is not necessary to amend the Act to
establish such programs it is consistent with the changes needed to
enhance management under the Act to suggest to Congress that they
consider establishing permanent funding for such cooperative state/
Federal programs.
15. Section 313(a): see also Section 403 ... Observer Program
The chairmen reaffirm their support to give discretionary authority
to the Councils to establish fees to help fund observer programs. This
authority would be the same as granted to the North Pacific Council
under Section 313 for observers.
16. Section 402(b)(1) and (2) ... Confidentiality of Information
Section 402 replaced and modified former Sections 303(d) and (e).
The SFA replaced the word ``statistics'' with the word ``information'',
expanded confidential protection for information submitted in
compliance with the requirements of an FMP to information submitted in
compliance with any requirement of the Act, and broadened the
exceptions to confidentiality by allowing for disclosure in several new
circumstances.
The following draft language clarifies the word ``information'' in
402(b)(1) and (2) by adding the same parenthetical used in (a), and
deletes the provision about observer information. The revised section
would read as follows (additions in bold):
(b) CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION.-
(1) Any information submitted to the Secretary by any person in
compliance with any requirement under this Act that would disclose
proprietary or confidential commercial or financial information
regarding fishing operations, or fish processing operations shall be
confidential information and shall not be disclosed, except ...
(2) The Secretary shall, by regulation, prescribe such procedures
as may be necessary to preserve the confidentiality of information
submitted in compliance with any requirement under this Act that would
disclose proprietary or confidential commercial or financial
information regarding fishing operations or fish processing operations,
except that the Secretary may release or make public any such
information in any aggregate or summary form which does not directly or
indirectly disclose the identity or business of any person who submits
such information. Nothing in this subsection shall be interpreted or
construed to prevent the use for conservation and management purposes
by the Secretary or with the approval of the Secretary, the Council, of
any information submitted in compliance with any requirement or
regulation under this Act or the use, release, or publication of
bycatch information pursuant to paragraph (1)(E).
OTHER:
Bycatch Issues
There appears to be an inconsistent definition of bycatch,
depending on geography. In the Atlantic, highly migratory species
harvested in ``catch and release fisheries'' managed by the Secretary
under 304(g) of the Magnuson Stevens Act or the Atlantic Tunas
Convention Act are not considered bycatch, but in the Pacific they are.
We suggest that highly migratory species in the Pacific, managed under
a Western Pacific Council fishery management plan and tagged and
released alive under a scientific or recreational fishery tag and
release program, should not be considered bycatch. Note that there also
is an inconsistency between the Magnuson-Stevens Act definition of
bycatch and the NMFS Bycatch Plan. The NMFS definition is much broader
and includes marine mammals and birds and retention of non-target
species. The Council chairmen prefer the Magnuson-Stevens Act
definition. We also wish to retain turtles in the definition of
``fish'' because of their importance in every region and especially in
past, and possibly future, fisheries pursued by indigenous peoples of
the Western Pacific Region.
Mid-Atlantic Council Issues:
Section 302(a)(1)(A) ... Add New York to the New England Council
New York is a border state between the Mid-Atlantic and New England
regions, just like North Carolina is a border state between the Mid-
Atlantic and South Atlantic regions. Many fishery regulations divide
New York state. Fishermen from the east end of Long Island fish in
waters defined as southern New England and use New England fishing
techniques. These fishermen target lobster, groundfish, black sea bass
and tilefish, all Mid-Atlantic species. Fishermen from central and
western Long Island fish in a more traditional Mid-Atlantic style and
focus more on Mid-Atlantic species. The Mid-Atlantic regulated mesh
area does not begin until one reaches the waters west of 72--30' west
longitude. This has the effect of splitting New York. It puts a major
part of the new York commercial fleet (Montauk, Greenport and
Shinnecock) in the southern New England area, while the balance of the
commercial fleet as well as the majority of recreational fishermen and
fisheries are located in the waters west of 72--30'. It is recommended
that voting membership on the New England Council be increased by two
seats (state director and obligatory) to allow for the full
representation of New York on the New England Fishery Management
Council.
Section 302(i)(2)(c) ... Eliminate newspaper notification of meetings
Given today's communication technology, the requirement to notify
the public regarding meetings using local newspapers in major fishing
ports is unnecessary. Other means such as press releases, direct
mailings, newsletters, e-mail broadcasts, and web page updates of
activities and events, including Council meetings are far more
effective in communicating with our target audience than a legal notice
in a local newspaper. Moreover, it is a lot less costly to use today's
digital highway than yesterday's byway. Hence, we support the
elimination of this statutorily required method of communicating with
the public.
Direct Transfer of Council Funds
Councils are often held hostage by the DOC and NOAA grants process.
To avoid this process, and allow the Councils to operate is a more
efficient and predictable manner, we recommend that Councils receive
direct transfers of funding from NMFS rather than continue the
burdensome grant process currently used.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity to comment on the
Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization. As I mentioned earlier, I will be
happy to answer questions or provide information about the positions
taken by the Council chairmen.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Dr. Gilford.
Mr. LeBlanc?
STATEMENT OF JUSTIN LE BLANC, VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT
RELATIONS, NATIONAL FISHERIES INSTITUTE
Mr. LeBlanc. Chairman Gilchrest, distinguished Members of
the Subcommittee, on behalf of the more than 800 members of the
National Fisheries Institute, I want to thank you for the
opportunity to testify before you on the reauthorization of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
The 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act, as we all know, marked
a tremendous redirection of our nation's fisheries policies.
Considerable new burdens were placed on the regional fishery
management councils and the National Marine Fisheries Service.
Many sectors of the commercial fishing industry, including the
NFI, supported many of the provisions enacted in the SFA.
However, the implementation of these provisions by NMFS has
revealed very serious problems with the act that need to be
addressed.
Number one, the best scientific information available:
national standard number two requires all FMPs to be based on
the best scientific information available. In recent years, we
have seen numerous examples of the agency's best available
science being disproven by outside expertise, including the
surf clam and ocean quahog fishery; scallop fishery; the
wreckfish fishery in the South Atlantic, and now, there is new
data with regard to scup.
The NFI believes that there are three things that could
markedly improve the best scientific information available:
independent peer review of NMFS' stock assessments; cooperative
research programs; and equitable treatment of anecdotal
information from both commercial and recreational sectors.
Number two, essential fish habitat: implementation of the
EFH provisions by NMFS has been flawed. If everything is
essential, then nothing is. If you attempt to protect
everything, you will likely end up protecting nothing at all.
The NMFS concept of habitat areas of particular concern is much
more on target, and the authority to regulate the impacts of
fishing activities should be focused on these areas, not the
entire exclusive economic zone.
Number three, overfishing and rebuilding programs: current
overfishing definitions and rebuilding goals fail to recognize
that environmental conditions affect fisheries. In
Understanding Fisheries Management, a sea grant manual recently
re-released, the authors state: ``Another aspect of carrying
capacity is that it changes as environmental conditions change
from year to year.'' The most obvious example of this is found
in the brown shrimp fishery of the Gulf of Mexico. From 1980 to
1998, landings were as high as 193 million pounds and as low as
125 million pounds. Much of this variation can be attributed to
salinity conditions in the marsh habitat used by very small
shrimp. When conditions are good--that is, high salinity--there
is more suitable habitat, and more young shrimp survive. When
conditions are poor--low salinity--there is less suitable
habitat, and fewer young shrimp survive.
Our concepts of overfishing; our definition of what is an
overfished stock and our rebuilding targets need to be altered
to recognize this variability.
Number four, observers: there has been a call by some for
universal observer coverage in all U.S. fisheries. Observers
can and do play a critical role in enhancing the scientific
data for fishery management plans. Universal observer coverage,
however, is not necessary; may be cost-prohibitive and poses
potential safety threats, particularly on small vessels. In
addition, we need to clarify the goals and objectives of
observer programs before they are implemented. Are the
observers on board to monitor bycatch, discard, species
composition, landings or some combination of all these
parameters? How will the fishery and the council and the
National Marine Fisheries Service confirm that the data being
collected by observers is meeting these goals and objectives
and that the information is being incorporated into the
management process?
Number five, cumulative impacts of regulatory decisions:
national standard number eight requires NMFS to minimize the
adverse economic impacts of fishery conservation and management
measures on fishing communities. All too often, however, the
agency determines that the regulatory decision has no
significant social or economic impact. In many of these cases,
it is the most recent of a string of regulatory decisions that
could well be the straw that breaks the camel's back. In fact,
the General Accounting Office has recommended that NMFS
consider secondary and cumulative impacts when it is meeting
the obligations of national standard number eight.
The NFI believes, therefore, that the national standard
should be amended to require the agency to consider cumulative
economic and social impacts. Such analyses would not only
assess the impacts of additional incremental regulations on a
particular fishery but also how those regulatory decisions may
impact other fisheries.
Number six, ecosystem management: while many fishermen have
been urging NMFS to take into consideration the impacts of
coastal development, pollution and other environmental changes
on fisheries productivity and to adopt multispecies management
systems, the sheer information needs of a comprehensive
ecosystem management approach are overwhelming. Before
ecosystem management can be implemented in any real sense,
massive data gaps would need to be filled. The regional fishery
management councils and NMFS are already overwhelmed with
obligations under the SFA, and as the growing number of
lawsuits filed against the agency reveal, are already severely
limited in their ability to meet these obligations.
Comprehensive ecosystem based fisheries conservation and
management would require a NMFS budget many times larger than
is currently the case. To require such an approach would
therefore result in essentially an unfunded mandate to the
agency and, by proxy, to the user groups who simply do not have
a thorough enough scientific understanding of marine ecosystems
to know all of the variables that must be incorporated into
ecosystem-based management.
Number seven and finally, the precautionary approach: the
precautionary approach proposes that the less you know, the
more conservative your approach. It sounds so good, so
commonsensical, how can anyone oppose it? However, the simple
description of the precautionary approach fails to recognize
the inherent uncertainty present in fishery science. I would
like to quote from Dr. Doug Butterworth of the University of
Cape Town in South Africa. My written testimony has a much
longer statement that he presented at the United Nations last
year with regard to the precautionary approach, but I will just
read from one paragraph that I think gets at the heart of the
matter. Dr. Butterworth's words: ``My chief argument is with
those who cite the precautionary principle as the justification
to defend a worst-case scenario-based management approach, but
if we are honest with ourselves, this is simply not a practical
approach to life. If anyone disagrees with me, I would be
interested in their explanation of how they got here, given
that precautionarily, they should have declined to take an
aircraft flight to Rome,'' which is where the UN meeting was,
``because they were unable to rule out absolutely the
possibility that the aircraft would crash.''
Dr. Butterworth's point is that the precautionary approach
cannot be applied unless combined with an assessment of the
probabilities of certain outcomes and a determination of
acceptable levels of risk that those outcomes will occur. The
determination of an acceptable risk level is a social and a
political decision. It is not a scientific one. NFI believes
that to apply the precautionary approach in the absence of risk
analysis assumes that a zero chance of overfishing, regardless
of the social and economic impact, is the right social choice.
We must remember that fishermen, just like farmers, provide
Americans with an important renewable resource food, a food, in
fact, which medical experts recommend Americans consume more of
as part of a healthy and balanced diet. These fishermen create
jobs and economic prosperity--
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. LeBlanc, we are going to have a vote in
less than 10 minutes, and I am wondering if you are close to
the end of your statement.
Mr. LeBlanc. Indeed, one last sentence.
Under worst-case scenario-based management, Mr. Chairman,
Americans would continue to flock to their oceanfront
condominiums which have replaced commercial fishing piers; look
out on an ocean full of fish and have no seafood on the dinner
plate.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. LeBlanc follows:]
Statement of Justin LeBlanc, Vice President, Government Relations,
National Fisheries Institute
Chairman Gilchrest, Congressman Underwood, and distinguished
Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the more than 800 members of
the National Fisheries Institute (NFI), I want to thank you for the
opportunity to testify before you on the reauthorization of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA). I am
Justin LeBlanc, the Vice President of Government Relations at the NFI.
The NFI is the Nation's leading trade association for the diverse
commercial fish and seafood industry. We are an ``ocean to table''
organization, representing harvesters, processors, importers,
exporters, distributors, restaurants, and retail establishments. NFI's
mission is to ensure an ample, safe, and sustainable seafood supply to
consumers. The NFI is therefore committed to the long-term sustainable
use of our nation's fishery resources. As I have stated before to this
Subcommittee, some of our member companies have been providing seafood
to U.S. consumers for more than 100 years and would like to continue to
do so for at least another 100 years.
The 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA), as we all know, marked a
tremendous redirection of our nations fishery policies. Considerable
new burdens were placed on the Regional Fishery Management Councils and
the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to end overfishing,
rebuild overfished fisheries, protect Essential Fish Habitat, and
assess impacts on fishing communities, among other things. Many sectors
of the commercial fishing industry, including the NFI, supported many
of the provisions enacted in the SFA. However, the implementation of
these provisions by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has
revealed very serious problems with the Act that need to be addressed.
While well-intentioned, many of these new provisions have had
unexpected impacts and consequences and have revealed strategic
weaknesses in our fisheries conservation and management system. My
testimony will focus on 7 key issues:
1. LBest Scientific Information Available
2. LEssential Fish Habitat
3. LOverfishing/Rebuilding
4. LObservers
5. LCumulative Impacts of Regulatory Decisions
6. LPrecautionary Approach
7. LEcosystem Management
1. Best Scientific Information Available
National Standard #2 of the MSFCMA requires all Fishery Management
Plans (FMPs) to be based on the best scientific information available.
In all too many cases, there has been far greater emphasis on what
information is available and far too little interest in generating the
best information. For example (and there are many), the New England
Fishery Management Council and the NMFS are currently developing a
Fishery Management Plan for deep-sea red crab. As a basis for the FMP,
they are using data generated by a 1974 otter trawl survey of 2 week
duration and choosing to ignore more recent research conducted by
Canada, the Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences, and the University
of Maryland because such information is not ``official NMFS data.'' It
is clearly in the best interest of all parties that the most
contemporary reliable data be used for stock assessment and FMP
development, whether such data is generated ``in-house'' or by outside
sources.
In recent years, there have been numerous examples of NMFS data
being disproven by outside expertise. The surf clam/ocean quahog
fishery of the Mid-Atlantic region was essentially saved by outside
expertise that demonstrated serious undersampling of the resource by
NMFS surveys. Outside research on New England scallops also
demonstrated inadequate science by the agency. Although the NMFS likes
to tout New England scallops as a management success story, the
industry had to fight tooth and nail to get the outside research
recognized as legitimate by the agency and incorporated into the FMP
process. Independent, outside review of the NMFS data on the South
Atlantic Reef Fish FMP also demonstrated serious deficiencies in the
information being used by the agency.
The NFI believes there are three things that could markedly improve
the Best Scientific Information Available: independent peer review of
NMFS stock assessment data, cooperative research programs, and
equitable treatment of ``anecdotal information'' from both commercial
and recreational sectors.
Every regional fishery management council has a committee that
``independently'' reviews NMFS stock assessment data. Far too often,
these review committees are anything but independent. Often filled with
other NMFS employees and recipients of NMFS funding, these committees
have inherent conflicts-of-interest that create either conscious or
unconscious tendencies to support the NMFS data. With the tendency of
truly independent analyses to differ from NMFS-generated data and the
unwillingness (now lessening) of the agency to consider outside
information, truly independent peer reviews of the scientific data upon
which FMPs are based could dramatically improve NMFS stock assessment
work and the confidence of user groups in that work.
Other major criticisms of NMFS scientific work are that it is
insufficient in quantity and quality and that it lacks stakeholder
confidence. Cooperative research programs could go a long-way to
solving some of these problems, at least in part. Cooperative research
efforts allow the NMFS to leverage limited Federal dollars while at the
same time building relationships with the commercial sector from which
both scientists and fishermen can learn. For example, the Mid-Atlantic
commercial fleet, through Rutgers University is currently engaged in
side-by-side trawl surveys with a commercial fishing vessel (F/V Janice
and Danielle) fishing alongside the NMFS FR/V Albatross at the
Albatross historic sampling sites. Although the data is yet to be
analyzed, reports from the vessels indicate a difference in catch of
such enormous magnitude that the statistical reliability of NMFS'
surveys may be suspect. For example, the commercial vessel has landed
as much scup in one tow at one NMFS station as the Albatross landed for
its entire survey last year.
On the West Coast, the Pacific groundfish fishery is suffering
under a tremendous harvest reduction to rebuild fisheries classified as
overfished. With NMFS surveys of these stocks occurring only once every
3 years, this 30-years old fishery is being managed with essentially
ten data points. Cooperative research could help fill these massive
data gaps. The General Accounting Office (GAO)\1\ in its report last
April recommended that the NMFS ``increase the involvement of the
fishing industry, its expertise, and its vessels in fishery research
activities...''
In addition, the NMFS must incorporate anecdotal information
provided by fishermen into its stock assessment process, if only to
question and/or ground truth the legitimacy of its own scientific
information as the side-by-side trawl work I just mentioned suggests.
This proposal is constantly scoffed at by NMFS employees and members of
the conservation community. No one is proposing that fishermen shouting
at a council meeting ``There are plenty of fish out there!'' should
turn over a NMFS official stock assessment. However, as the GAO\1\
reports, NMFS does require commercial fishermen to collect and report
about the type, weight, and length of species harvested. Because much
of this information cannot be independently verified, NMFS is reluctant
to use it. NMFS does, however, use similar self-reported data for
recreational fishermen. NMFS obtains information about recreational
catches, in part, by calling a random sample of recreational fishermen
and asking them what they caught. These unverified responses are then
combined with catch data obtained from a sample of recreational
fishermen as they land to estimate the total recreational catch. While
anecdotal information cannot replace true scientific analyses, it can
inform the process in important ways and should be taken into
consideration in some manner.
2. Essential Fish Habitat
The implementation of the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) provisions
by the NMFS has been flawed as revealed in the hearing this
Subcommittee held on EFH last year. The scope of EFH has been defined
far too broadly, resulting in essentially the entire Exclusive Economic
Zone (EEZ) being defined as EFH. If everything is essential then
nothing is. If you attempt to protect everything, you will likely end
up protecting nothing at all. The NFI believes this conception of EFH
is inconsistent with congressional intent. The concept of EFH should be
used to afford the conservation of discrete or particular, definable
units of habitat. The NMFS concept of Habitat Areas of Particular
Concern (HAPCs) is much more on target and the authority to regulate
the impacts of fishing activities should be focused on these areas, not
the entire EEZ.
3. Overfishing and Rebuilding Programs
Currently, any stock of fish that is of low abundance relative to
some historic high is classified as an overfished stock, whether this
low abundance is the result of fishing activity or changes in the
marine environment unrelated to fishing. Since these fisheries are
classified as overfished, the Councils are required to implement
rebuilding plans to once again attain the historic high level of
abundance within 10 years, whether or not the current state of the
marine environment can sustain such an abundance level (considered the
carrying capacity of the environment for a stock of fish). The apparent
driving force behind this is a misconception of the Maximum Sustainable
Yield (MSY) of a fishery as a static concept that does not change.
But MSY is dependent on the carrying capacity of the marine
environment. Changes in the marine environment alter the carrying
capacity of the environment, which, in turn changes the potential MSY
for the fishery. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS), in its 1999
report: Sustaining Marine Fisheries\2\ states that ``Environmental
changes can produce effects similar to those of fishing, and it is
often difficult to distinguish them from the effects of fishing.
Although they cannot be controlled directly, environmental fluctuations
exert a fundamental influence on the behavior of marine ecosystems and
must be taken into account by managers. To be sustainable, fishing and
fishery management must be flexible and responsive to environmental
changes as well as conservative of ecosystem components.''
In the second edition of ``Understanding Fisheries Management''\3\,
a manual published by the Auburn University Sea Grant Marine Extension
and Research Center and the Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Legal
Program, the authors state:
``Another aspects of carrying capacity is that it changes as
environmental conditions changes from year to year. The most obvious
example of this is found in the brown shrimp fishery of the Gulf of
Mexico. From 1980 to 1998 landings were as high as 193 million pounds
(1986) and as low as 125 million pounds (in 1983). Much of this
variation can be attributed to salinity conditions in the marsh habitat
used by very small shrimp. When conditions were good (high salinity),
there was more suitable habitat and more young shrimp survived. When
conditions were poor (low salinity), there was less suitable habitat
and fewer young shrimp survived.''
While it is obvious that harvest regimes need to take this
variability into account, more importantly, our concepts of overfishing
need to be altered to recognize this variability. Otherwise, in low
salinity years, the Gulf of Mexico brown shrimp fishery would be
classified as overfished and a rebuilding plan to attain the abundance
of a high salinity year would be imposed, unnecessarily restricting
fishing activity and not producing the desired result, particularly if
there are a number of low salinity years in a row.
In another example, the Mid-Atlantic scup fishery is classified as
overfished and subject to a rebuilding plan. The NMFS has relative
abundance data for scup going back 30 years. The long-term average
relative abundance of scup since 1969 is 0.78 kg/tow Spring Spawning
Stock Biomass (rolling 3-year average). However, for 3 years (1977-
1979) immediately following the passage of the FCMA, scup relative
abundance shot up to an average 2.26 kg/tow Spring Spawning Stock
Biomass. The NMFS has selected as its rebuilding target (MSY) for scup
this average of the three highest years on record, even though it is
three times higher than the long-term average. It is unlikely that scup
will ever reach these abundance levels again, even with a cessation of
all fishing activity.
On the West Coast, Pacific Ocean Perch (POP) is commonly found in
Alaska, Canada, and northern Washington. The Washington stock was
heavily fished by foreign vessels prior to enactment of the MSFCMA.
When the U.S. assumed management in 1977, the Pacific Fishery
Management Council established a rebuilding program to restore the
stock. Surprisingly, stocks leveled off but did not increase in spite
of stringent harvest controls. At the same time, POP stocks in Alaska
were rapidly rebuilding. It now appears that the Washington stock was
an outlying population that moved into the area in response to some
unknown shift in the marine environment that shifted back as evidenced
by the return of POP to Alaska. Such a shift changed the carrying
capacity for POP in the waters off the coast of Washington. In
addition, as POP stocks declined, other species replaced the ecosystem
``space'' made available, yet another change to the carrying capacity
of Washington waters. Finally, original stock assessments more than
likely over-estimated the virgin biomass as the reporting of foreign
catches was haphazard and unreliable: since POP was a prime commodity,
especially in Russia, all rockfish were reported as POP. Despite all
these factors, under the MSFCMA we are required to rebuild POP to an
abundance level that probably never existed and, even if it did, is not
likely possible today.
It is therefore imperative that our definitions of MSY,
overfishing, and rebuilding recognize environmental variability and
take it into consideration when determining whether fisheries are
overfished and what appropriate rebuilding targets should be.
Another example of the 1996 SFA gone awry is Georges Bank haddock
(G.B. haddock). In 1993, the New England Fishery Management Council
submitted a rebuilding plan for G.B. haddock as part of Amendment 5 to
the Multispecies FMP. Under the rebuilding plan approved by the
Secretary, the status of G.B. haddock has markedly improved. Spawning
stock biomass has increased from 10,900 metric tons (mt) to 38,100 mt
in 1998. The 1998 and 1999 year classes of haddock are estimated to be
48.5 million and 35.2 million fish, respectively. The 1998 year class
is the largest year-class since 1978 and the third largest year class
since 1964, the 1999 year-class is the fourth largest since 1964.
Spawning stock biomass for 1999 is estimated to be 48,522 mt or 46
percent of the MSY yield target of 105,000 mt. Spawning stock biomass
is projected to increase to 86,145 mt by 2001 (probability 75 percent)
under present restrictions and the present fishing mortality rate. The
stock is projected to rebuild to MSY spawning stock biomass (105,000
mt) under present restrictions by 2002. The present fishing mortality
rate is well below the maximum allowed and is well below the rate at
which the Canadians are fishing the stock.
Nonetheless, under the present requirements of the MSFCMA and the
National Standard Guidelines, the Council must establish a new
rebuilding program for G.B. Haddock. That rebuilding program must be
accomplished in the shortest possible time, not to exceed 10 years. The
Council's groundfish plan development team has suggested a rebuilding
time of 2004 with a fishing mortality rate 38 percent lower than the
current rate, which is already 39 percent lower than the maximum
allowed! This requirement will further restrict fishing for G.B.
haddock at precisely the time the stock will have reached MSY under the
existing restrictions!
The system is clearly broken.
4. Observers
There has been a call by some for universal observer coverage in
all U.S. fisheries. Observers can and do play a critical role in
enhancing the scientific data for FMPs. Universal observer coverage,
however, is not necessary, may be cost-prohibitive, and poses potential
safety threats. Used in combination with self-reported information,
representative observer coverage can provide statistically reliable
information. In addition, many fisheries and the vessels engaged in
them are ill-suited for observers whose presence could create safety
concerns for both observers and the crew, particularly on small
vessels.
Also of importance is the need to clarify the goals and objectives
of observer programs before they are implemented. Are the observers on-
board to monitor bycatch, discards, species composition, total
landings, or some combination of these parameters? How will the
fishery, the Council, and the NMFS confirm that the data being
collected by observers is effective at addressing the goals and
objectives and that the information is being incorporated into the
management process? The NFI believes that all observer programs should
have clearly articulated goals and objectives developed before their
implementation and that these programs should be periodically assessed
to ensure they are fulfilling the goals and objectives. Such an
approach will only improve observer programs in the long-term.
In addition, the costs of observer programs should be borne by all
the beneficiaries of the program, including all participants in the
observed fishery as well as other affected fisheries, where
appropriate.
5. Cumulative Impacts of Regulatory Decisions
National Standard #8 requires the NMFS to minimize the adverse
economic impacts of fishery conservation and management measures on
fishing communities. All too often, however, the NMFS assesses a
regulatory decision in isolation from previous decisions in the same
fishery, thereby determining that the regulatory decision has no
significant economic impact and is, therefore, consistent with not only
with National Standard #8, but also the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive
Order 12866. In many of these cases, the most-recent regulatory
decision could well be the straw that breaks the camel's back. The
GAO\1\ recommended that the consideration of secondary and cumulative
impacts by the NMFS be expanded.
For example, as has already been mentioned, the data base used to
manage west coast groundfish is poor. As a result--and especially with
Pacific rockfish species--the Pacific Fishery Management Council has
taken a number of management actions, each of which independently are
arguably scientifically correct, but which cumulatively have led to a
disaster declaration for the industry. These include ``precautionary''
reductions on Pacific rockfish harvest due to lack of data; imposition
(with no phase-in period) of new harvest rate policies that further
reduce harvest levels; and multi-species harvest restrictions in order
to protect single species. Even worse, the Council has collected
virtually no social and economic data on the fleet, processors, or
local communities, so the Council can't even begin to measure
cumulative impacts; but the number of ``For Sale'' signs on the dock
tells you that the impacts exist.
The NFI believes, therefore, that National Standard #8 should be
amended to require the agency, when considering the impact of
regulatory decisions on fishing communities and seeking to minimize
negative economic impacts, to consider the cumulative economic and
social impacts in order to more accurately reflect the toll such
decisions can take on fishing communities. Such analyses would not only
assess the impacts of additional incremental regulations on a
particular fishery but also how those regulatory decisions may impact
other fisheries by, for example, shifting effort to those other
fisheries.
6. Precautionary Approach
The MSFCMA does not call for the application of the precautionary
approach. However, the United States is party to several international
agreements, most notably the United Nations Code of Conduct for
Responsible Fisheries, that call for the application of the
precautionary approach. The precautionary approach has been touted as
an approach to fisheries management to will save us from making
mistakes that could devastate a fishery. Simply put, the precautionary
approach proposes that the less you know, the more conservative your
approach. It sounds so good, so common-sensical, how can anyone oppose
it. However, this simple description of the precautionary approach
fails to recognize the inherent uncertainty present in fisheries
science.
I would like to refer to someone with far more expertise on this
matter than myself. Dr. Doug Butterworth of the University of Cape
Town, South Africa presented a paper at the United Nations last year on
the precautionary approach\4\. Dr. Butterworth is an internationally
recognized fisheries expert and provides scientific guidance on the
precautionary approach to both the United Nations and the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). Dr. Butterworth
states:
``Fisheries assessment is an inexact science, in which uncertainty
is pervasive. At a certain level, uncertainty, or, lack of
predictability, is endemic, and fisheries management has to learn to
live with that. Three decades ago, fisheries management dealt with this
problem simply. Coarsely put, it said: use the scientist's agreed best
assessment, then take off 10 percent for safety. But then scientists
started trying to get more clever. We argued essentially that the
safety level should be greater, the less certain we are...''
``Now as a counter to arguments typically offered by short-term-
orientated industrial interests in the past--`catches can't be reduced
unless there's absolute certainty that this is necessary'--the existing
statement of the Precautionary Principle (where there are threats of
serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall
not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to
prevent environmental degradation, inserted) is fine, albeit lacking in
specifics... But the Principle as stated offers no operational
definition and the choice of language is poor. In science we can only
disprove, not prove, so that there is never `full scientific
certainty'. These deficiencies has allowed free reign in interpreting
the Principle.''
``My chief argument is with those who cite the Precautionary
Principle as the justification to defend a `worst-case scenario' based
management approach... But if we are honest with ourselves, that is
simply not a practical approach to life. If anyone disagrees with me,
I'll be interested in their explanation of how they got here, given
that, precautionarily, they should have declined to take an aircraft
flight to Rome because they were unable to rule out absolutely the
possibility that the aircraft would crash.''
Dr. Butterworth's point is that the precautionary approach cannot
be effectively applied in the context of fisheries management unless
combined with an assessment of the probabilities of certain outcomes
and a determination of acceptable levels of risk that these outcomes
will occur.
The determination of acceptable risk levels is a social and
political decision. It is not a scientific one. Scientists should tell
fishery managers that a certain fishing mortality rate has a certain
probability of overfishing the resource. Fishery managers should then
combine this information with an estimate of the social and economic
impacts of their decisions and choose an acceptable balance.
Of course, worst-case scenario management would have you seek a
fishing mortality rate that has no chance of overfishing the resource.
Such an approach is not only impractical, it is impossible. But even in
the absence of worst-case scenario management, the Precautionary
approach would have you always select a lower fishing mortality rate
regardless of the cost to society. But is that appropriate? Or is there
some point at which we, as a society, are willing to accept a slightly
higher risk of negative outcomes to minimize negative social and
economic impacts? And where does the tradeoff occur? At what point is
this risk of overfishing too high? 5 percent, 10 percent, 50 percent?
At what point are the social and economic costs too great? The
challenge is that there is no right answer to these questions. Science
cannot tell us what to do. We must make a social decision about the
balance we seek in fisheries conservation and management.
The NFI believes that to apply the Precautionary Approach in the
absence of such risk analysis assumes that a zero chance of overfishing
regardless of the social and economic impact is the right social
choice. We cannot support such an approach. Now, of course an FMP
should be less likely to result in overfishing than more likely, but
just how unlikely is appropriate will vary from fishery to fishery
dependent upon the social and economic costs.
We must remember that fishermen, just like farmers, provide
Americans with an important resource: food. A food, in fact, which
medical experts recommend Americans consume more of as part of a
healthy and balanced diet. These fishermen create jobs and economic
prosperity, stabilizing and enhancing the communities in which they
live. Are we as a society willing to sacrifice fishing communities and
the people whose livelihoods depend upon fishing in order to achieve
zero-risk (biologically) fishery conservation and management regimes?
Or should we be willing to accept certain levels of risk to ensure that
fishing communities and fishermen are around to reap the benefits of
rebuilt fisheries for American and world consumers in the future? Under
worst-case scenario management, Americans could continue to flock to
their ocean-front condominiums that have replaced commercial fishing
piers, look out on an ocean full of fish, and have no seafood on the
dinner plate.
7. Ecosystem Management or Multi-species Management
In the 1999 Report to Congress by the Ecosystem Principles Advisory
Panel titled Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management\5\, the Panel calls on
the NMFS to develop Fisheries Ecosystem Plans (FEPs) for every Fishery
Management Plan. The Panel calls for these FEPs to contain the
following:
a. LDelineate the geographic extent of the ecosystem(s) that occur(s)
within Council authority, including characterization of the biological,
chemical, and physical dynamics of those ecosystems, and ``zone'' the
area for alternative uses.
b. LDevelop a conceptual model of the food web.
c. LDescribe the habitat needs of different life history stages for all
plants and animals that represent the ``significant food web'' and how
they are considered in conservation and management measures.
d. LCalculate total removals including incidental mortality and show
how they relate to standing biomass, production, optimum yields,
natural mortality, and trophic structure.
e. LAssess how uncertainty is characterized and what kind of buffers
against uncertainty are included in conservation and management
actions.
f. LDevelop indices of ecosystem health as targets for management.
g. LDescribe available long-term monitoring data and how they are used.
h. LAssess the ecological, human, and institutional elements of the
ecosystem that most significantly affect fisheries and are outside the
Council/Department of Commerce authority. Included should be a strategy
to address those influences in order to achieve both FMP and FEP
objectives.
While many fishermen have been urging the NMFS to take into
consideration the impacts of coastal development, pollution, and other
environmental changes on fisheries productivity and to adopt multi-
species management systems that take into consideration competitive
interactions and predator-prey relationships, the sheer information
needs of a comprehensive ecosystem management approach as outlined by
the Panel are overwhelming.
Before ecosystem management could be implemented in any real sense,
massive data insufficiencies would need to be filled. The Regional
Fishery Management Councils and the NMFS are already overwhelmed with
obligations under the MSFCMA and, as the growing number of lawsuits
filed against the agency reveal, are already severely limited in their
ability to meet these obligations. Comprehensive ecosystem-based
fisheries conservation and management would require a NMFS budget many
times larger than is currently the case. The NFI is not convinced that
there is a political willingness to fund the agency sufficiently to
meet the scientific requirements of ecosystem-based management.
To require such an approach would, therefore, result in essentially
an unfunded mandate to the agency and, by proxy, to the user groups. We
simply do not have a thorough enough scientific understanding of marine
ecosystems to know all the variables that must be incorporated into
ecosystem-based management. The NFI believes we must considerably
expand our knowledge base before we can implement ecosystem-based
fisheries conservation and management in a manner that avoids
unintended consequences for both fishermen and marine ecosystems.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, the reauthorization of
the MSFCMA presents a tremendous opportunity to further evolve our
fisheries conservation and management policies. The 1996 SFA was an
important step in that evolution from which we have learned many
lessons. I look forward to working with all of you during the
reauthorization process to ensure a law that provides for sustainable
fisheries while allowing U.S. consumers to enjoy safe, wholesome
seafood. I thank you for the opportunity to testify before you.
References:
1. LGeneral Accounting Office. April 2000. Fishery Management:
Problems Remain With National Marine Fisheries Service's Implementation
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. GAO/RCED-00-69.
2. LNational Academy Press. 1999 Washington, D.C. Sustaining Marine
Fisheries. Committee on Ecosystem Management for Sustainable Marine
Fisheries. Ocean Studies Board. Commission on Geosciences, Environment,
and Resources. National Research Council.
3. LWallace, Richard K. and Kristen Fletcher. 2001. Understanding
Fisheries Management: A Manual for understanding the Federal Fisheries
Management Process, Including Analysis of the 1996 Sustainable
Fisheries Act. 2nd Ed. Auburn University Sea Grant Marine Extension and
Research Center & Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Legal Program MASGP-00-
005.
4. LButterworth, Doug S. 2000. Science and Fisheries in the New
Millennium, presented at University of Virginia School of Law, Center
for Oceans Law and Policy Conference: Current Fisheries Issues and the
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. March 15-17,
2000. Food and Agriculture Organization Headquarters, Rome, Italy.
MARAM, Dept. of Mathematics and Applied Mathematics, University of Cape
Town, Rondebosch 7701, South Africa.
5. LEcosystem-Based Fishery Management. April 1999. A Report to
Congress by the Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panel as mandated by the
Sustainable Fisheries Act amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much.
Mr. Crockett?
STATEMENT OF LEE CROCKETT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MARINE FISH
CONSERVATION NETWORK
Mr. Crockett. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of
the Subcommittee. My name is Lee Crockett. I am the executive
director of the Marine Fish Conservation Network. The network
is a coalition of 102 environmental organizations, commercial
and recreational fishing groups and marine science groups
dedicated to promoting the long-term sustainability of marine
fisheries. We appreciate the opportunity to present our views
on reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Thanks to the hard work of you, Mr. Chairman, and others,
the Sustainable Fisheries Act was passed and signed into law in
October 1996. It was hailed as a landmark piece of legislation
that would significantly improve fisheries conservation. Yet
more than 4 years after its passage, the bright promise of the
SFA has not materialized. Since the SFA's enactment in 1996,
members of the network have been closely following its
implementation. Based on our experiences, we have issued two
reports. The first, which evaluated council implementation of
the SFA, was entitled Missing the Boat; the other, entitled
Lost at Sea, evaluated NMFS' implementation of the act.
Based on these analyses, we identified three major
shortcomings with implementation of the SFA. First, while some
progress has been made in controlling overfishing and
rebuilding overfished stocks, short-term overfishing was
allowed in some fisheries, and many rebuilding plants had been
stretched out to the maximum allowed by law. Second, many
councils ignored the bycatch requirement by either relying on
past, inadequate, actions or by postponing action until a later
date.
The most common rationale for the inaction was the lack of
data. However, nearly all councils failed to establish the
required bycatch reporting system to gather such data. Thirdly,
we felt that the councils did a good job of identifying
essential fish habitat, but nearly all had failed to carry out
one of the most important SFA mandates: protecting the EFH from
damaging fishing practices. In Lost at Sea, our evaluation of
NMFS, we found that despite earlier assurances, NMFS failed to
reject the vast majority of the inadequate SFA implementation
amendments.
We are currently in the process of conducting a followup to
Lost at Sea to determine what the councils and NMFS have done
to correct deficient plan amendments since September 1999. In
my testimony, I detailed some of our preliminary findings.
While I don't want to repeat that discussion, I do want to
point out two overarching problems that we found: first, once
NMFS approves an inadequate plan amendment, the councils are
not likely to change it. Secondly, even when NMFS has
disapproved inadequate amendments, the councils are slow to
correct deficiencies.
While some have argued that our concerns could be addressed
through better implementation of the act, we believe that it is
the act's legal framework that allows poor implementation. In
the case of overfishing, flexibility in the law has allowed
NMFS to develop regulations that allow overfishing of weak
stocks in mixed-stock fisheries. In the case of bycatch,
flexibility in the law allows the councils to claim that there
is too little data to take action while at the same time
failing to take meaningful steps to collect the data.
Flexibility in the law has allowed managers to identify EFH
but take no action to protect it from damaging fishing
practices. We believe that implementation of the SFA is not
likely to improve until Congress provides further legal
clarification and direction. To accomplish this, we recommend
that Congress strengthen the Magnuson-Stevens Act during
reauthorization in the following ways: first, you should
prohibit overfishing of all stocks in a mixed-stock fishery. On
bycatch, you should make avoiding bycatch a priority and
require fishery managers to take action to reduce bycatch under
strict timelines. To protect essential fish habitat from
damaging fishing practices, we should prohibit fishing
activities that damage EFH unless the prohibition is shown to
be unnecessary. We should also prohibit the introduction of new
fishing gears or the opening of closed areas unless EFH damage
is assessed and minimized.
We must also expand fishery management beyond traditional
single-species management to ecosystem-based management. To do
this, we should require councils to develop ecosystem plans for
each major ecosystem within their jurisdiction and then require
that the management measures be consistent with those ecosystem
plans. We should also establish mandatory observer programs.
Objective observation and data collection are vital to
effectively manage marine fisheries. To improve data
collection, legislative changes are needed to establish
mandatory fishery observer programs for all Federally-managed
fisheries to collect statistically valid, reliable data. We
believe that these observer programs should be funded by a user
fee based on value and applied to all fish landed and sold in
the United States.
Several witnesses have also mentioned that they want to see
the moratorium on individual fishing quotas lifted. The
network's position on this is that we think the moratorium on
IFQs should remain in place until Congress acts to establish
standards that protect fishermen and the marine environment.
So, having detailed the network's ideas for reauthorization
to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, I would like to close by
cautioning the Subcommittee against weakening the conservation
provisions of the act. Nearly 5 years have passed since passage
of the SFA. We are just beginning to see some stocks begin to
rebound. However, many other stocks have shown little
improvement, and some continue to decline. The recent
Department of Commerce Status of Stocks report shows that for
the fourth year in a row, the number of stocks that are either
overfished, experiencing overfishing or both has increased.
Currently 107 stocks, 43 percent of those that are assessed,
are in that condition.
We think that that is a clear indication that our fish
conservation laws need to be strengthened, not weakened. Thank
you for providing us this opportunity to present our views on
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. I would be happy
to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Crockett follows:]
Statement of Lee R. Crockett, Executive Director, Marine Fish
Conservation Network
Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, my
name is Lee Crockett, I am the Executive Director of the Marine Fish
Conservation Network (Network). The Network is a coalition of 102
environmental organizations, commercial and recreational fishing
associations, and marine science groups dedicated to promoting the
long-term sustainability of marine fisheries. Our member organizations
represent nearly 5 million people. For your information, I've attached
a list of Network members to my testimony. We appreciate this
opportunity to present our views on reauthorization of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act. As you requested, I will focus my testimony on progress
and effectiveness of implementation of the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries
Act (SFA) amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the issues that we
think the Subcommittee should address during reauthorization.
I would first like to say how pleased we are that you are now the
Chairman of this Subcommittee. You have been a leader in Congress on
fish conservation for many years and can rightfully claim to be one of
the fathers of the SFA. It was your legislation, H.R. 4404, the
``Marine Fish Conservation Amendments of 1994,'' that formed the basis
for the SFA's overfishing, bycatch, and essential fish habitat
provisions. As you have a paternal claim to the conservation provisions
of the SFA, so does the Network. We have advocated for changes to the
Magnuson-Stevens Act to prohibit overfishing, minimize bycatch, and
identify and protect essential fish habitat since 1993.
Since enactment of the SFA in 1996, members of the Network have
been actively involved in its implementation at the regional fishery
management council level. Our members have actively participated in the
council process as members of and advisors to council committees, and
as interested stakeholders through written and oral testimony. We have
been working diligently over the past 4 years to ensure that the SFA is
implemented as Congress intended. Based on our experience, the Network
issued a report in January 1999, in partnership with the Center for
Marine Conservation, evaluating council implementation of the SFA. The
report, entitled Missing the Boat, identified major failures in the
implementation of the SFA. We found that while the councils had made
some progress in controlling overfishing and rebuilding overfished
stocks, much more work was needed. Some councils continued to allow
short-term overfishing, and many stretched rebuilding plans out to the
maximum allowed by law, 10 years or beyond. These risky practices
jeopardize rebuilding these overfished stocks.
We also found that the councils failed to implement the SFA's
bycatch requirements. Many councils ignored this requirement either by
relying on past inadequate actions, or by postponing action until some
later unspecified date. The most often cited excuse for inaction was a
lack of data. However, the councils uniformly did not even establish
the SFA mandated bycatch reporting systems necessary to gather such
data.
The councils did a better job of implementing the Act's essential
fish habitat (EFH) requirements. Across the board, the councils engaged
in a thorough information gathering process and identified EFH in an
appropriately precautionary manner. However, nearly all of the councils
failed to carry out one of the most important SFA mandates: protecting
EFH from damaging fishing practices.
In response to Missing the Boat, the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) stated that it was too early to criticize implementation
of the SFA and assured the public and us that it would return
inadequate SFA implementation amendments and plans to the councils for
``necessary modifications.'' Since then, members of the Network have
been closely following NMFS' response to the fishery management
councils' SFA implementation amendments. We reviewed each amendment and
provided NMFS with detailed comments and recommendations on which
sections should be approved or disapproved for not meeting SFA
requirements. We also issued another report on NMFS' implementation of
the SFA entitled Lost at Sea. In that report, we found that, despite
its earlier assurances, NMFS failed to reject the vast majority of the
inadequate SFA implementation amendments. NMFS approved three plan
amendments that allowed continued short-term overfishing. It also
approved 12 rebuilding plans that did not meet the requirement to
rebuild overfished stocks in as short a time as possible, but instead
stretched rebuilding out for10 years. With regard to bycatch, we found
that all of the 24 plan amendments submitted as of September 1999 were
inadequate and should have been rejected. Unfortunately, NMFS rejected
only 5 of those inadequate amendments.
With regard to EFH, only two of the existing EFH amendments
contained any new measures to protect habitat from damaging fishing
practices, and both affected only small areas. Aside from these minor
actions, little else has been done to protect fish habitat from fishing
impacts. Most councils failed to even conduct a comprehensive
assessment of the effects of fishing gear on habitat or the
practicability of measures to reduce those impacts. NMFS' response to
those failings was to partially disapprove nine inadequate amendments,
while approving 28 equally inadequate amendments.
The Network is in the process of conducting a follow-up to Lost at
Sea to determine what the councils and NMFS have done to correct
deficient plan amendments since September 1999. While this study is not
complete, I would like to share some of our preliminary results with
you.
In New England, the Council has not implemented the SFA overfishing
definitions or the required rebuilding plans, nearly 5 years after the
Act's passage. Many stocks continue to be managed based on pre-SFA
overfishing and rebuilding targets. With regard to bycatch, the Council
failed to establish a bycatch reporting methodology and continues to
rely on existing reporting requirements to report bycatch--vessel trip
reports and minimal at-sea observer coverage--even though it admits
that both are unreliable for assessing bycatch. As to protecting EFH,
NMFS fully approved the Omnibus EFH amendment. However, this approval
was unwarranted as the amendments failed: (1) to assess the impacts of
the eighteen predominant gears used in New England on EFH; and (2)
incorrectly found that existing measures were adequate to minimize
fishing impacts on EFH. Since the passage of the Omnibus EFH Amendment,
many of the measures it relied on to minimize fishing effects on EFH
have been weakened (groundfish closed areas) or never implemented
(scallop days at sea reductions).
Similar issues arise in the Mid-Atlantic, NMFS approved most of the
Council's overfishing and rebuilding plans--even thought many relied on
pre-SFA overfishing definitions that were risk-prone. While NMFS
rejected the scup rebuilding plan, the Council has yet to develop an
amendment to modify the existing plan. Most of the Mid-Atlantic
Council's plan amendments to address bycatch rely on existing catch
reporting requirements. Paradoxically, the Council deferred taking
action to minimize bycatch due to lack of data because of the
unreliability of existing reporting methods. NMFS approved most of
these plans and only rejected the scup bycatch provisions of the Summer
Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass management plan. The Council has yet
to adopt adequate measures to reduce scup bycatch in the squid,
herring, and mackerel fisheries. NMFS rejected all of the EFH
amendments because they did not adequately assess the impact of fishing
on EFH, or provide an adequate rationale for not taking action to
minimize the effects of damaging fishing practices. The Council has yet
to remedy these deficient EFH provisions.
In the South Atlantic, NMFS rejected most of the overfishing
provisions of the Council's SFA amendment because they relied on pre-
SFA overfishing definitions that did not comply with the new
requirements of the SFA, namely that they be biomass-based. The Council
has yet to implement revised overfishing definitions for most of these
rejected species. With regard to bycatch, the Council continues to rely
on logbooks to collect bycatch information--many of which still fail to
contain necessary fields to report bycatch. While NMFS is planning to
modify fishery logbooks to include bycatch reporting this year, such a
measure fails to address the serious concerns about reliability, or
ensure accurate bycatch reporting in the future.
The Gulf Council's comprehensive EFH amendment was only partially
approved by NMFS because it did not identify EFH for all managed
species and did not adequately assess the impacts of all fishing gear
on EFH. The Council has yet to take any action to address the problems
identified by NMFS when it partially approved the amendment. NMFS
rejected the Council's bycatch reporting proposal and the provisions to
minimize bycatch in all Gulf fisheries except stone crab. The Council
has not submitted an amendment to address these problems, because it
maintains that NMFS must provide it with the bycatch data necessary to
revise the rejected amendments. Similarly, the Council has failed to
revise its overfishing targets--most of which NMFS rejected--to comply
with the new overfishing and rebuilding requirements of the SFA.
As of March 2001, the Caribbean Council has not submitted its
comprehensive SFA amendment addressing the overfishing and bycatch
provisions of the SFA. NMFS only partially approved the Council's EFH
amendment, because it did not identify EFH for all managed species. The
Council has yet to address this deficiency or to take action to address
fishing gear impacts on EFH.
NMFS rejected the bycatch provisions of the Pacific Council's
groundfish management plan. While the Council has developed a new
bycatch amendment it still continues to fail to establish a
standardized bycatch reporting methodology and to assess and minimize
bycatch in the groundfish fishery. NMFS revoked its approval of
rebuilding plans for boccacio rockfish, lingcod, and Pacific Ocean
perch. The Council is required to revise these rebuilding plans no
later than January 1, 2002. NMFS approved the EFH amendment to the
Pacific Coast Salmon fishery management plan (FMP) on September 27,
2000, 2 years after the SFA's October 1998 deadline. NMFS also approved
the EFH amendment for the Groundfish plan in April 2000, even though it
failed to assess or minimize the adverse effects of fishing on EFH.
In the Western Pacific, NMFS rejected the bycatch provisions of
both the Bottomfish and Pelagics management plans because they failed
to quantify or minimize bycatch. The Council has yet to address these
problems. NMFS rejected the overfishing definitions in the Crustaceans,
Bottomfish, and Precious Corals management plans. The Council has not
modified any of the rejected overfishing definitions as of March 2001.
NMFS did not reject any of the SFA implementation amendments in the
North Pacific. However, such approval was unwarranted, as many of the
plans failed to address bycatch, protect EFH, or to prevent
overfishing. The Council has focused its efforts on developing
implementing rules for the American Fisheries Act, addressing the
effects of its fisheries on the endangered Steller sea lion, seabird
populations, and other affected protected species, and developing a
supplemental environmental impact statement for its groundfish
fisheries.
Reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act
When the SFA was enacted in 1996, it was hailed as a landmark piece
of conservation legislation that would significantly improve fisheries
conservation. Yet more than 4 years after its passage, the bright
promise of the SFA has not materialized. As our multiple reviews
demonstrate, overfishing is allowed to continue. Rebuilding plans are
too long and too risky. Bycatch is not being quantified or minimized.
EFH has been identified, but too little is being done to protect it.
Some argue that our concerns could be addressed through better
implementation of the Act. In theory this may be true, but in practice
it is not. Our review of SFA implementation clearly demonstrates two
phenomena. First, once NMFS approves an inadequate management plan
amendment, the councils are not likely to change it. Second, even when
NMFS has disapproved inadequate amendments, and required revision as
soon as possible, the councils are slow to correct deficiencies.
However, while part of the problem can be attributed to poor
implementation, the Act's legal framework also allows this to happen.
In the case of overfishing, flexibility in the law has allowed NMFS to
develop regulations that allow for overfishing of weak stocks in mixed
stock fisheries. In the case of bycatch, flexibility in the law allows
NMFS and the councils to claim that there is too little data to take
action to minimize bycatch, while at the same time failing to take
meaningful steps to collect that data. Flexibility in the law has
allowed managers to identify EFH, but take almost no action to protect
it from damaging fishing practices, the one area they have direct
control over.
We believe that implementation of the SFA is not likely to improve
and that mangers will continue to exploit the flexibility of the Act
until Congress provides much needed further legal clarification. To
accomplish this, the Marine Fish Conservation Network recommends that
Congress strengthen the conservation provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act during reauthorization. Our specific recommendations are listed
below.
recommendations for strengthening the magnuson-stevens act
Eliminate Overfishing of All Species
The Magnuson-Stevens Act mandates that conservation and management
measures must prevent overfishing. But in too many cases, managers
still react to overfishing after it occurs and continue to improperly
interpret the law and regulations so as to continue to allow
overfishing. In addition, managers are not accounting for all sources
of fishing mortality or ecosystem considerations in setting catch
levels. Managers are extending periods allowed for rebuilding to 10
years, and, in some cases, beyond those limits. This ``risk-prone''
management increases the likelihood that stocks will not be rebuilt in
10 years, or even longer.
NMFS continues to interpret the prohibition on overfishing to allow
for overfishing of fish caught in association with other populations of
fish that are not themselves overfished. Only when a fish species is
threatened with extinction does NMFS require protection for these
``mixed stock'' fisheries.
This practice is seriously impeding efforts to rebuild many weak
stocks in mixed stock fisheries, and has resulted in the depletion of
many species to the point where they are vulnerable to extinction. In
the Gulf of Mexico and the South Atlantic, a number of grouper species
are in serious trouble. Four species, Nassau grouper, Warsaw grouper,
speckled hind, and jewfish are on the Endangered Species Act's List of
Candidate Species. In the Gulf of Mexico, 10 of 15 of the managed
grouper species have been identified as being at risk of extinction by
the American Fisheries Society (AFS). In New England, Atlantic halibut
stocks remain severely overfished and two species of skate (barndoor
and thorny skates) are at risk of extinction according to the AFS.
Despite the fact that there is no allowable catch of these threatened
species, they are still caught and killed by non-selective fishing
practices used in mixed stock fisheries.
On the West Coast, boccacio rockfish stocks have declined to less
than 2 percent of their historic sizes and several organizations have
petitioned for their listing on the ESA List of Candidate Species. The
plight of the boccacio is particularly troubling because a little more
than a decade ago, it comprised approximately 40 percent of the
groundfish landings on the West Coast. Unless these weak stocks in
mixed stock fisheries are protected we will continue to serially
deplete many important stocks.
Fishing for some species, especially during particularly vulnerable
life stages, has placed those fish at risk. For example, fishermen
targeting certain grouper and snapper species, focus their efforts on
areas where they aggregate to spawn year after year. Although this life
history characteristic makes these species vulnerable to overfishing,
they received some protection in the past from fishermen's inability to
locate and revisit these areas. However, technological improvements in
navigation technology have removed that protection, thus contributing
to overfishing and delaying or preventing timely rebuilding of these
fish stocks. These vulnerable fish need to be identified and protected.
To address these concerns, the Magnuson-Stevens Act should be
amended to:
Lprohibit overfishing of all stocks in a mixed stock
fishery;
Lrequire that each council provide added protection for
stocks during spawning and other particularly vulnerable life stages;
and
Lmandate the application of the precautionary approach to
fisheries management by requiring that management measures include
measures to buffer against scientific uncertainty.
Avoid Bycatch
Bycatch is the indiscriminate catching of fish and marine life
other than those a fishing vessel intends to capture. This includes
fish that are not the target species, sex, size, or quality. It also
includes many other fish and marine life that have no economic value
but are ecologically important, such as starfish, sponges and skates.
Primarily, bycatch results from fishing practices and gear that are not
selective. In addition to visible mortality, fish and other sea life
are sometimes killed or injured when passing through or escaping
fishing gear, and through ``ghost fishing'' from abandoned or lost
gear.
Environmental problems caused by bycatch include overfishing,
increased scientific uncertainty regarding total fishing mortality, and
potentially serious changes in the functioning of ecological
communities. Economically, bycatch equates to lost future fishing
opportunities as a result of mortality of commercially valuable fish.
In the SFA, Congress required action to address bycatch problems
for the first time. However, as I discussed in detail above, the
councils and NMFS have uniformly failed to take sufficient action to
either report or avoid bycatch. They have relied upon past actions to
satisfy this legal obligation, recommended insufficient action, or have
not bothered to address the issue at all.
To address these concerns, the Magnuson-Stevens Act should be
amended to:
Lmake avoiding bycatch in marine fisheries a priority;
Ltighten the definition of bycatch to require that bycatch
be avoided; and
Lrequire fishery managers to take action to reduce bycatch
under strict timelines.
Protect Essential Fish Habitat
Essential fish habitats are those waters and substrates on which
fish are dependent to reach maturity and reproduce. The SFA requires
action to describe, identify, conserve, and enhance EFH. The law and
regulations require councils ``to prevent, mitigate, or minimize''
identified adverse effects from fishing unless it is not practicable to
do so. As I detailed above, most councils claim that, either: 1)
existing measures are adequate to minimize the adverse effects of
fishing on EFH under their jurisdiction; or 2) that they did not have
enough information to take action. Unfortunately, NMFS accepted these
excuses and approved these deficient management plans. The ``to the
extent practicable'' language in the law's EFH requirement is clearly
being used as a loophole to avoid action, as is the familiar ``lack of
information'' refrain.
The SFA requires NMFS to provide Federal agencies with
recommendations on how to minimize, mitigate, or avoid adverse impacts
from Federally permitted activities on EFH. Compliance with these
recommendations is voluntary. This consultation requirement needs to be
strengthened to more fully protect EFH.
To address these concerns, the Magnuson-Stevens Act should be
amended to:
Lrequire regional fishery management councils to prohibit
certain fishing activities that may adversely affect EFH unless a
council determines that the prohibition is not necessary to protect
EFH;
Ladopt the precautionary approach to habitat protection by
prohibiting the introduction of new fishing gear or the opening of
closed areas unless EFH damage is assessed and minimized; and
Lenhance the EFH consultation requirement by providing
that Federal agencies must ensure that their actions are not likely to
adversely impact EFH.
Conserve Marine Ecosystems
Fishery managers and scientists recognize the need to expand
fishery management beyond traditional single-species planning to
include ecosystem considerations. Commonly referred to as ecosystem-
based management, such an approach includes, but is not limited to,
interactions between key predator and prey species within an ecosystem,
as well as the habitat needs of living marine resources and other
limiting factors in the environment. This concept supports the
precautionary approach to fishery conservation, especially when the
ecosystem effects of fishing are uncertain. The precautionary approach
requires managers to act to avoid likely harm before causes and effects
are clearly established.
It is widely believed that some fishery declines and difficulties
in restoring overfished populations are due, at least in part, to
fishing caused disruptions of ecosystems. Under existing law, fishery
managers do have limited authority to consider ecosystem interactions,
including predator-prey relationships, in management plans. The
principal reason ecosystem relationships are not being adequately
considered is a lack of guidance regarding the information that is
needed, clear direction regarding the principles and policies that
should be applied, and most importantly, how such principles and
policies should be integrated into fishery management decisions.
To address these concerns, the Magnuson-Stevens Act should be
amended to:
Lrequire councils to develop a Fishery Ecosystem Plan
(FEP) for each major ecosystem within their jurisdiction;
Lrequire fishery management plans or amendments to be
consistent with the appropriate FEP;
Lrequire consideration of ecosystem impacts, including
predator-prey interactions when setting catch levels; and
Lappropriate sufficient new funds to assist the councils
and NMFS in applying ecosystem principles to fisheries research and
management under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Establish and Fund Mandatory Fishery Observer Programs
Objective observation and data collection are vital to effectively
manage marine fish and fisheries. Managers' ability to address the
problems of overfishing, bycatch, and degradation of EFH can be limited
by lack of accurate and reliable information on a fishing vessel's
catch and bycatch. In many fisheries there is an incomplete
understanding of the total catch, i.e., landed catch and discarded
bycatch. Overfished stocks cannot be rebuilt if we do not understand
and control all types of mortality. Minimal, but inadequate, observer
coverage exists along the Atlantic Coast, the Gulf of Mexico, and the
West Coast. Catch and Bycatch data is vitally important to meeting the
objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act by promoting sustainable
fishing.
To address these concerns, legislative changes are needed to:
Lestablish a mandatory fishery observer program for all
Federally managed fisheries to collect statistically reliable catch
data; and
Lfund observer programs with a user fee based on value and
applied to all fish landed and sold in the United States.
Reform Regional Fishery Management Councils
Although regional fishery management councils are charged with
managing the nation's marine fish for all Americans, representatives of
fishing interests dominate the councils. Interests of the general
public, as well as non-consumptive users of marine fish, such as
divers, are not adequately represented on the councils.
Marine fish are public resources and must be managed in the public
trust. Decisions regarding their management should be made in the
public interest, not simply the economic interest of the fishing
industry. Accordingly, representatives of the public interest must sit
on regional fishery management councils.
To address these concerns, the Magnuson-Stevens Act should be
amended to:
Lensure that councils are more broadly representative of
the public interest as they make decisions regarding the conservation
and management of public resources; and
Lrequire Governors to consult with conservation groups
before nominating individuals to a council.
Conserve Atlantic Highly Migratory Species
NMFS is responsible for conserving Atlantic highly migratory
species like tunas, swordfish, marlins, sailfish, and coastal and
pelagic sharks. All of these species, with the exception of sharks, are
also managed under multilateral agreements through the International
Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT).
In 1990, the Magnuson-Stevens Act and Atlantic Tunas Convention Act
(ATCA) were amended to preclude U.S. fishery managers from issuing
regulations, which have the effect of ``decreasing a quota, allocation
or fishing mortality level,'' recommended by ICCAT. Since then, NMFS
has done little more than implement ICCAT quotas and allocate them
among domestic user groups. Moreover, where no ICCAT recommendations
exist, no precautionary measures have been taken.
Although ICCAT sets quotas, measures to implement the quotas and
minimize bycatch mortality, such as area closures and gear
modifications, must be implemented through domestic regulations. NMFS,
however, interprets the law to prevent the U.S. from unilaterally
reducing bycatch if it would affect the ability to fill the U.S. quota.
To address these concerns, the Magnuson-Stevens Act should be
amended to:
Lgive the U.S. greater discretion and flexibility in the
conservation and management of highly migratory species; and
Lrepeal language that prevents or hinders the U.S. from
implementing management measures that are more conservative than those
recommended under international agreements.
Similarly, the ATCA should be amended to:
Lremove language limiting U.S. authority to conserve
highly migratory species.
Individual Fishing Quotas
Individual fishing quotas (IFQs) grant fisherman and fishing
companies the privilege to catch specific amounts of fish. Congress has
placed a moratorium on the submission, approval, or implementation of
any plan that creates an IFQ program until October 1, 2002.
The Network supports continuing the moratorium on IFQ programs
unless and until Congress adopts legislation containing standards for
the design and conduct of IFQ programs to ensure that these programs
enhance the conservation and management of our nation's fisheries.
Standards must be adopted that, among other things, clarify that
IFQ programs:
Ldo not create a compensable property right;
Ldemonstrably provide additional and substantial
conservation benefits to the fishery;
Lare reviewed periodically by an independent body to
determine whether the programs are meeting their conservation goals;
and
Lare of a set duration, not to exceed 5 years, subject to
possible renewal if a program is meeting its conservation goals,
provided that in any reallocation of quota shares upon a renewal,
preference shall be given to those quota shareholders that are meeting
or exceeding IFQ program requirements, including all conservation
goals.
Keep Conservation in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act
Having detailed the Network's ideas for reauthorization of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, I would like to close by cautioning the
Subcommittee against weakening the conservation provisions of the Act.
Some in the fishing industry have argued that Congress should, among
other things, amend the Act to:
Lplace greater emphasis on economics when developing
rebuilding plans for overfished stocks;
Lrequire mixed stock fisheries be managed as a unit;
Lrestrict protection of EFH to small subsets of EFH;
Lestablish standards for observer programs which will
impede councils from establishing such programs; and
Lcreate redundant and unnecessary scientific review
requirements.
The Network feels very strongly that Congress should reject these
proposals because they would significantly weaken fish conservation.
Placing greater emphasis on economics over resource protection and
sustainability will return us to the pre-SFA days of boom and bust
fishing. If we are to have healthy, sustainable fisheries, conservation
of our fish resources must come first. The simple fact is that if there
are no fish, there will be no fishermen.
Nearly 5 years after passage of the SFA, we are just beginning to
see some fish stocks begin to rebound. Georges Bank yellowtail flounder
and haddock are two examples of stocks that are beginning to rebound
after large closed areas were instituted in the mid-1990's. However,
many other stocks have shown little improvement and some have continued
to decline. The recent Department of Commerce Status of Stocks report
clearly demonstrates this point. For the fourth year in a row, the
number of stocks that are either overfished, experiencing overfishing,
or both has increased. The number of fish stocks now in jeopardy jumped
from 98 to 107 stocks, or 43 percent of the managed species whose
status in known. Unfortunately, we know little about the status of most
of the Federally managed fish stocks--78 percent of the managed species
are classified as unknown. The fact that nearly half of the stocks of
known status are overfished does not bode well for these unknown
stocks. These dismal statistics argue for strengthening, not weakening,
the conservation requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Thank you for providing the Marine Fish Conservation Network with
an opportunity to present its views on reauthorization of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act. I would be happy to answer any questions you or other
members of the Subcommittee may have.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Crockett.
Welcome, Dr. Houde.
STATEMENT OF DR. EDWARD D. HOUDE, PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF
MARYLAND CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE, CHESAPEAKE
BIOLOGICAL LABORATORY
Mr. Houde. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. From the beautiful Chesapeake Bay.
Mr. Houde. Thank you, Chairman Gilchrest and Members of the
Subcommittee.
I appreciate having the chance to make some comments on
science issues and needs related to the SFA and reauthorization
of it. My view of the SFA is that it has had some moderate
success since 1996 that many stocks are, in fact, perhaps on
the road to recovery and that the science that is being applied
with respect to serving the SFA certainly has increased over
the years. My first experience with the councils was back in
1978, and I can remember at that time, people asked what is
MSY? Ten years later, we asked why do we use MSY? And now, we
are still asking how do we utilize it?
But we now know that we have to set targets, and we have to
set limits, and we have to set thresholds, and we understand
what biological reference points are so that the science and
the assessment models that are being applied certainly have
improved, and I don't think there has been enough time since
1996 to fully evaluate the effect of the SFA amendments, but I
am moderately optimistic. There is evidence of recoveries in a
number of fisheries, although there are lots of discouraging
cases as well, particularly in the Northeast and West Coast
groundfish fisheries, reefish fisheries.
With respect to essential fish habitat, I have to echo some
of the concerns of my friend Lee Crockett. The SFA emphasis on
identifying and defining was good, but it didn't go far enough.
There are no explicit actions that are mandated in the SFA. A
big effort, nevertheless, ensued to categorize habitats and
life-state specific concerns. Habitat areas of particular
concern also were specifically identified, but reauthorization
should consider more specific guidance with respect to
application of EFH standards.
Should there be a national standard on EFH? That is
something which I think should be discussed and debated.
Individual fishing quotas: the National Academy of Sciences
undertook a study in 1999. I think that I have read much about
the advantages and disadvantages of IFQs as you have, but the
consensus among most of the economists and fishery scientists
is that positive benefits can be derived from allocating shares
of quota and privileges to harvests. The NAS study is guardedly
positive on this, recognizing the disadvantages. Lifting
moratoria, from my point of view, is desirable, and
discretionary use of IFQs by councils probably should be
allowed according to the NAS report. Some fisheries could
benefit as a good way to control capacity in fisheries; it
potentially has ecosystem benefits, as, of course, social and
economic implications that need to be discussed.
I had an opportunity to chair an NAS panel on marine
protected areas. We concluded that for fisheries, marine
protected areas are a tool but not a solution; they can be a
part of broader fishery management that perhaps ought to be
instituted. The Presidential executive order last May
reinforces that idea of establishing networks and zones. Zones
and networks within a broader coastal ocean management scheme
that would benefit fisheries certainly seem possible. Benefits,
nursery functions of selected habitats, habitat protection of
key and critical habitats, bycatch reduction, protection of
spawning stock biomass, all of these can play a role in
restoring depleted fisheries, especially for sedentary species.
We do need to know the dispersal patterns of fish to make
MPAs effective, but some fish stocks, for example, West Coast
rockfish, probably could benefit from the institution of marine
protected areas. We know that the councils are considering MPAs
now and, in fact, we have some examples, as on George's Bank,
where they have been applied to advantage, although if one
looks at the social and economic consequences of MPAs, those
who think that the economic benefits will be immediate probably
are wrong. We are talking about decadal effects on influencing
the economy of fishermen at least in a positive way. We
shouldn't expect to see an immediate effect.
Fishery ecosystem plans--Lee Crockett next to me was an
advocate of them--the NMFS panel, which was mandated by the
reauthorization of SFA, met and strongly recommended fishery
ecosystem plans be developed by each council. This would be an
umbrella document within which the FMPs must sit, one that
defined the ecosystem, described it, described the key
resources and habitats, the important food webs, key predator-
prey relationships and the critical functions and processes in
ecosystems. FMPs should fit into this overall FEP.
This would require action in the SFA reauthorization
process, perhaps Congressional action, and I think most people
in the scientific community would recommend it.
Summing up, there are lots of data needs, and the NAS data
report specifically outlines them and assigns things that
Congress and NMFS and the councils can do. There is a long list
in my written testimony that you could refer to. There are
manpower issues in science, quantitative fishery scientists are
in short supply; independent review of fishery management plans
is difficult to undertake because there are so few people with
strong quantitative training. Council staffs perhaps need to be
boosted with people with a strong quantitative training. We are
in a Catch 22. Virtually all U.S. citizens who obtain a Ph.D.
in quantitative fishery science are hired by the NMFS.
This is good, but who is going to train the next generation
of quantitative fishery scientists? In summary, I refer to
Pamela Mace's superb 1997 paper on the state of marine
fisheries globally. In her order of priorities, she ranks the
science needs lower than social and economic needs in restoring
fisheries to their important role in our economy. She says
inadequate national policies, inadequate institutions and other
mechanisms, inadequate data and statistics, inadequate or
inappropriate management goals and inadequate science, all of
these are issues that need to be addressed in an SFA
reauthorization.
I urge you to keep them in mind as you move forward in
reauthorizing the Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Houde follows:]
Statement of Edward D. Houde, Professor, University of Maryland Center
for Environmental Science
Magnuson Act in its original and amended forms has been in effect
for more than 25 years. Fisheries management under the Sustainable
Fisheries Act must be undertaken using the best available scientific
information. From the outset, it was recognized that knowledge of many
fished stocks was incomplete. Basic knowledge of biology sometimes was
lacking; understanding of population dynamics and estimates of
abundance, mortality rates, and production potential often were
completely lacking. In the 1970's there already was a sense that
management dependent on defining a Maximum Sustainable Yield, which
assumes that the productivity of a fished stock is a function only of
the stock's biomass, was insufficient. Nevertheless, this easily
calculated, objective criterion became the standard by which management
measures were gauged. MSY still remains an important reference point in
management of U.S. fish stocks in the Exclusive Economic Zone, although
not usually the target that it once was. In the early days of the
Magnuson Act, most members of Scientific and Statistical Committees
that advised the Councils struggled to understand MSY and few on the
Councils understood the concept. The SSCs and the Councils have grown
in knowledge and sophistication about fisheries principles and concepts
in the ensuing 20 years. We now understand the MSY concept, know that
it is insufficient as a management standard and target reference point,
but we also now recognize how complex fish population biology is,
especially when effects of fishing are added to the mix of
environmental variability that is common in marine ecosystems.
The science and technology associated with stock assessments
certainly has advanced since implementation of the Magnuson Act and has
continued to improve since reauthorization in 1996. The evolution of
stock assessment modeling has been particularly significant. A recent
National Academy of Science report (NAS, 1998) noted that assessment
methods are relatively reliable and robust when the data on abundances
are reliable. The caveat is important. The conclusion in the 1998
report was supported by a second NAS report (NAS, 2000a) on marine
fisheries data collection that urged Congress, NMFS and the Regional
Councils to standardize, upgrade and improve the methods to collect,
manage and use data as an important step toward improving stock
assessments and management based upon assessments. Stock assessments
are far from perfect and are dogged by uncertainties that concern
fishers and managers alike. The quality of assessment models, however,
is not the major problem in reliably managing fish stocks under the
SFA.
The fraction of overfished stocks in the U.S. fisheries is similar
to that reported globally (25-30 percent). A smaller fraction of these
stocks is near collapse and requires draconian measures to stabilize
them and restore them. Restoration may take decades for some stocks,
even under the best restoration scenarios. NOAA/NMFS reports in recent
years have indicated an increase in the number of identified overfished
stocks, but those increases are mostly a consequence of better stock
assessments that have now categorized stocks that were previously
uncategorized (the majority of stocks) as overfished. There has been no
dramatic shift in numbers of overfished stocks since 1996. There is
reason to believe that management can be effective under the SFA and
improve the status of many heavily exploited stocks.
Specific guidelines for rebuilding of overfished stocks were
provided in the amended SFA. In the most recent years, Councils have
tried to follow these guidelines, but in most cases stock rebuilding is
still underway and success cannot be judged yet. I am cautiously
optimistic that the new paradigms of fisheries management that became
prevalent in the 1990's on a global scale will be beneficial to U.S.
fisheries and will stabilize overfished stocks, successfully rebuilding
many of them.
The new paradigms, which are recognized in the amended SFA hinge on
the precautionary approach to resource management that has been adopted
as a standard globally (FAO 1995). Is this paradigm worth more than the
vast amount of press that it has generated? Does the approach guide
management actions that are being implemented by the Regional Councils?
My sense is that the ethic espoused in this approach, which advocates
risk-averse targets as biological reference points relative to those
recommended historically, is accepted in principle and is being applied
in amendments to many FMPs. There has been a notable shift toward
setting fishing mortality rates and target spawning stock biomasses at
levels that provide opportunity for overfished stocks to recover. U.S.
scientists have taken a lead in developing criteria for setting risk-
averse biological reference points to restore stocks that are
overfished and to protect stocks at higher abundance levels (e.g.
Restrepo and Powers 1999). I know of no dramatic recoveries in stocks
since 1996 (there has not been enough time), but it is probable that
reference points, targets, and limits on fishing mortality and spawning
stock biomasses that have been set since implementation of the amended
SFA will reverse stock declines in many fisheries.
Inclusion of specific language in the present Magnuson-Stevens SFA
reauthorization process that addresses selection of target biological
reference points relative to the broader range of reference points that
could be selected will be useful to the Councils. Many FMPs already are
being revised with precautionary fishing mortality and spawning-stock
biomass targets specified. In this context, it is interesting to note
that the NAS report Sustaining Marine Fisheries specifically advised
that the first step in moving toward ecosystem-based approaches to
fisheries management was to respect the uncertainties in behavior of
marine ecosystems and set conservative fishing targets in single-
species fisheries (NAS 1999a), thus relieving stress to the individual
exploited stocks that often are key constituents of ecosystems.
The SFA (1996) contains specific language on Essential Fish Habitat
(EFH), directing Councils to identify such habitats in their respective
FMPs and presumably to implement measures to protect such habitats to
insure healthy fisheries. The definition of EFH as it now stands is so
broad that it is questionably useful in the management process. Some
additional thinking is necessary, to be followed by more specific
language on EFH in a reauthorized SFA. I am not certain that a specific
National Standard needs to be added to the SFA in the present
reauthorization, but this possibility should be considered. The EFH
concept has stimulated a flurry of scientific activity directed toward
understanding habitat issues in the past few years that should be
useful in developing criteria and standards for FMPs.
On a global basis, social scientists and economists have recognized
the need to control burgeoning effort and excess fishing capacity by
restricting the open-access privilege to fish. Limiting entry and
establishing individual fishing quotas (IFQs) have been debated
vigorously (e.g. Hanna et al. 2000). A NAS study, requested in the SFA
(1996) reauthorization was guardedly positive on the role of IFQs and
recommended that they be allowed in specific fisheries at the
discretion of the Regional Councils. The accumulated evidence from a
scientific perspective supports the implementation of IFQ management
under appropriate circumstances, recognizing the need to consider
initial allocation of shares, the threat of monopolies developing, and
the rules for transfer and duration of IFQ permits. Benefits of IFQs in
addition to controls on effort (and fishing mortality) are probable.
IFQ-based management is potentially more ecosystem friendly than
unrestricted participation in some fisheries. This may be true, for
example, with respect to fishing impacts on habitat and with respect to
bycatch reduction. I believe that Congress should allow IFQs as a
management approach in a reauthorized SFA. I am sensitive to the
arguments against this approach, but the evidence is strong that IFQs
can benefit some fisheries. The Councils should have the possibility to
implement them in appropriate situations.
The NAS undertook a study on the Community Development Quota
Program in Alaska in response to a request of the 1996 Magnuson-Stevens
reauthorization (NAS 1999b), concluding that this community-based
experiment in managing and allocating fisheries resources is
succeeding, bringing both social and economic benefits. In a broader
context, consideration of other community-based management and shared
management approaches that actively involve stakeholders seems
justified and a means to promote equitability in fisheries. I am no
expert on this approach, but the reauthorization process needs to
address co-management and its potential, especially its relationship to
and role that it can play with respect to traditional, more centralized
authority vested in management by the Federal Government and the
Regional Councils.
There is a growing worry that fisheries management is too little
concerned with marine ecosystems, their stability, variability, and the
sustainability of high productivity that will assure sustainable and
profitable fisheries. The amended SFA (1996) recognized this concern.
Accordingly, Congress mandated that an Ecosystems Principles Advisory
Panel be established to undertake an analysis of the extent to which
ecosystem principles were being applied in fisheries and to recommend
actions that should be undertaken by the Secretary of Commerce and
Congress to expand application of ecosystem principles in fisheries
management. The report of the Panel (NMFS, 1999) includes many specific
recommendations and a major conceptual recommendation--the proposal
that each Council develop a Fishery Ecosystem Plan(s) within their
regions. A FEP is envisioned to be a document that serves as an
umbrella under which individual FMPs would reside and to which they
must adhere. If adopted, many individual FMPs would be more ecosystem-
sensitive. The function and structure of ecosystems would be at the
center of concern with respect to management of the ecosystem's
constituent fisheries. The recommendations of the Panel, listed below,
should be debated and seriously considered for inclusion in a
reauthorized SFA:
Develop a Fisheries Ecosystem Plan
LDelineate the geographic extent of the ecosystem(s) that
occur(s) within Council authority, including characterization of the
biological, chemical, and physical dynamics of those ecosystems, and
zone the area for alternative uses.
LDevelop a conceptual model of the food web.
LDescribe the habitat needs of different life history
stages for all plants and animals that represent the significant food
web and how they are considered in conservation and management
measures.
LCalculate total removals--including incidental
mortality--and show how they relate to standing biomass, production,
optimum yields, natural mortality, and trophic structure.
LAssess how uncertainty is characterized and what kind of
buffers against uncertainty are included in conservation and management
actions.
LDevelop indices of ecosystem health as targets for
management.
LDescribe available long-term monitoring data and how they
are used.
LAssess the ecological, human, and institutional elements
of the ecosystem which most significantly affect fisheries, and are
outside Council/Department of Commerce (DOC) authority. Included should
be a strategy to address those influences in order to achieve both FMP
and FEP objectives.
Measures to Implement FEPs
LEncourage the Councils to apply ecosystem principles,
goals, and policies to ongoing activities.
LProvide training to Council members and staff.
LPrepare guidelines for FEPs.
LDevelop demonstration FEPs.
LProvide oversight to ensure development of and compliance
with FEPs.
LEnact legislation requiring FEPs.
Research Required to Support Management
LDetermine the ecosystem effects of fishing.
LMonitor trends and dynamics in marine ecosystems
(ECOWATCH).
LExplore ecosystem-based approaches to governance.
The Ecosystems Panel recognized the potential benefits of Marine
Protected Areas, some of which could be Marine Reserves that would
prohibit fishing. Closed area management is not new in fisheries but
has been used rather sparingly. The concept of closed areas, with
various restrictions on fishing, was recognized in the 1996
reauthorization (SFA, 1996) and has been on the planning tables of
Regional Councils in recent years. Some areas have, in fact, been
closed to many kinds of fishing effort (e.g. parts of Georges Bank). A
detailed study of MPAs by the NAS (2001) broadly evaluated their
potential, including their use as a tool in fisheries management. The
NAS Committee concluded that MPAs did have a role in fisheries
management. In the broadest sense, setting aside areas to protect
spawning stock can serve as buffers against the uncertainties of
accurate stock assessments, a kind of insurance. More specifically, the
Committee recommended that MPAs for fisheries conservation should be
designed as parts of broader networks of MPAs that are zoned for
permitted activities, with the networks included in a broader plan of
coastal ocean management that considers the full spectrum of human
activities and need to protect ecosystem structure and function. The
NAS Committee recognized and emphasized that stakeholders (fishers)
must be included in every stage of MPA development, from discussion of
concept through design, and continuing into the evaluation and
monitoring phase after implementation. The Committee did not specify
any particular size or numbers of MPAs that would be required to
benefit fisheries management, believing that each region or case would
have to be considered individually. If MPAs become a significant tool
in fisheries management, they will represent a shift in emphasis from
traditional management measures that seek to control catch levels and
fishing effort (amounts or types) toward an emphasis on managing the
spatial components of ecosystems for specific benefits to fisheries and
fish stocks. Management that includes MPAs as a tool may have
particular benefits in meeting EFH goals, in reducing damage to unique
habitats from fishing, in reducing bycatch of young fish, in protecting
endangered or threatened species, and in conserving biodiversity of
marine ecosystems.
MPAs cannot be viewed as a stand-alone solution to fishery
management problems. In some instances it is probable that fisheries
benefits and values will outweigh the environmental costs attributable
to fishing and MPAs may not be recommended from either an economic or
environmental viewpoint. Language in the pending reauthorization of the
SFA should address the issues of costs and benefits of not only EFH
considerations, but also of the broader issue of establishment of MPAs.
The urgency to do this is underscored by the Executive Order issued by
President Clinton in May 2000 directing Federal agencies to develop
networks of MPAs in the coastal ocean.
The issues of data availability, collection of data, and data
management for stock assessment and management purposes represent key
needs for improvement that should be addressed in the reauthorized SFA.
The NAS Committee, in its report (NAS, 2000a) developed a comprehensive
list of detailed recommendations specifically addressed to Congress,
NMFS, or the Councils. Many of the same concerns also were expressed in
the Heinz Center report (Hanna et al., 2000). I hope that the NAS
recommendations will be considered during the SFA reauthorization
process. It seems certain that implementing the recommendations will
require new funding. I have consolidated and summarized some of the NAS
recommendations:
LCongress and NMFS. Standardize and improve fisheries data
collection and management methods and procedures nationwide. Develop a
Fisheries Information System. Fund these efforts.
LCouncils. Councils should be more proactive in
determining needs and requesting appropriate data and models to improve
potential for success in management. This recommendation is applicable
to both commercial and recreational fisheries.
LCongress. Make commercial fisheries data more accessible
to agencies for stock assessment scientists by amending laws relevant
to confidentiality.
LNMFS. Develop more cost-effective ways to collect and
manage data, including data collected for recreational fisheries in the
MRFSS surveys.
LNMFS. Develop new data collection and stock-assessment
methods, including those that consider ecosystem functions and
processes, habitats, and environmental variability.
LNMFS. Involve stakeholders (fishers) in the data
identification and collection processes more than at present. Better
cooperation with stakeholders will improve quality of data. Reports of
data analysis and assessments should be made available to stakeholders
on a regular basis.
LCongress and NMFS. Insure that NOAA has a strong and
capable fleet of research and survey vessels for fisheries data
collection and assessment.
LCongress and NMFS. Increase the level of observer
coverage on fishing vessels to improve data collection and
interpretation.
LCongress, NMFS and Councils. Institute better and more
complete monitoring and evaluation of marine ecosystems and EFH. Build
this information into stock assessments.
LNMFS and Councils. Scientific review of stock assessments
by independent scientists is important. Add stock assessment experts to
Council staffs.
Many of the recommendations in the bulleted statements above will
require significant increased funding and also additional staff and
personnel trained in quantitative fisheries science, economics, and
sociology. At present, NMFS cannot meet its demand for stock assessment
specialists and has too few social scientists and economists on its
staff to effectively provide management information and advice to the
Councils. A NAS workshop (NAS 2000b) on manpower needs in NMFS explored
the need for such experts and made recommendations to NMFS that may
help recruit new talent. However, it is not certain that such needs can
be met in the short term without significant stimulation of effort and
funding by Congress. Furthermore, the needs for stock assessment
experts and socioeconomic experts on Council staffs and in academia (to
train the new wave of experts) is problematic, a kind of Catch-22 since
virtually all experts in quantitative fisheries science at the Ph.D.
level who are U.S. citizens now take positions in NMFS, leaving a
minuscule pool of talent for Council staffs or for academic
institutions to recruit into faculty ranks.
The shortage of scientists with strong quantitative skills in
fisheries also results in a reduced pool of independent reviewers of
stock assessments and other technical elements of FMPs. Each Council is
required to maintain a Scientific and Statistical Committee. Included
on SSCs is a small cadre of quantitative scientists that is burdened
repeatedly to review stock assessments by some Councils. However, the
eight Councils do not use the SSCs in any uniform fashion. There is a
need to increase the pool of experts, but also to move toward
standardizing the process by which SSCs review technical components of
FMPs and provide advice to the Councils.
There are many science-related issues that should be addressed in
the reauthorization process. The problems of fisheries science and
management, and recommendations to solve them, were superbly documented
by Pamela Mace in her keynote address at the 2nd World Fisheries
Congress (Mace, 1997). Mace's essay is global in scope, but most of the
issues she addresses are relevant to U.S. fisheries. Mace (1997)
believes that overcapacity is the single largest problem in fisheries
management on a global basis, and that control of excess effort is
essential to have healthy fisheries. Also, she states, I contend that,
to date, lack of national policies and institutional failures have been
more limiting than science, management or data. Sound national and
international policy and effective institutions are essential for
providing the necessary environment to foster good science, management
and data collection programmes. I agree with that statement. Mace
(1997) lists the inadequacies of science and management that need to be
addressed in developing overall fisheries management programs. The
order of presentation represents the relative magnitude of the problem
in her view:
LInadequate national policies and international standards.
LInadequate institutions and other mechanisms for
involving stakeholders.
LInadequate data and statistics.
LInadequate or inappropriate management goals.
LInadequate science.
As the SFA reauthorization process moves forward, it is appropriate
that these inadequacies be kept in mind and addressed. The
reauthorization process offers an opportunity to improve the SFA and
marine fisheries performance. I am reasonably optimistic that an
amended SFA can be a major element in the long-term prospects for
revitalization of U.S. fisheries.
References Cited
FAO. 1995. Precautionary approach to fisheries. Part 1: Guidelines
on the precautionary approach to capture fisheries and species
introductions. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 350/1. 52 pp.
Hanna, S., H. Blough, R. Allen, S. Iudicello, G. Matlock and B.
McKay. 2000. Fishing grounds. Defining a new era for American fisheries
management. The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the
Environment. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Mace, P. M. 1997. Developing and sustaining world fisheries
resources: the state of the science and management. Pp. 1-20. In:
Hancock, D. A., D. C. Smith and J. P. Beumer (eds.). Developing and
sustaining world fisheries resources. 2nd World Fisheries Congress
Proceedings. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, VIC, Australia.
NAS. 1998. Improving fish stock assessments. National Academy of
Sciences, National Research Council. National Academy Press,
Washington, D.C.
NAS. 1999a. Sustaining marine fisheries. National Academy of
Sciences, National Research Council. National Academy Press,
Washington, D.C.
NAS 1999b. Sharing the fish. Toward a national policy on individual
fishing quotas. National Academy of Sciences, National Research
Council. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
NAS. 1999c. The community development quota program in Alaska and
lessons for the Western Pacific. National Academy of Sciences, National
Research Council. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
NAS. 2000a. Improving the collection, management, and use of marine
fisheries data. National Academy of Sciences, National Research
Council. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
NAS. 2000b. Education and training needs for fishery sciences and
management. Workshop Report. National Academy of Sciences, National
Research Council. Ocean Studies Board.
NAS. 2001. Marine protected areas: tools for sustaining ocean
ecosystems. National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council.
National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
NMFS. 1999. Ecosystem-based fishery management. Ecosystem
Principles Advisory Panel. NOAA/NMFS. 54 pp.
Restrepo, V. R. and J. E. Powers. 1999. Precautionary control rules
in US fisheries management: specification and performance. ICES Journal
of Marine Science 56:846-852.
______
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Dr. Houde.
I will yield first to the gentleman from New Jersey for any
questions he may have, Mr. Saxton.
Mr. Saxton. Mr. Chairman, I have two questions, both of
which--none of which will be a surprise to anyone in the room.
In the purposes of the Magnuson Act, purpose number one is to
take immediate action to conserve and manage the fisheries
resources found on the coasts of the United States, and it goes
on from there, but that is kind of the introductory phrase in
purpose number one. And then, when we get over to purpose
number six, it says to encourage the development of the United
States fishing industry of fisheries which are currently
underutilized or not utilized by United States fishermen.
Let me suggest that I think that there has been
demonstrated a conflict between those two provisions in terms
of purposes in this act, and I think that is demonstrated to
the detriment of commercial fishermen; to the detriment of
recreational fishermen and to the dismay of conservationists,
and I don't ask this question to suggest that anyone is to
blame for this. We wrote the law, and NMFS implements it, and
Members of this Committee observe it, and members of the
conservation community and the fishing community comment on it.
But the fact of the matter is that the process involving
those two provisions of this law provided for the development
of utilization or utilization of various fisheries around the
coastal United States in a very distinguishing pattern. We
encouraged the development of the ground fish fishery in New
England, and it collapsed. We encouraged the development of the
shark fishery in the Atlantic, and today, the shark population
is down to an estimated 80 percent of what it was at one time.
We encouraged the development of the redfish fishery in the
Gulf of Mexico, and it collapsed, and then, we applauded when
it recovered after conservation measures were taken. I am not
as familiar with the West Coast, but my understanding is the
same thing happened with the sea urchin fishery, and of course,
I am very familiar with the international problems involved in
the salmon fishery on the West Coast, all of which involve
activities by the Congress as well as regulators, the
Department of Commerce in particular, on all of these
fisheries.
And so, I guess my question is wouldn't it be a worthy goal
for us to try to find a different way to spell out the purposes
of this bill in such a way that we would get to the point where
the objectives of the Sustainable Fisheries Act are carried out
more effectively by this law and help us create a more
comfortable situation, a more economically feasible situation
for the commercial fishery and all of the other discomfort that
we create unwantingly for all of us who are involved either
from the lawmaking, regulatory or participation directly in the
fishery.
Dr. Hogarth, would you like to comment particularly on
these two provisions and the purposes?
Dr. Hogarth. Well, I think part of the problem is in the
way we manage fisheries. Over the years, I think we have
reacted to situations rather than proacted. And if we have a
problem in a fishery we are not managing as a group, we switch
the fishery from one fishery to another. We don't tailor the
capacity to sustainability. We look for a way to transfer the
fleet as a whole. And I think we just need to do a better job
of tailoring capacity to the sustainability of the fishery, and
we need to be proactive and look at how we are managing the
group as a whole rather than snapper grouper complex. We may
manage one species and the fishery has 80 species in it. And
what happens is that, in my opinion, is that you do tremendous
damage to one fishery, and then, you have to find a way to
switch over to another fishery.
We have put people on underutilized species, and we have
caused an increase in effort, and that is what we hear. And as
a Government, you told me to go fish for sharks, and now, you
are telling me that I can't. And so, you financed us to get
into the business; now, I feel you ought to help finance us to
get out of the business. So I think we have to look at what our
real goal is in fishery management in the U.S., and what do we
want it to be 5 years from now and 10 years from now. What type
of fishery do the citizens of this country want? And then, we
have to bite the bullet and do what is necessary both
recreationally and commercially.
Mr. Saxton. Mr. Crockett?
Mr. Crockett. I think we agree with you that there are
cross-purposes in the act and within the agency. The
predecessor of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) was
the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, and for a long time, the
purpose of the Magnuson Act was to promote U.S. fishing. It was
to phase out foreign fishing and promote U.S. fishing. There
were a number of programs, for example, loan guarantee programs
and other sorts of subsidies, programs to identify
underutilized species and promote them, designed to promote
U.S. fishing.
The SFA, for the first time, shifted that focus from one of
promoting fishing to conserving fish. That has been a painful
transition, and we think it needs to continue forwards. Perhaps
changing the purpose of the law will help. The fact of the
matter is that if you don't have fish, you don't have
fishermen. So we think you need to put fish first; conserve
fish so there are fish for fishermen to catch. It is as simple
as that.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you. I am sorry. I wish I could--I am
going to have to leave at this vote, and I won't be able to
return. So let me just get my second question on the record. I
guess it is Section 97-453 of the act, Section 303(b) has a
section entitled discretionary provisions which are
essentially, the way I interpret it, tools that may be used to
help to carry out a fishery management plan. One is to require
permits, not to require permits but the council or the
Secretary may require permits; may designate zones where and
periods when fishing may be limited; three is to establish
specific limitations where necessary; four is to permit limit
condition or require the use of specified types and quantities
of fishing gear. Five is to incorporate, consistent with the
national standards and other provisions of this act and any
other applicable law the relevant fishery conservation and
management measures of the coastal United States nearest to the
fishery and so on.
Seems to me that that is a lengthy list, and I won't go on.
It goes through 12 tools that can be used to help adequately
manage a fishery. And yet, in respect to the highly migratory
species fishery, the population levels continue to be down an
estimated 70 percent for some species such as marlin; higher
levels, still in the seventies, for species such as sailfish;
up in the 80 percent for coastal sharks, and yet, NMFS has
these tools to use, and it is hard for me to understand why
NMFS has heretofore been hesitant, to be kind, to use these
tools to provide for the necessary regulations to help bring
these fisheries back.
Now, I know there have been some steps taken. I am very
familiar with the South Atlantic and the Gulf closures, but
yet, most of the scientists if not all of the scientists that I
have talked to do not believe that the measures that we have
taken heretofore are sufficient to provide for the Americans'
share of the rebuilding of these species. Can you give me some
guidance?
Dr. Hogarth. Congressman, one of the real problems with
managing highly migratory species is that basically, the U.S.
is such a small player in the management of all of the highly
migratory stocks. You look at that industry, it has probably
less than 5 percent of the impact on most of these species. We
have to manage it through the international arena, particularly
through the ICCAT, International Convention for the
Conservation of Atlantic Tunas.
Mr. Saxton. Excuse me; did you do the closures through the
international arena?
Dr. Hogarth. No, what I am saying is that whatever we do in
this country makes a small dent in what happens overall.
Mr. Saxton. That is right; the United States is 5 percent
of the world's population, and my understanding is that we
catch 5 percent of the fish.
Dr. Hogarth. But when you have countries that are ignoring
the quotas that are set through the international arena, they
exceed their quota by 100 times sometimes. And what I am saying
is the impact from foreign countries is much greater than the
impact of the U.S. We could shut an entire fishery down and
have little impact on some of these species, and that is the
problem. Even though we have closures and size limits, and this
year, we will have 250 marlin, for example, that we can kill
totally, there are severe restrictions.
But unless we can get international cooperation, we have a
tough time.
Mr. Saxton. I understand that we have a tough time, and I
appreciate that, but the first provision in the purposes of the
Magnuson Act is to conserve species.
Dr. Hogarth. That is correct.
Mr. Saxton. And yet, these species are down the percentages
that I indicated unless you disagree with that, and yet, we
don't seem to be taking any steps to alleviate those problems.
Dr. Hogarth. Well, I think the question is we are trying
to, but through the international arena is where we are not
getting the cooperation. And we, as the U.S., yes, white marlin
is 18 percent of its optimal yield. Blue marlin is about 29
percent. We are extremely concerned about white marlin, you
know, whether we can bring it back? And what we have got to do
is get countries like Spain, Japan, Honduras and these other
countries, Honduras that fish on these species to practice
conservation as well as we are.
We are trying to do that through compliance. We are trying
to do that through embargoes, but that is a tough issue.
Mr. Gilchrest. Dr. Hogarth, we are going to have to
continue this when we come back from the vote.
Dr. Hogarth. Okay.
Mr. Gilchrest. Because we are down to about 4 minutes now.
I am going to race Mr. Saxton over there and see who wins.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gilchrest. And I apologize, because it is probable that
we won't be back here for a half an hour because there are
three votes. Is there anybody who can't wait until 3:30? Okay;
we will have a half-hour recess.
[Recess.]
Mr. Gilchrest. Welcome back. I appreciate your patience. It
was a little bit longer than we thought, but we will try to--I
don't know how long this is going to go. I know that statement
scares you a little bit, but let us say certainly no later than
5.
I would like to start with, I guess, Mr. LeBlanc and
Mister, I think, Gilford. My train of thought has been
interrupted, so I am going to try to get it back. We have
discussed a number of things dealing with essential fish
habitat, ecosystem management and things of that nature. A very
small section of the Chesapeake Bay, although a beautiful
estuary, tidal estuary, known as the Sassafras River a few
years ago was potentially going to be developed with about 600
houses on about 1,000 acres, and it was a fishing area for
mostly catfish but a significant number of rockfish.
An area similar to that some miles south was developed, and
the fishing in that region pretty much disappeared. This area
with 1,000 acres was put into a conservation easement and a
number of other things were done to protect the shoreline. And
there was a plan pretty much developed by the Department of
Natural Resources for Maryland with the Department of
Agriculture to create a better habitat for the fish and for the
wildlife on the land.
Well, to make a long story short, as a result of that
conservation plan, with an understanding of what the ecosystem
might be like or should be, there are a lot more catfish there,
and rockfish are now spawning where they didn't spawn before--
in some of the tidal ponds adjacent to that estuary. So I
mentioned that to somebody recently, and they said that
anecdotal stories are good, but they don't tell the whole
picture, upon which my reply was I have observed that little
area there for more than 20 years. Part of the scientific
method is observation, so the observation of that small area--
if you put everything together, it was about 1,500 acres--was
that you can restore someplace to its natural habitat; have
conservation; have management, and the end result is more fish.
So I guess the question is--and this is a question posed
because I would like your honest perspective on it so we can
mix it with other opinions dealing with the essential fish
habitat. What do you see as the problems with the way it is
dealt with by NMFS, the way the provisions are put into the
Magnuson Act, and how would you like to see them changed?
Mr. LeBlanc?
Mr. LeBlanc. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that your
example of this situation with the Sassafras River is a classic
example of what NMFS has tried to address with their habitat
areas of particular concern. You have got concrete evidence
that this is a discrete unit of habitat that is sort of
definable in space that makes an important contribution to
fisheries productivity, and there are activities that threaten
the viability of that habitat, and you can use the EFH
provisions and the consultation process that the agency is
required to go through to attempt to prevent the degradation of
that kind of habitat, and I think with regard to the impacts of
fishing activities that that is the appropriate scope is in
those kinds of areas, habitat areas of particular concern.
From a commercial seafood industry's perspective, the way
the councils and the agency have defined essential fish habitat
is so broad that essentially the entire exclusive economic zone
has been defined in one way, shape or form as essential fish
habitat, and that spreads out the effort to the point that you
can't implement effective measures other than to shut down all
fishing in the EEZ, which I don't believe is the intent of the
act.
We have not seen the councils move that kind of activity
under the EFH provision, but the potential is certainly there,
and of course, in the absence of taking that action, the threat
of lawsuits for the failure to protect EFH as defined as the
entire EEZ is a looming threat that greatly concerns us.
Mr. Gilchrest. Dr. Hogarth, can you respond to Mr.
LeBlanc's concerns?
Dr. Hogarth. It is no doubt that the essential fish habitat
is pretty extensive, but what you are dealing with is over 700
species of fish that we are managing, and you are dealing with
two to four life stages of each species. And so, you do have
somewhat of an overlap when you look at species; if you put a
mosaic, you have got quite a bit. But they have different
ecological requirements, and so, essential fish habitat for
croaker is somewhat different from, say, spot, but they both
utilize it.
If we look at it, the essential fish habitat for most
species, is now probably about 50 to 70 percent of the habitat,
but it is not all bottom. Some of it is water surface. But it
is pretty extensive. Now, what we are trying to do is to refine
that. We have an interim rule out now on essential fish
habitat, and we have had many hearings in 270 days of public
comment period, and have received lots of comments.
And so, now, we are trying to work with the councils and
refine it. That final rule will probably be out sometime in the
next couple months, we hope, but we are trying to refine it and
to then take a look at for example, what kind of activities
affect the various types of bottom habitat. But essential fish
habitat is really the essential areas, as it says, to support
these fish populations. You have to protect spawning areas, and
you may have a different area for the juveniles and different
life stages.
So when you have 700 species, two to four life stages and
the different--
Mr. Gilchrest. I see. It is pretty complex.
Dr. Hogarth. It is pretty complex.
Mr. Gilchrest. Dr. Gilford, you mention in your testimony
that you would like to modify the definition of essential fish
habitat. How would you like to modify it?
Mr. Gilford. I don't think it is so much a question of
modifying it as making it a little bit more definite. What is
it we are trying to accomplish with the essential fish habitat?
And what the councils--
Mr. Gilchrest. Could I stop you there just for a second?
And I am not going to be too long, Walter. I know you have some
questions. Could you respond just to that part of the
statement, Dr. Hogarth, what do you want to accomplish with
essential fish habitat?
Dr. Hogarth. We want to determine the areas that are, like
I said, essential to the growth and reproduction of the marine
species that we are trying to manage. I think that is what we
are trying to protect. Some, we do know are more sensitive than
others, such as coral reefs and some others that are more
sensitive, so they are the habitat areas of particular concern
that takes EFH a step further.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see.
I am sorry, Dr. Gilford. I didn't mean to interrupt you.
Mr. Gilford. What the council chairs were concerned about
was having a more definitive set of guidelines to help them
designate, define and designate essential fish habitat, and
that was basically the essence of the comment I was making.
Certainly, we recognize there is a need for a habitat for
spawning; that spawning grounds are necessary; that there is
habitat for nursery areas; that there is habitat for the
movement back and forth for migration, but when you are looking
at such a tremendous area, without some more firm guidance as
to what is anticipated and expected, it is difficult for the
councils basically to respond.
There is no question that the issues that have been raised
before, I find it hard to believe that water is not an
essential fish habitat; they don't do very well out of water.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gilford. And so, you know, consequently, to run that
kind of wide, broad opportunity to interpret, and what the
councils were looking for was a tighter set of guidelines so
that they could direct their efforts to accomplish what the
legislation really intended to get at.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Dr. Gilford.
I yield to Mr. Jones for any questions he might have.
Mr. Jones. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I just have two or
three, and I first of all want to thank you for your
leadership. You have certainly been one of those in the
Congress for the years that I have been here, which is
beginning the seventh year; you have certainly been a leader on
this issue, and I want to thank you personally and in front of
this group today.
Dr. Hogarth, tell me what year you were director in North
Carolina. I was looking at your resume, and I know they were
exciting times for you, and I just want to remember the year.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Hogarth. 1986 to 1994.
Mr. Jones. Okay; I mention that because obviously, being
from North Carolina, and I truly thought you did a great job.
You were under a lot of political heat, and I think you handled
it very well, and you did what you thought was right for the
stock. So I want to compliment you at this time as I did the
Chairman.
What I would like to ask, you know my district well, and
you know that commercial as well as recreational fishing is
extremely important to the Third District of North Carolina.
And it seems like every so often, like dealing with the striped
bass, which I think is a great success story about how the
stocks have come back, but I wonder, because questions are
asked of me: when the stocks reach the quota that you have
established to make sure that the stocks will be protected for
years ahead, why the fishermen seem to always have to be
challenging National Marine Fisheries as to when you are going
to open it back up.
For example, and please correct me if I am wrong, but I
understand that striped bass can be fished in the state waters,
but they cannot be fished in the Federal waters; is that
correct?
Dr. Hogarth. That is correct.
Mr. Jones. Would you tell me why it is that way?
Dr. Hogarth. Okay; first of all, thank you for your kind
comments. North Carolina was an interesting place. Still is.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Hogarth. I enjoyed almost 9 years there.
Probably the striped bass is a success story, and it was
done not under the Magnuson, but it was done under the Atlantic
Striped Bass Conservation Act, and basically, the lead for that
was the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC),
and it has been the lead for recovery. When doing the recovery,
we were asked to close the exclusive economy zone (EEZ) as part
of the management, because there were different management
schemes from state to state, and it was very difficult to
enforce or to manage having the EEZ open.
To be honest with you, as I have always tried to be honest,
we did try to open the EEZ when I first came up here in 1994 or
1995, and pretty much, we were told by Congress if you open it,
we will close it. I think it has pretty much been left where it
is right now, to be honest with you. And it is somewhat because
there are a lot of the large fish, a lot of your bigger
spawners offshore, and it is very difficult when the states are
managing with different size limits from state to state, and
different seasons. It is very difficult to enforce when you
have got the EEZ open, where size limits are something
different.
One way to do that, I think, is to let the states manage it
totally from a landing law and if the EEZ is open, they could
have a landing law; we would not be involved. It is an issue
that I think could be looked at. We are not opposed to how you
manage striped bass. I mean, we will cooperate with the ASMFC
and manage it.
Mr. Jones. Would you suggest to this Committee that in the
rewrite, they look for a legislative fix to this dilemma?
Dr. Hogarth. Congressman, I hate to see Congress manage
fisheries. I think we should do the job, and I think it is
probably up to us to get with the ASMFC and put this on the
agenda, and, if we need to have scoping meetings or public
hearings, look at the issue up and down the coast to find out
what is the will of the people. I really think we could do
that. But if you want to legislate it, we will carry it out.
Mr. Jones. No, I would rather not have more laws, but let
me also--did you not recently, the National Marine Fisheries
Service, reach some satisfactory conclusion to the issue
dealing with summer flounder? I think there was a lawsuit filed
over that issue.
Dr. Hogarth. Yes, sir. Yesterday, we had a meeting with the
plaintiffs in the lawsuit and with the Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission, and we now have reached agreement. The
plaintiffs are dropping the lawsuit. We have a comparable
regulation from the council to the ASMFC. We are setting up
through the Heinz Center here in this area a facilitative
process to look further at how to manage summer flounder,
particularly when you have a joint plan with the ASMFC, which
is the only commission that has regulatory authority through
the Atlantic Coastal Act and then the councils.
There are some differences of standards and guidelines that
have to be met, but we are going to get together and bring the
recreational, commercial and environmental groups to the ASMFC
and the Federal people in a facilitated hearing as quickly as
we can do it to look at the process to prevent this from
happening again.
Mr. Jones. You are a brave person.
Dr. Hogarth. We can do it.
Mr. Jones. Mr. Chairman, I know my time is up. I want to
ask one more question.
Dr. Hogarth, why do you feel that there has been such a
proliferation of lawsuits since the Sustainable Fisheries Act
passed? You know, I have been on several--I was on the Small
Business Committee at one time up here and then on the
Resources Committee the 7 years I have been here, and I realize
the responsibilities that you and others at this panel have,
but it seems like too many times--and I appreciate what you
said just a moment ago about the resolution to the lawsuit
dealing with the summer flounder, but it seems like too many
times that the only way there is a resolution is because
somebody has filed a lawsuit, and that costs a lot of money.
And I am always concerned, whether it be an environmental
group or a commercial fishing group; it does not matter whether
they are liberal or conservative, whatever, that to get a
resolution that I feel should be able to be worked out without
a lawsuit between the agencies and the people or the agencies
and the group. And when I think about the number of lawsuits, I
think my staff has told me that approximately 110 current cases
since the Sustainable Fisheries Act passed, and I just think
that might indicate that maybe there is not that willingness
when you can work out a satisfactory solution--sometimes, you
cannot, because you have got to enforce the law as you see it.
Dr. Hogarth. Congressman, I think the reason for the
lawsuits is somewhat complex, but I think it is not just the
Sustainable Fisheries Act. I think one of the biggest ones
right now is the Endangered Species Act. What has happened now,
I think there are people who would like to see things done or
things protected to a large extent. There are others who think
we have done too much, and I think what has happened in this
process is it is very easy to get a judge to listen to these
types of cases when you have not done enough to protect sea
turtles, or the flip side if you do a biological opinion, and
you say you have got to shut down the swordfish fishery; you
have the commercial industry that, has a great impact, and so,
you get lawsuits.
I do not know how we stop that from the Endangered Species
Act standpoint. Regulatory effects have caused some problems.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act, I think, has about 34 lawsuits.
Concerning the Marine Mammal Protection Act, there are some
things in there that we get lawsuits on, such as the impact on
right whales. Also, we have porpoises in Florida that people
are feeding, and we have had children bitten, so you have to
enforce that.
So I think it is a sign of the times, but I do think we
have to try to figure a way to negotiate when we get some of
these lawsuits and see if we can settle them. It is tough. It
costs us a lot of money as an agency. It costs a lot of time,
and I am not sure that it is helping to rebuild fish population
or even the endangered species.
I am firmly convinced that we are making progress right now
rebuilding fisheries, but we are getting tied up in knots with
the Endangered Species Act, particularly with Pacific sea
turtles and East Coast sea turtles. In the next two to 3 years,
in my opinion, this is going to be a major issue, but when you
get your largest fishery in the world shut down for stellar sea
lions and the whole State of Hawaii shut down for sea turtles,
it just brings about lawsuits. I don't know how you stop that.
Mr. Jones. I don't either, and I guess that there are many
of us in the Congress on both sides of the political fence that
would like to see a rewrite of the Endangered Species Act and
use more of sound science, so to speak, as it deals with some
of the species that maybe at one time were endangered but now
are not, and in my district and throughout the south, the
piping plover has created a lot of interest and, in many cases,
a lot of problems for the citizen, but Mr. Chairman, with that,
I have got two or three other questions I would like to submit,
and if they could--Dr. Gilford and Dr. Hogarth could answer, I
would appreciate it at that time.
Mr. Gilchrest. Do you want to ask some more questions?
Mr. Jones. I have got to go to an MWR, Morale, Welfare and
Recreation panel hearing.
Mr. Gilchrest. Oh, do you want to ask your questions now,
Walter, or do you want to submit them for the record?
Mr. Jones. I am just going to submit them if that is okay.
Mr. Gilchrest. That is fine, Walter.
Mr. Jones. Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. And I appreciate the gentleman from North
Carolina coming, and we have piping plovers in Maryland also,
and we are trying to protect those little critters as you are
also. And we will submit those questions for the record, Mr.
Jones, and try to get some answers back as quick as we can.
I just have a few more questions. I would like to continue
on the line of thinking of essential fish habitat and ask Dr.
Houde if you would comment on your perspective of the need to
establish some type of--whether it is a definition or a
guideline--for essential fish habitat that would be useful for
a council to implement. And do you see any connection between
the concept of essential fish habitat and marine protected
areas?
Mr. Houde. Yes; thank you, Mr. Chairman. I go back to your
earlier comment about the area that you are familiar with on
the Chesapeake Bay, and you noted that taking the right
measures to protect the shoreline and to protect the estuary
from development resulted in higher fish productivity and
better fishing. If we go into freshwater habitats, I think we
find it even easier to define those particular areas that are
critical for particular life activities of fishes.
As we move out onto the continental shelf, where the SFA is
applied in the economic zone, 3 to 200 miles, it becomes
increasingly more difficult to define what areas are critical
to species. Species have larger ranges. They can use more
habitat. There are areas that are preferred over others, but
these species can adapt, in many cases, to a wide range of
habitats.
Nevertheless, there are some areas, particularly hard
bottom areas, coral reef areas, the kinds of areas that are
required as nurseries, for instance, for young groundfish that
can be identified. I think specific guidelines could be written
into the SFA or documents that would support it that would
define particular kinds of habitats for particular species
groups that are related to important life activities like the
spawning habitats that are required; nursery habitats that are
required; that this probably could be done; probably would be
desirable.
As I have read the SFA, I don't think that there are any
prescribed actions associated with the EFH right now, and that,
to me, is where there has been a lack of attention. I think
that some of the councils and the NMFS staff have put together
some quite good comprehensive documents that define habitat for
particular species or species groups or in a generic way in
this, but they don't seem to lead to any actions. They don't
have any prescriptions to do anything.
I am sorry, sir?
Mr. Gilchrest. No, go ahead.
Mr. Houde. I was going to say something about MPAs. I think
that marine protected areas, you know, can be set up for a
variety of reasons. Some that we addressed in our study were
related more to protecting marine biodiversity; to protecting
unique features and habitats in the sea, but certainly, to
promote fishing was one of the big reasons that one would want
to establish MPAs, and there were a few aspects of setting up
MPAs that would seem to be particularly effective to link them
to essential fish habitat, and these are to identify those
areas that are nursery areas for fish, areas where you could
protect young fish and clearly show that you would protect fish
when they are growing fast to give bigger yields and to promote
and restore fisheries; that this would be one kind of linkage
between essential fish habitat and setting up MPAs that should
be, I think, very effective in many cases.
Areas where you would want to protect spawning stock
biomass for those fishes that are very much overfished; for
sedentary fishes, those that tend to be long-lived like Pacific
rockfishes, defining essential fish habitat and creating MPAs
perhaps in networks, but in the case of rockfishes, there are
some 60 or 80 species of them. No one protected area or small,
defined habitat is going to protect them all. It would have to
be a network that was constructed; could be effective.
Mr. Gilchrest. Dr. Houde, if I could just interrupt for a
second, and then, I want to come back to you: Dr. Gilford, you
mentioned in your proposed reforms or changes for the councils
to modify or to come up with some specific guidance for
essential fish habitat. Do you think there is enough
information? Does the Mid-Atlantic Council have access to the
kind of information that could establish nursery areas,
spawning stock biomass areas that are overfished in
coordination with a marine protected area and understanding the
concept of essential fish habitat? Does the council have access
to that kind of information where you could then--the council
itself could define, or maybe they have defined, what is
essential fish habitat and then what might be a useful marine
protected area?
Mr. Gilford. The basic problem with the essential fish
habitat from my point of view--I can't speak for all of the
council chairmen, because I am sure they have different
concerns--the major concern that the council chairmen had was
some clear guidelines, some tighter guidelines as to what was
to constitute essential fish habitat. From my perspective, the
problem that I see with it is the interpretation of the data
that is available to us.
Let us take nursery areas. Do we identify each nursery area
as essential fish habitat? And then, having done that, what is
it we are going to do with that? Now, there is no question that
that is an advantage to us. Our council has used information of
that type in working with the Corps of Engineers in the
Chesapeake Bay to prevent the permitting of a pier and dock
that was going to be put right in an area which was an
essential nursery area.
Mr. Gilchrest. Where was that?
Mr. Gilford. In the Chesapeake Bay, near the--I don't
recall exactly which location it was, but it was in the
Chesapeake Bay. The problem that we have is that you have data
that is incomplete. How do you use it? How do you interpret it?
Do you interpret it in a risk-averse fashion, or do you say we
won't do anything with that until we have more information?
So we were looking for guidelines to tell us to what extent
we would pursue identifying and defining areas as being
essential fish habitat. It is a question of trying to satisfy
the intent of the legislation and to satisfy the interpretation
that the National Marine Fisheries Service put on that
legislation. It is not a problem of being concerned about
essential fish habitat. That is almost, if you excuse the
expression, a no-brainer. But yes, the essential fish habitat
is just that: it is essential. The fish have to have certain
requirements for growth, spawning, breeding, migration.
The issue comes down to is every piece of aquatic habitat
that is used for spawning and breeding and growing, maturing
and feeding, going to be identified as essential fish habitat,
and what are we going to do with that essential fish habitat,
having identified it as such?
Mr. Gilchrest. Well, Dr. Gilford, would you like to see the
Congress set specific essential fish habitat guidelines in the
reauthorization, or would you like to see us give direction to
Dr. Hogarth to establish specific guidelines?
Mr. Gilford. I think that my preference would be to see
specific guidance given to the National Marine Fisheries
Service to establish that, yes.
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Crockett?
Mr. Crockett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think you know in
a past life I worked for NMFS on an essential fish habitat. I
helped draft the regulations. And one of the things that we
found during that process was that there isn't a great deal of
knowledge on the habitat requirements of many of these fish
species. Dr. Hogarth mentioned how many there are and how many
life stages there are. There also isn't a great deal of data,
especially on the locations of the habitat when you get in
Federal waters.
And so, what we tried to do was provide councils with
flexibility that recognized that there was lots of different
species with different habitat requirements in different areas.
We tried to provide guidance that was flexible enough to allow
the identification for all of those species, given the fact
that there isn't great data out there. And what the councils
chose to do was to use it in a precautionary manner.
I will give you an example. In Dr. Gilford's council, that
council was provided information from the Northeast Fisheries
Science Center that would have enabled them to identify only 50
percent of the habitat for many of these managed species as
essential habitat. They are fortunate in that they were in one
of the locations in the country where there is a long data set
from the Northeast Fisheries Science Center.
That council had alternatives: 50 percent, 75 percent and
90 percent, and it chose to identify 90 percent of the habitat
as essential. I find it kind of interesting now that the
council chairs are asking for further guidance when they had
opportunities initially to identify much narrower areas as
essential fish habitat. I will give you another example on the
West Coast. That council was provided with a recommendation by
the National Marine Fisheries Service that salmon EFH shouldn't
extend past 60 kilometers offshore, which is about 37 miles.
The council decided to identify salmon EFH all the way out to
the boundaries of the EEZ.
So again, another example where they chose to identify
broader areas.
Mr. Gilchrest. Are you saying the council had the option to
identify a much more narrow scope--
Mr. Crockett. Yes.
Mr. Gilchrest. --of essential fish habitat.
Mr. Crockett. And they chose to identify it in a broader
manner, because as I understand their concerns, and my
organization feels this is appropriate because habitat
alterations are often irreversible. If you build a dock, or you
build a breakwater, or you destroy a coral reef or something
like that, it is going to be very difficult if not impossible
to reverse that alteration.
And so, we think it is appropriate to be cautious. In my
view, what the councils did by identifying broader areas
initially was that they were being precautionary. How do you
decide which of all the spawning habitat you can sacrifice? I
would attest that you cannot make that decision right now, so
the appropriate move is to be precautionary; identify a larger
area and then narrow it over time, as the data becomes
available. That is what the NMFS guidelines allow for.
Mr. Gilchrest. Dr. Gilford?
Mr. Gilford. Well, there is no question we were encouraged
to use a precautionary approach, and I don't have a problem
with the precautionary approach within reason. I think that the
thing that was a problem to us was we were virtually living--in
submitting our material to the service for approval were
virtually living in a situation where we will know it when we
see it. No one had a feeling for really what was the
appropriate, adequate, reasonable amount to do. And yes, people
did go, and they were urged to interpret the data in a
precautionary fashion.
So consequently, you had a lot of habitat labeled as
essential fish habitat which, in fact, may not be essential
fish habitat. Admittedly, we had a great deal of help in our
council through the service and through the lab in New Jersey
to identify essential fish habitat based upon data that was
available to us. But when it comes right down to it, you may
have a tremendous amount of data out there, of habitat out
there labeled essential fish habitat which, in fact, may not be
that, and at some point in time, that may come back to help
you.
Mr. Gilchrest. I just have one more question, and then, I
will yield to the gentleman from Guam.
I'll have some other questions after the gentleman from
Guam is done, but Dr. Hogarth, do you see the nature of the
disagreement about essential fish habitat, and do you feel that
there needs to be more--do you feel that the language in the
SFA is sufficient, or do you see the need for more specific
guidance on this issue to the councils?
Dr. Hogarth. I think we see a need for more specific advice
to the councils, and we are in the process of doing that. This
has been a very controversial issue, and right now, with the
new Administration, we do not have all of the people in place,
and I think until we get NOAA people in place, I am not sure
you will see additional guidance. It is a controversial issue,
and I think it needs to be aired. I think the agency has
discussed it, and we know that further guidance needs to be
done.
And I do think one thing: it was easy, when you said
essential fish habitat, and it had no regulation attached with
it. I think it was somewhat easier to designate expanded areas,
so to speak. Now, we are initiating studies to look at the gear
effects, for example, does a long line have effect on a various
habitat? Does a trawler have effects?
And we are trying to now look at specific effects of gear
on various types of habitat. Once some of that work is done, I
think you will be able to refine some of your essential fish
habitat issues. So I think we are capable of doing it, and I
think it is up to us to give further guidance to the councils
and work with them.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Dr. Hogarth.
I yield now to Mr. Underwood.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have a list of 15 questions, but I know it has been a
long day, so I will just enter them for the record.
Mr. Gilchrest. All right; is that it?
Mr. Underwood. That is it.
Mr. Gilchrest. You are easier than I am.
I just have--well, I was going to sit back for a few
minutes. Now, I wasn't able to ponder, Mr. Underwood.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Underwood. Well, let us ponder together.
Mr. Gilchrest. All right; we will ponder together.
Let's turn to marine protected areas, Dr. Houde. In a
recent study that you were participating in with the National
Research Council, the suggestion was made to protect 20 percent
of the potential fishing areas; providing worthwhile reference
point for future consideration and emphasizing the importance
of greatly expanding the areas currently protected. Can you
tell us how you arrived at protecting 20 percent as opposed to
30 or 15? Is that a specific scientific calculation?
Mr. Houde. You know, we discussed that 20 percent figure a
lot. It is one that is seen in a lot of literature on marine
protected areas as a number that has a bit of support in this
scientific literature, perhaps more historically than at
present. And for the record, our Committee did not recommend
it. We talk about it in the text as being a number that is
frequently mentioned, but we say that marine protected areas,
that each area has to be considered on its own merits and needs
and that some areas much smaller than 20 percent in some
ecosystems would probably be effective; in some ecosystems,
maybe more than 20 percent.
The history of it is that it comes from a conference that
was held about 1990 by some fishery scientists. At that time,
we thought that if you could protect 20 percent of the so-
called virgin spawning stock biomass of a species that this
would be protective of the future reproductive capacity of the
stock, and the reasoning was that for those fish that don't
move much as adults, that on average, by setting aside 20
percent of the area that the fish lived in that you would
protect 20 percent of the spawning stock biomass.
That might be effective for some fish like coral reef
fishes; those that are associated with hard bottom, but it
might not be effective for others. Subsequently, we also know
that the 20 percent protection figure for spawning stock
biomass is not necessarily correct or right for many species.
It could be more or less.
Mr. Gilchrest. Could you identify species that the 20
percent figure would be beneficial to, and then, identify those
areas where the species that benefit from it--for instance, the
areas that are their spawning areas that could be set aside? I
guess can you identify where that 20 percent figure would apply
in the coastal areas?
Mr. Houde. I don't know that I could personally, but I
think there are people who for particular fishes--again, I will
cite the example of Pacific rockfishes--who could do this. I
think that the 20 percent figure for Pacific rockfishes, if you
were using the spawning stock biomass criteria might not be
high enough. For some of your relatively short-lived fishes,
things like the croakers and spot and things that Dr. Hogarth
mentioned, protecting 20 percent of the spawning stock biomass
probably certainly would be sufficient.
For some crustacean fisheries like the shrimp that Mr.
LeBlanc mentioned, protecting an even smaller part of the
spawning stock biomass would be sufficient. So fish with short
lives and high fecundities, you can conserve with relatively
small areas to conserve spawning stock biomass. For those that
are like cod and haddock that are in trouble, the 20 percent
might in fact be low. We might want to think of 30 percent or
40 percent if you were going to just use a protected area to
manage this stock.
But I don't think using protected areas alone is the way
one would want to manage these stocks. You have to use all of
the other tools that fishery scientists and managers have
developed to control fishing effort and fishing mortality and
to set the quotas and things that we normally do.
Mr. Gilchrest. Dr. Hogarth, how many marine protected areas
are there now?
Dr. Hogarth. Congressman, that is one of the things we are
trying to look at overall, because, you know, the sanctuary
program has sanctuaries in some refuges that the Department of
Interior has. As far as marine protected areas (MPAs), as far
as the council process and NMFS, we have about 37 or so that
have been designated for various purposes across the country,
and these are, like I said, maybe to protect spawning or--
Mr. Gilchrest. So each individual council establishes its
own marine protected areas?
Dr. Hogarth. Yes, sir. So far, we have used it for about 20
or 25 years. It has been a process that we have used as one of
the tools, a very effective tool.
Mr. Gilchrest. Do they remain protected once designated, or
does that designation change?
Dr. Hogarth. Some of them have changed, and some of them
are put in place for a specific time frame. They may not be all
year or forever. They may be for a spawning season like the
Gulf gag grouper was closed, the entire Gulf of Mexico was
closed for 1 month to protect the spawnings of gag. We have
time area closures. We have 228 acres in the Gulf that is set
aside for the snapper grouper.
Mr. Gilchrest. 228 acres?
Dr. Hogarth. Square miles; I am sorry, 228 square miles.
Mr. Gilchrest. I was going to say; that is not a real big--
228 square acres.
Dr. Hogarth. That was set aside with a sunset clause of, I
think, 5 years to take a look at how effective it is. We are
doing work on the effectiveness of marine protected areas. We
have even used some areas that have been set aside for military
purposes to look at what has happened there and compare that to
other areas that you have activity. Marine protected areas are
not new, and it is a very effective tool, and we feel like it
is one we need to have in the fishery management area.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you.
Do you have a question, Robert?
I would like to ask a general question and get a relatively
short answer from each witness if that is okay. The Magnuson
Act deals with a myriad of things, and what I would like to do
now is see if I can get some prioritization as to what, as you
see it, some of the major problems are. And I guess we can
start from Mr. LeBlanc and work our way from left to right:
overfishing, overcapitalization, insufficient data,
inappropriate management structures, ecosystem impacts of
fishing. I will just read those one more time. Pick out two or
three that you think are the major problems that need most
attention: overfishing, overcapitalization, insufficient data,
inappropriate management structures, ecosystem impacts of
fishing. Which one of those areas would you like to see the
Subcommittee spend more time on over the next five or 6 weeks?
Mr. LeBlanc. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is always a
challenging question when the list has got legitimate issues
across the board that I think ultimately need to be addressed.
I think from the list you just presented, one of the most
important things I think we need to address is overfishing and
rebuilding programs and our concepts of what constitutes an
overfished fishery and what constitutes a legitimate rebuilding
program.
We are beginning to increase our understanding of the
relationship between fisheries and ecosystems and environmental
conditions, and in many cases, we are attempting to rebuild
fisheries to levels that may not be achievable. There are
rebuilding programs that have been implemented, for example, in
the scup fishery in the Mid-Atlantic region. The rebuilding
target is extremely high. There is 30-year relative abundancy
data on scup, and over that 30-year average, the average
relative abundance has been about three-quarters of a kilogram
per tow on a relative abundance index, and the rebuilding
program is 2.27 kilograms per tow. It is three times higher
than the long-term average.
Mr. Gilchrest. Now, when you say long-term average, what is
the--
Mr. LeBlanc. Thirty years. The data runs from 1969 to 1998,
I believe. If you take the average relative abundance over that
30-year span for scup, it is about 0.78, and there are 3 years
right after the passage of the Fishery Conservation and
Management Act, the years 1977, 1978 and 1979, the average of
those 3 years is 2.27, three times higher than the long-term
average, and we selected that as the rebuilding goal. It is
unlikely that we could achieve those levels of abundance even
if we ceased all fishing for scup.
And so, we have to ask ourselves questions about what our
rebuilding targets are; are they realistic, and are they based
on good data and sound science, and even when they are, are we
making the right decisions about those targets, and are we
recognizing that as environmental conditions change, so does
the possible and potential abundance of fisheries, and if our
concepts of overfishing or rebuilding don't take that
variability into account, we are going to impose rebuilding
programs on fisheries that don't need them, and we will
restrict unnecessarily fishing activities and won't end up
getting the benefit of those restrictions.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you.
Dr. Gilford?
Mr. Gilford. From my point of view, I have three major
concerns. One is the insufficient data. Fisheries management is
just so data-intensive, and we do not have good data. We have
the best available but not what we need. We don't get the
observer coverage we need. Secondly, the managing of recovering
stocks is something that we need to improve. The problem is
that as the stocks recover, according to the management plans,
fishermen see more fish. When they see more fish, they can't
understand why they can't catch them.
When we get these stocks recovered, there are going to be
more fish out there. The fishermen can simply not take all of
them to the point where they don't see them anymore, and we are
right back where we started. So we are going to have to find a
way to manage not only the fish but the fishermen when we are
getting into the category of a stock approaching recovery.
Mr. Gilchrest. You say you not only have to manage the fish
but the fishermen.
Mr. Gilford. Certainly, yes, sir.
Mr. Gilchrest. How do you--that is an interesting
statement.
Mr. Gilford. Well, just simply--
Mr. Gilchrest. What can we do to help the councils manage
the fishermen?
Mr. Gilford. It is a matter of education from the
standpoint of the councils, an expectation and realization of
what is doable and what is not to have a sustainable fishery.
When you simply cannot fish the fish down to where you don't
see them anymore, you still have a sustainable fishery. And
yet, when the stocks begin to recover, it is understandable
that the people don't understand why they can't catch them
because they can see them.
And when you reach that certain stage in a recovery curve
that there are a lot of fish out there, the fishermen catch
them; they have to put them back. They are discarded. Some
live; most die, and they see that as a waste and rightfully so.
We need to find some way to handle that particular problem.
And the last thing that I would say to you from the
standpoint of a council member that is so frustrating is the
system is so burdened down with paperwork, it is impossible to
do anything in a hurry. It is just impossible for us to put
through a management plan in any kind of reasonable period of
time, given that you have got fish stocks out there that are
growing a lot faster than we can move. So if there is anything
you can do to reduce the paper load of work that has to be done
in developing fisheries management plans and amending them, God
bless you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Yes, sir; that is a worthy goal.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gilchrest. We will take it up as one of our priorities.
Mr. Gilford. I wish you would.
Mr. Gilchrest. Dr. Hogarth?
Dr. Hogarth. It is a tough list. It is like the child at
Christmas. It is hard to choose what you really want. I would
say, though, insufficient data, and that, to me, covers a lot
of territory. We need, in the National Marine Fisheries
Service, to modernize the agency. When I talk about that, I am
talking about stock assessments, research vessels to collect
the data and cooperative research with the fishing industry.
That is a great program that Congress has funded the last
couple of years. We need to expand that and to learn how to
calibrate the fishery industry data with the kind of data we
collect, and it is a great problem.
So I think the answer is insufficient data would be my
number one. But I do think for the long term, we have got to
match capacity for the sustainability of the fishery, and I
think we are overcapitalized probably both in recreational and
commercial. It is a tough issue and will be a tough issue to
address, but I think until we address the capacity, we will
continue to have the battles that we are facing, because it is
very difficult to manage. And also, most plans have limited
entry in them, but I think you have to, because as stocks
improve, it is a tendency for more people to want to get in;
more charter boats want to come in, or more commercial vessels
want to come in, and we have to find a way to match the
capacity of the two. I think if we could reach that point, we
could stop a lot of the controversy that is going on.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Dr. Hogarth.
Mr. Crockett?
Mr. Crockett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Probably I would pick two things as priorities for us:
overfishing, I think we take a different viewpoint than Justin
LeBlanc at NFI on this issue. The concerns that he is raising,
I think, are relative to implementation of the act, not the act
itself. Whether or not the targets are inappropriate, and I
question if that is, in fact, true. But if they are, that is
not a problem with the law. I think that is a problem with
implementation.
We see, in the overfishing area, a problem with the NMFS
regulations, their national standard guidelines allow for
overfishing of a weak stock in a mixed-stock fishery. And by
that, I mean if you have a fishery that has 10 or 15 stocks,
one or two of those stocks could be in serious trouble. For
example, in the grouper fisheries in the South Atlantic and the
Gulf, there are four grouper species that are candidate species
for listing under the Endangered Species Act.
They are sometimes caught in conjunction with these mixed-
stock fisheries. That is allowed under the national standard
guidelines. We don't think that is appropriate, those stocks
are not going to be rebuilt unless you do something about that.
The other thing, and I will echo what several of the other
witnesses have said on data: one of the solutions to the data
problem is to implement observer programs for all fisheries.
Contrary to what Mr. LeBlanc said, our proposal is not to have
universal coverage on all fishing vessels. What we have said is
enough observer coverage to provide statistically valid data.
We would also recognize that it is not appropriate to have an
observer on every vessel because of size and safety reasons, we
would suggest that there be exemptions for that.
We think it is absolutely essential that you get observers
out on the water, checking what is caught: bycatch, discards,
all that sort of data. You are not going to get a handle on
bycatch without that information.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Crockett.
Dr. Houde?
Mr. Houde. Yes; I think that many of the problems that we
see today are a reflection of past history: insufficient
science, ineffective management, ineffective management
institutions that we have tried to, you know, reform and to
improve on over the last few years. These have led to what I
call the problems of too much effort, overcapacity, which has
led to overfishing. And so, the major task that I see for
management and the SFA in the future is to rebuild those stocks
that are grossly overfished and that we have, you know, abused
over the past 50 or 100 years. So that is the major problem.
The second one is the one that everybody has mentioned: the
need to improve getting data and better data. The NAS report on
fisheries data says that we need to develop a national
fisheries information system, and this would, I think, be a big
step to improving that data compilation management problem that
we now have. And I would say third, in the long term, we have
got to begin to face the issues that are related to
multispecies management, developing the models and modeling
that are required to manage species in the way that--
understanding the way that they interact in the ecosystem and
moving toward this broader kind of management that is ecosystem
sensitive, using the ecosystem approaches of the NMFS panel
that the SFA of 1996 mandated has recommended.
Mr. Gilchrest. Dr. Houde, I know there is a principle in
science known as the principle of uncertainty, that you take
what you have with some tolerance, and you move forward with
it. With multispecies management, with an ecosystem approach,
do we have sufficient scientific understanding of the marine
ecosystem in the ocean to begin implementing that concept as a
part of our management? Is it down the road yet?
Mr. Houde. I think it is down the road before we are going
to use this tool as a primary way to manage fish stocks. We are
going to have single species management for a long time. On the
other hand, it is very valuable to have multispecies and
ecosystems models to run to ask the kinds of what-if questions:
what if we fished this species more than that species? What is
likely to happen? It is to provide the kind of understanding
that we now don't have about how whole ecosystems and
communities of fish stocks are likely to respond, not
necessarily to use it. Sometimes, the results we get from these
models are very non-intuitive.
Mr. Gilchrest. So there are multispecies management models
now?
Dr. Hogarth. Yes, there are.
Mr. Gilchrest. Are they--who are they used by? Does NMFS
have them? Do any of the councils have them?
Dr. Hogarth. Yes, NMFS has some, and the councils have
access to them. There certainly are some available in other
parts of the world for the North Sea, the Barents Sea. In
Australia, there are some available. And a lot of these are
used in a conceptual kind of way in which the models are run;
the what-if questions are asked; and this information is a part
of the decision making process that goes into single species
management.
Mr. Gilchrest. That is interesting.
Mr. Underwood?
Mr. Underwood. Well, thank you again, Mr. Chairman. Just on
the issue of data collection, which obviously undergirds much
of our perspective on all of these issues, to what extent--I am
interested in the response from the Fisheries Service and
perhaps some of the council representatives: to what extent
could we rely on academic sources, and to what extent should we
rely only on in-house capacity to collect data?
Dr. Hogarth. I think we use all sources. We presently do.
We have tens of millions a year that goes out to academics to
address issues. I think we have to use all sources: academic,
the industry and us. I think it is a combination. I think you
want to have the broad base, and you want to have the different
types of views to come in.
By the way, we are doing one ecosystem plan, and it is in
Hawaii, in the coral reefs, but it is a very difficult one,
where we are trying to do a coral reef ecosystem plan, and the
council has spent a lot of money in development. It is under
review right now, but it is quite an undertaking.
Mr. Underwood. Dr. Gilford?
Mr. Gilford. Yes, sir?
Mr. Underwood. Respond to the issue of data collection and
the use of various sources.
Mr. Gilford. Well, I think Dr. Hogarth essentially pinned
it down. I think we do have to depend on all sources. There is
some data that is available to us if it is collectible, if
there is money available to collect it and put it in a usable
form just simply from the fisheries-dependent source. There is
information that we need to collect from observer trips, things
of that type.
There is also some research that needs to be done that I
think goes perhaps beyond what the service should be doing that
should be more in the academic area or under the contract of
some organizations that are specifically concerned with doing
marine research. But I think we do have to use any source that
is available to us. But hopefully, the service can be provided
with sufficient resources to collect much of the very specific
data that the councils need to do the management plans and the
management measures, and I think that is what is important to
us is we depend upon the service and, in our case, the
Northeast Science Center, to provide us with the data and the
stock assessment work that we need done, and that, I think, is
quite essential to us.
Mr. Underwood. Thank you.
Would you like to respond to that, Mr. LeBlanc?
Mr. LeBlanc. Thank you, Congressman, if I could. I think
the agency has improved its willingness to use outside data,
and I want to compliment Dr. Hogarth for that. He has certainly
been more open-minded to the provision of academically-
generated and cooperative research generated data. That has not
always been the case, and I think in particular on some of the
East Coast fisheries, there was a lot of hesitancy historically
by the agency to take information about the status of stocks
generated by outside sources. I am thinking in particular of
surf clam and ocean quahog and scallops on the East Coast where
the agency had some hesitancy.
They are certainly moving forward with their willingness to
accept academic information and information generated through
cooperative research, and I think it is imperative. I think we
all agree that there are massive data insufficiencies and data
gaps in our assessment of stocks, and the agency should be
willing to take quality scientific data from anywhere it can
get it, and again, I just want to say that I think they are
moving forward and doing a better job of that, but that hasn't
always been the case.
Mr. Underwood. Well, I would surmise that what we are
looking for is quality scientific data, peer-reviewed
scientific data as well.
Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. I just have one more question to Dr. Gilford
if you don't mind, sir. What I would like to do is look at a
list you have of management issues and administrative matters.
Management issues: you make six recommendations for the
councils. In the administrative matters, you make eight
recommendations and suggestions. What I would like to do, if it
is all right with you, is to send a copy of this to each of the
witnesses and ask them to respond to it. That would give us a
little--I guess we could stay here--we probably should have
started the hearing around 8 this morning--
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gilchrest. --and gone to 8 tonight. So I hope you all
feel that your time here has been valuable, because it has been
valuable to us. We are at the beginning stages of understanding
a pretty comprehensive issue. I was asked a week or so ago ``do
we want to completely reform the Magnuson-Stevens Act, or do we
just want to tweak it?'' Well, everything is on the table right
now. We may end up tweaking it a little bit; we may end up with
some major changes, depending on what other Members of the
House want to do or what the Senate is going to do.
But we want to know all that there is to know about how it
is working so that we do tweak it, and we will tweak it the
right way, or if we do make major reforms, they will be
positive reforms where we can develop a consensus. So if that
is all right, Dr. Gilford, we will send it to the other
witnesses.
Mr. Gilford. The full written statement?
Mr. Gilchrest. No, we don't need to--just actually, you
have six recommendations for management issues of the councils,
starting with--and we didn't get to the MSY question that I
wanted to hear a discussion with a number of you, but the hour
is getting late. And dealing with locality pay--
Mr. Gilford. The only reason I am raising the question,
Congressman, is that it may be more helpful to the people to
see the full written statement so they have some understanding
of what is behind--
Mr. Gilchrest. All right.
Mr. Gilford. --the specific summary statement.
Mr. Gilchrest. We will do that, then, the full written
statement.
Mr. Gilford. Certainly.
Mr. Gilchrest. But do any of the other witnesses want their
full statements sent to any of the other witnesses?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gilchrest. Dr. Hogarth, Dr. Gilford, Mr. LeBlanc, Mr.
Crockett, Dr. Houde, we appreciate your time. Thank you very
much.
There is just one other thing. In case you have a question
for us, you know, because you may be back a couple more times,
don't hesitate to ask us questions. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:56 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
[Letter from Daniel T. Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-
Atlantic Fishery Management Council, submitted for the record
follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Response to questions submitted for the record by Dr.
Hogarth follows:]
NMFS RESPONSES TO FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS
april 4, 2001 hearing on magnuson-stevens act reauthorization
A. Questions Concerning Magnuson Act Reauthorization
General Questions.
1. Many factors have been identified as potential problems in US
fisheries: overfishing, overcapitalization, insufficient data,
inappropriate management structures, ecosystem impacts of fishing.
Which of these do you believe is the most pressing problem to be
addressed?
Response: NOAA Fisheries is concerned about all of these issues,
and, while it is not easy to prioritize them, I believe that
insufficient data and overcapacity are the most pressing problems.
Reliable and up-to-date information from the biological and social
sciences is critical to all of NOAA Fisheries' missions. Without
adequate fisheries science data, we cannot carry out our most
fundamental fisheries management tasks. Identifying essential fish
habitat and preparing biological opinions under the Endangered Species
Act are examples of other major actions that we increasingly carry out
which require data from several physical sciences. We also need data
from the social sciences to conduct mandatory regulatory assessments
and conform with Magnuson-Stevens Act national standards and FMP
requirements. NOAA Fisheries has spelled out in greater detail our
needs with respect to data from the biological and social sciences in
responses to other questions.
I also believe that excess harvesting capacity in our Federally
managed fisheries is a fundamental problem that we need to address in
order to deal effectively with other needs. With this issue in mind, we
set up a task force a few years ago to develop technical definitions
and measures of capacity and overcapacity in the fish harvesting
sector, and recently completed a qualitative report on harvesting
capacity in more than 70 fisheries. This report concludes that
overcapacity almost certainly exists in more than half of them. In the
last few years, we have taken several actions to better address this
problem. As examples, we have
(1) continued to support limited access measures and now have them
in practically all Federally managed fisheries;
(2) worked with Congress and industry groups to administer a number
of vessel and permit buyouts in various fisheries;
(3) established a performance measure in our strategic plan that
calls for a reduction of 20 percent in the number of overcapitalized
fisheries by 2005; and
(4) signed on to a 1999 United Nations Food and Agriculture
Organization international plan of action on the management of fishing
capacity.
2. Can you give examples of previously overexploited Federally
managed fisheries that have been successfully recovered over the past
10 years? What species would you expect to add to the success list in
5-10 years? Are there any commonalities that might enhance our chances
of success with over exploited species? What have been the major
barriers to success?
Response: A number of overfished species are on the road to
recovery due to rebuilding efforts and favorable environmental
conditions. In the case of New England six years ago, the news about
groundfish stocks was grim. Spawning stocks of cod were at dangerously
depressed levels and recruitment was at a record low for the third
year. Yellowtail flounder populations on Georges Bank were reduced to
historical lows. Gulf of Maine haddock was declared commercially
extinct. Management measures to rebuild the stocks included year-round
closures and drastic reductions in days-at-sea.
These management measures are starting to pay off, and we are
beginning to see signs of a recovery. Recent stock assessments indicate
there is some good news for many stocks--not necessarily that there are
a lot more fish of harvestable size, but that the mortality caused by
fishing is lower, or that the fish left in the water are getting
larger. In a few cases, there actually has been recruitment success;
for instance, there are large numbers of young fish coming into the
haddock stock. The 1998 year class was the largest in the past 20
years.
The situation has also improved for Georges Bank cod, where the
stock biomass has increased 43 percent above the record low 1995
levels. Yellowtail flounder is improving, with growing populations and
decreased fishing mortality for stocks off Georges Bank, Southern New
England and Cape Cod. In addition, witch flounder is well on its way to
recovery; we've seen good recruitment and a doubling of spawning stock
biomass since 1995.
Sea scallops have grown in size and number in areas closed to
fishing to protect groundfish spawning. Benefits to scallop stocks from
closing portions of Georges Bank have been significant and, in fact,
scallop rebuilding is ahead of the schedule anticipated when the
rebuilding program was designed. Two summers ago, scallopers were able
to return to a closed area off of Georges Bank, as an initial step in a
rotation management strategy. This opening put as much as $40 million
into Southeast New England fishing communities, benefits directly
attributable to conservation from the closures. The New England Council
is developing an amendment to the Scallop FMP that would establish a
rotation management strategy for the longer term and Framework 14 was
recently approved to open some previously closed areas.
In other regions, we believe that we are making progress in
rebuilding overfished stocks. Examples are Gulf group King mackerel in
the Southeast, and central Bering Sea Alaska pollock and Pacific ocean
perch on the West Coast. We have also begun recently to deal more
effectively with some of the highly migratory species in the Atlantic.
In the last few years, for example, we have successfully negotiated
international rebuilding plans for Atlantic bluefin tuna, Atlantic
swordfish, and marlin species.
The above fisheries/stocks all exhibit varying signs of recovery,
and we expect some reasonable share of them to be fully recovered in
the next 5 to 10 years. More generally, the species we would expect to
add to the success list in the next several years include those that
are capable of rebuilding within a short time frame, generally short-
lived species with good reproductive rates. Favorable environmental
conditions as well as management measures in place that protect
juveniles (e.g., HMS time-area closures and international cooperation
to protect juvenile swordfish) and mature females (spiny dogfish
fishery) are other factors that influence rebuilding time periods.
Other species such as red snapper are slow-growing and have much longer
life spans, and can be expected to rebuild slowly, even in the absence
of fishing.
In our latest annual report to Congress, Status of Fisheries of the
United States, we report that, in the most recent year alone, the
number of stocks experiencing overfishing declined from 77 to 72. In
addition, we now have 75 rebuilding plans, of which 44 were approved
after passage of the SFA in 1996. Of these 44 approved rebuilding
plans, 27 have been implemented as of January 2001. The following
fishery stocks are currently managed under rebuilding plans with
recovery projected in 10 years or fewer: Atlantic sea scallop; Gulf of
Maine cod; Georges Bank haddock; Southern New England yellowtail
flounder; Silver hake; red hake; Atlantic halibut; monkfish; Dogfish;
Summer flounder; Black sea bass; Vermilion snapper; Yellowtail snapper;
Red drum; lingcod; and Bering Sea King and Tanner crab.
3. What are the pros and cons of the ``overfishing'' and
``essential fish habitat'' sections of the Sustainable Fisheries Act of
1996? What are the administrative burdens and benefits to Council
staff? Can the Councils meet the objectives they are charged with under
these sections? Would it be useful to clarify the concept of essential
fish habitat, and to provide a clearer mechanism for evaluating the
costs and benefits?
Response:
(A) Overfishing
The Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA) set a new standard for
overfishing by establishing the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) as an
upper limit on optimum yield, and mandated rebuilding programs for
overfished stocks to a level that is consistent with producing the MSY.
This new standard sets the foundation for achieving sustainable fishery
resources and realizing the many benefits from those resources for the
good of the fishing industry dependent communities, and the general
public.
Achieving sustainable fisheries, however, will have impacts,
particularly in the short run. For many overfished stocks, landings and
effort levels have to be reduced to allow the stocks to rebuild. These
adjustments will have obvious effects on participants in the fisheries
and on dependent communities. Regulations can be designed to minimize
those effects as much as possible, but significant impacts will still
be imposed on the industry. In the long-term, the benefits of
identifying and rebuilding overfished stocks are expected to far
outweigh the short- term costs.
The provisions of the SFA impose a greater requirement on the
Councils and NMFS to develop more information on the status of stocks
(stock assessments), the underlying causes of overfishing, the
establishment of criteria or thresholds for determining when the stock
size is too low or the fishing rate is too high, and for rebuilding
programs. Obviously, this has greatly increased the workload for all
parties in the system, and has placed a greater urgency that all
information is available to decision-makers. Staff and other resources
needed to develop management programs have become overburdened. We have
worked with Congress to supplement our existing resources, and have
developed plans and taken actions to meet these needs for better
science and analyses that support management. While this strained the
Councils and NMFS, significant benefits from the SFA are being realized
as stocks rebuild, and jobs and revenues increase. With the help of
Congress, we expect further successes and benefits in the future.
(B) Essential Fish Habitat
The essential fish habitat (EFH) provisions of the Sustainable
Fisheries Act clarify the importance of habitat conservation for the
successful management of sustainable fisheries. The EFH provisions
clearly recognize that habitat must be protected throughout the life
cycle of managed species, and that EFH may be affected adversely by
both fishing and non-fishing activities. The EFH language strikes a
workable balance, creating a process to provide important information
to enhance decision making by fishery managers and other agencies, yet
not imposing prescriptive measures that could be too restrictive.
The principal challenge associated with EFH stems from limited
scientific information regarding the habitat requirements of managed
species, and the effects of various human activities on those habitats.
The Sustainable Fisheries Act required NMFS and Council staff to
compile existing habitat information in a very short time frame, and we
amended all 40 existing fishery management plans to include EFH
provisions. While EFH does impose additional administrative
requirements on the Councils, all of the Councils are now considering
EFH information in their management decisions, which allows them to
make more informed decisions and address potential adverse effects to
EFH.
The EFH regulations provide guidance and flexibility for Councils
to designate EFH based on existing information, to identify especially
valuable or vulnerable portions of EFH as Habitat Areas of Particular
Concern, and to comply with the requirement to minimize the effects of
fishing on EFH to the extent practicable. If the Councils need further
clarification to apply the EFH provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act,
NMFS is, of course, willing to work with the Councils to develop
appropriate guidance.
Finally, I want to emphasize where we go from here. Based on the
good direction from the National Research Council's and NOAA Fisheries'
reports on the merits of an ecosystem approach to fisheries management,
plus lessons learned from the Chesapeake Bay, Bering Sea and the
Northeast, I have asked my staff to host a national workshop this fall
to begin to develop technical guidelines for implementing ecosystem
based fisheries management. Making this an open workshop, which allows
the views of all of our constituents, will lead to a better product.
4. Does the time required to promulgate Federal fishery regulations
hinder effective management?
Response: Yes, in many cases. The process can take a few years from
the time a Council identifies a problem to publication of final
implementing regulations. Collecting and analyzing biological, social
and economic data, conducting public involvement, developing management
alternatives, and reviewing documents for legal compliance are steps
that cannot be eliminated. With the myriad of laws that we operate
under, and the necessity for balancing regional needs with national
priorities and policies, it is simply not possible to significantly
shorten the process. However, we are looking at every possible way to
streamline the process, including the greater use of programmatic
environmental impact statements that annual measures can be tiered to,
and the use of multi-year total allowable catch (TAC) setting.
Management Options:
1. In your opinion, what is the primary benefit and the primary
drawback of the existing system of Regional Fishery Management
councils? What changes might lead to more successful management?
Response: The Councils perform a very important role in preparing
fishery management plans and plan amendments for fisheries and
fisheries resources in Federal waters; making necessary in- season
adjustments; holding public hearings and meetings and considering
public input in taking final actions; and submitting recommendations to
NOAA Fisheries for review, approval, and implementation. By convening
local and regional stakeholders, the Councils bring necessary
perspectives to Federal decision making. However, Council members,
nominated by state governors and appointed by the Secretary, cannot
always represent the views of all of the participants in the fishery.
Some have advocated a more balanced representation on the Councils of
non-users, such as environmental groups, and users of the fishery
resources, including harvesters/processors, recreational, non-
consumptive operators and various gear types representatives.
2. How might the Magnuson-Stevens Act be amended to address the
problem of frequent industry opposition to strong conservation and
management measures? Should fishermen be given more or less influence
over the management measures adopted?
Response: The Administration is currently developing a proposal to
amend the Magnuson- Stevens Act and therefore does not have a current
position on this or other questions related to amending the Act.
3. Should the blanket moratorium on individual fishing quota
programs (IFQs or ITQs) be lifted? If no, what is your main reason for
opposing these programs under all circumstances? If yes, should there
be nationwide standards for quota programs?
Response: The Administration is currently examining the issue of
IFQs and does not currently have a position on extending the moratorium
in Section 303(d). That said, NMFS does not oppose IFQ programs under
all circumstances. As the Congressionally mandated study of IFQs,
Sharing the Fish, showed, NMFS believes that IFQs have been effective
management tools, provided that certain safeguards or conditions are
applied to their administration. Naturally, we are prepared to exchange
views with Congress on the need for national standards for IFQ
programs.
4. Current management practices address species independently,
attempting to achieve a maximum sustainable yield for each species. Is
this realistic? Can all species be exploited at MSY levels
simultaneously?
Response: Our goal as set out in the Magnuson-Stevens Act is to
manage at the MSY level whether the fishery management plan is single-
or multispecies-focused or takes an ecosystem-based approach. While the
goal is attainable for many species, we recognize the inherent
difficulty in achieving this goal for all species simultaneously. The
Act provides ample flexibility in meeting this goal.
5. Moves toward more decentralized fisheries management in the
Maine lobster fishery, and in other fisheries here and abroad, have
shown some successes in terms of conservation and social and economic
outcomes. Is more decentralization of management desirable in some of
our fisheries? If so, should the Magnuson-Stevens Act be amended to
encourage experiments with decentralized approaches to fisheries
management?
Response: The Administration is currently developing a proposal to
amend the Magnuson- Stevens Act and therefore does not have a current
position on this or other questions related to amending the Act.
6. Are there changes needed to influence how Councils meet NEPA
requirements in developing and amending fishery management plans?
Response: The Administration is currently developing a proposal to
amend the Magnuson- Stevens Act and therefore does not have a current
position on this or other questions related to amending the Act. At the
same time, it should be noted that the agency has initiated a project,
with an initial grant from the NOAA Administrator's Fund, to review and
improve the way NMFS and the Councils work together to comply with all
applicable laws, including NEPA.
7. Would it be better to assign a single council staff person to be
responsible for the entire process of data collection, scientific
assessment, and provision of management advice for each fishery?
Response: It would not be possible to have a single council staff
person to be responsible for the entire management process. For the
most part, data collection and scientific assessment of the resources
are conducted by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and it
would be inappropriate for council staff to direct NMFS programs.
However, NMFS and Council staff work very closely on the specific needs
for data and stock assessments, and activities, priorities, and timing
of the work in this area are based on those joint discussions. In terms
of the development of management plans or amendments, often a single
council staff is assigned to coordinate all the necessary activities
involved with developing management alternatives, analytical documents
and descriptions of the stocks or fishery. In some cases, multi-
discipline plan development teams coordinate and prepare the necessary
documentation, but these groups are often headed by council staff.
Enforcement and Compliance:
1. The vast area of our EEZ, the hundreds of fishing ports and tens
of thousands of fishing craft make monitoring, control, and
surveillance extremely difficult. How might the Magnuson-Stevens Act be
amended to encourage the use of alternative methods for strengthening
compliance with regulations? Should non-governmental bodies be allowed
to supplement existing enforcement resources?
Response: The Administration is currently developing a proposal to
amend the Magnuson- Stevens Act and therefore does not have a current
position on this or other questions related to amending the Act.
2. The US spends $600 million annually on fisheries management,
mostly for enforcement of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Other fishing
nations, for example, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, have
implemented user charges to recover the costs of fishery management
services. Should the Magnuson-Stevens Act be amended to require that
some of the costs of management be recovered from users of our marine
fisheries resources? If so, what principles should govern a cost-
recovery program for US fisheries?
Response: The Administration is currently developing a proposal to
amend the Magnuson- Stevens Act and therefore does not have a current
position on this or other questions related to amending the Act.
Social Science and Fishing Community Concerns:
1. How could we improve opportunities for collaboration in research
and management between fishermen and regulators?
Response: NOAA Fisheries is working to expand the opportunities in
cooperative and collaborative research by sharing the successes reached
in areas such as the Northeast and will continue its efforts to build
upon these efforts in the future. There is a strong history of
collaboration in several regions of the country, particularly in the
Northeast where scientists and managers have been working for years to
develop the mechanisms required and the close collaborative
relationship with industry and other constituents to identify and fund
cooperative research. On the West Coast, long standing efforts will
continue to support commercial vessels for data collection and a new
thrust is focused on developing a coast-wide grants program that will
be available for constituent identified research, information sharing
and gear improvement. Planning efforts are underway on both Coasts to
develop game plans for the involvement of constituents in the design
and implementation of research surveys.We are also working to improve
the coordination of regional cooperative research programs. The
communication of lessons learned, and the development of scientifically
valid protocols are areas that we will be working to enhance. In
addition, support is required across the country for the participation
of NMFS scientists in the development of surveys for data collection on
important species, as well as in the expansion, review, and refinement
of programs in collaboration with stakeholders. We are working to
secure the necessary resources to support these efforts.
2. What is the significance of National Standard 8 on fishing
communities? What, if anything, could be changed in the Magnuson-
Stevens Act or its implementation to better protect coastal fishing
communities?
Response: By creating a national standard which requires
consideration of the impacts of proposed management measures on fishing
communities, Congress has empowered Councils and NMFS to fully
incorporate social and economic factors in fishery management
decisions. Not all communities involved in marine fisheries qualify as
fishing communities, but in identifying those that do, the fishery
impact statement required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act is strengthened.
For the communities that do qualify as fishing communities under the
Act, consideration of community sustainability and any necessary
economic mitigation measures serves to further improve the analyses and
decision criteria for the Councils and NMFS. Therefore, we believe that
the current provisions in the Magnuson-Stevens Act are sufficient for
the consideration of, and mitigation of impacts, on dependent fishing
communities.
3. Some observers have noted that fishermen frequently oppose
conservation and management measures because they have little assurance
that current sacrifices will be rewarded in the future. How can the
Magnuson-Stevens Act be amended to improve the prospects that
fishermen's sacrifices will be perceived as worthwhile, and thus
improve compliance with regulations?
Response: The Administration is currently developing a proposal to
amend the Magnuson- Stevens Act and therefore does not have a current
position on this or other questions related to amending the Act.
Science and Data Needs:
1. The current process for determining data collection and research
priorities is driven primarily by line items in the budget and other
centralized political decisions. Would this process and management
outcomes, be improved if managers within each fishery were given
greater authority and leeway to determine appropriate data collection
and research programs?
Response: Yes, the process and management outcomes could be
improved if NMFS scientists and managers determined the data collection
and research programs needed to manage the fisheries. The partnership
between NOAA Fisheries managers and scientists is one of the strengths
of the agency. Fishery managers and scientists work together to
identify the key management issues for each fishery, but the science is
carried out independently by the scientists. This process results in
science that is focused on the management needs, yet carried out by
scientists who are removed from the management decisions. NOAA
Fisheries also works with constituents to include their input on
management and information needs and collaborative research. Greater
reliance on this planning process and determination of data and
research needs would provide better information for conservation and
use of our fishery resources.
2. Are the data currently available for estimating fish stocks
adequate to support the decisions that Federal fishery managers must
take?
Response: Although NMFS suffers from a shortage of staff to conduct
assessments and related activities, the most important hurdle we face
is an overall paucity of adequate data on which to base stock
assessments. Neither NMFS alone, nor the agency in combination with
other relevant Federal agencies, state agencies, universities and
private foundations, has accomplished the basic objective of ``adequate
baseline monitoring of all managed species.'' The foremost need, as
emphasized in the National Research Council's report on ``Improving
Fish Stock Assessments,'' is to obtain fishery-independent estimates of
stock abundance using reliable research vessels as platforms. Other
important data deficiencies include observer coverage in fisheries not
subject to Marine Mammal Protection Act observer requirements to
monitor bycatch and discards, and the quality and completeness of
commercial and recreational catch and effort statistics. A secondary,
but increasingly serious, hurdle is the demand being placed on NMFS
scientists to produce more and better assessments on more species, at
greater frequency, with fewer resources and, in many cases, eroding
databases.
B. Questions for Dr. William Hogarth, Subcommittee on Fisheries
Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, Magnuson Reauthorization
Hearing
1. Dr. Hogarth, in your testimony you mention that all 40 existing
fishery management plans have been amended to identify and describe
essential fish habitat. Is it true that some of the Councils did this
amending as an omnibus amendment to all of the plans under their
jurisdiction? Why was it done in this manner? Was it a lack of
information or were the statutory timetables too tight?
Response: Each Council chose what it believed was the most
efficient means of addressing the Sustainable Fisheries Act
requirements. Most Councils completed single omnibus EFH amendments for
all of their FMPs, while some Councils chose to do separate amendments
for each FMP. Regardless of which approach was used, the net effect is
that each FMP was amended to include EFH information that is specific
to that FMP. In other words, handling EFH through an omnibus FMP
amendment did not result in generic EFH designations for the species
managed under those FMPs. The statutory deadline limited the Councils'
ability to conduct extensive analyses of available data before
identifying EFH, but omnibus FMP amendments were used for
administrative efficiency, not as a surrogate for FMP-specific EFH
designations.
2. Dr. Hogarth, your statement says ``the future health of the
nation's fisheries is anything but bleak...''. Some of the statements
and press releases from interest groups have sounded much less
optimistic. Can you expand on why the agency feels optimistic about the
status of our fishery resources?
Response: As I noted in my testimony, we have made substantial
progress in establishing the foundation for improvements in our
fisheries. We have 75 rebuilding plans in place and more will come on
line this year. We have seen significant increases in many of our
stocks. For example, the stock size for Northeast scallops and haddock
have increased, and king mackerel in the Southeast has fully recovered.
In the past year, 9 stocks were declared to be no longer overfished. In
my testimony, I also noted that we have more work to do, particularly
since 92 stocks remain overfished. Nevertheless, through a continuing
partnership with the Councils and the industry, we expect our recent
success to continue and expand as rebuilding programs achieve their
goals. I would point out that even though rebuilding programs are in
place it may take many years before an overfished stock can be rebuilt,
particularly for the slow growing, late to mature species.
3. In its April 2000 report to Congress, the General Accounting
Office noted that although NMFS reported that it did not know the
status of 75 percent of the species (and 30 percent of the stocks) that
they manage, the 25 percent that it did know the status of represented
about 90 percent of the total weight or volume of all species in U.S.
waters. Is this an accurate statement? If this is true, then NMFS knows
the status of 90 percent of the fisheries resources in the U.S. Why
isn't this made clear in the annual Status of Fisheries Report?
Response: It is true that we do know status of the majority of the
most economically important stocks (defined as any stock with more than
200,000 pounds landed). In fact, NMFS know the status of nearly two
thirds of those stocks. Virtually all of the these major stocks are
currently managed under an Federal fisheries management plan or under a
management plan prepared by the fishery management commissions. The
statement that we do not know the status of 75 percent of the stocks
that we manage is incorrect because we do not actively manage most of
those species whose status is unknown. Furthermore, it is not true that
we know the status of 90 percent of the fisheries resources in the U.S.
as indicated in the question. There are some 660 stocks whose status is
either unknown or undefined. Most of these stocks are not managed, but
they occur in the geographical jurisdiction of the Councils and must be
included in the annual report to Congress. In addition, most of the
unknown stocks have an exceedingly small biomass, and have little
economic value at this time. Of course, all of these small stocks are
part of the ecosystem and are important in that sense. However, they
are often so dispersed or infrequently found that they do not justify
the expenditure of finite monetary or personnel resources to assess
their status at this time.
4. In the rebuilding of overfished stocks, some have argued that
unreasonable rebuilding targets have been set by either the agency or
the councils. How are these rebuilding targets established? If the
complaint is correct that unreasonable targets are being set, is this a
problem with the Act or with the implementing guidance from the agency?
Response: Rebuilding targets established in fishery management
plans are reasonable and in line with the goals of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act, particularly if we, as a Nation, continue to seek to rebuild
stocks to relatively high level in order to realize the many benefits
that the resources offer. Rebuilding targets are established in
accordance with the national standards and other provisions of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, which allows adjustment in certain circumstances.
Specific targets are developed for each species, based on each species
biology and other such factors, including the need to minimize economic
and social impacts on participants and dependent communities.
5. Some Members of Congress have argued that the identification of
EFH by the Councils was far too broad and too sweeping in its
implementation. The agency is now urging Councils to identify Habitat
Areas of Particular Concern (HAPS) which are more discrete areas. Isn't
this what Congress actually wanted NMFS to do in the first place? Do we
need to create a new designation to accomplish what was originally
intended?
Response: Over 700 species are managed under the Magnuson-Stevens
Act, and the aggregate of the EFH designations for those species is
indeed broad. In most cases the Councils identified EFH separately for
several life stages of each species, since different species and life
stages may have different ecological requirements. For individual
species or life stages, EFH generally is a distinct subset (often 50 to
70%) of the total available habitat within the species' range, and only
includes a portion of the water column (e.g., only bottom habitats or
only surface waters). However, when individual EFH designations for all
life stages of all managed species are overlaid, the designations
encompass most of the coastal waters and exclusive economic zone. NMFS
is continuing to work with the Councils to revise and refine EFH
designations as additional information becomes available.
It is entirely appropriate to designate as EFH the areas that
provide necessary environments for managed species to feed, reproduce,
and seek shelter from predators. These areas constitute a sizeable
portion of the managed species' geographic range. HAPS, on the other
hand, are localized areas of extreme vulnerability or ecological
importance. For instance, HAPC designation may be warranted for areas
that play a vital role in the reproductive cycle of a managed species,
or areas that contain a rare habitat type that may be sensitive to
disturbance from fishing or other human activities. The designation of
HAPS is a valuable way to acknowledge areas where we have especially
detailed information on ecological function and habitat vulnerability
that allows us to highlight priority areas for conservation and
management. Healthy populations of fish require not only these
relatively small habitats, but also other suitable areas that serve the
necessary habitat functions to support larger numbers of fish. HAPS can
highlight valuable and/or vulnerable habitats, but alone they do not
comprise the areas necessary to support healthy stocks of fish.
Given the definition of EFH in the Sustainable Fisheries Act, NMFS
interpreted Congress' intent to encompass the habitats that are
necessary for managed species throughout their full life cycle.
However, NMFS recognized that focusing on smaller areas may be useful
for management purposes, so our regulations encourage Councils to
identify HAPS within EFH.
6. Last Congress, this Subcommittee held a hearing on essential
fish habitat issues. At that time, one of the concerns raised by the
agency was that there was not adequate funding available to fund
research into habitat issues. If funding is scarce, does it make sense
to look first at the habitat needs of those commercially important
species?
Response: Limitations on available funding definitely constrain our
ability to identify EFH more precisely and document the effects of
various human activities on EFH. The Magnuson-Stevens Act addresses
species that are valued by commercial and recreational fisheries, both
of which are important to the economy and to fishing communities. In
general, NMFS prioritizes its habitat research around pressing
management needs, so our work studying habitat requirements of a
species or understanding the effects of habitat disturbance often
responds to the need to make more informed decisions on a particular
issue to manage the fisheries effectively. Those management priorities
often reflect socioeconomic concerns associated with the commercial or
recreational sectors of the industry, but biological considerations
(such as understanding habitat usage patterns to help minimize bycatch)
also have a major influence on our research priorities.
7. One area of concern that has been identified by a number of
reviewers of Federal fisheries management is that the adequacy of
scientific data on which management decisions are made. A second
concern is that the regulated community does not have confidence in the
scientific information generated by the agency. How can we get better
data and get better buy-in by the regulated communities?
Response: NMFS is taking a number of actions to improve the quality
and quantity of fisheries science. Five essential elements to using the
best available science for conservation and management measures are:
(1) obtaining adequate quantities of data; (2) obtaining data of
adequate quality; (3) proper interpretation of these data; (4) peer
review of this process; and (5) placing greater emphasis on cooperative
research.
NOAA Fisheries is actively engaged in improving the science upon
which the resource management decisions are based through the
implementation of the Stock Assessment Improvement Plan (SAIP). The
SAIP seeks to improve the comprehensiveness, timeliness, quality, and
communication of NMFS stock assessments; mine existing databases to
evaluate status determination criteria for species of ``unknown''
status; conduct adequate baseline monitoring for all Federally managed
species; upgrade assessments for FMP core species; and develop next-
generation assessment models that explicitly incorporate ecosystem
considerations.
Specific activities include:
LDevelop new stock assessment methods - Expand the pool of
senior level scientists doing cutting-edge methods development. Point
of contacts in each Center will coordinate methods research, with a
concurrent emphasis on augmenting university partnerships to develop
future assessment scientists.
LNational Stock Assessment Toolbox - When completed, this
standardized package of tested, peer-reviewed, and approved analytical
tools and assessment models will allow better, more reliable and
repeatable assessments to be made.
LNMFS-university partnerships and graduate stock
assessment fellowships - Science Centers will collaborate with Sea
Grant Universities to enhance stock assessment and population dynamics
study programs and research capabilities. NMFS/OAR stock assessment
fellowships will increase in number and in scope, and focus on new
projects that address the agency's highest priorities. Another
important element is modernization of NOAA's fleet of fisheries
research vessels (FRVs).
LA contract has just been signed for the construction of
the first of a series of state-of-the-art, acoustically quiet FRVs to
conduct fisheries monitoring and research surveys.
LThe FRVs are an essential part of NOAA's plan to meet the
rapidly growing demand for high quality at-sea data, and to maintain
the integrity of existing data series.
LMeeting those demands also depends on significant growth
in the number of days-at-sea aboard chartered academic and industry
vessels.
NMFS is also striving to apply more advanced technology in research
surveys.
LNOAA Fisheries is exploring fisheries applications for
advanced technologies that would improve the efficiency of and
effectiveness of stock assessment surveys.
LAdvances in airborne and satellite remote sensing, hydro-
acoustic survey, and signal processing technologies hold great promise
for fisheries applications by adding information not presently
available and providing alternative sources of survey information for
some species and their habitats.
Regarding buy-in, a major priority of NMFS is to continue to
improve the effectiveness of external partnerships with fishers,
managers, scientists, conservationists, and other interested groups.
These partnerships will increase the credibility of NMFS scientific
efforts and build a balanced approach to gathering and analyzing data.
As addressed in the NMFS Strategic Plan for Fisheries Research 1998,
NMFS will continue to:
LPromote a cooperative network of partners in the
coordination of fisheries research;
LDevelop the infrastructure for long-term, continuous
working relationships with partners to address fishery research issues;
LSponsor symposia and conferences for partners to exchange
information and identify major fisheries research initiatives.
LSolicit partners' views on fisheries research needs.
8. We have seen a number of cooperative research survey initiatives
that were cosponsored by industry in the last few years. How does the
agency use the information from these cooperative surveys, in addition
to their own survey information, to determine stock size and total
allowable catch levels?
Response: Last year, the Southeast Fisheries Science center
received a grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (Shell
Funds) for $100K to do research on Nassau Grouper. The SEFSC also works
with State agencies, i.e., Florida Department of Environmental
Protection for joint south Florida restoration projects. We accept the
funds through reimbursable agreements.
For the Alaska Fisheries Science Center, funding from environmental
groups tends to be limited, but some work has been done through
contributions by groups such as the ``Suzuki Foundation''. An example
is the salmon stock assessment project for southeast Alaska conducted
jointly by ADF&G, NMFS, and sponsored by the American Fisheries
Society. The Alaska Fisheries Science Center has established MOUs with
fishing industry associations to conduct cooperative research. The
associations contracted for fishing vessels to serve as research
vessels for our use in conducting resource surveys.
9. Dr. Hogarth, since fisheries stock survey information is
critical to better fisheries management, why has the Administration not
included funding for new fishery research vessels in its budget?
Response: The Administration has decided to defer funding for the
second research vessel to fiscal year 2003. However, this program
remains a high priority for NOAA and NMFS. The Fisheries Research
Vessel 40 construction contract includes options for three additional
vessels. A commitment at this time of next year's Fisheries Research
Vessel budget is not possible. This coming summer and fall, NMFS will
be working with the Office of Management and Budget, and the White
House on Fisheries Research Vessels along with other out-year budgets
as part of the Administration's growth scenario and mission
requirements.
10. The Act currently has been interpreted to prohibit the
gathering of economic data from processors. Why was this restriction
put in place and should this issue be re- examined? Are there ways of
gathering this proprietary data and ensuring its confidentiality?
Response: This restriction was put into place to address data
confidentiality concerns by owners of fish operations and fish
processing operations in 1990. Given the level of economic data on
business practices, profits, and losses that was proposed to be
collected, business owners became concerned that proprietary financial
information would be made available to their competitors, some of whom
were fishery management council members. As a result, the collection of
economic data from processors and fish operations was precluded in
sections 301, 303, 401, and 402.
However, a re-examination of this issue is necessary for a number
of reasons. First, the Executive branch of the government has issued an
executive order that requires the determination of costs and benefits
of proposed management regulations as well as the estimation of the
impact of regulations on the national economy. The Congress has passed
a number of laws that require regulatory agencies to take into account
the costs and benefits or impacts of proposed regulations on the
economy and specifically on small entities. Executive Order 12866
requires that in ``Deciding whether and how to regulate, agencies
should assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory
alternatives'' to determine if the rule is a significant regulatory
action. The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to estimate
the impacts of proposed regulations to determine if small entities are
disproportionately affected. The National Environmental Policy Act
requires a report on any Federal action significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995, Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking, and the Endangered
Species Act require economic analysis to determine the economic impacts
of regulations, compliance with E.O. 12866, and economic analysis of
critical habitat designation, respectively. Most importantly for
fisheries management, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (MSFCMA) requires NMFS to increase benefits to the
nation from fishing, to provide assessments and descriptions of the
economic and social impacts of proposed action on participants in the
fishery, and many of the national standards require or imply the need
for economic analysis; e.g., cannot discriminate in allocating fishery
resources between members of different states, determination of optimum
yield, consider efficiency, minimize costs, and minimize adverse
economic impacts on fishing communities. The prohibition on collecting
economic data in Sections 301, 303, 401, and 402 makes compliance with
the MSFCMA and other laws and executive orders difficult.
Second, regulations promulgated for fisheries managed as common
property, open access, or regulated open access resources can and often
do have significant impacts on fish processors and dealers; many of
whom are often fishers themselves. This is especially true for
fisheries in transition from common property to rights based fisheries
such as wreck fish, halibut/sable fish, surf clam, tuna, and pollock
managed under the American Fisheries Act. The transition of the halibut
fishery from a derby fishery as a regulated open access fishery to a A
``year round'' fishery under IFQs providing products to the fresh fish
market resulted in significant economic and financial impacts to fish
processors that could not be quantified because of the prohibitions in
the MSFCMA.
Third, specialized surveys traditionally used by NMFS to collect
economic data are expensive, usually have low response rates resulting
in sampling biases, are conducted after regulations have been proposed
to solve a problem in a fishery, are not comprehensive in covering all
fishing activity of a fishing firm or fleet of fishing vessels and
boats, and do not include the processing sector of a fishery.
Continuous and in some cases mandatory data collection for fisheries
would provide the necessary economic data needed to address the
requirements of the national standards in the MSFCMA, the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, Executive Order 12866, etc. with information collected
over time before and after a regulation is imposed on a group of
fishers and their associated processors. Combining this economic data
collection program with the existing biological data collection
infrastructure would result in a significant improvement in the quality
of the data being collected at a fraction of the cost of collecting it
as a randomly sampled, voluntary program for all Federally managed
fisheries.
Fourth, the economic information needed to comply with
Congressional mandates and executive orders to determine costs and
benefits and economic impacts of proposed or adopted fishery management
regulations does not require detailed proprietary financial information
from processors, dealers, or fishing operations. The limited,
proprietary, financial information that is needed can be protected as
confidential data by the strict practices and protocols presently used
by NMFS. Precluding the disclosure of this information about individual
fishing operation or fish processing operations to the general public
can prevent competitors from accessing each others information.
To re-examine this issue, the MSFCMA can be amended to require the
collection and use of economic and socio-cultural data to monitor the
economic status of the fisheries, to eliminate any existing MSFCMA
restrictions on the collection of such data, and to eliminate or reduce
the OMB obstacles to collecting such data that is necessary to meeting
the Congressional mandates and Executive requirements provided that it
is not disclosed to the public. The explicit inclusion of economic and
socio-cultural data in the definition of ``best scientific
information'' in National Standard 2 will improve the information
available to fishery managers upon which they can base their decisions
and set policies concerning the nations living marine resources.
Removing language such as ``(other than economic information)'' in the
MSFCMA will also strengthen the ability of the NMFS to collect data
from processors and harvesters of fishery resources. The ability of
NMFS to accurately predict the impact of proposed fishery management
regulations would be improved while continuing to protect confidential
data under existing provisions of the law. In addition, it would
eliminate the appearance of a contradiction in the law requiring
economic analysis without allowing the collection of the necessary
data.
11. The Magnuson Act requires Fishery Management Plans ``to
minimize to the extent practicable adverse effects on such habitat
cause by fishing...''. Since the Councils have identified almost the
entire EEZ as EFH, this will mean that the agency must collect data on
gear impacts for the entire EEZ. Should the Act be amended to apply the
minimization requirement only to the HAPC areas?
Response: The Administration is currently developing a proposal to
amend the Magnuson- Stevens Act and therefore does not have a current
position on this or other questions related to amending the Act.
12. NMFS is currently facing 102 lawsuits and this number seems to
have grown substantially since the passage of the 1996 amendments. Are
there certain provisions within the 1996 amendments that are causing
this increase in lawsuits and if so, what actions should Congress take
to lessen this increase in lawsuits?
Response: There is no particular provision in the 1996 amendments
that is causing these lawsuits. Rather, the Sustainable Fisheries Act
established new conservation standards for fisheries management, and
imposed new requirements on the Councils and NMFS to meet those
standards. In particular, Congress amended the Act to greatly
strengthened the conservation standards by requiring that any
overfished fishery must be rebuilt to levels consistent with producing
the maximum sustainable yield in that fishery. Congress also added new
national standards regarding bycatch, dependent communities, essential
fish habitat, and safety at sea. The new provisions required
adjustments in all fishery management plans, which necessitated the
imposition of impacts on the industry to meet the new requirements.
Although the Councils and NMFS make every effort to mitigate impacts,
the industry sometimes reacts by bringing lawsuits to have the
management programs, and their associated impacts, reduced by the
courts. On the other hand, some lawsuits are brought by environmental
interests who believe that our management programs are not sufficient
to meet the conservation requirements of the Act. To a certain extent,
these lawsuits are inevitable because fisheries management has become
very controversial, and it is very difficult to please all interests in
the development of a management program. The Councils and NMFS attempt
to involve all interests, including the public, in the FMP development
process in an effort to incorporate all views and avoid
misunderstanding that can lead to lawsuits. In some instances, this is
not sufficient to avoid a lawsuit.
The Administration is currently developing a proposal to amend the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, and therefore, does not have a current position
on actions necessary to amend the Act.
13. The Act currently has been interpreted to prohibit the
gathering of economic data from processors. Why was this restriction
put in place and should this issue be re- examined? Are there ways of
gathering this proprietary data and ensuring its confidentiality?
Response: The Administration is currently developing a proposal to
amend the Magnuson- Stevens Act and therefore does not have a current
position on this or other questions related to amending the Act.
14. Several of the witnesses have noted that the use of MSY is
problematic. Should Congress look at this term and, if so, what target
should be used in terms of rebuilding plans?
Response: The Administration is currently developing a proposal to
amend the Magnuson- Stevens Act and therefore does not have a current
position on this or other questions related to amending the Act. Having
said that, NMFS is continuing to work with the concept of MSY,
including the use of proxies in data-poor situations.
Magnuson-Stevens Act Hearing #1, Questions for the Committee Record
1. We have been told by National Marine Fisheries service (NMFS)
representatives in the past that striped bass is the single greatest
fisheries management success story since passage of the Magnuson Act.
If this is in fact the case, why does the entire Exclusive Economic
Zone remain closed to fishing for this not-incredibly abundant species?
Does science support the opening of this fishery? While Congress told
NMFS in 1994 it would close the fishery if it were reopened, will NMFS
revisit this issue?
Response: Approximately six years ago, when NMFS proposed repeal of
the moratorium on fishing for striped bass in the EEZ following the
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's (ASMFC) declaration that
the stock had ``fully recovered,'' there was, initially, nearly
unanimous support from all member states of the ASMFC. However, strong
opposition to the proposal from the recreational fishing sector soon
developed and NMFS subsequently lost the support of the states, the
ASMFC, and the USFWS, and our ``management partners'' under the
Interstate Fisheries Management Plan. The recreational sector's
concerns/arguments were largely threefold:
1) The Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act (ASBCA) requires,
among other things, that any regulations promulgated in the EEZ by the
Secretary must ``ensure the effectiveness of State regulations on
fishing for Atlantic striped bass within the coastal waters of a
coastal state'' (Section 9 (a) (3)). The recreational fishing sector
argued that NMFS's regulatory proposal for the EEZ did not meet this
standard because it could not totally guarantee the prevention of
striped bass harvested commercially in the EEZ from being landed in
certain states (or other jurisdictions) that have few or no
regulations, and/or lax enforcement, pertaining to striped bass.
2) They objected to the potential scenario of ``non-resident''
commercial trawlers being allowed to fish for striped bass in the EEZ
just seaward (>3 miles) of the jurisdiction of a state in which striped
bass were prohibited from either being taken with that gear (e.g., MA),
or prohibited from being taken commercially with any gear (e.g., NJ).
3) They argued that the EEZ should remain a ``sanctuary'' for
striped bass. Because of the strong opposition from the recreational
sector noted above, and because there has been concern shared by all
interests in recent years about excessive (i.e., over-target) fishing
mortality on the stock (which now seems to have been allayed by more
recent data), NMFS has been less than motivated to pursue removal of
the EEZ moratorium. Nevertheless, NMFS has just recently been requested
by the ASMFC to ``initiate a legal and policy analysis regarding
removing the moratorium in the territorial sea (3-12 miles) and require
fish that are harvested in Federal waters be landed in accordance with
state landing regulations.'' Therefore, the issue is about to be
revisited.
2. We are having very serious problems with summer flounder in the
Mid-Atlantic region. Why are we having such problems enforcing the
quotas of these species and what can we do to remedy that problem?
How can it be that we have the highest historical summer flounder
abundance and yet the fishery remains categorically overfished and
significantly below the target abundance level set for this resource?
What are the agency's and council's plans to rectify this
situation?
Response: Summer flounder occurs along the Atlantic Coast mainly
from Maine through North Carolina and is managed cooperatively by the
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council), the Atlantic States
Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), the states from Maine through
North Carolina, and NOAA Fisheries. The Federal fishery in the
exclusive economic zone (EEZ) is managed under the Summer Flounder,
Black Sea Bass and Scup Fishery Management Plan developed by the
Council and implemented by NOAA Fisheries. The states implement
management measures developed by the ASMFC under its Interstate Fishery
Management Plan for Summer Flounder. State regulations apply to vessels
fishing in state waters, with the exception of vessels issued the
Federal permits necessary to fish in the EEZ. A condition of the
Federal permit requires those vessels to comply with Federal management
measures even when fishing in state waters. As a result, if the states
and NOAA Fisheries implement differing regulations, the restrictions on
vessels depend upon their permit status. This complicates enforcement
greatly, and can result in two vessels fishing side by side and subject
to different requirements.
As defined in the FMP, the summer flounder stock is considered to
be overfished because the biomass is not at the level required by the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. Overfishing is also occurring, which means that
the mortality caused by fishing (referred to as the fishing mortality
rate) is too high. However, the current management program, which was
established in 1993, has succeeded in rebuilding biomass and reducing
the fishing mortality rate. The FMP rebuilding program established two
important milestones. When the stock reaches the level of 53,222 mt, it
will no longer be considered overfished, and when it reaches 106,444 mt
it will be considered rebuilt. The total biomass in 1998 reached 38,600
mt, a considerable improvement over the low point of 16,000 mt in 1989,
and approaching the point where it would no longer be considered
overfished.
Since 1993, the MAFMC and ASMFC have met jointly to develop annual
fishing measures that are then implemented by NOAA Fisheries and the
states. This year, however, NOAA Fisheries issued a final rule for the
summer flounder fishery that established total allowable landings (TAL)
consistent with the biomass target specified in the settlement
agreement with the Natural Resources Defense Council. The ASMFC
originally did not set a TAL consistent with the biomass target
specified in the settlement agreement, but with the fishing mortality
target in its fishery management plan. As a result, the initial ASMFC
TAL was approximately 12 percent higher than the Federal TAL. The ASMFC
later decided it would revise its TAL to be consistent with the Federal
measure. To help remedy this year's situation and longstanding problems
in the fishery, stakeholders (including plaintiffs from both industry
and environmental groups) in the summer flounder fishery met in May to
discuss a number of issues including:
LDetermining better ways to manage the recreational
fishery
LDeveloping complementary management objectives and
methodologies for summer flounder
LEstablishing management measures that recognize the
limitations of the data collections
LImproving biological information available for use in the
stock assessments
LRe-evaluating approaches to management for a rebuilding
and rebuilt stock
LDeveloping better communication and working relationships
among NOAA Fisheries, Council, ASMFC and stakeholders
The agency hopes that more stakeholder workshops can be held in the
future to work on long- term approaches for this complex and often
contentious fishery.
3. I understand we are seeing a separation, if you will, of state
and Federal fisheries management programs for the same species, such as
summer flounder and monkfish, to name two. What are the ramifications
of these inconsistencies?
Response: Since 1993, the ASMFC and MAFMC have managed summer
flounder cooperatively, and coordinated their management measures for
many years. However, as was demonstrated this year by the differing TAL
recommendations, there is no legal obligation for them to manage
cooperatively. The two entities are not subject to the same legal
requirements, and the ASMFC management process can enact management
changes more quickly than the Magnuson-Stevens Act process. The
ramifications range from trying to enforce a fishery where two vessels
are fishing side by side under differing regulations to delays in
setting the annual specifications because of differing goals and
realities of the ASMFC, MAFMC and NOAA Fisheries, to costly lawsuits
from all sides. As in all fisheries where the States and Federal
Government share responsibility for management, inconsistencies in the
various statutes and in fisheries management philosophies have to
worked out over time.
4. I am hearing very positive reports on the agency's efforts with
respect to cooperative research in the mid-Atlantic and Northeast
regions. I believe all parties benefit from this type of joint science-
based effort. What is your opinion of cooperative research and can we
expect your support for more of this across all the regions?
Response: Recent recommendations from ``An Independent Assessment
of the Resource Requirements for the National Marine Fisheries
Service'' (the Ray Kammer Report) and the Marine Fisheries Advisory
Committee (MAFAC) Report ``A Perspective on the National Marine
Fisheries Service: Issues and Recommendations'' have highlighted the
need for improved communication with and involvement of NMFS
stakeholders in the operations of NOAA Fisheries. To address the need
for more constituent involvement and to build improved working
relations with stakeholders, NOAA Fisheries will continue to develop
and expand cooperative and collaborative research programs with
constituents in order to improve data collection and analysis, fishing
methods and gear technology.
The Northeast Region's programs on monkfish and Illex Squid are
examples of the type of collaboration NOAA Fisheries is working to
expand in other regions. Scoping meetings with industry and other
constituent groups are being planned in the Southeast, Southwest and
Northwest Regions. Program support for NOAA Fisheries scientists to
participate in the planning and execution of research surveys is being
carved out of current base funding and additional support is being
sought in the out years. NOAA Fisheries is strongly committed to
improving and expanding communication with its stakeholders and the
cooperative and collaboration research approach only strengthens our
success in this area. It remains a top priority as we work toward
better understanding of our marine resources and their effective
management.
5. It appears the implementation of the essential fish habitat
provision of the Sustainable Fisheries Act has resulted in some
unintended consequences such as overly broad essential habitat
designations and even litigation. I am concerned that as it is
currently being interpreted, essential fish habitat protection seems to
be totally disconnected from the health of the fish stock using the
habitat. Considering the overarching goal of the Magnuson-Stevens Act
for rebuilding and maintaining fish stocks, why shouldn't habitat
protection be linked to the actual health of our fish stocks?
Response: The EFH regulations do make connections between habitat
protection and the status of the stocks. The regulations state that if
a species is overfished, and habitat loss or degradation may be
contributing to the species being identified as overfished, all
habitats currently used by the species should be considered essential
in addition to certain historic habitats that are necessary to support
rebuilding the fishery and for which restoration is technologically and
economically feasible. Once the fishery is no longer overfished, the
regulations state that the EFH designation should be reviewed and
amended, if appropriate. The regulations also note that where a stock
is considered to be healthy, EFH for the species should be a subset of
all existing habitat for the species.
______
[Dr. Hogarth's response to questions from the Honorable Robert
Underwood follows:]
NMFS RESPONSES TO MAGNUSON-STEVENS ACT WRITTEN QUESTIONS
Questions from Mr. Underwood
1. There are more than 100 stocks that are considered to be
overfished, yet rebuilding plans have been developed for only about 75
of them. Of the remaining 25, how many have been categorized as
overfished for more than a year? If there are any, why has NMFS not
stepped in, such as in the case of Atlantic tilefish, and developed its
own rebuilding plans as the law requires?
The January 2001 Report to Congress on the Status of Fisheries of
the United States finds that 92 stocks are considered to be overfished,
and that there are 75 rebuilding programs. Of the remaining 17 stocks,
four were declared to be overfished prior to 2000: tilefish, ocean
pout, North Atlantic albacore and scup. The rebuilding program for
tilefish is currently under Secretarial review. The rebuilding program
for ocean pout is being developed in amendment 13 to the Multispecies
FMP. North Atlantic albacore was declared to be overfished in 1999 but
rebuilding programs must be developed with the International Commission
for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). NOAA Fisheries was able
to obtain agreement on an international quota that would aid rebuilding
but that quota expired after one year. We continue to work to achieve a
long-term rebuilding program for this stock. Finally, a rebuilding
program for scup was disapproved, and the Council has not submitted a
revised program yet. NOAA Fisheries works through the Councils and the
industry whenever possible to develop rebuilding plans or other
management actions. The Councils have been quite responsive in working
on rebuilding programs, and NOAA Fisheries has not deemed it necessary
to interfere with that process. In addition, although these stocks do
not have formal rebuilding programs, management measures are in place
to conserve the resource and serve to rebuild the stocks.
We would also point out that rebuilding plans have recently been
approved for two of the 17 stocks mentioned above that do not have
rebuilding plans. These are St. Matthew's Island blue king crab and
Bering Sea snow crab. Therefore, there are now just 15 stocks that do
not have approved rebuilding plans. Finally, it should be noted that
two other stocks, Atlantic sturgeon and Atlantic croaker, are managed
by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, and do not fall
under the responsibility of the Councils.
2. Do we have any idea how many and what kinds of seabirds are
killed annually by commercial fishing activities? While the Magnuson-
Stevens Act does not mandate the reduction of seabird bycatch, doesn't
the US still have a responsibility to address this problem under the
FAO Plan of Action to Reduce Seabird Mortality and the ESA? When do you
plan to implement your National Plan of Action to deal with this
problem and meet our obligations?
While NMFS does not have comprehensive data on seabird mortality in
all federally managed fisheries, the agency has made considerable
efforts in recent years to improve its knowledge of seabird bycatch.
However, we have some data on seabird mortality in federally managed
fisheries in both the Atlantic and Pacific. The information is most
complete for Pacific longline fisheries, in particular the longline
fisheries in Alaska and around the Hawaiian Islands. In the Alaska
longline fisheries, we have estimates for the 1993-1999 period for the
Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (approximately 14,500 birds annually)
and for the Gulf of Alaska (approximately 2,300 birds annually), and
both figures include species breakouts among fulmars, gulls,
shearwaters, and albatrosses. Reasonably reliable mortality data is
also available for two albatross species incidentally caught in the
Hawaiian longline fisheries. Available 1998 data give the following
annual estimated numbers of albatross species taken in the Hawaii-based
pelagic longline fisheries: black-footed albatross (1,963), and
Laysan's albatross (1,479).
NMFS agrees that the FAO International Plan of Action for the
Reduction of Incidental Catch of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries (IPOA
on seabirds) has generated a responsibility for the United States to
address this problem. While the FAO agreement is voluntary and creates
no binding obligations, the United States actively promoted this
instrument and accepts responsibility to implement its provisions.
Finally, seabird mortality in fishing operations may, depending on the
circumstances and species involved, trigger mandatory responsibilities
under the ESA and other laws.
In conformity with the FAO IPOA on seabirds, NMFS and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) jointly developed a national plan of action
(NPOA/seabirds), and NMFS formally submitted this document to FAO at
the last biennial meeting of the Committee on Fisheries in February
2001. NMFS and FWS believe that the United States can ultimately
achieve significant reductions in seabird mortality in longline
fisheries in federally managed waters through a policy that combines:
(1) the U.S. national plan of action that implements the FAO IPOA on
seabirds; (2) adherence to the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible
Fisheries; (3) specific provisions of certain FMPs and FMP amendments;
and (4) the guidelines proposed in a June 1998 NMFS document, Managing
the Nation's Bycatch. Clearly, this is a partnership effort among NMFS,
FWS, the Councils, the owners and operators of longline fishing
vessels, and conservation organizations.
Implementation of the U.S. national plan of action will be carried
out mainly on a regional FMP-by-FMP basis. In some federally managed
fisheries, such as the longline fisheries for groundfish in Alaska and
pelagic species around the Hawaiian Islands, we have sufficient
information to effectively move forward with plan implementation. In
other federally managed longline fisheries, however, assessments of
seabird bycatch still need to be conducted before specific measures can
be developed.
The initial process for NPOA/seabirds implementation will occur
over the course of the next four years. Assessments of all U.S.
longline fisheries will be completed within two years. In those
fisheries where a seabird bycatch problem is found to exist, a
mitigation program will be developed within three years and implemented
within four years. In all longline fisheries where an initial
determination is made that no seabird bycatch problem exists, a re-
assessment will be conducted within four years of such a determination.
Finally, it must be noted that NMFS will have to determine what
resources, including staff and specific funding levels, can be assigned
to implement the NPOA/seabirds in light of all our other commitments.
The status of implementation of the NPOA/seabirds varies among
Council jurisdictional areas and longline fisheries. Some Councils need
to start or complete seabird bycatch assessments for the longline
fisheries within their jurisdictional area, and each fishery may
require individually tailored seabird management measures. The NPOA/
seabirds provides the Councils with flexibility to develop effective
seabird mitigation measures for individual longline fisheries. In U.S.
longline fisheries where seabird bycatch problems are already known to
exist, including Alaska demersal groundfish and Hawaii pelagic longline
fisheries, regulations are already in place or under development to
mitigate seabird bycatch. The North Pacific and Western Pacific Fishery
Management Councils are well positioned to develop seabird bycatch
reduction programs needed to implement the NPOA/seabirds because they
have already conducted seabird bycatch assessments and developed
regulations to implement seabird bycatch reduction measures.
3. Why is NMFS only preparing Environmental Impact Statements on
most FMPs and their Essential Fish Habitat requirements and not on all
of them? How are the specific FMPs chosen over others?
In addressing the new requirements of section 303(a)(7) of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Councils generally prepared Environmental
Assessments on the FMP amendments that described and identified
essential fish habitat, addressed adverse effects on such habitat
caused by fishing, and identified other actions to encourage
conservation of such habitat.
On September 14, 2000, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia issued a decision in a lawsuit filed by seven environmental
organizations and two fishermen's associations. The suit challenged
whether NMFS and the Councils had adequately evaluated and minimized
the effects of fishing on EFH as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act
and NEPA. The court upheld NMFS' actions under the Magnuson-Stevens
Act, but ordered NMFS to conduct new and more thorough NEPA analyses to
evaluate a wider range of alternatives. A total of 22 FMPs prepared by
the New England, Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, Pacific, and North Pacific
Councils are affected by the court order. In carrying out the Court
order, NMFS has decided that EISs should be developed for the EFH
amendments that were the subject of the lawsuit.
Negotiations with the plaintiffs in the above lawsuit began in
September 2000, and a settlement is expected soon. EISs will have to be
completed within 24 months after the date of the lawsuit's settlement,
or in mid-2003.
The Mid-Atlantic Council plans to prepare EISs for the EFH
provisions of four of its FMPs when it resubmits sections that were
disapproved by NMFS when they were submitted for Secretarial review in
1999.
4. It appears the Councils have developed few, if any, measures to
minimize the damage to habitat that is caused by different types of
fishing gear as required by the SFA. What information is needed to
ensure better compliance with this requirement? Why are these plans
being approved?
The Councils and the agency have made considerable efforts to
mitigate the adverse effects of fishing activities on EFH. Most of the
FMP regulations in place that in any way restrict fishing activities
also have some collateral benefits for EFH. For example, the North
Pacific Council established areas closed to groundfish trawling and
scallop dredging in the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska to reduce
potential adverse effects to crab habitat. The New England Council
established year round closures to all bottom-tending mobile fishing
gear within areas of Georges Bank and banned the use of
``streetsweeper'' trawl gear (a modification to trawls that covers the
footrope with bristles similar to a streetsweeper) because of its
increased contact with bottom habitat. To reduce damage to coral reef
and live bottom communities, the South Atlantic Council prohibits the
use of pots in the snapper/grouper fishery, and the Western Pacific
Council prohibits the use of bottom trawls, bottom-set nets, explosives
and poisons.
NMFS and the Councils need more information on the habitat effects
of certain gear types to help us understand how fishing activities
influence habitat functions for managed species, which will enable us
to determine whether additional measures are warranted. We are
conducting some of that research now, and the President's budget
includes a request for funding to expand those efforts.
NMFS approved EFH FMP amendments that did not contain new
protective measures because the agency determined that the FMP met the
requirement to minimize to the extent practicable the adverse effects
of fishing on EFH. The Court ruling mentioned above in our response to
question 3 upheld those approvals under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
However, as explained above, the EISs being prepared in accordance with
the Court order will evaluate a wider range of alternatives for
minimizing the effects of fishing on EFH.
5. Can you please clarify what you meant in your testimony about a
lack of flexibility in overfishing definitions and measures? How do you
make a definition flexible and yet make it standard to all fisheries?
Isn't Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY), the standard used to define
overfishing, generally a range and not a precise number? If so, then
why is there not flexibility?
In our written testimony on Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization
before the House Subcommittee on April 4, we explained that ``(s)ome
are concerned about a perceived lack of flexibility in developing these
definitions (of overfishing) and associated management measures.''
However, the same testimony stated that ``(s)ince issuing national
standard guidelines in May, 1998, NOAA Fisheries scientists have been
helping the Councils find the needed flexibility to create overfishing
definitions within the scope of the law and our guidelines.''
Essentially, our view is that there is ample flexibility in the current
guidelines relating to overfishing determinations, and no need for
exact uniformity among fisheries with very different characteristics.
The National Standard 1 guidelines, and the more detailed technical
Guidance on this issue, were developed to provide flexibility within
the boundaries set down by the Magnuson-Stevens Act. A great many
acceptable variations on harvest control rules have been devised and
implemented since 1996.
MSY is indeed a range. When MSY-based reference points cannot be
calculated or are deemed too unreliable, proxies (simpler reference
points that are believed to give similar answers to MSY-based reference
points) can be used instead. Such proxies may not require information
on stock-recruitment relationships or MSY-related reference points. For
example, ratios of catch per unit of effort (CPUE) from research
vessels or commercial or recreational vessels can be used as a
substitute for Biomass/Maximum Sustainable Yield estimates, and the
status of the fishery relative to this reference point. As a last
resort, estimated commercial or recreational catches combined with
anecdotal information on catch rates can be used as a proxy for MSY.
6. In his testimony, Mr. Crockett spoke extensively about the NMFS
``mixed stock exception'' to the prohibition on overfishing and the
fact that these species only receive protection when they are
threatened with extinction under the ESA. While many have questioned
the legal authority for this exception and the logic of waiting until a
species is approaching extinction before protecting it, if this is the
policy, then why is your agency not addressing the overfishing of
grouper species on the ESA candidate list that are being harvested in
the Gulf?
It is not NMFS' policy to postpone protective measures for
overfished stocks in multispecies fisheries until those stocks are
threatened with extinction. According to the National Standard
Guidelines, overfishing may be tolerated only in certain limited
circumstances. Such exceptional overfishing may continue only after
three tests are applied:
Lthe FMP establishing the exception must demonstrate that
it will generate long-term net benefits to the Nation;
Lother mitigating measures have been considered and
rejected; and
Lthe resulting rate of fishing mortality will not place
the species in danger of requiring protection under the ESA.
The question also addresses actions to address overfishing of
grouper species in the Gulf of Mexico that have been placed on the ESA
candidate list. The NMFS candidate species list highlights species for
which NMFS has concerns but does not have the information needed to
determine whether ESA listing is warranted. By placing a species on
this list, NMFS hopes that more research and conservation efforts will
be directed at this species. The NMFS candidate species list does not,
however, have regulatory implications.
NMFS added Nassau grouper and jewfish (recently renamed goliath
grouper) to its candidate species list in 1991. We have funded research
over the years on Nassau grouper and goliath grouper, and are in the
process of compiling available information to complete an ESA status
review. Once the status review is complete, the NMFS Southeast Region
will make a recommendation on whether either of these species needs to
be listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA, after taking into
account ongoing conservation efforts for these species.
All harvests of goliath grouper have been prohibited in the Gulf of
Mexico and South Atlantic federal waters since 1990 (and in the
Caribbean since 1993). Harvests of Nassau grouper were banned in 1990
by the Caribbean Fishery Management Council in the FMP for the Reef
Fish Fishery of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands; in 1992 by the
South Atlantic Fishery Management Council in the FMP for the Snapper-
Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region; and, most recently, in
1997 by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council in the FMP for
Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico. Therefore, there is no
targeted fishery for these two species.
Warsaw grouper and speckled hind were added to the NMFS candidate
species list in 1997. The Gulf Reef Fish FMP limits recreational
fishing for groupers to five groupers per vessel per day, and only one
of these five can be a speckled hind and one can be a warsaw grouper.
The commercial fishery for the deep-water grouper complex, which
includes both of these species, is limited to 1.6 million lbs. (round
weight) per year.
In addition, the NMFS Southeast Region is planning to make a motion
for a rebuilding program under the Magnuson-Stevens Act for groupers at
the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. This program would
provide for rebuilding of Nassau grouper in 20-30 years, and goliath
grouper in 30-35 years. These long rebuilding periods are necessary
because these species do not become sexually mature until as much as 8
to 9 years.
In summary, NMFS is making progress in protecting and rebuilding
these grouper stocks under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. As Mr. Crockett
states, it is not logical to wait until a species is approaching
extinction before protecting it. NMFS has implemented protective
measures for these species.
7. How difficult has it been for the Councils to meet the deadlines
required to comply with the new requirements imposed by the SFA? What
tools do the Councils need to better comply with the new requirements?
This is a difficult question to answer because the situation varies
from Council to Council and from fishery to fishery. NMFS believes that
the Councils have in fact been largely successful in meeting the large
majority of SFA-mandated deadlines. At the same time, it is also true
that the Councils have had difficulties meeting some of the deadlines
in the 1996 SFA amendments to the MSA. As a general comment, the major
reasons for these delays are, first, the unavailability of sufficient
biological and socio-economic data, and, second, the absence in some
cases of sufficient human resources to complete all the documents by
the required deadlines. NMFS would like to take this opportunity to
point out that the President's Budget proposes increases in certain
budget lines that should make these tasks easier in the future.
8. Would closer cooperation between the Councils and NMFS during
FMP development speed the approval process and ensure regulations
promulgated by NMFS to implement the new FMP or amendment? Might this
also create a reduction in the delay time between when an amendment is
given to NMFS for evaluation and when the final publishing of it takes
place?
NMFS supports good working relations and close cooperation between
the agency and the Councils in FMP development and the approval
process. NMFS staff attend many Council meetings, participate on
numerous Council plan teams, and prepare many of the analyses of plan
regulations. The agency also regularly meets with Council Chairs and
Executive Directors to review, among other things, the working
relationship between NMFS and the Councils.
At the same time, the FMP development and approval process can be
somewhat slow. NMFS acknowledges that delays could be reduced, and
decisionmaking improved, by spending more time on analysis of the
effects of various alternatives earlier in the FMP process, before the
Council votes on an FMP or amendment.
Toward those ends, as we stated in our April 4, 2001 testimony,
NMFS continues to support a re-coupling of, first, the FMP and plan
amendment review process and, second, the review and approval of
implementing regulations. The two processes were inadvertently de-
coupled in the 1996 SFA amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, with
the result that NMFS could possibly have to approve an FMP or plan
amendment before and without the benefit of considering public comments
on the implementing regulations. Effectively, NMFS supports a return to
the procedures in place before 1996.
We also support reinstating the initial Secretarial review. If this
authority is restored, the Secretary can then return an unacceptable
plan immediately to the Council, who in turn can make the changes
necessary to have the plan approved in a timely fashion.
With these and perhaps other changes, we hope we can maintain and
strengthen our good relations with the Councils, and reduce the delays
in FMP and plan amendment approval.
9. Other than the North Pacific Council which had a specific
mandate in the SFA to reduce bycatch in the fisheries it manages, have
any of the Councils adopted NEW measures intended to reduce bycatch or
the mortality of bycatch as they were required to do by the SFA? If
not, why not?
The 1996 SFA amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act mandate
reductions of bycatch in all federally managed fisheries through
National Standard 9. Bycatch mitigation is a national policy, under the
Magnuson-Stevens Act and other statutes that protect species caught
incidentally in marine fisheries. Largely for that reason, the agency
launched a review of this issue in early 1996, just before the SFA
amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act were passed by Congress, and
issued its findings in June 1998 in a report: Managing the Nation's
Bycatch. NMFS intended this report to serve as a national plan, which
would provide guidance to the Councils on how to deal with this
complicated issue. A number of other federally managed fisheries
besides those in the North Pacific have adopted measures to reduce the
incidental catch of seabirds, sea turtles, and a number of fish
species.
10. If the Councils are lacking data on bycatch, why have they not
adopted the ``standardized reporting methodologies to assess the amount
and type of bycatch occurring'' in these fisheries, to provide them
with the data they need to reduce bycatch? Obviously, existing
methodologies must be inadequate, or the data would be available.
Obtaining reliable and useful data on bycatch in federally managed
fisheries is often a difficult task; the practical obstacles vary
significantly from fishery to fishery. As a result, the Councils have
had to deal with this issue on a case-by-case basis.
In some fisheries, data on bycatch amounts and rates remains
inadequate, in spite of the Councils' and NMFS' efforts to improve this
information. Different fisheries use different methodologies, depending
on fleet size and composition. Observer coverage is not uniform in all
federally managed fisheries, and could be improved in most of them. We
do not interpret the Act as requiring the same methodologies in all
fisheries, but rather as requiring reports that produce standardized
data within a fishery.
Again, the President's Budget proposes increases for observer
coverage and assessments which, if enacted, should improve the amount
and quality of bycatch data.
11. For those fisheries for which bycatch has been reported to have
been reduced, is it the case that fishermen are actually minimizing the
amount of bycatch species that they catch, and reducing the mortality
of those they do catch, or are they simply retaining the same levels of
bycatch and implementing some sort of full utilization system, such as
turning it into fish meal?
The answer to this question is complex, and depends on the fishery
and its specific circumstances. In the Alaska groundfish fishery, as
one example, there are regulations mandating full utilization, pursuant
to a report mandated by the 1996 SFA amendments in section 313(i). In
other fisheries, for example in the Gulf of Mexico, reductions in
bycatch have been achieved through the mandatory use of more selective
fishing gear, i.e., Turtle Excluder Devices and Bycatch Reduction
Devices. In still other fisheries, bycatch has been contributed to
charitable organizations, also pursuant to a SFA-mandated study.
It should be noted that the definition of ``bycatch'' in section
3(2) does not address how fish are utilized. Processing it into fish
meal excludes a fish from being categorized as ``bycatch'' under the
Act.
12. The latest report to Congress on ``Status of Fisheries of the
United States'' indicates that there are more than 650 stocks for which
the biomass is unknown or undefined, making it impossible to determine
if they are overfished. Should we, as stewards of the resource, be
concerned about this?
NMFS is concerned about the status of our scientific knowledge of
fisheries resources under federal jurisdiction, and, for that reason,
is striving to improve and update our understanding of the state of
these stocks. That said, it is also true that the large majority of the
``unknown'' 650 stocks are relatively minor stocks, with minimal
landings. In fact, in the latest report to Congress on the status of
fisheries, the agency explicitly distinguished major and minor stocks.
``Minor'' stocks are those with landings below 200,000 pounds (about
100 metric tons). It is noteworthy that, in the report to Congress for
2000, these ``minor'' stocks accounted for 83 percent of the stocks
whose status was either unknown or undefined.
There is no intent by the agency to minimize the importance of the
unknown stocks to their ecosystems; we simply wanted to place the
information in the Congressional report in a more meaningful
perspective. Alternatively, it should be noted that NMFS has
considerable information on most of the stocks classified as ``major.''
Given limited funding, NMFS must prioritize the use of its resources
and, in so doing, has focused on the more commercially and
recreationally important stocks. Looking ahead, as the agency and the
Councils move toward ecosystem-based management plans, we will place
progressively more emphasis on research on these ``minor'' stocks.
13. The Magnuson-Stevens Act, as does most laws, requires that
management decisions be made using the best scientific information
available. Yet, the fishing industry has frequently expressed
frustration that this means that many fisheries are managed with data
that is outdated or inadequate, triggering restrictions that they
believe may be unnecessary. At the same time, some in the environmental
community believe that inadequate data results in too little protection
for many fish stocks. What can be done to improve the fisheries data we
use to make management decisions? More importantly, what can be done to
restore confidence in these biological assessments?
NMFS is taking a number of actions to improve the quality and
quantity of fisheries science.
In addition, the President's Budget requests $13.3 million over
fiscal year 2001 enacted levels for stock assessments. Four essential
elements to using the best available science for conservation and
management measures are (1) obtaining adequate quantities of data; (2)
obtaining data of adequate quality; (3) proper interpretation of these
data; (4) peer review of this process; and (5) placing greater emphasis
on cooperative research.
NOAA Fisheries is actively engaged in improving the science upon
which resource management decisions are based through implementation of
the Stock Assessment Improvement Plan (SAIP).
The SAIP seeks to improve the comprehensiveness, timeliness,
quality, and communication of NMFS stock assessments; mine existing
databases to evaluate status determination criteria for species of
``unknown'' status; conduct adequate baseline monitoring for all
federally managed species; upgrade assessments for FMP core species;
and develop next-generation assessment models that explicitly
incorporate ecosystem considerations.
Specific activities include:
LNew Stock Assessment Methods - Expand the pool of senior
level scientists doing cutting-edge methods development. Point of
contacts in each Center will coordinate methods research, with a
concurrent emphasis on augmenting university partnerships to develop
future assessment scientists.
LNational Stock Assessment Toolbox - When completed, this
standardized package of tested, peer-reviewed and approved analytical
tools and assessment models will allow better, more reliable, and
repeatable assessments to be made.
LNMFS-University Partnerships and Graduate Stock
Assessment Fellowships - Science Centers will collaborate with Sea
Grant universities to enhance stock assessment and population dynamics
study programs and research capabilities. NMFS/OAR stock assessment
fellowships will increase in number and scope, and focus on new
projects that address the agency's highest priorities.
Another important element is modernization of NOAA's fleet of
fisheries research vessels.
LA contract has just been signed for the construction of a
state-of-the-art, acoustically quiet FRV to conduct fisheries
monitoring and research surveys.
LThe FRV is an essential part of NOAA's plan to meet the
rapidly growing demand for high-quality at-sea data, and to maintain
the integrity of existing data series.
LMeeting those demands also depends on significant growth
in the number of days at sea aboard chartered academic and industry
vessels.
NMFS is also striving to apply more advanced technology in research
surveys.
LNOAA Fisheries is exploring fisheries applications for
advanced technologies that would improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of stock assessment surveys.
LAdvances in airborne and satellite remote sensing,
hydroacoustic survey, and signal processing technologies hold great
promise for fisheries applications by adding information presently not
available and providing alternative sources of survey information for
some species and their habitats.
______
[Response to questions submitted for the record by Mr.
Gilford follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Answers to Questions From Subcommittee on Fisheries, Conservation,
Wildlife and Oceans, Magnuson Reauthorization Hearing to Dr. James H.
Gilford
I have been asked to respond to the following questions resulting
from my appearance before the Subcommittee on Thursday, April 5, 2001.
The testimony I submitted at that time was presented on behalf of the
eight Fishery Management Council Chairmen and represents the consensus
of the Council Chairmen which was developed at the 1999 and 2000 annual
Council Chairmen's meetings. In the following, I offer my personal
response to the Subcommittee's questions. Please understand that it
does not represent the position of the other Council Chairmen or the
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council of which I am a member. I have
taken the liberty of sharing the questions with the other Council
Chairmen so at their annual meeting later this month they may, if they
so choose, offer a response to the Subcommittee's questions.
In the rebuilding of overfished stocks, some have argued that
unreasonable rebuilding targets have been set by either the Agency or
the Councils. How are these rebuilding targets established? If the
complaint is correct that unreasonable targets are being set, is this a
problem with the Act or with the implementing guidance from the agency?
Rebuilding targets are based on the population dynamics of each
species of concern. Councils are required to use the best scientific
information available in developing conservation and management
measures. Rebuilding targets based on the best available scientific
information are not unreasonable management goals. Some problems with
specific targets may occur in instances involving multispecies
interactions or in situations in which there is less scientific
information available on the population dynamics of a species but the
Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA) addresses those possibilities.
In its April 2000 report to Congress, the General Accounting Office
noted that although NMFS reported that it did not know the status of 75
percent of the species (and 30 percent of the stocks) that they manage,
the 25 percent that it did know the status of represented about 90
percent of the total weight or volume of all species in U.S. waters. Do
you feel this is an accurate statement? Could you comment further on
this?
I do not know if the statement is accurate or not, but I suspect
that, without some qualification, it is not accurate. If the statement
really is intended to apply to all species-in U.S. waters, how is it
possible to know that 25 percent of the species in U.S. waters
represent 90 percent of the total weight of all species since the
status of the other 75 percent is unknown? If the statement is
referring to landings by species, it probably is accurate.
Some members of Congress have argued that the identification of EFH
by the Councils was far too broad and too sweeping in its
implementation. The Agency is now urging Councils to identify Habitat
Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) which are more discrete areas. Isn't
that what Congress actually wanted NMFS to do in the ,first place? Do
we need to create a new designation to accomplish what was originally
intended?
The initial EFH guidance received by the Councils from NMFS did
suggest a broad rather than a discrete designation of EFH as intended
by Congress. In my opinion, the agency has failed to provide consistent
and rationale guidance to the Councils on EFH implementation. A new
designation probably is not necessary since the use of HAPC
designations now allows the Councils to identify discrete areas of EFH
which are more in line with the intent of Congress. However, NMFS
should immediately publish the EFH guidelines in final form.
Last Congress, this Subcommittee held a hearing on Essential Fish
Habitat issues. At that time, one of the concerns raised by the Agency
was that there was not adequate funding available to fund research into
habitat issues. If funding is scarce, does it make sense to look first
at the habitat needs of those commercially important species?
Yes, but it makes even better sense to look first at the habitat
needs of species which are economically important to both commercial
and recreational fishermen.
One area of concern that has been identified by a number of
reviewers of Federal fisheries management is that of the adequacy of
scientific data on which management decisions are made. A second
concern is that the regulated community does not have confidence in the
scientific information generated by the Agency. How can we get better
data and get buy-in by the regulated communities?
There are a number of ways to get better data, such as mandatory
reporting of relevant data by commercial fishermen, dealers and party/
charter operators, for example. Significant increases in funding for
observer coverage specific to commercial fisheries and for increasing
the collection of fishery dependent and independent data also would
help significantly in that regard. Cooperative programs in which
industry is a partner in the collection of fisheries data are a help in
achieving acceptance of those data by the regulated community. To be of
value, these programs must be designed and implemented in such a way
that they meet the basic requirements for scientific validity. In the
recreational sector, additional funding for the Marine Recreational
Fishery Statistics Survey (MRFSS) coupled with more public education
and outreach is needed to build public confidence in the MRFSS data.
We have seen a number of cooperative research survey initiatives
that were cosponsored by industry in the last few years. How does the
Agency use the information from these cooperative surveys, in addition
to their own survey information, to determine stocks size and total
allowable catch levels?
In the specific instance with which I- am familiar (clam industry/
NMFS surfclam and ocean quahog survey), information collected was
incorporated into the assessment of stock status and into management
decisions for the fishery. That project was planned and implemented
cooperatively by scientists and fishermen to produce scientifically
sound and useful data for stock assessment and management decisions.
Industry funded their portion of the research also.
Are there other sources of funds that should be considered to
gather better data? Have any of the environmental groups funded this
type of research?
Yes. Quota set-asides which are provided for in the Sustainable
Fisheries Act is a source of funding support for collecting fisheries
specific data. If the prohibition on collecting fees beyond
administrative costs is removed from the Act, permits and user fees are
another potential source of funds for species specific data collection.
There may be, but I am not aware of any instance in which an
environmental group has funded the collection of fisheries management
data on marine fish.
The Magnuson Act requires Fishery Management Plans to ``minimize''
to the extent practicable adverse effects on such habitat caused by
fishing...'' Since the Councils have identified the entire EEZ as EFH,
this will mean that the Agency must collect data on gear impacts for
the entire EEZ (approximately 3.4 million square miles). Should the Act
be amended to apply the minimization requirement only to the HAPC
areas?
Yes, the minimization requirement should be applied only to the
HAPCs. It makes more sense given the importance of the HAPCs and it's
more realistic given the relative size of the areas involved, the
limited information currently available on gear impacts and the
magnitude of the staffing effort required.
The Act currently has been interpreted to prohibit the gathering of
economic data from processors. Why was this restriction put in place
and should this issue be re-examined? Are there ways of gathering this
proprietary data and ensuring confidentiality?
There is some confusion about the prohibition on collecting
economic data from processors and the issue should be re-examined.
Economic information is essential in the preparation of fisheries
management plans and amendments as required by the SFA. The Act gives
the Councils discretionary authority to require fish processors who
first receive fish subject to a fishery management plan to submit data
which are necessary for the conservation and management of the fishery
(other than economic data). [303 (b)(7)]. The Act also allows the
Councils to request the Secretary to implement an information
collection program for the collection of information about a fishery
other than information that would disclose proprietary or confidential
commercial or financial information regarding fishing operations or
fish processing operations. [402 (a)]. The wording of the discretionary
authority [303(b)(7)] is in conflict with the requirements for
preparing fisheries management plans and is in conflict with section
402(a). Yes, there are ways of gathering economic data and ensuring
confidentiality. An effective process I am familiar with, as an
example, was implemented under the Toxic Substances Control Act.
You recommend lifting the moratorium on the implementation of IFQ
management systems; however, you are silent on the need for statutory
guidelines or criteria. Can you expand on your interest in using this
type of management system and the need for guidance in the statute?
I believe IFQ and ITQ management systems can be useful and
effective management tools for some fisheries under certain conditions
but not necessarily in a one-size-fits-all mode. I believe the Councils
should have IFQ and ITQ systems available as management options.
Statutory guidelines should include provisions for fees and for
auctioning of harvest rights and limitations on the accumulation of
harvest rights.
You recommend that the Councils be authorized to charge fees for
observer programs. Have any Councils developed observer programs that
are hindered by the lack of this authority? Would the Councils object
to being required to submit specific requests to Congress to gain this?
The Council of which I am a member has not developed an observer
program. Instead, the Council is dependent on the NMFS to provide
observer data but, unfortunately, the Agency's program is limited by
funding which is dedicated to providing observers for marine mammals
and protected species coverage rather than observer programs for
specific finfish/shellfish fisheries. The North Pacific Council has an
observer program funded by industry participants through an amendment
to the Act. The same provision should also be available to other
Councils. Submitting specific requests to Congress would be less
desirable than having authority established in the Act allowing the
Councils to charge fees for observer programs.
Several of the witnesses have noted that the use of MSY is
problematic. Should Congress look at this term and, if so, what target
should (Congress look at) in terms of rebuilding plans?
Congress should re-examine the requirement to use MSY for all
species. In those instance for which there is sufficient information,
the biomass which produces MSY should be considered as the target for
rebuilding. However, information needed to establish a reliable MSY is
not always available. In addition, MSY for a species may change as a
result of changes in such things as fishing practices, available
habitat or habitat carrying capacity. Over-estimating MSY can result in
rebuilding schedules more restrictive than necessary to fishing
communities.
Questions Concerning Magnuson Act Reauthorization
Many factors have been identified as potential problems in US
fisheries: overfishing, overcapitalization, insufficient data,
inappropriate management structures, ecosystem impacts of fishing.
Which of these do you believe is the most pressing problem to be
addressed?
Overcapitalization because of its direct cause and effect
relationship to overfishing; insufficient data is the second most
pressing problem.
Can you give examples of previously overexploited federally managed
species that have successfully recovered over the past 10 years? What
species would you expect to add to the success list in 5-10 years? Are
there any commonalities that might enhance our chances of success with
other overexploited species? What have been the major barriers to
success?
Surfclam is an example of a previously overexploited federally
managed species which has successfully recovered in the past 10 years
and summer flounder is very nearly recovered. All of the other species
managed by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council are expected
realistically to be recovered within the next 10 years or sooner. The
application of hard quotas, limits on participation, and keeping
management plans in place long enough for them to work are
commonalities which will enhance the chance of success in achieving
recovery of other overexploited species. Major barriers to success are:
the lack of sufficient fisheries data including adequate sea sampling
data, Congressional constraints on available management tools, law
suits and court mandated changes affecting the way specific species are
managed. Another barrier is the lack of a mandate requiring that a
species which is managed by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission in state waters and by the Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, or
New England Fishery Management Councils in the EEZ be managed as one
stock under one management plan.
What are the pros and cons of the ``overfishing'' and ``essential
fish habitat'' sections of the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996? What
are the administrative burdens and benefits to Council staff? Can the
Council meet the objectives they are charged with under these sections?
Would it be useful to clarify the concept of essential fish habitat and
to provide a clearer mechanism for evaluating costs and benefits?
The overfishing section provides guidelines for establishing
standards or goals which allow for stocks to rebuild and those are
appropriate and constructive contributions to the management process.
The recognition of the importance of habitat to sustainable fisheries
in the EFH section is likewise an appropriate and constructive
contribution. However, I believe the same section also allowed for the
development of guidelines for designating EFH that, at least initially,
exceeded the intent of Congress. Those guidelines have undergone
several revisions and still have not been published in final form.
Guidance to Council staff has changed frequently which has created an
unnecessary burden on staff resources. Yes, it would be useful to
clarify the concept of EFH and to have a clearer mechanism for
evaluating costs and benefits.
Does the time required to promulgate federal fishery regulations
hinder effective management?
The lengthy technical and legal reviews often hinder timely
implementation of management measures and recommendations.
Management Options
In your opinion, what is the primary benefit and the primary
drawback of the existing system of Regional Fishery Management
Councils? What changes might lead to more successful management?
Opportunity for direct involvement in the management process by
affected user groups and fishing communities is the primary benefit of
regional management. The drawback is that the action of one Council may
conflict with or otherwise affect the operation of another Council
based, for example, on regional adherence to national standards.
Providing new funding to the Councils commensurate with the additional
staff effort and resources needed to meet the new requirements mandated
by the SFA would enhance management efforts.
How might the Magnuson-Stevens Act be amended to address the
problem of frequent industry opposition to strong conservation and
management measures? Should fishermen be given more or less influence
over the management measures adopted?
I don't believe the Act should be amended simply because of
frequent industry opposition to strong conservation and management
measures. Industry opposition should and can be addressed under
existing provisions, and management measures can be modified if a
change is appropriate and consistent with management goals. Fishermen
should be involved in an advisory capacity in identifying possible
management options and in meeting rebuilding requirements and
alternative approaches to management. I believe that fishermen already
have a reasonable and sufficient opportunity through membership on
Councils, on advisory committees and through the public participation
process to influence management measures.
Should the blanket moratorium on individual fishing quota programs
(IFQs or ITQs) be lifted? If no, what is your main reason for opposing
those programs under all circumstances? If yes, should there be
nationwide standards for quota programs?
The blanket moratorium on IFQs and ITQs should be lifted and the
Councils should have those measures available as possible management
options. IFQs and ITQs provide fishery managers an option for assuring
stakeholders long term benefits of rebuilding programs. There should be
minimal national standards on transferability and the ability to charge
fees but Councils should have the flexibility to develop IFQ or ITQ
programs which recognize the unique characteristics of specific
fisheries.
Current management practices address species independently,
attempting to achieve maximum sustainable yield for each species. Is
this realistic? Can all species be exploited at maximum sustainable
yield levels simultaneously?
It probably is neither feasible nor realistic to attempt to attain
MSY for all species or all species in a fishery complex simultaneously.
The management objective should be to achieve optimum yield (OY) for
each managed species; OY accounts for all relevant economic, social and
ecological factors.
Moves toward more decentralized fisheries management in the Maine
lobster fishery, and in other fisheries here and abroad have shown some
success in terms of conservation and social and economic outcomes. Is
more decentralization of management desirable in some of our fisheries?
If so, should the Magnuson-Stevens Act be amended to encourage
experiments with decentralized approaches to fisheries management?
Management decisions should remain at the Council level. The
development of fishery cooperatives might be encouraged to provide a
means for allocating the allowable landings to affected user groups.
However, the act should not be amended to encourage decentralization of
fisheries management.
Are there changes needed to influence how Councils meet NEPA
requirements in developing and amending fishery management plans?
The Councils should not have to address NEPA requirements in the
development of fishery management plans or in amending plans since
Magnuson-Stevens already requires that social, economic and ecological
issues be addressed.
Would it be better to assign a single council staff person to be
responsible for the entire process of data collection, scientific
assessment, and provisions of management advice for each fishery?
No. Assigning responsibility for the entire process is not a
feasible option.
Enforcement and Compliance Concerns
The vast area of our EEZ, the hundreds of fishing ports and tens of
thousands of fishing craft make monitoring, control and surveillance
extremely difficult. How might the Magnuson-Stevens Act be amended to
encourage the use of alternative methods for strengthening compliance
with regulations? Should non-governmental bodies be allowed to
supplement existing enforcement resources?
Some approaches to consider are: encourage more use of vessel
tracking systems; require all recreational and commercial fishermen to
have permits which are revokable in the event of illegal acts;
implement a gear certification program in all fisheries where gear
regulations exist (legal would be certified); encourage the use where
appropriate of ITQ programs (the ITQs in the clam fisheries have
increased compliance with regulations). Non-governmental bodies should
not be used for enforcement.
The U.S. spends $660 million annually on fisheries management,
mostly enforcement of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Other fishing nations,
for example, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, have implemented user
charges to recover the costs of fishery management services. Should the
Magnuson-Stevens Act be amended to require that some of the costs of
management be recovered from users of our marine fisheries resources?
If so, what principles should govern a cost-recovery program for U.S.
fisheries?
Yes, user fees should be implemented. Funds derived from those fees
should be allocated directly to fisheries management and enforcement
and the fees should be proportional in the case of commercial fishermen
to the harvest quantity and the enforcement effort required to assure
compliance. License fees should also be required of recreational
fishermen.
Social Science and Fishing Conmmunity Concerns
How could we improve opportunities for collaboration in research
and management between fishermen and regulators?
Councils and the NMFS have a number of opportunities to promote
collaboration in research and management with fishermen. The Mid-
Atlantic Council is implementing a quota set aside program to provide
species-specific funding for cooperative research with fishermen. The
NMFS is engaged currently in a number of industry initiated research
projects. The Act does not have to be amended to allow for such
collaborative effort.
What is the significance of National Standard 8 on fishing
communities? What, if anything, could be changed in the Magnuson-
Stevens Act or its implementation to better protect coastal fishing
communities?
National Standard 8 requires that conservation and management
measures take into account the importance of fishery resources to
fishing communities in order to provide for sustained participation of
those communities and, to the extent practicable, minimize adverse
economic impacts on such communities consistent with the conservation
requirements of the Act as mandated under National Standard 1. Coastal
communities will benefit most by management measures which prevent
overfishing of existing stocks and from rebuilding of overfished fish
stocks to a biomass which will provide optimum yield.
Some observers have noted that fishermen frequently oppose
conservation and management measures because they have little assurance
that current sacrifices will be rewarded in the future. How can the
Magnuson-Stevens Act be amended to improve the prospects that
fishermen's sacrifices will be perceived as worthwhile, and thus
improve compliance with regulations?
Ending the moratorium on IFQ and ITQ systems to give the Councils
the opportunity, where appropriate, to use such systems for that
purpose is one action that can be taken. Providing Councils with other
tools for identifying and limiting participation in fisheries in order
to achieve a compatible balance between sustainable fish stocks and
harvest capacity may also result in improved compliance.
Science and Data Needs
The current process for determining data collection and research
priorities is driven primarily by line items in the budget and other
centralized political decisions. Would this process and management
outcomes be improved if managers within each fishery were given greater
authority and leeway to determine appropriate data collection and
research programs?
I believe that to be so. The Councils should work cooperatively
with the NMFS regional offices and science centers to determine data
needs, collection requirements and priorities.
Are the data currently available for estimating fish stocks
adequate to support the decisions that federal fishery managers must
make?
In general, fisheries management decisions are based on the best
available data. The data currently available are better in some
instances than in others. Effective fisheries management and the
appropriate decisions leading to effective management is data
intensive. More and better data will allow managers to make better and
more effective management decisions.
______
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Response to questions submitted for the record by Mr. LeBlanc
follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Response to questions submitted for the record by Mr. Crockett
follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
-