[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DATA COLLECTION ISSUES IN RELATION TO THE REAUTHORIZATION OF THE
MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE,
OCEANS AND INSULAR AFFAIRS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-20
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
81-284 PDF WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (800) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-214 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman
EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Louie Gohmert, TX Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, AS
Rob Bishop, UT Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
Doug Lamborn, CO Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Rush Holt, NJ
Paul C. Broun, GA Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
John Fleming, LA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Tom McClintock, CA Jim Costa, CA
Glenn Thompson, PA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Cynthia M. Lummis, WY CNMI
Dan Benishek, MI Niki Tsongas, MA
Jeff Duncan, SC Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Scott R. Tipton, CO Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Tony Cardenas, CA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Steven A. Horsford, NV
Steve Southerland, II, FL Jared Huffman, CA
Bill Flores, TX Raul Ruiz, CA
Jon Runyan, NJ Carol Shea-Porter, NH
Mark E. Amodei, NV Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Markwayne Mullin, OK Joe Garcia, FL
Chris Stewart, UT Matt Cartwright, PA
Steve Daines, MT
Kevin Cramer, ND
Doug LaMalfa, CA
Vacancy
Todd Young, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Legislative Counsel
Jeffrey Duncan, Democratic Staff Director
David Watkins, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE, OCEANS
AND INSULAR AFFAIRS
JOHN FLEMING, LA, Chairman
GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, CNMI, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, AS
Robert J. Wittman, VA Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
Glenn Thompson, PA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Jeff Duncan, SC Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Steve Southerland, II, FL Carol Shea-Porter, NH
Bill Flores, TX Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Jon Runyan, NJ Joe Garcia, FL
Vacancy Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio
Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio
----------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Tuesday, May 21, 2013............................ 1
Statement of Members:
Fleming, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Louisiana......................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Hastings, Hon. Doc, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Washington........................................ 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 7
Sablan, Hon. Gregorio Kilili Camacho, a Delegate in Congress
from the Northern Mariana Islands.......................... 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Statement of Witnesses:
Beal, Robert, Executive Director, Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission....................................... 22
Prepared statement of.................................... 24
Behnken, Linda, Executive Director, Alaska Longline
Fishermen's Association.................................... 56
Prepared statement of.................................... 57
Bonzek, Christopher F., Fishery Data Analyst, North East Area
Monitoring and Assessment Program (NEAMAP), Department of
Fisheries Science, Virginia Institute of Marine Science,
College of William and Mary................................ 63
Prepared statement of.................................... 65
Breidt, F. Jay, Ph.D., Department of Statistics, Colorado
State University and Member, Committee on the Review of
Recreational Fisheries Survey Methods, Ocean Studies Board,
Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research
Council, The National Academies............................ 71
Prepared statement of.................................... 73
Colby, Captain Mike H., President, Double Hook Charters,
Clearwater, Florida........................................ 92
Prepared statement of.................................... 93
Donaldson, David M., Interim Executive Director, Gulf States
Marine Fisheries Commission................................ 30
Prepared statement of.................................... 32
Fisher, Randy, Executive Director, Pacific States Marine
Fisheries Commission....................................... 17
Prepared statement of.................................... 19
Horton, Christopher, Midwestern States Director,
Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation and Member of the
Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee's Recreational
Fisheries Working Group.................................... 78
Prepared statement of.................................... 80
Clarification Addendum to prepared statement............. 82
Merrick, Dr. Richard L., Chief Science Advisor and Director
of Scientific Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce..................................... 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
Stokesbury, Dr. Kevin D. E., Associate Professor and Chair,
Department of Fisheries Oceanography, School for Marine
Science and Technology, University of Massachusetts-
Dartmouth.................................................. 83
Prepared statement of.................................... 84
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ``DATA COLLECTION ISSUES IN RELATION TO THE
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND
MANAGEMENT ACT''
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, and Insular Affairs
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:33 a.m., in
room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. John Fleming
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Fleming, Wittman, Southerland,
Runyan, Hastings; Sablan, Pallone, Bordallo, Shea-Porter, and
Lowenthal.
Also Present: Representative Keating.
Dr. Fleming. The Committee will come to order. The Chairman
notes the presence of a quorum, which, under Committee Rule
3(e), is two Members. The Committee on Natural Resources is
meeting today to hear testimony on data collection issues
related to the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act. Under Committee Rule 4(f),
opening statements are limited to the Chairman and Ranking
Member of the Committee, so that we can hear from our witnesses
more quickly. However, I ask unanimous consent to include any
other Members' opening statements in the hearing record, if
submitted to the Clerk by close of business today.
[No response.]
Dr. Fleming. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN FLEMING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
Dr. Fleming. Today's hearing is the second in a series we
will be holding this Congress on the reauthorization of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. As
you may remember, we started the reauthorization process in the
last congress, and we will continue to hear testimony on the
key aspects of this important law.
In hearings that this Subcommittee held last Congress and
so far this year, there has been one continuing message: We
need better data. I think we will all agree that good science
is critical to good management decisions. For fishery
scientists to make good recommendations, and then for fishery
managers to make good management decisions, they must have good
data.
This has become even more apparent with the 2009 rewrite of
the National Standard Number One Guidelines. This revision
resulted in increased levels of buffers when both scientific
and management uncertainties were present. This change has
highlighted the fact that data collection programs in certain
regions of the country have been neglected. While data is
limited in certain regions, we hope today's witnesses will give
us some ideas for how this can be turned around.
One of today's witnesses will describe a cooperative
research program in which a portion of the fishery quota has
been reserved for research purposes, and a cooperative program
between a university, the States, commercial fishermen, and
Federal scientists has yielded significant fishery information
without cost to the Federal Government. This is the type of
program that could be replicated in other areas of the country
without increasing Federal spending: something we all need to
think more about.
And while cooperative research is nothing new, it certainly
has benefits. On the East Coast a number of years ago, NOAA was
on the verge of closing the monkfish fishery until a
cooperative research initiative that involved agency,
scientist, and commercial fishermen showed that the fishery was
in much better shape than the agency surveys had indicated.
Without those cooperative research surveys, that fishery would
likely be closed today.
In addition to using new ideas and new technology, we need
to do a better job of prioritizing what funding we have now.
The 2006, 2007 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act
required each council, along with their scientific and
statistical committees, to develop a priority list of the
information they needed for management purposes. This 5-year
research priority list was required to be submitted to the
Secretary and the regional science centers. It is unclear
whether the science centers have made changes to their funding
priorities based on the council's suggestions. But it is clear
that, in some regions, the information necessary for good
management has been lacking.
In addition to better information, we continue to hear from
our witnesses that there needs to be better transparency in
both the collection of data and how the data is used. Involving
fishermen in the collection of data through things like
cooperative research will make the management process better
for everyone.
And even in cases where fishery information is available,
we have heard that agency scientists are reluctant to
incorporate data from outside sources in their stock
assessments. This needs to change.
Finally, we need to make sure that data is delivered to
fishery managers in a timely manner. Basing management
decisions on 3 or 4-year-old information is not likely to
produce good management results. And when fishermen do not
trust the information that management decisions are being made
on, or the information does not match what they are seeing on
the water, the whole system is undermined. This is especially
apparent in the Gulf of Mexico red snapper fishery.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Fleming follows:]
Statement of The Honorable John Fleming, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs
Good morning. Today's hearing is the second in a series we will be
holding this Congress on the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act. As you may remember, we
started this reauthorization process in the last Congress and we will
continue to hear testimony on the key aspects of this important law.
In hearings that this Subcommittee held last Congress and so far
this year, there has been one continuing message--we need better data.
I think we will all agree that good science is critical to good
management decisions. For fishery scientists to make sound
recommendations and then for fishery managers to make good management
decisions, they must have good data.
This has become even more apparent with the 2009 rewrite of the
National Standard #1 Guidelines. This revision resulted in increased
levels of buffers when both scientific and management uncertainties
were present. This change has highlighted the fact that data collection
programs in certain regions of the country have been neglected.
While data is limited in certain regions, we hope today's witnesses
will give us some ideas for how this can be turned around.
One of today's witnesses will describe a cooperative research
program in which a portion of the fishery quota has been reserved for
research purposes and a cooperative program between a university, the
states, commercial fishermen, and Federal scientists has yielded
significant fishery information without cost to the Federal Government.
This is the type of program that could be replicated in other areas of
the country without increasing Federal spending--something we all need
to think more about.
And while cooperative research is nothing new, it certainly has
benefits. On the east coast a number of years ago, NOAA was on the
verge of closing the monkfish fishery until a cooperative research
initiative--that involved agency scientists and commercial fishermen--
showed that the fishery was in much better shape than the agency's
surveys had indicated. Without those cooperative research surveys, that
fishery would likely be closed today.
In addition to using new ideas and new technology, we need to do a
better job of prioritizing what funding we do have. The 2006/2007
amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act required each Council, along
with their Scientific and Statistical Committees, to develop a priority
list of the information they needed for management purposes. This five-
year research priority list was required to be submitted to the
Secretary and the regional science centers. It is unclear whether the
science centers have made changes to their funding priorities based on
the Councils' suggestions, but it is clear that in some regions, the
information necessary for good management has been lacking.
In addition to better information, we continue to hear from our
witnesses that there needs to be better transparency in both the
collection of data and how that data is used. Involving fishermen in
the collection of data--through things like cooperative research--will
make the management process better for everyone.
And even in cases where fishery information is available, we have
heard that agency scientists are reluctant to incorporate data from
outside sources in their stock assessments. This needs to change.
Finally, we need to make sure that data is delivered to fishery
managers in a timely manner. Basing management decisions on three- or
four-year old information is not likely to produce good management
results. And when fishermen do not trust the information that
management decisions are being made on or the information does not
match what they are seeing on the water, the whole system is
undermined. This is especially apparent in the Gulf of Mexico red
snapper fishery.
I look forward to hearing the testimony from today's witnesses.
______
Dr. Fleming. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses,
and now recognize the Ranking Member for 5 minutes for any
statement that he may have.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, A
DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS
Mr. Sablan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and good
morning, everyone. Today we will hear testimony on the
importance of data collection to fisheries management under the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. One common theme we will likely hear
throughout the discussion is that, in many cases, data is
insufficient to manage fish stocks sustainably without large,
precautionary buffers. This uncertainty frustrates fishermen,
who would be allowed a greater catch if science were to
improve. It also frustrates managers who, in the absence of
precise and accurate information about the health of target
stocks, species, habitat, and environmental conditions, face
difficulty in setting catch limits with buy-in from the fishing
community.
On one hand, we have to find ways to work smarter, using
technology and innovation to improve data collection while
reducing the burden on taxpayers and the regulated community.
Some of our witnesses today will discuss cooperative research
programs and alternative data collection strategies that can
help accomplish these goals.
On the other hand, though we also have to recognize that,
like in so many industries in this country, no one could make a
living for very long fishing without significant investment
from the Federal Government. And while sustaining some
industries depend on roads, ports, or procurement contracts,
sustaining fisheries depends on data. Unfortunately, Federal
support for fishery science has remained stagnant in recent
years, as data needs have increased.
Given these resource constraints, we have done a good job,
overall, of managing our fisheries under the Magnuson-Stevens
Act, particularly since the bipartisan 2006 reauthorization
added science-based annual catch limits and accountability
measures. The status of stocks report recently released by NOAA
shows that an additional six fish stocks were rebuilt in 2012,
and that the percentage of stocks with known status that were
over-fished fell from 14 percent to 10 percent.
The most recent economic figures show that the value of
U.S. fisheries is at an all-time high. However, the fact that
we have insufficient information to determine whether or not
more than half of federally managed fish stocks are over-fished
reminds us that we still have a lot of work to do.
The situation is further complicated by changes in the
diet, habitat, and range of target species due to climate
change. A paper published last week in the journal ``Nature''
concluded that climate change has been forcing fish northward
to cooler waters for the better part of a century. This
disturbing trend has major implications for the people of the
Northern Mariana Islands and other tropical communities that
depend on fish, not just for livelihoods, but for their lives.
When the waters around our shores become too hot for tropical
species, it is unlikely that there will be anything else to
replace them when they leave. We will need even more data and
resources to understand the impacts climate change is having on
our oceans, and to integrate that information into stock
assessments and management strategies.
As many a scientist has said, counting fish is difficult
because you can't see them and they move around. While this is
clearly true and challenging, I am confident that with the
proper investments we can continue strengthening the science
that informs fishery management. I look forward to hearing from
our witnesses on how we might use innovative strategies and
partnerships to improve data quality and quantity to preserve
fish stocks, fishing jobs, and coastal communities now and in
the future.
And I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sablan follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, and Insular
Affairs
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Today we will hear testimony on the importance of data collection
to fisheries management under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. One common
theme we will likely hear throughout the discussion is that in many
cases, data is insufficient to manage fish stocks sustainably without
large precautionary buffers. This uncertainty frustrates fishermen, who
would be allowed a greater catch if science were to improve. It also
frustrates managers who, in the absence of precise and accurate
information about the health of target stocks, forage species, habitat,
and environmental conditions face difficulty in setting catch limits
with buy-in from the fishing community.
On one hand, we have to find ways to work smarter, using technology
and innovation to improve data collection while reducing the burden on
taxpayers and the regulated community. Some of our witnesses today will
discuss cooperative research programs and alternative data collection
strategies that can help accomplish these goals. On the other hand,
though, we also have to recognize that like in so many industries in
this country, no one could make a living for very long fishing without
significant investment from the Federal government. And while
sustaining some industries depends on roads, ports, or procurement
contracts, sustaining fisheries depends on data. Unfortunately, Federal
support for fisheries science has remained stagnant in recent years as
data needs have increased.
Given these resource constraints, we have done a good job overall
of managing our fisheries under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, particularly
since the bipartisan 2006 reauthorization added science-based annual
catch limits and accountability measures. The ``Status of the Stocks''
report recently released by NOAA shows that an additional six fish
stocks were rebuilt in 2012, and that the percentage of stocks with
known status that were overfished fell from 14 percent to 10 percent.
The most recent economic figures show that the value of U.S. fisheries
is at an all-time high. However, the fact that we have insufficient
information to determine whether or not more than half of federally
managed fish stocks are overfished reminds us that we still have a lot
of work to do.
The situation is further complicated by changes in the diet,
habitat, and range of target species due to climate change. A paper
published last week in the journal ``Nature'' concluded that climate
change has been forcing fish northward to cooler waters for the better
part of a century. This disturbing trend has major implications for the
people of the Northern Mariana Islands and other tropical communities
that depend on fish not just for our livelihoods, but for our lives.
When the waters around our shores become too hot for tropical species,
it is unlikely that there will be anything else to replace them when
they leave. We will need even more data and resources to understand the
impacts climate change is having on our oceans, and to integrate that
information into stock assessments and management strategies.
As many a scientist has said, counting fish is difficult because
you can't see them and they move around. While this is clearly true and
challenging, I am confident that with the proper investments we can
continue strengthening the science that informs fishery management. I
look forward to hearing from our witnesses on how we might use
innovative strategies and partnerships to improve data quality and
quantity to preserve fish stocks, fishing jobs, and coastal communities
now and into the future.
______
Dr. Fleming. The Ranking Member yields back.
And I now recognize the full Committee Chairman, Mr.
Hastings, for opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOC HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mr. Hastings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you again
for the courtesy of allowing me to make my statement.
I want to thank you for taking the lead on this important
issue relating to the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act. This Act, like many
other statutes dealing with natural resource use, requires
sound science so that our country and future generations can
enjoy the economic benefits of its renewable resources.
We have heard testimony at previous hearings that some
regions of the country have serious data needs. While the
Pacific Northwest in my area has enjoyed robust data collection
programs, I hope we will look at ways to get better data from
those regions that are in need without taking away from those
regions whose programs have proven effective.
Currently, more than 60 percent of the seafood landed in
the U.S. is harvested off Alaska and the West Coast.
Maintaining these important and valuable fisheries by
continuing to collect necessary data is important. While the
NOAA fishery data collection programs in my region of the
country are critical, in many of the fisheries off Alaska and
West Coast, significant data is collected or paid for by
industry.
While some fisheries are able to shoulder these costs, an
increasing burden is being placed on our fishermen, making us
less competitive in the global marketplace. Data is critical
for these fisheries to operate efficiently. But if additional
data are necessary, Federal agencies need to work with
fishermen to find new technologies or other innovative means of
collecting and paying for these added burdens.
Additional surveys and new technologies obviously cost
money. It is clear that Federal budgets are stretched thin. So
we, therefore, need to look at ways to do things better than
relying on the same data collection tools that we used 50 years
ago. We will hear from one witness today whose fishery is
willing to undertake a new type of data collection, electronic
monitoring, which uses cameras to supplement on-board observer
coverage in the fishery. As I understand it, this proposal is
being held up by lawyers because of the debate about whether
the program is intended for data collection or enforcement
purposes. Unfortunately, this dispute is delaying the use of a
promising new tool for fishery managers.
And speaking of lawyers, as a result of litigation, the
lack of stock assessment on the Atlantic sturgeon led to a
questionable listing under the Endangered Species Act by the
National Marine Fisheries Service. A benchmark stock assessment
is now underway that will likely set the record straight. But
until that happens, time and money are being spent on
determining whether other activities might be endangering
sturgeon, and potentially forcing restricting measures when the
initial listing may not have even been necessary in the first
place.
Those of us from the Pacific Northwest know all too well
how Endangered Species Act listings can result in an expansive
amount of regulation on literally every activity tied to
watersheds, rivers, or estuaries where a listed species has
been identified. The Atlantic Sturgeon listing resulted from a
lawsuit by a group seeking to exploit a weakness in the Federal
science, and is based on a lack of recent data. This is the
latest example of certain groups exploiting scientific
weaknesses to support questionable ESA listings, filing
countless lawsuits, and forcing Federal agencies into closed-
door settlements that results in arbitrary deadlines and costly
regulatory measures that are not based on sound science or
data.
So, Mr. Chairman, I hope this hearing will spark some new
thinking about what we can do to get much-needed information so
that we can maximize the use of our fishery resources. So I
look forward to the testimony of our witnesses and their
thoughts on whether the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires amending,
or whether we can achieve better data and implement new
technology without major changes to the Act.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the courtesy,
and I yield back the time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hastings follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Doc Hastings, Chairman,
Committee on Natural Resources
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for taking the lead on this
important issue related to the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act. This Act, like many other
statutes dealing with natural resource use, requires sound science so
that our country, and future generations, can enjoy the economic
benefits of its renewable natural resources.
We have heard testimony at previous hearings that some regions of
the country have serious data needs. While the Pacific Northwest has
enjoyed robust data collection programs, I hope we will look for ways
to get better data for those regions that are in need without taking
away from those regions whose programs have been proven effective.
Currently, more than 60 percent of the seafood landed in the U.S. is
harvested off Alaska and the West Coast. Maintaining these important
and valuable fisheries by continuing to collect the necessary data is
important.
While the NOAA fishery data collection programs in my region of the
country are critical, in many of the fisheries off Alaska and the West
Coast, significant data is collected or paid for by industry. While
some fisheries are able to shoulder these costs, an increasing burden
is being placed on our fishermen making us less competitive in the
global marketplace. Data is critical for these fisheries to operate
efficiently, but if additional data are necessary, Federal agencies
need to work with fishermen to find new technologies or other
innovative means of collecting and paying for these added burdens.
Additional surveys and new technology cost money. It is clear that
Federal budgets are stretched thin. We therefore need to look at ways
to do things better rather than relying on the same data collection
tools that we used fifty years ago.
We will hear from one witness today whose fishery is willing to
undertake a new type of data collection--electronic monitoring--which
uses cameras to supplement on-board observer coverage in the fishery.
As I understand it, this proposal is being held up by lawyers because
of the debate about whether the program is intended for data collection
or enforcement purposes. Unfortunately, this dispute is delaying the
use of a promising new tool for fishery managers.
And speaking of lawyers--as a result of litigation, the lack of a
stock assessment on Atlantic sturgeon led to a questionable listing
under the Endangered Species Act by the National Marine Fisheries
Service. A benchmark stock assessment is now underway that will likely
set the record straight, but until that happens, time and money are
being spent on determining whether other activities might be
endangering sturgeon, and potentially forcing restrictive measures when
the initial listing may not even have been necessary. Those of us from
the Pacific Northwest know all too well how Endangered Species Act
listings can result in an expansive amount of regulation on literally
every activity tied to watersheds, rivers, or estuaries where a listed
species has been identified. The Atlantic sturgeon listing resulted
from a lawsuit by a group seeking to exploit a weakness in the Federal
science and is based on a lack of recent data. This is the latest
example of certain groups exploiting scientific weaknesses to support
questionable ESA listings, filing countless lawsuits, and forcing
Federal agencies into closed-door settlements resulting in arbitrary
deadlines and costly regulatory measures that are not based on sound
science or data.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to today's testimony and I hope it
will spark some new thinking about how we can get much-needed
information so that we can maximize the use of our fishery resources. I
also look forward to hearing from our witnesses today and am interested
in their thoughts on whether the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires amending
or whether we can achieve better data and implement new technology
without changes to the Act.
______
Dr. Fleming. I thank the gentleman, the Chairman, for his
statement. And now we would like to hear from our witnesses. I
will introduce them.
First, Dr. Richard Merrick, Chief Science Advisor, National
Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration; Mr. Randy Fisher, Executive Director, Pacific
States Marine Fisheries Commission; Mr. Robert Beal, Executive
Director, Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission; and Mr.
David Donaldson, interim Executive Director, Gulf States Marine
Fisheries Commission.
First of all, witnesses, like all witnesses, your written
testimony will appear in full in the hearing record. So I ask
that you keep your oral statement to 5 minutes, as outlined in
our invitation letter to you--under Committee Rule 4(a).
Our microphones are not automatic. And also, be sure the
tip is close to you, so we can hear you.
And I will explain the timing lights, they are very simple.
You start off on the green. After 4 minutes it turns yellow.
You have 1 minute left. And at the end of that 1 minute, which
will be a total of your 5 minutes, it turns red and we ask that
you go ahead and conclude any remarks, if you haven't already.
Therefore, the Chair recognizes Dr. Merrick for 5 minutes, sir.
STATEMENT OF DR. RICHARD L. MERRICK, CHIEF SCIENCE ADVISOR,
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND
ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
Dr. Merrick. Good morning, Chairman Hastings, Chairman
Fleming, and Ranking Member Sablan. Thank you for having me
here to talk about data collection. My name is Richard Merrick.
And, as you recognized, NOAA Fisheries is dedicated to
conservation, protection, and management of our living marine
resources to ensure functioning, green ecosystems, and
continuing recreational and economic opportunities for the
American public. NOAA is an acknowledged world leader in the
use of fishery science to rebuild over-fished stocks and to end
over-fishing.
Our science-based approach to management, as mandated
within the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the MSA, has proven to provide
better resource management than would occur without this
advice. This, in turn, has led to improved productivity and
sustainability of fisheries and fishery-dependent businesses.
I grew up in a family that ran a charter boat business in
Atlantic City, New Jersey. So it was logical that my first job
with NOAA was as a fishery observer in the Shelikof Strait of
Alaska's pollock fishery. I spent the remaining 30 years or so
with the Agency using fishery-related data to support NOAA's
stewardship mission. And today I will provide some observations
on the importance of the core data that we collect to support
this mission, and I will focus on stock abundance and catch.
Our ship-based surveys of fish abundance are important to
science-based management. We conduct these standardized surveys
over the range of fish stocks, often on an annual basis, to
measure the change in the fish numbers of biomass over time.
These data are all key inputs to many of our stock assessments.
These surveys are conducted in every region, using NOAA-
owned fishery research vessels, as well as charter commercial
fishing boats. We also partner with industry, State, and
academic researchers to conduct cooperative surveys.
Collaborative work like that in the Bering Sea and the Gulf of
Alaska groundfish fisheries provides valuable data and enhances
our communication between scientists, fishermen, and our
partners.
Other partnerships like NEAMAP in the Mid-Atlantic and CMAP
in the Gulf of Mexico, which I think you will hear about, are
also important for collecting data on stocks near shore.
Fishery catch data are as important as ship survey data. In
some cases, it is the only information we have to manage
stocks. We collect data on landed catch and at-sea discards in
a variety of ways. For commercial catch data, we obtain those
from dealers, from the vessel trip reports that fishermen
provide, from fishery observers, and from the use of electronic
monitoring techniques like electronic reporting of catches and
video cameras aboard vessels. Our fishery commissions run
programs like GulFIN, PacFIN, and the ACCSP, which are
essential to obtain data from fishing activities in State
waters.
Obtaining adequate recreational catch data is equally
important, particularly because recreational fisheries are a
significant component of the total catch of a stock in the Gulf
of Mexico in the South Atlantic regions. Our marine
recreational information program, or MRIP, which became
operational last year, is applying new and improved methods to
the challenge of estimating total catch by the millions of
recreational salt water anglers.
Finally, I would like to quickly highlight three challenges
to our data collection and stock assessment activities.
One key challenge is the continuing improvement of the
quality of our data analyses. And this is vital to maintaining
and enhancing the accuracy and precision of the assessments,
and the credibility of the management activities. One solution
here is to develop new survey methods, and we look to our
partners and our stakeholders for advice on how we can best
improve our data collection. As you may hear from Dr.
Stokesbury, we have worked with the University of Massachusetts
School of Marine Science and Technology, or SMST, for many
years to develop techniques that would improve Atlantic sea
scallop assessments, and we are now collaborating with SMST to
use video to count fish in a trawl net. So, implementing these
new approaches will mean more science for the dollar.
We have also embarked on a series of science center program
reviews to identify strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities
for improvement. And this year we will review all of our
science center's data collection programs, beginning this June.
A second challenge arises from our growing understanding that
historical data sets are becoming less reliable in protecting
future stock performance, given the changing ocean environment.
This makes our ecosystem process studies all the more
important.
Finally, funding is the third challenge. And since passage
of the reauthorized MSA, the Administration has consistently
requested to increase funding for these activities, and we
greatly appreciate the support that Congress has given us.
However, the Fiscal Year 2013 budget presents some unique
challenges to our ability to implement the science that
underpins fisheries management.
So, I would like to thank you again for your support to
date, and for the opportunity to discuss fisheries data. And I
look forward to answering your questions in a few minutes.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Merrick follows:]
Statement of Dr. Richard L. Merrick, Chief Science Advisor and Director
of Scientific Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
Introduction
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Thank you
for the opportunity to testify before you today on fisheries data
collection. My name is Richard L. Merrick, and I am the Chief Science
Advisor and Director of Scientific Programs for the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA). NMFS is dedicated to the stewardship of living
marine resources through science-based conservation and management, and
the promotion of healthy ecosystems. As a steward, NMFS conserves,
protects, and manages living marine resources to ensure functioning
marine ecosystems and recreational and economic opportunities for the
American public.
NMFS is an acknowledged international leader in fishery science,
rebuilding overfished stocks, and preventing overfishing. Today, we
know more about our fish stocks than ever before, and it is vital that
our science not regress, as this would inevitably lead to declines in
our stocks and a loss in the economic and social values they provide.
Our progress in making fisheries management more effective is based
on the principle that management is based on sound science. National
Standard 2 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) mandates that all fisheries conservation and
management measures must be based upon ``the best scientific
information available'' (16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(2)). While we face
challenges to securing accurate, precise, and timely data for stock
assessments, on balance, our science-based management has consistently
proven to provide better resource management than without this advice.
This has, in turn, led to improved productivity and sustainability of
fisheries and fishery-dependent businesses. In some fisheries,
particular the Northeast, the science has indicated the need to rebuild
stocks but uncertainty in the science has confounded finding exactly
the level of fishery restrictions needed to accomplish that rebuilding.
In other fisheries, particularly in the Southeast, the large numbers of
stocks exceed our current capacity to deploy surveys and conduct
assessments of the status of these stocks. The quality and extent of
our stock assessment enterprise has room for growth.
Sustainability of our Nation's fisheries is based on continual
monitoring of fish catch and fish stock abundance. Because this data-
intensive endeavor is costly, NMFS and our partners have always focused
on getting the most of the highest-priority and highest-quality data by
fully using the funding Congress has provided for this vital work. This
funding and the work it supports enables us to sustain and enhance our
fisheries. NMFS continues to make substantial progress toward improving
the quality of the science available to effectively manage commercial
and recreational fisheries, benefiting coastal communities and the
United States (U.S.) economy both today and for generations to come. We
greatly appreciate the increased funding that Congress has provided to
make U.S. fishery management, and its preeminence worldwide, possible.
Today, I will discuss how our fisheries science is conducted and
how this science underpins and provides for good management. In
particular, I will focus on methods we use to collect the data, what
types of data are collected, how these data are used in fishery
management, and the importance of our partners in our collection of
data. I will also describe some of the recent advances we have made in
our science.
How fishery surveys are conducted--including through the use of Federal
vessels, charter vessels, or through other cooperative
arrangements
Long-term monitoring of fish abundance provides an indicator of the
abundance of stocks over time, and as such are invaluable inputs to
stock assessments. Abundance data tell us the number or weight of a
particular stock of fish in the ocean. Information on fish abundance is
best obtained from standardized, fishery-independent surveys covering
the extensive geographic range of the fish stocks. The average catch
rate of fish typically is measured using standardized methods at
hundreds of sampling locations over the range of a suite of fish
stocks. A diversity of conventional survey methods is employed,
including bottom, mid-water, and surface trawls; longlines; gillnets;
and traps, as appropriate for the particular target, habitat, and
region. In addition, our surveys incorporate state-of-art technology,
including various sonars and optical systems to survey reef fish in the
Southeast and Atlantic sea scallops in the Northeast. These surveys are
repeated, typically annually, to measure the change in catch rate over
time, which is the cornerstone information of the fishery assessment
models. In some cases, fishery-dependent data from fishermen's logbooks
can be statistically processed to provide additional indicators of
trends in fish abundance.
NOAA surveys in support of stock assessments are conducted in every
region; 62 fish surveys were conducted in fiscal year 2012. These
surveys are conducted on NOAA fishery survey vessels and on NOAA-owned
small boats, as well as on chartered commercial fishing vessels, state-
owned boats, and UNOLS (university-owned) ships.
NOAA survey vessels are a key source of fisheries-independent data.
Seven ships in the NOAA fleet conduct many of the cruises to survey
fish abundance. The fleet includes four new Dyson-class vessels with
state-of-the art technological capabilities, with a fifth vessel in
this class becoming available in 2014. The timing of these cruises,
survey designs, and sampling methodologies are adapted to the specific
region and stocks.
We augment NOAA vessel surveys with cooperative surveys involving
industry, academic, and state government partners. These surveys
commonly use chartered commercial vessels and employ local fishermen,
who provide critical local knowledge of the region's stocks and
fisheries. The surveys conducted using chartered vessels provide
important data streams from regions and time periods when NOAA ships
are not available. For example, since the 1970s, NMFS has conducted its
primary groundfish surveys in the Bering Sea, Gulf of Alaska, and the
Pacific coast by chartering local fishing vessels of suitable
characteristics to work with NMFS scientists on board, using
standardized sampling gear and strict statistical protocols to collect
the data to support some of our most valuable fisheries. In the
Northeast, NMFS charters a commercial vessel from the region for the
annual surf clam and quahog survey. In some surveys, the chartered
fishing vessels may be partially funded through research set-asides or
other forms of cooperative research. These collaborative surveys
provide valuable data and enhance communication between assessment
scientists and fishermen. Other surveys are conducted on commercial
fishing vessels with universities (e.g., the NEAMAP or Northeast Area
Marine Assessment Program with the Virginia Institute of Marine
Science), and state agencies (e.g., the Maine-New Hampshire Surveys
Inshore Groundfish Trawl Survey with the Maine Department of Marine
Resources and New Hampshire Fish and Game Department).
NOAA also charters state vessels for some surveys. State vessels
are generally smaller than the NOAA vessels, and can operate in
shallower near-shore and estuarine areas. This is particularly
important for providing data on stocks that occur in these habitats.
For example, the Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program,
commonly known as SEAMAP, is a collaboration dating back to 1977
involving NMFS, the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, and the
states bordering the Gulf of Mexico. Through funds transferred to the
Commission and individual states via grants and cooperative agreements
to conduct the surveys, SEAMAP provides much of the fisheries-
independent data used in Gulf of Mexico stock assessments.
How landings and other harvest-related data are gathered and used
The catch monitoring programs strive to measure total catch, or the
amount of fish removed through fishing. Rarely are fishery catch
monitoring programs focused on single species or fisheries; instead,
they are generally designed to monitor multiple species and fisheries
over large geographic areas. One component--landed catch information--
is obtained by monitoring commercial landings, largely in partnership
with the states and the marine fisheries commissions. In some Alaskan
fisheries, where the catch is processed at sea, fishery observers
provide catch data. Observers also conduct at-sea monitoring of bycatch
and collect information on discards in numerous fisheries in all
regions. For recreational fisheries, NMFS' Marine Recreational
Information Program is applying new and improved methods to the
difficult challenge of estimating total catch by the millions of
recreational saltwater anglers nationwide.
NMFS has a strong partnership with the states and the interstate
marine fisheries commissions to conduct efficient and cost-effective
monitoring of commercial landings and recreational catches. The
federally funded Fisheries Information Networks have provided a means
through which NMFS has been able to work collaboratively with its
partners to design and implement well-integrated data collection
programs that meet the management needs of both state-managed and
federally managed fisheries. Cooperative regional programs--such as the
Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program, the Gulf Fisheries
Information Network, the Pacific Fisheries Information Network, the
Pacific Recreational Fisheries Information Network, the Western Pacific
Information Network, and the Alaska Fisheries Information Network--have
worked effectively to eliminate unnecessary overlaps, standardize data
elements and collection methods, and improve the timeliness of data
processing, statistical analysis, and dissemination of catch statistics
to all partners. Much of the commercial landings and recreational catch
data is actually collected, processed, and managed by state agency
personnel in accordance with procedures developed in collaboration with
NMFS. Continued funding of the Fisheries Information Networks will be
crucial for maintaining our current capabilities for monitoring
commercial and recreational catches.
NMFS' National Fisheries Information System Program has provided a
mechanism for cross-regional collaboration and sharing of ideas on how
best to improve the timeliness, quality, and accessibility of
commercial and recreational fishery catch information. The Fisheries
Information System Program has been working to continue to develop
electronic dealer reporting programs and electronic logbook reporting
programs to provide more timely and accurate updates on commercial
landings. The Fisheries Information System Program and the Fisheries
Information Networks have also been working together to develop and
implement information management architectures that will enable
comprehensive access to complete and up-to-date state and Federal catch
statistics within each region, as well as at the national level.
Cooperative efforts are now also focused on improving quality
management of catch data collection programs through enhanced reviews
and evaluations of the current procedures for quality assurance and
quality control. Improving the timeliness, accessibility, and quality
of catch information is extremely important to facilitate the work of
fishery managers in monitoring the success of implemented fishery
management regulations.
Fisheries observers are trained biologists placed on board
commercial fishing and processing vessels, as well as in some shoreside
processing plants. They are the most reliable and most unbiased source
of data on the actual at-sea performance of commercial fisheries. They
collect data on bycatch, enabling accurate estimations of total
mortality, a key component of stock assessment modeling. In some
fisheries, they provide data on catches. They also provide high-quality
data on interactions with protected species. This information is
important to ensure that protected species stocks remain healthy and
their interactions with fisheries are minimized, so that harvest
opportunities are affected as little as possible. In fiscal year 2012,
NMFS logged more than 83,000 observer days in 47 fisheries and employed
974 contracted observers. The observer programs were supported by a
combination of government funds and industry funds.
Recreational fisheries are a significant, and sometimes the
dominant, component of the total catch, particularly in the Gulf of
Mexico and South Atlantic regions. NMFS has made a substantial effort
to monitor those fisheries and incorporate data from recreational
fisheries into fish stock assessments. These data are collected as part
of NMFS' Marine Recreational Information Program.
Types of biological data collected and how the data are used for
management purposes
Data on fish biology are collected to learn about fish longevity,
growth, reproduction, movement, and other factors. The biological
information we collect includes age data for many of our most important
stocks. With the addition of fish age data, we are able to apply more
complex and sophisticated stock-assessment models that provide better
information on changes in fish abundance over time, more direct
information on fish mortality rates caused by fishing, and more precise
forecasts of future changes in fish abundance and potential annual
catch limits. This provides important information about fluctuations in
productivity and recruitment of new fish into the stock.
The sources of fish biology information are diverse, with important
information coming from NMFS monitoring programs, academic studies,
cooperative research, and other programs. Some important sources are
fisheries-dependent, which provide key demographic information about
the fish that are removed from the populations by fishing. For example,
fisheries observers and dockside monitors take observations (e.g.,
length, weight, sex, and maturity) and collect otoliths (ear bones)
from fish. The otoliths and their growth rings (similar to the annual
growth rings in trees) are analyzed in on-shore laboratories. This
suite of information provides important data for stock assessment
models, and is vital for tracking changes in stock dynamics. Biological
data are also collected on NMFS fishery-independent surveys where it
can be matched to environmental data collected on those surveys. Other
sources of data on fish biology include cooperative research and
academic studies. Waiting to get these age data is one of the factors
that adds time between conducting a survey and updating the assessment
using the whole, longer time series of catch, abundance, and biological
data.
How stock assessments are conducted
All of the data discussed here provide the inputs for stock
assessments. Passage of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Reauthorization
Act in 2006 resulted in the need for more timely stock assessments to
ensure overfishing has ended, to set Annual Catch Limits that prevent
overfishing, and to track progress toward rebuilding overfished stocks.
NMFS manages 500-plus stocks; however, we had the data and capacity
to assess an average of only 108 stocks each year from 2008 to 2012.
Stocks without quantitative assessments have Annual Catch Limits set
through alternative methods (e.g., averages of recent catches). Of
these 500-plus stocks, 230 have been identified for inclusion in the
Fish Stock Sustainability Index. These Fish Stock Sustainability Index
stocks constitute over 90 percent of U.S. commercial landings, and many
are important to recreational fisheries. For the Fish Stock
Sustainability Index stocks, NMFS has been able to assess about 80 per
year, including annual or biannual updating of important assessments,
which maintains their status as adequate assessments, as well as some
first-time assessments. These efforts have increased the number of FSSI
stocks with adequate assessments from 119 in 2005 to 132 in 2012. For
the purpose of tracking performance, an assessment is considered to be
adequate for five years after its most recent update. The overall FSSI
score--which tracks our knowledge about the stocks and about our
progress in ending overfishing and rebuilding stocks--has increased by
63 percent since 2000. That substantial increase shows that investment
in both science and management improves the sustainability of
fisheries.
Assessment Process--Typically a major ``benchmark'' stock
assessment involves two sets of workshops culminating in a peer-
reviewed assessment. These workshops are open to the public, and
constituents are encouraged to participate. The first workshop
typically focuses on data--specifically the catch, abundance, and
biology data used to calibrate the assessment models. Agency and
university researchers, fisheries management council representatives,
and partners get together to summarize and evaluate data sources,
collection methods, reliability, and applicability of data for
population modeling. Through a collaborative process, the workshop
participants develop recommendations on which data inputs to include in
assessments. Participation by fishermen is extraordinarily important,
because their on-the-water observations of fish behavior help
scientists correctly interpret factors such as unexpected changes in
standardized index surveys.
The second workshop is held to calibrate the mathematical computer
model, which generates a simulation of the fish population over time.
NOAA has several standardized models that it maintains in a Toolbox.
These models use sophisticated statistical approaches for dealing with
data gaps and uncertainties, to blend the available data, and to
forecast results with appropriate confidence intervals. Conceptually,
this is similar to NOAA's National Weather Service dynamic models,
which use multiple observations to calibrate complex atmospheric models
that predict the weather. Even though fish stock assessments operate on
much longer time scales than weather models--months and years rather
than hours and days--they similarly combine and incorporate many
different complex observations into a holistic picture of the
situation. NOAA scientists run the model with inputted abundance,
biological, and catch data, which gives us the information to develop a
stock assessment report that is the basis for a catch limit.
Independent external scientists review the stock assessment report
and evaluate the quality of the assessment. They may conclude that the
science is sound, recommend changes to improve the stock assessment,
or, in some cases, reject some or all of the attempted analyses in the
assessment. The peer-review process provides fishery managers and
constituents with confidence in the integrity of assessments and
assurance that they represent the best available science. The Magnuson-
Stevens Act clarifies that such peer reviews are a valuable part of the
management process. The Regional Fishery Management Councils'
Scientific and Statistical Committees use the peer-reviewed stock
assessment results as the basis for providing fishing level
recommendations to their respective Councils. NMFS is working with the
Councils and their Scientific and Statistical Committees as each
Council works to implement regionally relevant protocols for peer
reviews and to expand the role of Scientific and Statistical Committees
in providing fishing level recommendations.
Stock Assessment Quality--In addition to the peer review of
assessments, NMFS is working to improve the quality of the data and
analyses used in stock assessments. This is vital for maintaining and
enhancing the accuracy and precision of our stock assessments and the
credibility of the management actions that depend on them.
The agency complies with the requirements of the Information
Quality Act, including OMB's guidance on transparency and balanced
review of the influential science that is conducted. We have embarked
on a lengthy process for a comprehensive update of National Standard 2
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which provides guidance on the scientific
integrity of information used for the conservation and management of
living marine resources. We anticipate publishing the final rule in the
Federal Register soon.
NMFS has also embarked on a systematic process of science program
reviews to identify strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities for
improvement. These reviews will be repeated on a five-year cycle. The
process began in fiscal year 2012, with every NMFS Science Center and
the Office of Science and Technology conducting a comprehensive
strategic review of their programs. Now in our second year in fiscal
year 2013, the agency has initiated a comprehensive review of the
programs that contribute data to stock assessments. The Science Center
reviews of data collection processes will be complete this year.
How Federal fishery surveys and assessments are prioritized
Surveys are prioritized and scheduled to ensure data are available
on a timely basis to support scheduled assessments. However, most
surveys are repeated either annually or biennially to ensure a time-
series is available to support the stock assessments. A single survey
is difficult to use in assessment models. Note also that most surveys
collect data on multiple species. For example, bottom trawl surveys in
the Northeast simultaneously collect data on all 20 stocks in the
Multispecies Groundfish assemblage, as well as numerous other species.
Even highly specialized surveys provide information on stocks other
than the target stock. For example, the annual scallop dredge surveys
are used to provide the scallop abundance data needed for scallop stock
assessments, and they also provide data on yellowtail flounder used in
the latter's assessment.
Stock assessments are prioritized and scheduled regionally through
discussions between the Councils and NMFS Regional Office and Science
Center staffs. Priorities are established by evaluating the commercial
importance of a stock, the age and quality of the existing stock
assessment, and biological characteristics of the stock. Schedules are
usually set annually on a three-year rolling basis, and are posted
online (see http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/ for an example).
The amount and quality of data has a direct effect on the precision
of the stock assessment result. For example, an economic study in
Alaska showed that maintaining annual frequency of surveys, compared to
slowing to biennial surveys, allowed for rapid detection of increases
in stock abundance and tens of millions of dollars in added value of
the catch.
How socio-economic data are collected and used
NMFS' socio-economic data collection program directly supports
Agency efforts to identify management options that achieve conservation
objectives while minimizing impacts to fishery participants. These
efforts result in a management strategy that is consistent with the
long-term sustainability of the resource as well as the fishery and
fishing communities. Underpinning this capability are the economic and
sociocultural data collection programs and surveys that provide the
information base for meeting statutory mandates for cost-benefit
analysis and social impact assessments of regulatory actions (e.g.,
fishing ground closures, gear prohibitions, effort reductions, catch
quotas, etc.). On the commercial side, economic questions are added to
logbook programs, observer programs, and permit programs to provide
cost-effective survey vehicles in a number of fisheries. This
information is used to help estimate the economic value of those
fisheries. In other commercial fisheries, NMFS relies upon one-time
surveys that are updated periodically but, ideally, within three to
five years depending upon survey type. In terms of recreational
fisheries, NMFS routinely collects expenditure data from saltwater
anglers every five years and conducts occasional surveys of for-hire
operations, as well as other angler surveys deemed essential for
assessing the economic effects of regulations on this group of
stakeholders.
In addition to supporting the required management assessments for
implementing stewardship regulations, the socio-economic data are
increasingly used to support integrated analyses. For example, BLAST
(Bioeconomic Length-structured Angler Simulation Tool) is a fully
integrated and dynamic decision support tool for assessing the benefits
associated with recreational fishing management options, including
changes in bag limits, season length, and rebuilding plans. Initial
applications have been to cod and haddock in the Northeast. A key
feature of the model is that it integrates recreational fishing
behavior with age-structured stock assessment models, enabling NMFS to
realistically project future economic and biological conditions. This
ecosystem approach to fisheries management provides insight into the
short- and long-run effects of alternative fisheries policy on both the
economic and biological health of important recreational fisheries.
Socio-economic analyses are then used to evaluate the societal
impacts of management options, which enables fishing regulations to be
developed that meet requirements to sustain fish stocks while
minimizing impacts to employment and economic benefits. The Agency is
also working to develop improved methods for balancing the prevention
of overfishing against the short-term loss of fishing opportunity.
How Federal funding is being used for data collection purposes
NOAA uses appropriated funds from several budget lines to support its
data collection, including the following PPAs:
NMFS:
Fishery research and management (staff support for all areas)
National Catch Share Programs (observers and landings data)
Expand Annual Stock Assessments (surveys and stock assessment
support)
Economics and Social Science Research (social science data and
analyses)
Fishery Statistics (landings data, MRIP, bio-sampling)
Fishery Information Networks (landings data, MRIP)
Survey and Monitoring (surveys)
Reducing Bycatch (observers)
Enforcement and Observers (observers)
Cooperative Research (bio-sampling, surveys)
Regional Studies (surveys)
Office of Marine and Aviation Operations:
Marine Operations and Maintenance (surveys)
Has the new recreational statistics data program been fully developed
and implemented, and does the program meet the goals envisioned
by Congress?
Under the Marine Recreational Information Program, revised methods
were developed that are being incorporated to substantially reduce
sources of error and improve the accuracy of effort and catch estimates
based on a combination of telephone, mail, and access point surveys. An
improved estimation method was developed and implemented in 2012 to
provide more accurate 2004-2011 recreational catch statistics for the
Atlantic coast and Gulf of Mexico. In addition, a new sampling design
for the Atlantic and Gulf onsite surveys of angler catch was
implemented in 2013. These revised recreational data sets have already
been incorporated into stock assessments.
The Marine Recreational Information Program has also been working
with our state partners--including Florida, North Carolina, and
Louisiana--to develop and test new methods that use angler registries
to survey anglers for production of trip estimates. Following
completion of major pilot efforts underway in calendar years 2012 and
2013, a new survey design to replace the coastal household telephone
survey will be selected and implemented, beginning in 2014, for the
Atlantic and Gulf coasts. The Marine Recreational Information Program
and our partners are also developing and testing a number of other
possible improvements to the current suite of surveys, including:
Implementing electronic reporting and conducting pilot projects to
improve sampling for validation in the Southeast Headboat
Survey.
Pilot testing of electronic logbook reporting with dockside
validation for the Gulf of Mexico Charterboat fishery.
Pilot projects to test improved survey designs that reduce sources
of potential error and improve survey coverage in Washington,
Oregon, and California.
Development and testing of new survey methods and improved designs
that will enhance data collection and catch statistics in
Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, and in Atlantic
highly migratory species fisheries.
Development of methods to produce preliminary estimates more
frequently than bi-monthly, which will improve in-season
management.
How can new technologies help fishery managers achieve better and more
timely information for management purposes?
NMFS is continually striving to improve and augment its processes,
methods, and programs for commercial fishery data collection and
analysis. For example, in the Gulf of Mexico, commercial landings data
are collected in cooperation with the five Gulf states and the Gulf
States Marine Fisheries Commission, and are used to track progress
toward reaching the Annual Catch Limits of managed stocks. By shifting
from paper dealer reports, submitted semi-monthly, to electronic dealer
reporting, submitted weekly, more timely data are generated to more
accurately project when a fishery will reach the Annual Catch Limit.
This will enable commercial fishermen to more efficiently plan their
fishing activities, and reduce the risks of exceeding an Annual Catch
Limit.
Two fisheries in the Bering Sea-Aleutian Islands Groundfish Fishery
Management Plan in Alaska currently employ video compliance monitoring.
The technical requirements for these applications are relatively
simple; for example, they do not involve complex requirements for
species identification or measurements. Under Amendment 80, video
monitoring is used by about half of the vessels in the Alaska head and
gut catch processor and pollock catcher processor fleets to meet the
regulations that ensure that no pre-sorting activities occur prior to
observer sampling. The regulations for Amendment 91 to this Fishery
Management Plan contain the second electronic monitoring requirement
that NMFS has implemented in Alaska. Amendment 91 created Chinook
salmon prohibited species catch limits on the Bering Sea pollock
fishery for the first time. To monitor the Chinook salmon limits, NMFS
is striving for a census, or a full count, of Chinook salmon bycatch in
each haul by a catcher/processor and each delivery by a catcher vessel.
A camera located in the observer sampling station provides views of all
areas where salmon could be sorted from the catch as well as the secure
location where salmon are stored, thus allowing observers to
comprehensively monitor the salmon bycatch while still performing their
other required duties.
Other means of electronic monitoring, including the use of digital
video cameras, are currently being transitioned to operations
regionally. For example, NMFS--in cooperation with the Pacific States
Marine Fisheries Commission and the Pacific Fishery Management
Council--will implement video monitoring in the West Coast Groundfish
Trawl fishery. The agency is in the process of implementing region-
specific video monitoring programs cooperatively with industry
partners. Cooperatively developing electronic monitoring systems with
local fishermen who work in the affected fisheries is key to ensuring
that the systems being developed are practical and will reliably and
efficiently provide the needed data. The program's goal is to implement
a blended mix of electronic and fishery observer monitoring to provide
more cost-effective and timely reporting of fish catches.
NMFS is also striving to conduct more surveys using a number of
advanced sampling technologies that can achieve higher standardization
and, in some cases, can directly measure fish abundance at each survey
location, not just a standardized catch rate. With such information,
NMFS will be able to provide more precise and accurate assessments
sooner. At present, these technologies are still in the developmental
phase, and collecting the data is only the first step toward an
assessment. Optical and sonar sensors produce huge volumes of data, and
NMFS is just beginning to work on methods to process these data types
and bring the results into our assessments. In the future, these
technologies will enable greater efficiency and increased accuracy and
precision for our assessments, but these benefits will take some years
to be realized.
NMFS also expects to develop new and innovative approaches to
surveying fish stocks in hard-to-survey areas. For example, we are
funding a multi-year research project with an academic partner to
explore the use of towed camera arrays for use in surveying reef fishes
in the Gulf of Mexico and Pacific Islands. If feasible, shifting to
this approach would dramatically increase the effectiveness and
efficiency of our reef fish surveys--meaning more science for the
dollar. In another example, NMFS scientists are engaged with academic
partners to develop improved methods for surveying Atlantic sea
scallops. This includes the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution's
towed camera technology and the University of Massachusetts' dropped
camera system that uses video stills on scallop beds for analysis.
What are the challenges to ensuring NMFS ability to collect abundance
data for stock assessments?
There are a number of challenges to collecting abundance data for
stock assessments. I will highlight three. First is the ability to
understand the relationship between fish stocks and the environment and
determining how that will impact future stock abundance. Given the
impacts of climate change, historical datasets are becoming less
reliable in predicting future stock productivity. This makes ocean
``process'' studies increasingly important. Expanded funding requested
in a variety of budget lines in NOAA's fiscal year 2014 budget will
increase focus on these important studies. The second challenge is
finding ways to sample hard-to-survey bottom types such as coral reefs.
Advanced sampling techniques, such as video technology can help and the
agency is expanding partnerships to explore these techniques. The third
challenge is that the capacity of the NOAA Fleet to support fishery
surveys has eroded over time due to increased lifecycle costs of
vessels. While advanced sampling technologies offer cost and data
collection efficiencies to supplement ship surveys, these systems and
moored sensors must be deployed and serviced by the NOAA Fleet, and
there are many vital survey operations that still must be conducted by
scientists and fishermen working off of the NOAA ships. The fiscal year
2014 President's Budget Request includes an increase for OMAO to
provide more Days at Sea and fully utilize the NOAA Fleet assets. This
increase would support a utilization rate of about 94 percent--an
approximate 40 percent increase over fiscal year 2012.
How can the Act be modified to provide better data collection
activities, and how can these activities improve the scientific
underpinnings of our current management activities?
The quality of scientific advice provided to management has been a
major reason the United States has become a model of responsible
fisheries management. Direction provided by the Magnuson-Stevens Act
has been crucial to NOAA's scientific program. However, this is not to
say that we cannot continue to improve the scientific guidance we
provide.
The conference, Managing Our Nation's Fisheries--cosponsored by the
eight Regional Fishery Management Councils and NMFS--concluded a little
over a week ago. The conference focused on three broad themes: (1)
improving fishery management essentials, (2) advancing ecosystem-based
decisionmaking, and (3) providing for fishing community sustainability.
Presentations and discussions that occurred at this meeting frequently
focused on the importance of improved scientific advice. We expect to
analyze the results of these discussions for guidance on
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. These analyses and our
continuing discussions with Congress, our partners, and stakeholders
should lead to further improvements in our scientific advice under the
Magnuson-Stevens Act umbrella.
Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss fisheries data
collection programs under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. I am available to
answer any questions you may have.
______
Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Dr. Merrick.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Fisher for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF RANDY FISHER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PACIFIC STATES
MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION
Mr. Fisher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Randy
Fisher. I am the Executive Director of Pacific States Marine
Fisheries Commission. The Commission represents the States of
Washington, Oregon, Idaho, California, and Alaska. The
Commission manages a bunch of large projects that focus on
scientific inventory and economic research and data collection.
Today I will focus on two data collection activities and I will
offer some thoughts on the future of some of the activities
that we are involved with.
The first data collection activity I will focus on is the
Recreational Fisheries Information Network, or RecFIN. RecFIN
is a cooperative effort between the State fishery agencies of
Washington, Oregon, California, the Commission, and the
National Marine Fisheries Service. The RecFIN data base
contains recreational fisheries data from 1980 to the present.
The primary source of this data in the data base comes from
sampling programs that are funded by the National Marine
Fisheries Service and the State agencies. The survey is spread
out over 800 fishing sites on the 3 West Coast States. About 57
percent are in California; 10 percent are in Oregon; and 33
percent in Washington. The number of marine anglers in these
States total 1.4 million. Total cost of this program is about
$5.7 million, with the National Marine Fisheries Service
contributing $2 million, or about 36 percent of the cost.
Each of these States have marine fishing licenses, with an
annual average cost of $44 and a daily cost of about $14. A
total of about 40 percent of all ocean boat angler trips were
sampled in Oregon in 2011. The State of Washington conducted
their ocean boat survey and Puget Sound boat survey in 2011.
Sampling rates were about 40 percent of all ocean trips. In
California in 2011, over 90,000 angler trips were sampled
during a 12-month sampling period.
Two States utilize their angler license frame for
estimating fish efforts in certain modes of fishing. These
include the Puget Sound boat trips in Washington and private
access and night boat trips in California. All other modes of
fishing in the three States are estimated from direct field
counts. Catch information is estimated by month and made
available to the three States and the Pacific Fisheries
Management Council.
The second data of activity is our Pacific Fisheries
Information Network, or PacFIN. This network is the Nation's
first regional data program. Data from commercial fisheries
occurring in the ocean and off the coasts of Washington,
Oregon, Alaska, and California, and British Columbia provided
to PacFIN's central data base. PacFIN's central data base
includes fish tickets and vessel registration provided by the
States and the fisheries agencies. In addition, data sources
supply specific species composition and catch by area,
developed from the port sampling and trawl books. Best
estimates of catch of each of the groundfish species by month,
area, and gear type are developed from sources from the
National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Coast Guard, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, and the Canadian Department of
Fisheries and Oceans.
On the West Coast we have 272 federally licensed commercial
groundfish vessels; 119 of these are involved in the catch
share program. Annual cost of this program is around $6
million. Historically, the National Marine Fisheries Service
has contributed close to $3 million, or about 50 percent of the
cost. However, in 2013, this will be decreased to about $2.4
million.
Concerning the future of new technology, I will discuss
three that we are involved with. First, electronic fish tickets
and electronic compliance monitoring. Pacific States Marine
Fisheries Commission continues to develop and support
expansions of software applications to the current West Coast
electronic fish ticket program. eTicket software is provided
free to registered fish buyers in all the States, and can
capture up to 27 West Coast fish tickets. A web portal was
developed to provide download access to software and updated
and submitted tickets. In addition, software was developed to
simplify the installation process and to automate the process
of submitting data directly to a web portal.
The program has been fairly successful. For instance, 23
percent of the fish tickets, representing 70 percent of the
pounds, were captured electronically in Oregon. With respect to
compliance monitoring program, an electronic data capture
application was developed to capture data from plant monitors.
This program has been in place since the beginning of the West
Coast catch share program.
Second, electronic log books. In the West Coast, electronic
log books are a State requirement for each of the States' set
of log books. The exception is the trawl book, or a single log
book for each of the States. The Commission is considering
adopting one of two electronic log books currently in use, one
developed in Alaska and the other in the Northeast.
The third, electronic monitoring cameras. The Pacific
States Marine Commission has been very involved in developing
the electronic monitoring compliance program in West Coast and
Alaska. The program does not replace the current 20 percent
biological sampling that has existed on the West Coast for some
time. The focus on compliance monitoring is to account for all
fish that are caught and those that are discarded.
The goals of this are simple. First, we want to maintain
integrity of the existing system to gather biological data.
Second, we want to save money for fishermen and management.
Third, we want to ensure the compliance of landing and discard
data. Fourth, we want to integrate with electronic logbooks.
And, fifth, we will look for opportunities to add to stock
assessments. We have looked closely at the Canadian system, and
it works. Basically, it compares camera footage to a skipper's
logbook. Any differences are the basis for further
investigation and possible enforcement actions. We are
currently comparing observer data to camera images to ensure
the confidence of the catch and discards.
The fishermen may have to change how they fish, but the
cost savings may be attractive enough to make them change. We
still have to work out some examples. For example, what is a
discard? We have to work out some enforcement issues. What
happens if someone puts a bucket over a camera? And we have to
look at costs. If you carry a camera instead of an observer,
how much will it cost the fisherman? We may have----
Dr. Fleming. Mr. Fisher, thank you. Your entire testimony
will appear in the written record, but you are already a minute
over the allotted five.
Mr. Fisher. Sorry.
Dr. Fleming. So we thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fisher follows:]
Statement of Randy Fisher, Executive Director,
Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission
Good Morning. My name is Randy Fisher and I am the Executive
Director of the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. The
Commission represents the States of Washington, Oregon, Idaho,
California and Alaska.
The Commission manages a number of large projects that focus on
scientific, inventory and economic research and data collection.
Today I will focus on three data collection activities, and I will
offer some thoughts on the future, based on activities in which the
Commission are involved.
The first Data Collection activity I will focus on is our
Recreational Fisheries Information Network or RecFIN.
RecFIN is a cooperative effort between the state fishery agencies
in Washington, Oregon, and California, the Pacific States Marine
Fisheries Commission (the Commission), and National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS). The four goals of RecFIN are:
Develop and implement a State/Federal cooperative program for a
coastwide marine recreational fisheries data system;
Coordinate collection, management, and dissemination of Pacific
coast marine recreational fishery data;
Provide the data in a central location on a timely basis in the
format needed to support state and Federal work on Pacific
marine recreational fisheries; and
Reduce and avoid duplication of data collection efforts between
RecFIN members.
The data base contains recreational fishery data for the years
1980-89 and 1993 to the present. The primary source of data in the
RecFIN data base comes from the following five state sampling programs:
Oregon Recreational Boat Survey and the Oregon Shore and Estuary Boats
Survey; Washington Ocean Sampling Program and the Washington Puget
Sound Boat Survey; and the California Recreational Fisheries Survey.
These programs are funded by NMFS along with state agency funding in
all three states. The survey is spread out over about 800 fishing sites
coastwide in the three states. Of these sites, about 57 percent are in
California, 10 percent in Oregon and 33 percent in Washington State.
The number of marine anglers in these states total 1,400,000. Total
cost of this program is $5,700,000 with the National Marine Fisheries
Service contributing $2,000,000 or 36 percent of the cost. Each of
these states have marine licenses with an annual average cost of $43.54
and a daily cost of $14.24.
Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission provided partial funding
for sampling in Oregon and Washington through the RecFIN. Sampling was
conducted by the states. A total of about 40 percent of all ocean boat
angler trips were sampled in Oregon in 2011, where sampling occurred
from March through October. A pilot survey funded through the Marine
Recreational Information Program (MRIP) from National Marine Fisheries
Service, allowed for winter sampling and sampling of minor ports that
has not been done in a few years. As a result sampling occurred year
round in 2011 in Oregon.
The State of Washington conducted their Ocean Boat survey and the
Puget Sound Boat Survey in 2011. Sampling occurred throughout the year
in Puget Sound and also year round on the coast. Sampling rates were at
about 40 percent of all ocean boat trips.
In California, in 2011, over 90,000 angler trips were sampled
during the 12 month sampling program.
Two states utilized their angler license frame for estimation of
fishing effort in certain modes of fishing. These include Puget Sound
Boat trips in Washington and shore and private access and night boat
effort in California. All other modes of fishing in the three states
are estimated from direct field counts.
All catch and effort information for each sampling month from the
various surveys are loaded into the RecFIN data base maintained at
PSMFC with a one-month lag time. Detailed explanations of the sampling
conducted, sampling methodology and estimation statistics of the
various sampling programs along with catch and effort information and
estimates by month are available for all three states (Oregon,
Washington, and California) and the Pacific Fishery Management Council.
The second Data Collection activity is our Pacific Fisheries
Information Network or PacFIN. This network is the nation's first
regional fisheries data network. PacFIN is a joint Federal and state
project focused on fisheries data collection and information
management. PacFIN provides timely and accurate data to aid effective
management of fisheries and fishery resources.
Data from fisheries occurring in ocean areas off the coasts of
Washington, Oregon, California, Alaska, and British Columbia are
provided to the PacFIN central data base.
The PacFIN central data base includes fish-ticket and vessel
registration data provided by the Washington, Oregon, and California
state fishery agencies. In addition the data sources supply species-
composition and catch-by-area proportions developed from their port
sampling and trawl logbook data systems.
The National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region, supplies
the central data base with limited-entry permit data and also
incorporated is the vessel data provided by the U.S. Coast Guard. The
National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Fishery Science Center inputs
weekly aggregates developed from their tow-by-tow observer data base.
The data for the Alaska groundfish fishery are provided by the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the National Marine Fisheries
Service, Alaska Region in the form of monthly aggregates, for fish
caught in Alaska waters but landed in Washington ports.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada also makes a
contribution to this West Coast fisheries data system.
The best estimates of catch for each groundfish species by month,
area, and gear-type are developed from the source data just-mentioned.
PacFIN staff provides historical landings data since 1981 as well
as support with data retrievals, analyses and review of the National
Marine Fisheries Service's catch share calculations for the West Coast
trawl rationalization/Individual Fishing Quota program. This
information is used to provide Quota Shares/Quota Pounds to the fleet.
On the West Coast we have 272 federally licensed vessels, 119 of
those are in the Catch Share Program.
The annual cost of this program is has been around $6,000,000.
Historically the National Marine Fisheries Service has contributed
close to $3,000,000 or 50 percent of the cost, however in 2013, this
will drop to $2,400,000.
The third Data Collection Activity is our Alaska Fisheries
Information Network of AKFIN.
AKFIN was established in 1997 with the goal to acquire and
consolidate the vast quantity of data generated by the Alaska
fisheries, to provide quantitative analyses and interpretations of
these data, and then to disseminate the processed information to
fishery analysts, scientists, economists, and other administrative
agencies.
AKFIN maintains an extensive data library from which information is
used to fulfill data requests. AKFIN provides direct access to much of
the information maintained in the data library via a secure connection.
The primary purpose is to provide complex data sets to fisheries
analysts and economists to support the Council's decisionmaking
process.
AKFIN consolidates the agency data sources into a single,
comprehensive data base, applying value-added information to provide a
standardized view of the Alaska commercial fisheries data for analytic
purposes.
AKFIN supports the data needs of fisheries analysts and economists
by consolidating commercial fisheries data and dispensing that data
upon request using custom programming service and on-line tools.
Information is aggregated from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Division of Commercial Fisheries, Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission, National Marine Fisheries Service Alaska Region, Alaska
Fisheries Science Center, North Pacific Science Center, North Pacific
Fishery Management Council and Pacific States Marine Fisheries
Commission.
AKFIN reports catch data, harvest and value from commercial
fisheries in Alaska using the best available data from data source
agencies. Once these data are incorporated into its system, AKFIN
reports information from several critical perspectives, which are used
to identify and quantify impacts related to changes in fisheries
management. These include species, area, gear, vessel, processor,
community, and fishery participants by season.
AKFIN has an online reporting tool that provides authorized stock
assessors, social scientists, and economists with direct access to
AKFIN's analytical data base and metadata resources. This tool allows
users to access prepared reports and to formulate ad-hoc queries that
can be saved and shared with other analysts.
Concerning the future and new technology, I will discuss three that
we are involved with:
First--Electronic Fish Tickets and Electronic Compliance
Monitoring
Second--Electronic Log Books
Third--Electronic Monitoring u i.e. Camera's
First--Electronic Fish Tickets and Electronic Compliance Monitoring:
The Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission continues to develop
and support the expansion software applications for the current West
Coast Electronic Fish Ticket Reporting and Compliance Monitoring
Program. E-ticket software is provided free to registered fish buyers
in all here states and can capture data for any of the 27 West Coast
tickets. A web portal was developed to simplify creation of reporting
organizations and provide download access to software, updated and
submitted tickets. In addition, software was developed to simplify the
installation process and automate the process of submitting the data.
The submission updates shifted data access by email to a direct web-
reporting process.
This application has been in use since 2007 when it was adopted by
the National Marine Fisheries Service as the official landing records
for the whiting fishery. With the introduction of the Catch Shares
program in 2011, Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC)
electronic tickets were identified as the official record for all catch
share landings.
In 2012 Oregon adopted the PSMFC electronic fish ticket as the
official record for all its different fish tickets. Oregon dealers who
submit tickets electronically are no longer required to submit paper
copies of these tickets. This program has been fairly successful in
use. 23 percent of the fish tickets, representing 70 percent of the
landed pounds are captured electronically in Oregon.
Washington is next, adopting the electronic ticket for one of its
six ticket types. In 2012, electronic tickets accounted for less than 1
percent of the total number of tickets submitted but captured almost 19
percent of the pounds landed.
With respect to the Compliance Monitoring program, an electronic
data capture application was developed to capture the data from the
monitors and submit it to PSMFC.
This program has been in place since the beginning of the West
Coast Catch Shares program.
Second--Electronic Log Books:
On the West Coast, Log Books are a state requirement and each state
has its own set of log books. The exception is the Trawl logbooks which
is a single logbook adopted by all three states.
In 2008, PSMFC developed an electronic log book at the request of
the trawl fleet. Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission is
considering adopting one of two electronic
logbooks currently in use, one developed in Alaska, the other in
the Northeast. PSMFC has a grant to adapt the Northeast logbook for use
with the highly migratory fleet fishing primarily out of the Southwest.
We believe electronic log books will be a tool in the future
especially in IFQ Fisheries. For this to be effective it will require a
Federal Log Book program by regulation.
Third--Electronic Monitoring--i.e. Cameras:
Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission has been very involved
in developing an Electronic Monitoring Compliance Monitoring Program
for the West Coast and Alaska. This program does not replace the
current 20 percent biological sampling program that has existed on the
West Coast for some time. The focus is on compliance that is accounting
for all the fish that are caught and those that are discarded.
In 2013, we will have cameras on 7 fixed gear boats, 2 whiting
boats and 13 trawlers.
Goals:
The goals of the projects are simple. First, we want to first
maintain the integrity of the existing system that gathers biological
data, second we want to save some money for the fishermen and
management, third, we want to insure the confidence of the landing and
discard data.
Fourth, we want to integrate with electronic logbooks and,
Fifth, we want to look for opportunities to add to stock assessment
interaction.
We have looked closely at the Canadian system and it works.
Basically, it compares camera footage to the skipper's log book. Any
differences are the basis for further investigation and possible
enforcement action.
We are currently comparing observed data to camera images to insure
we are confident in accounting for catch and discards.
In order for us to move to cameras the Pacific and North Pacific
Councils and the National
Marine Fisheries Service have to be confident that cameras can
work.
Fishermen may have to change how they fish.
We will have to work out definitions, i.e. ``what is a discard''.
We have to work out enforcement issues, i.e., ``what happens if someone
puts a bucket over the camera'', and we have to work out cost issues
i.e., ``if you carry a camera instead of an observer, how much will
that cost the fisherman''.
We have had many discussions with the fleet, with enforcement, and
with the scientists and the bottom line is that these are show
stoppers.
Concerning amendments to the Act that could provide better data
collection activities, I do not have any specific recommendations.
I believe the Act provides the framework that can result in better
data collection.
Our experience has been that better data collection is usually
related to better funding.
______
Dr. Fleming. Mr. Beal, you are now recognized for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT BEAL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ATLANTIC STATES
MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION
Mr. Beal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Mr.
Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. I am Bob Beal, the
Executive Director of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission. The Commission was formed in 1942 by the 15
Atlantic coastal States in recognition that they can do more
working cooperatively than they can working independently. It
is a particular pleasure to appear before the Subcommittee
today to comment on data collection issues in relation to the
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Data provide the basis for the U.S. fisheries management.
The Commission alone relies on quality data to support its 25
fishery management programs. Success, in terms of sustainable
management, stakeholder confidence, lies in the accuracy,
reliability, and timeliness of the data. Given the Atlantic
coastal fishery resources generate billions of dollars of
economic activity and hundreds of thousands of jobs, it is
essential that we continue to invest in the collection and
management of high quality and timely data.
The Commission and its member States support various
fishery-dependent and fishery-independent data collection
methods. Both types are critical for our management process.
Fishery-dependent data is collected directly from commercial
and recreational fishermen through harvester and dealer
reports, observer programs, and broad surveys of the
recreational sector. Fishery-independent data provides insights
into the status of fish stocks without the biases inherent to
commercial and recreational catch information.
The Commission coordinates two regional, independent data
collection programs: the South Atlantic component of the
Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program, SEAMAP, and
the Northeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program, which is
NEAMAP.
The Commission also coordinates several species-specific
research activities for horseshoe crab, American lobster, red
drum, and northern shrimp.
With regards to how new technologies can improve the
management process, I will speak to the program that the
Commission knows best, the ACCSP, the Atlantic Coastal
Cooperative Statistic Program. In the past 10 years, ACCSP has
made significant advances in electronic reporting on the
Atlantic Coast. In 2003, ACCSP created the Standard Atlantic
Fisheries Information System, or SAFIS. This is an online,
electronic reporting system designed to meet the increasing
need for real-time commercial landings data.
Over time, the use of SAFIS has expanded throughout the
Atlantic Coast to become the de facto dealer reporting system,
providing up-to-date landings information. To date, SAFIS
includes 4 million dealer records, approximately half-a-million
trip records, and 6,700 volunteer angler records.
While the current data collection programs are adequate to
support species stock assessments and responsible stewardship,
there are opportunities for improvements. Several important
State and species-specific surveys have been discontinued or
significantly reduced over the past 5 years. We need to restore
this survey work and provide dedicated and consistent long-term
funding.
One significant example is the horseshoe crab trawl survey
that will not occur this year, due to lack of funding. The
survey was historically funded by NOAA fisheries, and then
through private donations for the past 2 years. However, the
funding is not available for this year's survey. This gap in
horseshoe crab data will directly impact the Commission's
ability to assess the crab population and establish appropriate
harvest quotas. Also, SEAMAP has to reduce sea days and
sampling intensity due to level funding and rising costs.
Regarding recreational data collection, the implementation
and refinement of the MRIP program, the Marine Recreational
Information Program, must be supported by adequate resources
and State Federal partnerships. Over the past 5 years, the
focus of MRIP has been the development of new methodologies to
address the previous survey shortcomings. Now the program is
focusing on implementing these new methodologies. As these
methodologies are implemented, it is critical that the States
and Federal Government work together to implement these new
methodologies and evaluate the impact and effect that they
have.
MRIP is designed to meet the national standards by
providing good precision at a regional level. The survey is not
designed to provide robust, State-level recreational harvest
estimates. To address this unmet need, many Atlantic coastal
States have diverted State funds, ACCSP funds, and
Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act funds to support increased
MRIP sampling. Support should be provided to MRIP to produce
harvest estimates with reasonable precision at each State
level.
The ACCSP has made significant progress during the past 15
years. However, as this program continues to mature, resources
will be needed to expand its scope and value. ACCSP can be
expanded to include fishery-independent surveys to bring both
fishery-dependent and independent data into one data warehouse.
This will reduce the time and effort needed to conduct stock
assessments. This step currently takes many months or longer to
complete.
Also, ACCSP can be expanded to include traceability of
Atlantic seafood products with the goal of improving economic
return for domestic fisheries. This program could be similar to
the successful Gulf trace program--Gulf seafood trace program.
In closing, it is important to reiterate that good data
supports sound science and informed decisions. We must seek
efficiencies in how we collect and manage data, as well as
ensure that there is consistent, dedicated funding over the
long term. The alternative is more precautionary decisions
which lead to foregone harvest and reduced economic returns to
the coastal communities and States that depend on them.
I would be pleased to answer any questions when we get to
that part of the hearing.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Beal follows:]
Statement of Robert Beal, Executive Director,
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
Chairman Fleming and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Robert Beal,
Executive Director of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
(Commission). The Commission is comprised of the fifteen Atlantic
coastal states and carries out a diverse array of programs for its
members with the goal of restoring and sustaining Atlantic coastal
fisheries. The Commission provides a forum for interstate cooperation
on fisheries that cross state borders and thus cannot be adequately
managed by a single state. Congress authorized the Commission in 1942;
and granted us increased management authority in 1984 with the Atlantic
Striped Bass Conservation Act, and again in 1993 with the Atlantic
Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act (Atlantic Coastal Act). I
hope to be a resource to the Subcommittee as it continues the process
of reauthorizing the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (MSFCMA).
I commend the Chairman for holding the second MSFCMA
reauthorization hearing of 2013 on the issue of data collection. Data,
both fishery-dependent (as in catch and effort) and fishery-independent
(as in data collected through scientific surveys), provide the basis
for the marine fisheries management in the United States. The
Commission alone relies on data to conduct and assess its 25 fishery
management programs. The ultimate success of these programs in terms of
sustainable management and stakeholder confidence lies in the accuracy,
reliability, and timeliness of the data we use to inform our stock
assessments and decisionmaking. Given that Atlantic coastal fishery
resources generate billions of dollars of economic activity to the
Nation and hundreds of thousands of jobs in our coastal communities, it
is essential that we continue to invest in the collection and
management of high quality and timely data. Without good data, there is
no successful management of America's fisheries.
ATLANTIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION FISHERY-RELATED DATA
COLLECTION ACTIVITIES
The Commission and its member states support various fishery-
dependent and fishery-independent data collection methods, and use data
compiled by those methods to conduct stock assessments and develop
fishery management plans (FMPs). Fishery-dependent and independent data
collection methods and the data that they provide are critical to our
stock assessment and fisheries management processes. Operating with
insufficient data could cause the Commission and the states to
implement overly conservative management measures to address increased
uncertainty in landings and population estimates and ensure species
sustainability.
Fishery-Dependent
Fishery-dependent data is collected directly from commercial and
recreational fishermen through harvester and dealer reports, observer
programs, and broad surveys of the recreational sector. The Commission
and its member states participate in and use three primary data
collection programs: the Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics
Program (ACCSP), NOAA Fisheries Commercial Fisheries Statistics, and
the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP).
ACCSP
ACCSP is a cooperative state-Federal marine fisheries statistics
data collection program that integrates data from multiple state/
Federal sources into a single data management system to meet the needs
of fishery managers, scientists, and fishermen. ACCSP was established
to be the principal source of fishery-dependent information on the
Atlantic coast. The ACCSP provides data for a number of fisheries
management purposes. These include: FMPs, dealer reporting compliance;
quota and compliance monitoring; stock assessments; landings history
and trends (e.g., track past commercial catch levels by state, revenue
data by vessel); quality control against other sources; fisheries
characterizations; develop catch-per-unit-effort indices; and fishery
participant information (counts of fishermen, dealers, and/or vessels).
ACCSP is housed within the Commission but functions separately. The
Commission is a partner within ACCSP, and provides administrative and
logistical support services to the ACCSP.
NOAA Fisheries, Fisheries Statistics Division
ACCSP created the Data Warehouse, an online data base populated
with fishery-dependent data supplied by their program partners. These
publicly searchable data are also used by the NOAA Fisheries, Fisheries
Statistics Division and compiled as part of the Fisheries of the U.S.
data set.
MRIP
MRIP was mandated by the last Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization to
replace Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Surveys (MRFSS) and
improve the collection, analysis, and use of recreational saltwater
fishing information. Overseen and conducted by NOAA Fisheries, MRIP is
a two part survey comprised of a field intercept component and an
effort survey. Field interviews are generally conducted at the end of
an angler's fishing trip at fishing access sites, while the effort
survey is conducted via telephone interviews to individual households.
I will discuss MRIP in greater detail in a following section.
Fishery-Independent
Fishery-independent monitoring provides insight into the status of
fish stocks without the biases inherent to commercial and recreational
catch information. The Commission coordinates two regional fishery-
independent data collection programs u the South Atlantic component of
the Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program (SEAMAP) and the
Northeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program (NEAMAP), as well as
several species-specific research surveys for horseshoe crab, American
lobster, red drum, and northern shrimp.
NEAMAP
NEAMAP is a cooperative state/Federal fishery-independent research
and data collection program established in 1998 for the coastal waters
from Maine to North Carolina. Its partners include the states from
Maine to North Carolina, the Commission, NOAA Fisheries Northeast
Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC), the Mid-Atlantic and New England
Fishery Management Councils, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS). The program was developed to respond to the lack of adequate
survey coverage and coordination in the coastal waters of the Mid-
Atlantic/Northeast Region. In particular, its Southern New England/Mid-
Atlantic (SNE/MA) NEAMAP Nearshore Trawl Survey was designed by
scientists and stakeholders to address a void in shallow water sampling
created when the Federal trawl survey changed research vessels and
decreased sampling coverage in nearshore waters. Piloted in 2006, the
SNE/MA Nearshore Trawl Survey is about to complete six full years of
surveys. The survey samples inshore waters from Cape Hatteras, North
Carolina, northward to Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts in the spring
and fall of each year. As of 2012, the survey has sampled over six
million fish, representing 173 species. In total, it has collected over
800,000 individual length measurements and age and diet information for
more than 80,000 fish. The survey data complements results from the
NOAA NEFSC Trawl Survey, which samples in deeper, offshore waters of
the Mid-Atlantic and New England. NEAMAP also includes the Maine-New
Hampshire Inshore Trawl Survey, as well as the Massachusetts Inshore
Trawl Survey.
In addition, the use of a commercial fishing vessel has enhanced
public acceptance of the survey approach. The scientific, industry, and
public acceptance of the survey and its results confirm its value.
Having successfully completed 13 fishery-independent surveys, NEAMAP
has established a solid start to a long-term series of fishery-
independent data. With additional years of sampling, NEAMAP will become
an increasingly valuable source of fishery-independent data to support
and improve stock assessments.
SEAMAP
SEAMAP is a cooperative program that facilitates the collection,
management, and dissemination of fishery-independent data in the
Southeastern U.S. and Caribbean through long-term surveys. Implemented
in the early 1980s, SEAMAP represents one of the longest running
fishery-independent data series in the nation. The Commission manages
the South Atlantic region of SEAMAP. Partners in SEAMAP-South Atlantic
include the state marine fisheries agencies of North Carolina, South
Carolina, Georgia, and Florida; the South Atlantic Fishery Management
Council; NOAA Fisheries; and USFWS. SEAMAP provides funds to involve
regional member organizations in the coordination of fishery-
independent sampling activities in light of the fact that no single
state or Federal fishery management agency has the resources to meet
the objectives of existing management plans alone. SEAMAP's integrated
approach to fishery-independent data collection can fulfill priority
data needs for the development of FMPs in the Southeast region. The
long-term goal is a web-based information system that facilitates data
entry, error checking, data extraction, dissemination, and summary of
fishery-independent data and information for all ongoing SEAMAP-South
Atlantic surveys and special studies. It is envisioned that the data
system would be a relational data base for simultaneous access to a
number of fishery-independent data programs. Spatial presentations of
SEAMAP and other South Atlantic fishery-independent data will be
available through a developing regional GIS Service managed by the
Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute for the South Atlantic
Fishery Management Council.
Species-Specific Surveys
The Commission also coordinates a number of species specific
surveys along the Atlantic coast, including horseshoe crab, lobster,
red drum, and northern shrimp surveys.
The Horseshoe Crab Trawl Survey is the only fishery-independent
survey designed to sample the horseshoe crab population in coastal
waters. Its data are a critical component of the Commission's coast
wide stock assessment and the newly adopted Adaptive Resource
Management (ARM) framework that incorporates both shorebird and
horseshoe crab abundance levels to set optimized horseshoe crab harvest
levels for the Delaware Bay area.
The American lobster stock was recently evaluated through a stock
assessment, and the need for more data on juvenile lobster data was
apparent. To address this need, the states of Maine through New York
performed a collaborative Ventless Lobster Trap Study from 2006 to
2011. Currently, the study has been discontinued due to a lack of
funding.
The Adult Red Drum Longline Survey began in 2006 and covers the
waters of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. The main purpose
of the study is to determine annual abundance estimates for the adult
offshore component of red drum, a critical but missing ingredient in
evaluating the status of the red drum population, especially the adult
portion, and developing a successful red drum management program.
An annual trawl survey for northern shrimp is conducted in the
western Gulf of Maine each summer aboard the R/V Gloria Michelle. The
survey is a collaboration of the NEFSC's Ecosystems Survey Branch, the
Commission, and biologists from Maine, New Hampshire, and
Massachusetts. The survey is a valuable tool for consistently
evaluating the stock's condition and forms the basis of the management
program's annual specification setting process. It is funded wholly
through Atlantic Coast Act funding.
In addition to these broad cooperative surveys, numerous nearshore
surveys are conducted by the states. These surveys, which are largely
funded by the Atlantic Coastal Act and the Interjurisdictional
Fisheries Act, provide critical nearshore fisheries data for use in
interstate and regional stock assessments. These surveys include:
American lobster sampling in New England; monitoring state quotas of
black sea bass, summer flounder, and striped bass in the Mid-Atlantic;
and surveying flounders, drum, shrimp and crabs in the South Atlantic.
MRIP
The Commission has participated in the redesign and implementation
of MRIP. State marine fisheries agency representatives and Commission
staff serve on several MRIP committees (National Registry, Data
Management, Operations, Executive Steering Committee) to guide the
Program redesign. Committee responsibilities include technical aspects
like field survey design and catch estimation methodology, as well as
making annual funding recommendations to NOAA Fisheries on priority
pilot studies to support. The Commission has taken on an additional
role by administering a number of MRIP grants to the Atlantic states to
build and maintain state and Federal angler registries (participant
information), and field survey site registries (boat ramps, ports, etc.
where anglers are interviewed by MRIP). Finally, the Commission also
provides a venue for MRIP to communicate progress and receive
stakeholder feedback at its quarterly meetings where NOAA Fisheries
staff periodically present the latest MRIP developments.
For several recreationally important species managed by the
Commission, MRIP data are used to estimate annual and bi-monthly catch
levels in order to monitor landings and develop annual regulations.
Data are also utilized in a number of Commission stock assessments,
again to characterize harvest and discards, the sizes and ages of fish
caught recreationally, and as indices to track trends in stock
abundances.
Despite the Commission's reliance on MRIP data and its involvement
in the Program redesign, the states and Commission share continuing
concerns about the implementation and utility of the recreational
survey and resulting data. A primary concern is the high magnitude of
uncertainty in the catch estimates. This uncertainty undermines
stakeholder confidence and the ability of fishery managers to make
informed decisions.
Finally, the pace at which MRIP is progressing has been slow.
Following the 2006 National Research Council review of the old
recreational survey program (MRFSS), it has taken several years to
conduct pilot studies, perform follow-up studies, independently peer
review the results, and complete the logistical, legal, and information
management steps needed in order to implement the new field survey and
catch estimate methodology. Until very recently (this year), the
Commission and the states continued to use MRFSS estimates for its
fisheries management planning.
With ever decreasing funding levels for fisheries management and
data collection, the ACCSP has been increasingly relied on to provide
funding support for MRIP improvements. Since 2008, ACCSP has committed
over $2.6 million to projects that seek to achieve sufficient precision
at the state level. MRIP is designed to meet Federal standards by
providing good precision at a regional level (Regional Fishery
Management Council). Unfortunately, this Federal standard falls far
short of what the Commission and states require to meet stakeholder
demands for state-specific regulations.
CURRENT DATA COLLECTION PROGRAMS AND THE ROLE OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES IN
IMPROVING THE MANAGEMENT PROCESS
With regards to how new technologies can help fishery managers
achieve better and more timely information, I will speak to the program
that the Commission knows best--the ACCSP. In the past ten years, the
ACCSP has made significant advances in electronic reporting on the
Atlantic coast. In 2003, ACCSP created the Standard Atlantic Fisheries
Information System (SAFIS), an online electronic reporting system
designed to meet the increasing need for real-time commercial landings
data. In 2004, NOAA Fisheries Northeast Region adopted SAFIS for
federally permitted seafood dealers, encompassing dealers from Maine to
North Carolina. Over time, the use of SAFIS has expanded throughout the
Northeast (implemented by Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode
Island, Connecticut), the Mid-Atlantic (New York, New Jersey, Delaware
and Maryland) and South Atlantic (South Carolina and Georgia) to become
the de-facto dealer reporting system.
Initially developed as a dealer reporting system, SAFIS has grown
to include five distinct applications, and not just for commercial
landings, but also recreational. These five SAFIS applications (eDR,
eTRIPS, e-1 Ticket, eLogbook, and SMS) function independently, but all
are maintained within the same data base and share standards and codes
that are ACCSP compliant. To date, SAFIS includes over four million
dealer records, approximately 465,000 trip records, and over 6,700
volunteer angler records.
In 2010, ACCSP launched a completely revised version of SAFIS.
Staff and program partners listened to the needs of users for the
updated system to be faster and more flexible. Some of the major
enhancements included the ability to collect highly migratory species
data; a much faster interface; automatically generated pricing
information; flexibility in creating favorites (species, gear,
fishermen, dealers, disposition); and overall improved reporting
capabilities.
Benefits SAFIS provides to the state, regional, and Federal
partners on the Atlantic coast include:
Up-to-date information on species caught and their impact on
fisheries and quotas;
Confidential access to data-of-record by fishermen and dealers;
Access to state and Federal reporting requirements through online
data entry that eliminates duplicative reporting;
Integrated highly migratory species reporting;
Automatically generated pricing information;
Flexibility in creating favorites (e.g., species, gears, fishermen,
dealers, and disposition) so reporting is quick and easier than
ever; and
Management tools to facilitate maintenance of partner-owned data
such as participants, online permits, and vessels.
Below is a description of each of the SAFIS applications, as well
as the partners that are implementing the application as of February
28, 2013.
1. Electronic Dealer Reporting (eDR)
The electronic dealer reporting application was the first
application developed and implemented. It was first launched in the
Northeast Region for Federal fisheries. This application is now
employed by Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island (the
first state to implement eDR), Connecticut, New York, Delaware, New
Jersey, Maryland, and NOAA Fisheries and SE. Fields that must be
entered for a completed report include fisherman, port, date landed,
time landed, date purchased, vessel number, species, disposition, gear,
quantity, and price.
2. Electronic Trip Reporting (eTRIPS)
eTRIPS was developed to meet the complex needs of collecting catch
and effort data from fishermen. This application is now employed by
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey and
Maryland. These trip reports, or log books in some fisheries, provide
catch and effort data from a permitted fishing entity (fishermen or a
vessel) or a single vessel. Trips may be categorized as commercial,
party/charter, or recreational.
This application allows fishermen to create trip reports after
entering in the required fields in the trip, effort and catch
categories. Similar to the eDR application, interactive reports can be
made to illustrate progress and history of catch and effort.
Currently the ACCSP is engaged in developing a Mobile App version
of the eTrips system designed to run on tablet computers and smart
phones. This should greatly reduce the reporting burden on fishermen,
improve data accuracy, and result in timelier reporting.
3. Voluntary Recreational Logbooks (eLogbook)
eLogbook was first developed as a part of the Striped Bass Bonus
Program in New Jersey. This application is now employed by
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, Connecticut, and Delaware. This
application is a powerful way to empower anglers in the data collection
process. eLogbook formulates summaries of information on all species
caught by the angler. This valuable tool is a way to provide narrow
strategies for any given set of conditions and is a more efficient way
for anglers to take a look at the past and save the daily entries.
4. Single Trip Ticket Reporting (e-1Ticket)
South Carolina, Georgia, and NMFS--SE are currently employing the
e-1Ticket application. e-1Ticket combines elements of both trip (vessel
and/or fisherman) and dealer reporting into a single application that
emulates the standard practice in the southeast.
5. SAFIS Management System (SMS)
SMS is a web-based application providing administrative tools to
SAFIS administrators for management of information such as user
accounts, participants, or permits. It is often used to monitor quotas.
Where electronic reporting has been comprehensively deployed, much
of the need for more timely and accurate data in dealer and fisherman
reporting has been resolved. Agencies that are using the system are
better able to manage quotas and perform compliance monitoring.
Improved data on the activities of individual license holders will make
the creation and management of limited entry fisheries, when desired by
the states, much more timely and accurate. The standardization of
coding has greatly reduced the amount of time needed to create the
consolidated data sets that are needed for larger scale management and
assessment activities.
However, many agencies still are using a mixture of conventional
(paper) reporting and electronic reporting. Where this occurs, it
becomes impossible to have data available in anything like the
timeframe that an all electronic solution provides. The data are
limited by the slowest mechanism, paper. Paper reports can take several
months or longer to receive and process. While they are in process,
it's necessary for managers to estimate catch that is reported on
paper. This can lead to errors that can have a negative impact on the
fisheries and those that prosecute them.
The SAFIS system is designed specifically to be expandable so long
as data are reported within the ACCSP standard. SAFIS can be deployed
to its partners at no direct cost. It is estimated that coastwide SAFIS
results in as much as $10 million in cost avoidance for data management
and software development.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENTS
While many of the current fishery-dependent and fishery-independent
data programs are adequate to support species stock assessments and
responsible stewardship, there is opportunity for improvements. As
stated earlier, sound fisheries data is the foundation of robust
fisheries science and management, as well as stakeholder confidence.
The recommendation for improvements would be to provide funding
opportunities to restore the state survey work that has been
discontinued or significantly reduced over the past five years. The
species-specific surveys require dedicated and predictable long-term
funding. These surveys are for important species such as American
lobster, red drum, and horseshoe crab. The most stark example is the
Horseshoe Crab Trawl Survey that will not occur this year due to lack
of funding. This survey was historically funded by NOAA Fisheries and
then through private donations for the past two years. This gap in
horseshoe crab data will directly impact the Commission's ability to
assess the crab population and establish appropriate harvest quotas.
Regarding recreational data collection, the implementation and
refinement of MRIP must be supported by adequate resources and state/
Federal partnerships. Over the past five years, the focus of MRIP has
been the development of new methodologies to address survey
shortcomings. Many of the new methodologies have been implemented on a
small scale through various pilot studies. As these methodologies are
implemented along the Atlantic coast, MRIP staff and the states need to
be in close coordination to address any issues that may arise.
As noted earlier, MRIP is designed to meet Federal standards by
providing good precision at a regional level (Regional Fishery
Management Council). The survey is not designed to provide robust state
level recreational harvest estimates. To address this unmet need, many
Atlantic coast states have diverted state, ACCSP, and
Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act funds to support increased MRIP
sampling. These diverted funds reduce the states' ability to collect
other critical fisheries data. Support should be provided to MRIP to
produce harvest estimates with reasonable precision for each state
along the coast.
The ACCSP has made significant progress during the past 15 years,
however, the program still requires additional funding to become fully
operational coastwide. The ACCSP has made significant progress during
the past 15 years. As this program continues to mature, resources will
be needed to expand its scope and value to fisheries managers and
scientists. ACCSP can be expanded to include fishery-independent
surveys to bring both fishery-dependent and independent data into one
data warehouse. This will reduce the time and effort needed to conduct
stock assessments by allowing scientists to access the majority of
fishery data in one warehouse. This step currently takes many months or
longer to complete. Also, ACCSP can be expanded to include traceability
of Atlantic seafood products with the goal of improving the economic
return of domestic fisheries. This program could be similar to the Gulf
Seafood Trace program that has successfully implemented by Gulf States
Marine Fisheries Commission.
SEAMAP has been level funded since 2009 despite increasing fuel and
other operational costs for on-the-water surveys. The result, in most
recent years, has been cutbacks in days at sea and sampling intensity,
which over the long-term can decrease the value of SEAMAP data and
accuracy of stock assessments for South Atlantic species. Additional
funding could also be used to initiate new surveys for pelagic species,
plankton, and crustaceans to address information gaps currently
inhibiting stock assessments of several species like wahoo, bluefish,
and blue crab in the South Atlantic. SEAMAP partners have formally
outlined new survey designs and budgets, if funds become available
In closing, it is important to reiterate that good data supports
sound science and informed decisions. We will never fully understand
every detail of the complex marine environment; however, we can improve
our understanding to ensure the responsible stewardship of the shared
Atlantic coast fisheries resources. The lack of resolution in fisheries
science leaves prudent managers with the need to make more
precautionary decisions. These decisions can lead to forgone harvest
and reduce the economic returns to the coastal communities and states
that depend on them. The Commission looks forward to working closely
with you, our other Federal partners, and our stakeholders to ensure
timely and complete data is collected to support successful fisheries
management. I would be pleased to answer any questions you or the
Committee might have.
______
Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Mr. Beal.
And finally, Mr. Donaldson, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF DAVID M. DONALDSON, INTERIM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
GULF STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION
Mr. Donaldson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Subcommittee
members. And I appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony
about the Gulf Commission's data program activities and issues.
I also want to take the opportunity to thank you for all your
past support for these critical activities, and hope it
continues in the future. As mentioned, my name is David
Donaldson. I am the Interim Executive Director of the Gulf
States Marine Fisheries Commission, as well as the data program
manager.
The Commission was established by Congress in 1949 and is
an organization of the five Gulf States. Its objective is the
conservation, development, and full utilization of fisheries
resources in the Gulf of Mexico. The Commission has been
collecting data cooperatively with the five Gulf States and
NOAA fisheries since the early 1980s. It believes that quality
data is the cornerstone to sound management of our natural
resources. Without these key data, it is very difficult to make
the necessary decisions.
The Commission coordinates four major areas of data
collection that I will highlight. But before I do, it is
important to point out that while the Commission oversees these
activities, the States are the actual collectors, the ones out
in the field getting their hands dirty collecting this
information.
The first program is the Fisheries Information Network, or
GulFIN. It is a cooperative program and collects catch effort
and biological data from the recreational fisheries, via the
Marine Recreational Information Program, and the commercial
fishermen via the State trip ticket programs. These data
provide baseline information for assessments of in-shore and
off-shore species. And without these data, effective
assessments cannot be conducted.
I mentioned MRIP, which is still being implemented and is
not fully developed. In the past, the emphasis has been on new
methodologies and there is a desire in the Gulf to focus more
on implementation affecting real change and improving the
recreational data in the Gulf.
One area that needs to be explored is new and innovative
data collection tools, such as iSnapper. These tools have the
potential to improve the timeliness of the data. And not only
that, but it creates buy-in from the community, which is
critical in the recreational fisheries to restore confidence in
the data.
While these tools are important, it is critical that the
underlying methods utilized are statistically valid to ensure
that data are usable and leads to improved assessments.
Another long-term program coordinated by the Commission is
the Southeast Area Monitoring Assessment Program, or SEAMAP,
which collects long-term standardized fishery independent data
in the Gulf of Mexico. SEAMAP is the only region-wide mechanism
for support--or for monitoring the status of populations and
habitat. Fishery-independent data is becoming more and more
critical in stock assessments, due to the regulations and
restrictions placed on commercial and recreational fishermen.
Therefore, the fishery-independent data are needed to tune the
stock assessment models, which leads to better and more
accurate results of those assessments.
One of our newer programs is our economic data program that
provides economic performance and contribution data of the
fisheries in the Gulf, as well as assesses the economic effects
of management decisions for those fisheries.
And the last program is our sport fish restoration program,
which focuses on issues related to monitoring of artificial
reefs and invasive species.
All these programs provide critical data for sound
management of the resources in the Gulf of Mexico. And while
these programs have made great strides in improving the
available data, it has been an uphill battle securing adequate
funding for these activities. There have been several issues
that we have been contending with, including not realizing full
program funding, which has resulted in data gaps; funding cuts
leading to the reduction of critical data; and probably the
most damaging is level funding, resulting in the deterioration
of core activities.
For example, GulFIN has been level-funded for the last 10-
plus years, SEAMAP for the last 5 years, and our economic
program has never received any long-term funding. So without
dedicated funding, it limits the managers' abilities to
effectively deal with the resources and make sound decisions.
Again, thank you for the opportunity, and I will answer
questions when appropriate.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Donaldson follows:]
Statement of David M. Donaldson, Interim Executive Director,
Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission
INTRODUCTION
Established by both state and Federal statutes in July 1949, the
Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission) is an organization
of the five states (Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and
Florida) whose coastal waters are the Gulf of Mexico. It has as its
principal objective the conservation, development, and full utilization
of the fishery resources of the Gulf of Mexico to provide food,
employment, income, and recreation to the people of the United States.
The Commission has been collecting data cooperatively with the five
Gulf States and NOAA Fisheries since the early 1980's. It believes that
the cornerstone to sound management of natural resources begins with
the collection of sufficient, long-term quality data. In addition,
adequate resources need to be allocated toward these activities to
ensure that necessary information is available to fisheries managers.
Over the years, funding levels have stagnated for these fisheries
programs which has lead to a decrease in quality data and made it more
difficult to manage these important resources. The Commission has four
major areas of data collection that will be highlighted.
Gulf Fisheries Information Network
The Fisheries Information Network (GulfFIN) is a state-Federal
cooperative program to collect, manage, and disseminate statistical
data and information on the commercial and recreational fisheries of
the Southeast Region. It is intended to coordinate marine commercial
and recreational fisheries data collection and data management
activities through cooperative planning, innovative uses of statistics
and design, and consolidation of appropriate data into a useful data
base system.
Recreational data
This recreational component provides for the NOAA Fisheries Marine
Recreational Information Program (MRIP) dockside surveys in Louisiana,
Mississippi, Alabama, Florida and Puerto Rico for shore, for-hire, and
private modes. MRIP was created through a review and some adjustments
to the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey, or MRFSS, which
has been in place since the 1970s. MRIP is designed to meet two
critical needs:
1. Provide detailed, timely, and scientifically sound estimates
that fisheries managers, stock assessors and marine scientists need to
ensure the sustainability of ocean resources.
2. Address stakeholder concerns about the reliability and
credibility of recreational fishing catch and effort estimates.
The Commission has provided coordination of the dockside angler
surveys for Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida since 1998 and
is also responsible for converting data into an electronic format and
providing quality control methods prior to delivering data to NOAA
Fisheries. These dockside survey data are used to estimate angler catch
rates using MRIP methodology. The states also conduct weekly telephone
calls to charter boat captains in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and
Florida to obtain estimates of charter boat fishing effort. NOAA
Fisheries uses this survey data to produce expanded estimates of catch,
landings, and effort.
The implementation of MRIP is still ongoing and is not fully
developed at this time. In the past, there has been an emphasis on
testing new methodologies and there is a need to implement these
methods so real improvement of the data can be realized. Several major
changes in program design have been implemented that are improving the
accuracy of recreational fishery landings estimates. Landings from
2004-2012 have been re-estimated using new modeling techniques that
will provide stock assessment scientists with better and more accurate
numbers. MRIP is beginning to utilize data from state angler license
data bases to make effort surveys more efficient in contacting marine
recreational anglers. Additional research is ongoing and will test new
data collection tools (such as iSnapper) that could improve the
timeliness and accuracy of data using online or electronic reporting
instruments.
Innovative tools like iSnapper can potentially improve the
timeliness of the data but also involve the fishing community which
creates buy-in to the process. It is important to note that while these
tools can be useful, the underlining collection methods need to be
statistically valid in order to make the data useable. These changes,
and additional ongoing research, have laid the foundation for further
recreational survey enhancements in the coming months and years.
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) also collects data from
the recreational fishery in coastal inshore and Gulf waters. TPWD has
been collecting data from shore anglers and private boat anglers since
1974 using a dockside angler interview survey. TPWD has been collecting
data from the for-hire fleet since 1983. TPWD collects similar landings
data for key management species, like MRIP, with the only major
difference being TPWD does not collect data on discarded catch. Data
from TPWD recreational surveys are provided annually to NOAA Fisheries
and are used along with the MRIP data for fishery management decisions
in Gulf waters.
Biological data
Since 2002, GulfFIN has also coordinated a biological data
collection program that focuses on collecting ageing structures from
priority species in the recreational and commercial fisheries to
address data needs identified by stock assessment scientists. Sampling
is designed to statistically collect random length-frequency
measurements, age, sex, and reproductive information to aid in stock
assessments. All states in the Gulf of Mexico participate in this
activity and data for key species such as red snapper, king mackerel,
greater amberjack, and gray triggerfish have been provided for past and
ongoing stock assessments. Due to a lack of funding, the GulfFIN
biological sampling program is likely going to end in 2014. That would
break a 10 year time series of ageing data that has been repeatedly
utilized by stock assessment scientists for key management species in
the Gulf of Mexico.
Commercial data
The commercial component of GulfFIN is a trip-ticket data reporting
system that is utilized by Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and
Florida. This system collects commercial landings reports submitted by
commercial finfish dealers when commercial fishermen complete their
trips. GSMFC provides coordination of data reporting and warehouses
copies of the clean state data at GSMFC. These electronic landings data
are accessed by NOAA Fisheries and are utilized in analyses by stock
assessment scientists at the state and Federal level. In recent years,
an electronic trip ticket reporting system has been offered as a
reporting tool for commercial dealers. The electronic system provides
data in a timelier manner and allows for additional data quality
control when dealers are filling out landings reports.
Data Management System
All of the commercial and recreational data collected by GulfFIN
are housed by GSMFC using the GulfFIN Data Management System (DMS). The
GSMFC uses the DMS to maintain marine commercial and recreational
fisheries data to accommodate fishery management/research and other
needs in the Gulf of Mexico, Southeast and Caribbean. The DMS is
designed using standard protocols and documentation for data formats,
input, editing, quality control, storage, access, transfer,
dissemination, and application. The GSMFC maintains historical and
current year's data in the system and provides support to outside users
of the system. In addition to the commercial data, regular loads of
recreational and biological data into the DMS are accomplished.
Funding Issues
Originally the GulfFIN program was proposed as a $7 million dollar
project to accomplish all of the intended goals. Despite receiving only
half of the proposed funding, GulfFIN has accomplished many significant
goals like coordination of the MRFSS/MRIP, commercial trip ticket
programs in all Gulf States, and a successful biological sampling
program. For the past several years, GulfFIN has received level funding
even though the cost of sampling and collecting data has increased
significantly. Appropriating additional funds for the GulfFIN program
will become essential for continuing these essential base recreational
and commercial data collection programs.
Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program
The Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program (SEAMAP) is a
State/Federal/University program for collection, management, and
dissemination of fishery-independent data and information in the
southeastern United States. SEAMAP is a cooperative program whereby
Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, South Carolina, North
Carolina, Georgia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) jointly plan and conduct surveys of economically
significant fish and shellfish and the critical habitats that support
them. The main goal of SEAMAP is to collect long-term, standardized,
fishery-independent data on the condition of regional living marine
resources and their environment.
SEAMAP has sponsored long-term (1982 to present) and standardized
research vessel surveys that have become the backbone of fisheries and
habitat management in the region. The long-term dataset obtained
through SEAMAP surveys provides the only region-wide mechanism for
monitoring the status of fish populations and habitats. Through its
cooperative nature, SEAMAP has the ability to sample the entire
coastline from North Carolina through Texas during the same time period
and describe the distribution and abundance of fish populations
throughout their range in order to better evaluate the status of
recreational and commercially utilized fish stocks.
Current SEAMAP surveys in the Gulf of Mexico include an annual
spring and fall plankton survey, a biannual winter plankton survey, a
reef fish trap/video survey, a reef fish hook and line survey, a summer
and fall shrimp and finfish trawl survey, and an inshore bottom
longline survey.
One of the primary roles of SEAMAP is the collection of data for
stock assessments of marine resources. All of the surveys described
above are designed to address this objective. The problem with current
data collection is that we have limited resources (funding, personnel,
vessel availability, infrastructure, etc.), and there is little
potential to collect additional data without additional resources. Over
the next decade, SEAMAP will continue to add to the existing data time
series, collecting as much new information as possible to improve stock
assessments, and will expand efforts to collect the types and volume of
data required for adequate assessment of environmental perturbations or
damages.
Plankton Sampling
Plankton and environmental sampling are carried out during
dedicated plankton surveys and on other resource surveys (trawl) at
predetermined stations arranged in a fixed, systematic grid pattern
across the entire Gulf of Mexico. Most but not all stations are located
at 56 km or \1/2\ degree intervals along this grid. Sampling is
conducted primarily within 0.5 to 1m of the ocean surface and down to a
maximum depth 200 m (or to within 2 to 5 m of the bottom) with standard
SEAMAP neuston and bongo nets, respectively. Physical oceanographic
data (temperature, salinity, fluorescence, oxygen) are collected at
each station and chlorophyll measurements are taken at three depths.
The original plan for SEAMAP plankton surveys called for seasonal
(quarterly) Gulf-wide surveys over both continental shelf (10-200 m
depth) and open ocean waters (>200 m to the EEZ). This goal has never
been achieved and, as a result, SEAMAP plankton surveys have yet to
encompass the spawning seasons and spawning habitats/areas of all Gulf
of Mexico species. The most significant sampling and data deficiencies
are open ocean waters in summer, fall and winter months; shelf waters
during spring; and the west Florida shelf in summer and fall months.
The importance of these data deficiencies were obvious when researchers
tried to respond to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
Data from expanded Gulf-wide monitoring and early life history
studies would fill major gaps in our knowledge of fish and invertebrate
spawning seasonality and early life histories. The expansion of sample
and specimen analyses would fill major data gaps and, in many cases,
first ever data on developmental stages, species-specific vital rates
(age, growth and mortality) and trophic dynamics. These data, in
conjunction with other data collected during current and expanded
surveys, would provide a more complete and detailed picture of the Gulf
of Mexico ecosystem. Information would be used to develop ecosystem
models for the Gulf of Mexico, as well as providing a baseline for any
future ecosystem impact assessments.
Reef Fish Sampling
The SEAMAP Reef Fish Survey provides indices of the relative
abundance of fish species associated with topographic features located
on the continental shelf of the Gulf of Mexico from Brownsville, TX to
the Dry Tortugas, FL at depths between 9 m to 150 m. The survey is
conducted annually between the months of April to August, during the
snapper spawning season. The number of camera sites sampled annually
has ranged from 125 to 490. Video cameras are used as the main sampling
gear because trawls and bottom longlines snag on the sea bed, other
gear types are highly selective, and the area sampled is too deep for
SCUBA divers. Stationary video cameras are non-destructive to sensitive
reef habitat, and are relatively non-selective of reef fish species.
Fish traps are used to capture fish for aging and reproductive studies.
The SEAMAP Vertical Line Survey uses bandit reels to sample reef fish
over natural hardbottom, artificial reefs, and around oil and gas
platforms. Bandit gear is highly selective in that it does not catch
all species of fish that may be present at a location.
Enhancement of current reef fish sampling activities would include:
1) increasing the sampling effort (both spatial and temporal coverage)
for the SEAMAP Reef Fish Survey, and 2) increasing biological sampling
in all survey activities to improve age and growth information. In
addition, the SEAMAP Vertical Line Survey of oil/gas platforms and
natural reef habitats using bandit reel sampling gear and side scan
sonar would be expanded to improve data on red snapper and other reef
fish species. These enhancements would help reduce the variance of
species-specific data and also provide age and growth information on
age 2-5 red snapper which are under sampled in all other SEAMAP
surveys.
Trawl Sampling
The current SEAMAP groundfish trawl survey is conducted semi-
annually in the summer (June-July) and fall (October-November). A 42-ft
shrimp trawl is used to collect specimens from Brownsville, TX to Key
West, FL in 5 to 60 fm of water. Due to funding limitations, areas off
southwest Florida are not sampled in the fall. The trawl is towed for
30 minutes, and catch is either worked up in its entirety or is
subsampled if the catch is over 22 kg. During the trawl surveys,
plankton samples are also collected using a 61 cm bongo frame and 0.335
mm mesh net and/or a 1 2 m Neuston frame with a 0.947 mm mesh net.
Future temporal and spatial expansion of trawl surveys would
improve the precision of estimates for all species, as well as provide
coverage for Florida waters that are not sampled currently during the
fall season. The expansion of biological sampling (i.e., stomach
content, and age and growth analyses) would improve the stock
assessments for those species sampled, as well as provide a basis for
trophic and predator-prey analyses. This information is essential for
the development of multispecies and integrated ecosystem assessments.
Bottom Longline Sampling
SEAMAP currently employs an Inshore Bottom Longline Survey to
monitor coastal shark and adult finfish populations in the near shore
waters of the north central Gulf of Mexico. This nearshore survey
complements the NMFS bottom longline survey using the same gear and
methodology except that it takes place in the shallow waters of the
north central Gulf of Mexico.
Several enhancements could be incorporated into current bottom
longline surveys that would expand the scope of bottom longline
sampling and provide important data needed for better understanding the
dynamics of upper level predators and other key managed species
(snappers and groupers). Expansion of the summer bottom longline survey
activities would improve precision associated with indices of abundance
used for stock assessment. The additional activities would also result
in an increased ability to examine spatial patterns in intraspecific
differences in the life history, diets, abundance and movements of
predatory fishes in the Gulf of Mexico.
Baitfish Sampling
SEAMAP currently does not sample specifically for baitfish.
Baitfish form the basis of the marine food web in the Gulf of Mexico. A
pelagic bait survey would collect information on Gulf menhaden
(Brevoortia patronus) and similar pelagic baitfish species as a measure
of estuarine productivity for ecosystem and stock assessment analysis.
The approach would employ a number of separate state-based fishery-
independent projects to address concerns. Increasing existing seine
sampling by state partners spatially and temporally would decrease
variability in the data. A push-net survey could be conducted to
compare existing seine data for the application of the push-net data as
an index of abundance in future stock assessments. Genetic samples
could be analyzed from the seine and push-net studies to validate
species identification and determine frequency of co-occurrence by
location. Finally, fish scales for aging purposes could be collected
from fishery-independent surveys to determine the age structure across
the range of the species from the fishery-independent samples to begin
comparison with the fishery-dependent age composition data which has
been collected since the late-1970s.
Collection of Ecosystem Data
Increased collection of environmental and ecosystem information
through fishery-independent sampling in the Gulf of Mexico would
provide a wealth of data that can be used to expand single species
stock assessments. More importantly, these data would provide crucial
inputs to the development of integrated ecosystem assessments for this
region. Understanding spatio-temporal patterns of species distribution
is central to managing the Gulf of Mexico's marine populations,
communities and ecosystems. Spatio-temporal patterns of species
distribution can be directly related to differences in vital rates
(e.g., growth, mortality and fecundity), as well as inter-specific
interactions (e.g. competition and predation).
Additional Fishery Independent Data Collection Activities
In addition to SEAMAP activities, the Gulf States collect
additional fishery independent data to improve the quality of data
available for stock assessments. The amount of appropriation provided
to the states to support their fishery monitoring programs are
determined by a formula based on a state's total marine fisheries
landings. Historically, the Gulf of Mexico has had three `maximum'
states by fisheries volume and value. This funding, prior to its
elimination by NOAA in 2012, supported the five Gulf States' long-term,
fishery-independent monitoring programs which are used to gauge the
health of various commercially and recreationally important fish
stocks. The value of this monitoring data is critical and the ability
of the Gulf States' marine agencies to conduct stock assessments of
near-shore and off-shore species hinges upon the quality and duration
of these datasets and will be critical to future regional management
success.
Economic Data Program
Most fisheries management decisions are made primarily utilizing
biological data. While this data is useful in describing the state of
the biomass, or stock of the fishery, they do not describe the economic
elements such as employment, business performance, or contribution of a
fishery to the economy. Existing economic data for commercial and
recreational fisheries in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) for state and
Federal waters have often been, and in some cases still remain,
piecemeal, outdated, and not fully relevant to fisheries managers and
recreational and commercial stakeholders.
This void of economic data has been challenging in the Gulf given
recent hurricanes, manmade disasters such as Deepwater Horizon, severe
floods, unprecedented long-lasting drought and the increase in complex
fishery management decisions that require economic analysis as mandated
through various state and Federal laws. For example, through the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA),
Executive Order 12866, and the National Environmental Policy Act, etc.,
Federal agencies, such as NOAA Fisheries, are mandated to perform
economic analysis when changes to fisheries management policies are
proposed. Through these legislative actions, attempts are made to
determine the effects that possible adjustments to management polices
might have on fisheries stocks and local and regional economies. An
assessment of possible fisheries actions, however, requires reliable
and current economic data in order for economic models of specific
fisheries and multistate economies to be built. The availability of
economic data is, therefore, one of the most significant building
blocks to conducting economic and policy analysis.
In an effort to improve data collection and fisheries management of
the recreational and commercial fisheries in the Gulf, an Economic Data
Program was formed in 2008. Funding for this effort currently ends in
2014. The Economic Data Program is a cooperative partnership among
Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, the Gulf States Marine
Fisheries Commission (Commission), and NOAA Fisheries. The program
monitors the economic performance and contribution of prioritized
fisheries of the Gulf and contributes to the assessment of the economic
effects of fishery management decisions on specific fisheries and
regional economies. In conjunction with the Gulf Fisheries Information
Network (GulfFIN), the Commission coordinates, plans, and conducts
specific economic data collection projects throughout its five member
states.
Current Economic Data Collection Activities
Projects that are currently underway, or have been completed since
the conception of the program, include an economic survey of the
inshore shrimp fleet, a marine angler expenditure survey, an economic
survey of fishing related businesses (processors and dealers), a marine
recreational use economic survey, and a valuation of recreational
species survey. Results from these surveys primarily aid in the
development of economic business performance analysis, economic
contribution analysis using regional input-output models, and
evaluation of the potential economic effects from proposed fishery
management alternatives. Additionally, the analysis can be used to
understand the economic impacts from natural and manmade disasters. It
is the intent that the collection of dependable economic data will
further maximize the economic benefits of fisheries resources while
reducing the negative costs to fishing communities in the Gulf.
Inshore Shrimp Fleet
Cited as one of the most valuable fisheries within the United
States, the Gulf commercial shrimp fishery constitutes fishing pressure
from both an offshore fleet and an inshore shrimp fleet. Following
recent data collection efforts conducted by NOAA Fisheries for
federally permitted vessels that harvest shrimp in waters offshore, the
Commission has been in the process of providing the first systematic
economic analysis of an important economic segment--the inshore shrimp
industry--which had not previously been examined with such depth and
rigor. This has been accomplished through two annual multi-state
economic mail surveys aimed at collecting information on revenue,
operating costs, annual expenditures, employment data, and vessel
characteristics of the inshore shrimp fleet. This information has been
used to determine the economic performance and the economic
contributions the inshore shrimp fleet has on regional sales, income,
and employment in the Gulf. The information gathered has also
contributed to more informed decisionmaking on a variety of commercial
fishing policy decisions and issues such as the recent Seafood
Compensation Program through the Deepwater Horizon Settlement
Agreement.
Fishing-related Businesses
As fisheries management policies change, the economic impacts of
these actions extend past commercial fishing fleets to supporting
fishing related businesses. Understanding the linkages between specific
fisheries industries and the regional economy can be helpful in
determining the potential impacts of management decisions. The
Commission has, therefore, been in the process of collecting economic
data to determine the economic performance and the economic
contributions that seafood dealers and processors, or shoreside firms,
have on local and regional economies in the Gulf. This data collection
effort is the first systematic, multi-state effort to understand the
economics of these shore-side firms. The effort has been conducted
through onsite interviews for commercial seafood processors and as a
mail survey for dealers and retailers. Up-to-date economic data being
collected includes revenue, operating costs, annual expenditures,
employment data, and characteristics of the fishing-related businesses.
Furthermore, this data collection effort documents the current economic
conditions of commercial seafood fishing related businesses. The
information collected can also be used to estimate the regional
economic contribution of the industry, number of jobs, and amount of
revenue that commercial seafood fishing related-businesses add to the
Gulf economy.
Marine Angler Recreational Fishery
Recreational fishing provides not only relaxation for stakeholders,
but also economic contributions to the surrounding economy. In the
Gulf, for example, residents participate in marine fisheries
recreation, which contributes to the economy. A continued understanding
of how marine angler expenditures influence local and regional
economies in the Gulf through sales, income, and employment, provides
key economic information, which can be used in fisheries management
decisions. As part of a national initiative, the Commission and NOAA
Fisheries have solicited saltwater anglers' expenditures on fishing
trips throughout the Gulf in order to assess the size and economic
contribution of the marine recreational fishing industry to the
regional economy. Where possible, the survey used the MRIP intercept
for trip expenditures and a mail follow-up survey for equipment and
durable expenditures. The survey results provide estimates of marine
recreational angler expenditures and the economic contribution of the
marine angler recreational fishery to the Gulf.
Marine Recreational Use
Economic contributions from recreation to local and regional
economies extend from other types of marine recreation besides
consumptive ocean uses like recreational fishing. Such non-consumptive
activities might include scenic landscape viewing, wildlife watching,
kayaking, scuba diving, and boating. Determining and accounting for the
economic contributions that these activities have on the economy is
important when making marine resource and fishery management decisions,
policies, and priorities. As a result of a national effort, the
Commission, in partnership with NOAA Fisheries, has collected
participation, effort, and expenditures related to ocean recreation
activities, with the primary focus on non-consumptive uses. The effort
sampled the general public using a survey panel where individuals were
notified in advance so that they were able to keep track of their
activities and expenditures. Similar to the marine angler economic
survey, these survey results also provide estimates of expenditures and
the economic contribution of marine recreational use to the Gulf in
terms of jobs, income, and sales.
Valuation of Recreational Species
It is important that the fisheries management process consider the
potential changes in economic value when promulgating new fishing
regulations. For sportfishing policy changes, this requires estimates
of anglers' valuation of regulations or anglers' valuation of the
resulting harvest levels. There is considerable research on preferences
for harvest levels and the values of anglers fishing from private boats
or from the shore. Less research has been conducted to measure such
values on for-hire fishing trips. To improve this, the Commission and
NOAA Fisheries have partnered on a mail survey to generate new
estimates of anglers' valuation of changes in regulations for key
Federal and state managed recreational species on for-hire and private
boat trips in the Gulf. The survey includes questions about recent
recreational fishing activities, preferences for different types of
fishing trips, and angler household characteristics. The fishing trip
preference portion of the survey includes a stated preference choice
experiment with questions that ask anglers to choose between
hypothetical fishing trips. There are versions of the survey for
choices between charter fishing trips and choices between private boat
trips.
Future Economic Data Collection Activities
Given the experiences garnered through the recent aforementioned
economic data collection activities, the Commission is well poised to
move from one time data collection efforts to longitudinal economic
data collection efforts. Proposed longitudinal economic data collection
activities include the following: Economic Surveys of the Inshore
Shrimp Harvesting Industry, Economic Surveys of the Blue Crab
Harvesting Industry, Economic Surveys of the Oyster Harvesting
Industry, Economic Surveys of the Finfish Harvesting Industry, Fishing
Related Businesses Economic Surveys, Marine Recreational Angler
Economic Surveys, and Marine Recreational Use Economic Surveys.
Economic data collection will use online, mail, and in-person surveys
that follow accepted survey methods.
In addition to aiding in the promulgation of fisheries management
policies under the current MSA and its future reauthorization, results
from the Commission's Economic Data Program can also assist other
programs and efforts aimed at economic enhancement and management of
the recreational and commercial fishing activities in the Gulf. For
example, the Economic Data Program has recently contributed to the
development of state level Fisheries Management Plans under the
Commission's Interjurisdictional Fisheries Program. Given that the
Economic Data Program can gauge the economic performance of key Gulf
seafood and recreational fishing industries; this may in turn also
allow for a more targeted approach for the newly developed marketing,
sustainability, and traceability activities in the region. There may be
opportunities where technological applications such as electronic
seafood traceability efforts may also be able to collect key economic
indicators that can be integrated with the aforementioned surveys and
analysis. The Economic Data Program can also be used to assess the
effect of the substantial restoration efforts expected around the Gulf
as a result of RESTORE Act and National Resource Damage Assessment
(NRDA) generated funds. It will be important to know if these
activities are having a positive effect not only on ecosystem health
but economic well-being of the commercial and recreational fishing
industries as measured by economic data. These aforementioned
activities will only be accomplished if additional funding is provided.
Funding for the Economic Data Program is only guaranteed through June
2014.
SPORT FISH RESTORATION PROGRAM
The Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act was enacted in 1950,
having been modeled after the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act,
passed in 1937. The Sport Fish Restoration Program proved to be an
extremely valuable source of funding for fisheries work important to
the states. The Sport Fish Restoration Administrative Program (SFRAP)
was established by the GSMFC in 1987, and its primary goal is to
provide coordination of the recreational fisheries programs in the five
Gulf States. Historically, there were three major categories of this
program, including anadromous fish restoration, artificial reefs, and
fisheries data, all of which supported interstate fisheries management.
Monitoring Artificial Reefs
One of the primary focuses of the SFRAP is artificial reefs. This
component has established regional policies and planning documents, as
well as discussed critical issues regarding reef deployment and
monitoring. The recent hurricanes in the Gulf and the 2010 Deepwater
Horizon oil spill disaster have underlined the fact that there is a
need to establish baseline data on the vast artificial reef areas in
the Gulf of Mexico. This data will allow states to determine how new
artificial reefs are functioning in comparison to established ones, how
they compare to the function of natural reefs, and allow them to assess
impacts to artificial reefs from future natural and man-made disasters.
There is concern within the fisheries community about the removal of
these structures and the impacts it may have on the resources that rely
of them for food, protection, habitat, etc.
In an attempt to meet this need, the SFRAP is developing a Gulf-
wide standardized artificial reef monitoring program. The goal of this
new program would be to establish baseline data on artificial reefs
across the Gulf of Mexico. The standardized monitoring protocols and
gear types utilized in this program would match, as close as possible,
to those used in ongoing long-term monitoring of natural reef areas in
the Gulf of Mexico by NOAA Fisheries and SEAMAP. By doing so, this
program would provide standardized data, on currently unmonitored
habitats, for commercially and recreationally important species for use
in more accurate stock assessments. It would also go a long way in
alleviating the concerns of the fishing public about the lack of data
from artificial reef habitats being used in the assessment of heavily
managed species like red snapper. If a secure source of funding can be
established to support this new component, it would allow the program
to compile a sufficient set of baseline data that could be used in
making scientifically based decisions about the management of
artificial reefs and the fish populations they support.
Invasive Species Monitoring Efforts
One of the ongoing efforts under the SFRAP is a pilot study looking
at the extent of the lionfish (Pterois volitans and Pterois miles)
invasion in northern Gulf waters and conducting diver assessments of
the native fish community for future evaluation of impact. Lionfish
have proven to be extremely adaptable to their invaded range which now
incorporates a large portion of the Eastern Atlantic, throughout the
Caribbean and in recent years the Gulf of Mexico. They are the first
marine finfish to become established, and the full impact they will
have on the natural environment and native species is still widely
unknown. However, recent studies suggest that these impacts could be
severe.
The area covered by this pilot study is on the leading edge of the
invasion, making it a great location to investigate the impacts of this
invasive species. This pilot project is a cooperative effort between
the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, Mississippi Department of
Marine Resources, Alabama Department of Natural Resources, the National
Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The objectives of
this new project are to:
1. Establish a lionfish monitoring program at established sites in
the near coastal waters between Pensacola, FL and the Mississippi River
Delta to monitor and track the invasion.
2. Perform diver surveys of density and richness of associated
species at all sites to aid in future assessment of impacts as a result
of the invasion.
3. Removal of lionfish encountered during normal monitoring
operations.
4. Coordinate reporting activities with the established U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service hotline and the U.S. Geological Survey online
reporting system.
5. Establishment of a ``Strike Team'' to harvest lionfish at
locations beyond regular sampling sites.
6. Engage in outreach activities in the region to help inform the
public about the seriousness of the lionfish invasion.
This pilot project will give us a clear picture of where we stand
in regards to the invasive lionfish population in northern Gulf waters,
and will provide much-needed information for future management
decisions. It is the intention of the group to try and secure funding
that would allow for annual surveys to be conducted which would provide
much-needed data on the full impacts of lionfish on the native fish
communities in northern Gulf waters.
______
Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Mr. Donaldson. And thank you all
for your testimony. At this point we will begin questions of
our witnesses. To allow our members to participate, and to
ensure we can hear from all of our witnesses today, Members are
limited to 5 minutes for their questions. However, if Members
have additional questions, we can have more than one round of
questions. The Chairman now recognizes himself for questions.
Dr. Merrick, included in the NOAA budget request is an
increase of approximately $6 million for annual stock
assessments and improving data collection activities. And an
increase of $3 million for ``survey and monitoring projects.''
How will these increases be prioritized? Where is that money
going to go?
Dr. Merrick. The survey and monitoring funds, the $3
million increase, those will be directly supporting surveys. So
they are basically used to pay for charters. So in Alaska, for
example, there are four or five pollock surveys that occur each
summer. Those are all done through charters. So those increased
funds that go to that line will basically be used to support
the charter work.
Dr. Fleming. OK. How much of this increased funding will go
for new fisheries surveys, for fisheries which have not been
surveyed, say, within the last 5 years?
Dr. Merrick. Under the expanded annual stock assessment
line, the one with the $6 million increase, funds there will be
used to support these new surveys. Part of this will go toward
a territorial initiative that is basically directed toward
specific islands, the Western Pacific, and also toward the Gulf
and Caribbean to begin to survey stocks that are in areas that
we have traditionally not been able to get to.
Those funds will also be able to support some of the
advanced sampling technology work, particularly for the work
with video cameras on bodies so that we can develop ways to
survey reef fish. If you notice the number of stocks that are
data poor, many of those are in those complexes, or reef
fishes, simply because we can't get to a reef and do an actual
good survey without disturbing it. So that is the general
thrust of those funds.
Dr. Fleming. I didn't quite catch everything you said. If I
understand that $6 million is going to go for new surveys. Is
that part of what you said?
Dr. Merrick. Parts of that will go for that.
Dr. Fleming. Parts of it?
Dr. Merrick. Yes.
Dr. Fleming. Will that increase bring us up to date, so
that all the major fisheries in the U.S. will have had a survey
within the last 5 years?
Dr. Merrick. Stocks. There are approximately 580 stocks.
There are some stocks that will still remain unsurveyed,
because the technologies may not exist at that point. We will
have catch data, but we won't have what is called fisheries-
independent data for some of those stocks. That is our goal, to
get there. But to be realistic, I could not guarantee you that
within the next 5 years we will be able to do surveys for all
those.
Dr. Fleming. OK. Can you tell us whether red snapper in the
Southeast or the Gulf of Mexico will be surveyed in Fiscal Year
2014?
Dr. Merrick. Yes.
Dr. Fleming. OK----
Dr. Merrick. For the Gulf of Mexico. In the South Atlantic
stock, what we are developing there are alternative approaches
to surveys there, but largely working with industry. There was
cooperative research that is going to go on, both within the
Carolinas and Georgia, as well as in Florida, to begin to
develop measures of CPUE, biological characteristics of the
stocks as well.
Dr. Fleming. The electronic means that we have been
discussing here today, do you see that replacing some of the
techniques that we have used before, so that we can do better
stock assessments, say, with less cost? Or do you think that is
a supplement to what we have already been doing?
Dr. Merrick. I think it would be both. For catch data, the
electronic monitoring systems that are being developed will
replace paper log books, for example, that will remove some of
the work the fishermen have to do, and it will get the data
back to us quicker. So we can turn around catch monitoring much
faster.
Using electronic means such as video cameras will provide,
in some situations, very good data to track discards that occur
at sea, and probably much more rapidly in some ways than other
techniques. It most likely will be cheaper than using
observers. So our vision is that as that technology comes on,
we will see less use of observers. And we would like to take
funds that we are using there for observers to help support the
development of electronic monitoring techniques.
Dr. Fleming. Right. OK. Changing the subject a little bit,
I am sure you have seen the video of red snapper, dead red
snappers, floating in the water after decommissioning an oil
and gas platform, I guess because of the explosives used. If
this is an ongoing and perhaps increasing activity, how does
NOAA account for this mortality?
Dr. Merrick. It is used directly within the stock
assessments.
Dr. Fleming. Well, just the observation that it seems that
when we decommission these rigs that we see a bunch of dead
fish around, obviously that is a little counter-productive to
what we are trying to do.
Dr. Merrick. We agree completely.
Dr. Fleming. I am sorry?
Dr. Merrick. We agree completely. But unfortunately, it is
not something we have regulatory control over. If they were
blowing up an enlisted species, there there is an intersection
with the ESA, so we could do something there. But with respect
to Magnuson-Stevens, under Magnuson-Stevens, as it exists now,
we do not have the regulatory authority to prohibit those
activities.
What we can do is we include that as a separate form of
mortality in the stock assessment. So the red snapper
assessment that is about to go to the Gulf council will
explicitly incorporate that mortality.
Dr. Fleming. OK. Thank you. I yield to the Ranking Member
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Sablan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Merrick,
I am going to start with you, because you mentioned the Pacific
Islands and the Gulf States, of course, so that makes us very
happy here, caught my attention.
But in your testimony you stated that getting the data
necessary to manage fisheries is costly. This is especially
true in the Western Pacific, particularly out in the islands,
not only for the agency, but also for fishermen. So, can you
please give us some example of how NOAA is working to get
useful data at lower cost to the taxpayers and the regulated
industry?
Dr. Merrick. Well, if I may go outside the Pacific Islands,
in the Gulf right now we are working with shrimp fishermen to
transition the monitoring system--catch monitoring system and
reporting system they have to an electronic system that uplinks
the information by cell phone, so we get it much faster. And
like with VMS, the vessel monitoring system, this is something
different, in that it is giving us back information on catch.
But we will work out a relationship with industry so that we
will cover the cost of the unit, and then the fishermen would
cover the cost of the data transmission. So that would lower
the cost, as compared to an observer, and it will get us back
the information much quicker. That is one example.
And the use of electronic monitoring, our commissions are
helping us with that. I would expect to a certain degree we
will see more of that within the Pacific Islands.
Mr. Sablan. Thank you. Mr. Fisher, Chairman Hastings
alluded to this earlier, sir--with electronic monitoring, there
is something that seems to--like it is ready to be implemented
in many fisheries around the country, but it is stalled for
some reason. I am not going to say that it is lawyers, but the
Chairman has a point there, that it stalled for some reason.
But can you give us your perspective on why electronic
monitoring hasn't been adopted in the fisheries management
commission, and what it would take for you to be able to
utilize that technology?
Mr. Fisher. Thank you. Yes. On the West Coast we are
involved in electronic monitoring. This year, for instance, we
are going to have cameras on 7 fixed-gear boats, 2 whiting
boats, and 14 trawl boats. The problem, basically, is on the
West Coast the Council had passed a regulation that says that
you have to have a human being as the observer. So that process
will have to be changed. And I think it is similar in the North
Pacific Council, also.
So, the regulatory process has to be able to be changed in
order for us to actually have the cameras on the boats, instead
of a human being. So that is the process that we are in, and
that will probably take maybe 1 or 2 years.
Mr. Sablan. All right. And so, Mr. Beal, you mentioned,
sir, in your testimony, that electronic dealer reporting
requires the entry of data such as species, day landed, gear
type, and quantity. Wouldn't sending this information through
the supply chain to make seafood traceable from boat to plate
have economic benefits for fishermen and consumers?
Mr. Beal. I am not sure I heard your question.
Mr. Sablan. All right. Wouldn't sending information that
you mentioned, the electronic dealer reporting requires the
entry of data such as what kind of fish, when they were caught,
and what kind of gear, was it net or line.
So, wouldn't sending this information, taking all this
different information through the supply chain to make the
seafood traceable from the catch to when it was served, to
plate, have economic benefits for fishermen and consumers?
Mr. Fisher. Yes. The short answer is yes. The Atlantic
Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program can work as the backbone
of that data collection program. Most of those data elements
are currently being collected. And it can with the inclusion of
a couple additional data elements that could provide that
traceability from essentially harvest to plate, it will take
some modifications to the program, but it can be done, yes.
Mr. Sablan. All right. So, again, I am going to go back,
Dr. Merrick. I have one more question, if I may.
Your agency's use of methods to assess data-poor stocks,
are you confident that the methods you use represent sound
science that adequately informs fishery management?
Dr. Merrick. Yes. Most of those methods involve catch data.
And the science that goes into using catch data as an estimator
of stock abundance has become pretty robust. We have been
through a series of external workshops looking at these
methods. And they seem to have found that those methods are, in
many cases, equivalent to the more data-intense stock
assessment models that we use for the more expensive, more
important stocks, such as pollock.
Dr. Fleming. The gentleman yields back. Let's see. Mr.
Wittman is now recognized for 5 minutes.
Dr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, thank you
so much for joining us today. I want to go directly to Dr.
Merrick and Mr. Beal. I wanted to ask you, in looking at how
species are managed, if you see a benefit in managing
recreational species like red snapper by harvest rates rather
than by poundage quotas, and would the management structure for
how striped bass is managed, would that be a good structure to
look at, using another species, especially ones that have a
variety of different user groups that target them?
And I will ask for Dr. Merrick and Mr. Beal to give me your
perspectives on that.
Dr. Merrick. I will deal with the first one. In the stock
assessment process, ultimately it doesn't really matter. The
currency of biomass or numbers of fish are equivalent. So if we
determine that we were going to manage the recreational fishery
based on numbers of fish, we have the equivalencies that can go
back to biomass so we could do our stock assessments. So that
is really just a management decision, ultimately.
The second question about whether we should deal with
striped bass and red snapper in equivalent ways, I will turn
that to Bob.
Dr. Wittman. OK. Mr. Beal?
Mr. Beal. Thank you. You know, striped bass has been one of
the great success stories along the Atlantic Coast. And the
recreational fishery has had stable regulations: two fish at 28
inches for the coast, generally, since 1995. And the stock has
continued to do well.
A number of other fisheries that are managed on quotas--
summer flounder, black sea bass, a lot of the Mid-Atlantic
species--those regulations have varied each year since the late
1990s. It is a complex system, and it is a difficult system for
the fishermen to keep up with. So, I think there is some merit
in exploring ways to dampen out the highs and lows and frequent
changes in those other recreational fisheries.
The difficulty is in the way that Magnuson-Stevens is
written now, the accountability measures and annual catch
limits. The regulations have to be crafted so that recreational
harvest limits are not exceeded each year. So that is what
creates the highs and lows. And also, the other part of that
is, as I mentioned in my testimony, the MRIP program really
isn't designed for high-resolution, State-specific harvest data
for recreational species.
So, some of the management programs that we have along the
Mid-Atlantic coast are asking a lot from the data that we do
have.
Dr. Wittman. Right.
Dr. Beal. So, looking at ways to dampen out those highs and
lows, I think, is a good step forward.
Dr. Wittman. Thank you. I understand certainly your
frustrations as I have the frustrations with the ACL as they
kind of force a monolithic approach to species management
versus other ways that I think would, as you said, dampen out
the highs and lows and create some certainty for both the sport
fishing community and the commercial fishing community.
Let me ask you this. You spoke specifically about data
collection, which I think is critical, too, because obviously
there is not enough data for all 538 of the stocks. So in
absence of data, then we end up making management decisions
that attract, obviously, a lot of lightning. I want to get your
perspective, both Dr. Merrick and Mr. Beal, and any other panel
members, too, about what can we do to advance the collection of
data.
And we know that we are in a resource-challenged
environment, so I think we have to look well beyond the current
practices of how data is collected. I think there is a lot of
other data out there that is collected with new technology.
There is a massive amount of data that I think would be
available from a variety of different sources. And I think an
aggressive effort to collect that data and to assimilate it
would create much, much better management regimes for the
different bodies involved in management.
So, I would like to get your perspective on what you see as
opportunities to gather more data from a variety of different
sources.
Dr. Merrick. One of the biggest areas from the fisheries-
independent--the survey side that could gather more data is the
use of acoustics. And we have started to use that extensively
in Alaska. It is growing more in the Northeast. And that was
one of the specific reasons why I hired Bill Carp there,
because he comes from a strong acoustics background, and I
wanted to see that occur more on the East Coast.
Dr. Wittman. Dr. Merrick, I have just got about 30 seconds
left, so I want to interject there and ask this specifically.
Would you entertain that data coming from other sources
besides government sources, i.e. academic institutions, i.e.
fishermen, both commercial and sport fishermen?
Dr. Merrick. Yes. We have an effort right now in Alaska to
work with commercial fishermen to calibrate their sounders as a
way of gathering acoustics data there. I would like to see more
of that.
Dr. Wittman. OK. Very good. Any other panel members wish to
comment? Mr. Beal?
Mr. Beal. I will comment very briefly. Yes, I think we are
going to hear in the next panel quite a bit about the NEAMAP
program----
Dr. Wittman. Yes.
Mr. Beal [continuing]. Along the Atlantic Coast. And that
is a cooperative program, it is a commercial vessel, it is an
academic institution. It is the Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission. It is funded by research set aside, which
is a portion of the quota set aside to fund fisheries research.
And I think examples like that are things we need to
explore. They don't cost the taxpayers, they cost, essentially,
the users of the resource, the set-aside of that quota. And the
cooperative nature through academics and commercial vessels, I
think it is a great example of what we need to look at in the
future.
Dr. Wittman. Very good. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Dr. Fleming. The gentleman yields back. The Chair
recognizes Mr. Pallone for 5 minutes.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad today's
hearing is dedicated to data collection, because it underpins
our ability to properly manage our Nation's fisheries. And,
unfortunately, there is not much confidence in the data that is
collected or the management of our fisheries.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act mandates strict compliance with
catch limits and severe accountability measures that require
fisheries closures and quota payback, but there is a disconnect
between what Magnuson-Stevens requires fisheries managers to
do, and what fisheries managers are able to do with the
information they have at their disposal. And I am interested in
how we remove this disconnect, and I am committed to ensuring
reauthorization means a better Magnuson-Stevens Act.
I wanted to ask Mr. Merrick. I believe that we must give
fisheries managers a level of discretion and flexibility in how
to apply Magnuson-Stevens, so that when the disconnect between
the rigid requirements and the available data is so great, that
they can ensure a fair and reasonable outcome. So, Dr. Merrick,
I would like you specifically to comment on what additional
authority and investments are needed to eliminate the buffer or
reduction in quota that fisheries managers put in place to
account for inadequate science and data.
And I would also like to hear whether you believe the new
MRIP program meets expectations in terms of being an
improvement over the past, and whether you would support a new
National Research Council report reviewing the status of
recreational data collection. And I have to get to Bob also, so
those three things: any additional authority or investments;
comment on the MRIP; and the National Research Council, if you
could.
Dr. Merrick. MRIP. Recognize there are two real distinct
parts to MRIP. One is the estimation technique, once you get
the data, and the other is data collection.
The estimation technique was really the first part that was
implemented. So when we started using the MRIP estimates in
2012, they represented basically the science that the National
Academy study was proposing us to use. It is new statistical
techniques. So now, any cod assessment, for example, in New
England uses the new estimates. Anything that uses recreational
data on the East Coast and the Gulf we use those new estimates.
Those are good.
Where we hope to continue to expand the capabilities is the
sampling part, and we are learning more there. Dr. Breidt will
probably comment a little bit on that, but we have made
significant progress. Things like iSnapper potentially could
become a fundamentally important part of the MRIP protocol, and
we just have to evaluate that.
Mr. Pallone. What about the National Research Council
report reviewing the status of recreational data collection?
Would you support a new National Research Council report?
Dr. Merrick. We would like to have either a National
Academy study review, once it is full implemented within the
next few years, or some other form of external peer review.
Yes, we would support that.
Mr. Pallone. And any suggestions about what additional
authority or investments are needed to eliminate this buffer or
reduction quota that the managers put in place to account for
inadequate science or data? You have any suggestions or
additional authority or investment that would be needed?
Dr. Merrick. Sir, there is an alternative approach to that,
in the sense that we can get really precise estimates of
biomass and still see fluctuations in the ACL that are
problematic to the industry. So one of the things----
Mr. Pallone. So you don't see anything else that could be
done at this point, other than what you are doing.
Dr. Merrick. New England and the Northeast, we are doing a
pretty good job. Most of those stock assessments are quite
good. There are other areas, as we discussed earlier, there are
data-poor stocks, where we can develop new methodologies to
better survey those. And as that develops, we will see the
precision of those estimates improve, and we will see the
buffers go down.
Mr. Pallone. All right. Let me ask Mr. Beal same thing. How
do we get management and science and data collection in line?
Do you see what type of challenges the Commission face, or what
types of additional flexibility authority investments would
help the Commission address these data collection challenges?
Mr. Beal. I think the authority is there to address the
data collection challenges right now. I think finding creative,
efficient ways to collect the data through new technologies is
important. I think the full implementation of MRIP is going to
be a big help in that.
I think the Commission right now has been level-funded, and
a lot of our survey efforts have been level-funded for a number
of years. And we have had surveys drop off for horseshoe crabs
in New Jersey, red drum, lobster, a number of other things.
Just as costs have gotten higher and we have been level-funded
for a number of years, those surveys have dropped off. So we
have actually lost ground over the last 5 years on the data
that we have to support fishery stock assessments.
So, I think the authority is there. I think we need to
continue to explore research set-asides and other programs so
we can find funding in creative ways to support the fishery
science up and down the East Coast.
Mr. Pallone. All right, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Fleming. The gentleman yields back. The Chair
recognizes Mr. Runyan for 5 minutes.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you, Chairman and gentlemen, thanks for
your testimony. The first two questions--and I have a third one
for Mr. Beal if I get to it, but the first two are for Dr.
Merrick.
I think we can all agree cooperative research is extremely
important, I expect, of collecting fisheries data. And I think
many people will agree that New Jersey fishermen were among the
hardest working with the scientists to lead the charge on
tagging Atlantic sturgeon and gathering DNA data prior to the
ESA listing over a year ago. My concern is that there is a
budget request, a $2 million increase, in Fiscal Year 2014 of
cooperative research. But as we go back through and look at the
Atlantic sturgeon, that data wasn't used in the determination
of that ESA declaration.
Now, we want to be helpful, we want to make sure it is
done. But does NMFS plan on using the DNA data when compiling
biological opinions in the future? And is there a way that we
can make sure that that data is--obviously valid, but being
used?
Dr. Merrick. Specifically speaking to the DNA data, that is
crucial in the designation of distinct population segments. And
why it was not used here is--I cannot answer that. But if you
want to--we can answer that later. I can provide you something
more concrete. But those data, particularly the tagging data,
are now crucial to the ASMFC stock assessment. So at the time,
the best available scientific information was not considered to
include those, perhaps because it was all still preliminary.
But the subsequent analyses done by the Center has led to the
estimates of increased stock size that are supporting the ASMFC
stock assessment.
Mr. Runyan. Well, I look forward to getting to the bottom
of it. Because, obviously, at the end of the day, it is an
investment of taxpayer money into data I don't think a lot of
people would be--agree that is being used, which leads me to my
next question.
In 2006, Congress had passed amendments to the Magnuson-
Stevens Act which required creating a new recreational
fisheries data collection program. And it has been 7 years and
has not been fully implemented. And there is dissatisfaction
among recreational fishermen. What is NOAA doing to implement
the new program and get better buy-in from recreational
fishermen?
Dr. Merrick. MRIP estimation methods were implemented in
2012. So basically, any stock assessment that occurred from
2012 on includes MRIP estimates. The only thing that has not
been implemented now are some of the new survey methodologies,
and those are continuing to evolve because things like iSnapper
continue to appear as ways that we could better sample the
recreational industry.
Mr. Runyan. Are there any other issues that have arisen
that set back the full implementation of the program?
Dr. Merrick. We don't really feel it has been set back. It
has been implemented.
Mr. Runyan. You just said, though, it wasn't fully
implemented.
Dr. Merrick. The estimation technique, which is the key
part and was the statistical issue that provoked the National
Academy review, and a lot of the initial concern, has been
implemented.
Mr. Runyan. OK.
Dr. Merrick. Survey techniques evolve, whether they are in
a recreational fishery or commercial fishery. And that is what
is happening within the recreational sampling now under MRIP.
Mr. Runyan. OK.
Dr. Merrick. For example, the old estimates were based on
phone surveys. Phone surveys don't work any more. So we have
had to develop an angler registry and new approaches to
sampling recreational fishermen. Six years ago, when this
process started, the idea of iSnapper, no one would ever have
thought of that. Apps didn't exist.
So we are adapting MRIP to evolving technologies, both for
sampling and home surveys, and also for at sea.
Mr. Runyan. Do you--I mean just talking about the buy-in of
the fishermen in general, do you realize how you are trying to,
I guess, circumvent those problems of the distrust or the ever-
changing way you are going to try to implement it to get what
you need, is there any outreach there to make sure that they
are part of the program?
Dr. Merrick. We continue to reach out to industry, both the
recreational and the commercial, through a variety of methods.
Mr. Runyan. Being?
Dr. Merrick. OK. There is the MRIP 101, a program that the
Northeast Center is working with the Gulf of Maine Research
Institute, where they bring in fishermen and actually run them
through the process, teaching them how you do fishery science.
We have more people on the docks talking to industry.
As part of stock assessments, one of the processes we are
trying to implement now is an initial meeting with fishermen to
understand what they have seen in the stock over the period
since the last assessment, so they can incorporate that into
the stock assessment. We are attempting to make most of the
data more available to industry for individuals to look at.
Mr. Runyan. OK----
Dr. Merrick. And we actually welcome suggestions. If there
are more ways that we can inform the industry, whether
recreational or commercial, and keep them more up-to-date on
data, on the assessment process, on what we are doing, we
welcome that advice.
Mr. Runyan. Well, thank you for that. My time has expired.
I yield back.
Dr. Fleming. The gentleman yields back. The Chair
recognizes the gentlelady from Guam.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And good morning,
gentlemen. Thank you for being here. The Magnuson-Stevens Act
mandates that fisheries conservation and management measures
must be based upon the best scientific data available. I think
we all agree with that.
Unfortunately, Guam--and I will include the Northern
Marianas in this--is the most data-poor region. According to
NOAA, 70 percent of stocks in the Western Pacific have no stock
assessments--70 percent. Yet, in the Mid-Atlantic region, all
fishery stocks have been assessed.
Dr. Merrick, in the Central and Western Pacific, there is a
very high occurrence of illegal, unreported, and unregulated
fishing. This results in fewer fish for legal harvests, and
produces inaccurate estimators used to calculate abundance and
catch limits. How does unknown IUU fishing mortality manifest
itself into our stock assessments? And do you agree that IUU
fishing, especially in the Pacific, could be a big problem for
getting accurate data?
Dr. Merrick. Agreed. We agree that it is a significant
issue for--especially for highly migratory species. Tuna, for
example.
Ms. Bordallo. So you agree with that statement.
Dr. Merrick. We agree.
Ms. Bordallo. All right. Now----
Dr. Merrick. And we are--our stock assessments attempt to
adjust for that.
Ms. Bordallo. Now, my next question, Dr. Merrick, is that
given that the insular areas are so far behind the other
regions in terms of stock assessments, what is the NMFS
currently doing to assist our areas in improving data
collection? And I know you referred to that in your opening
statement about the Pacific area, to achieving the ability to
conduct stock assessments and establish catch limits that
reflect the true status of the stock.
How can we ensure that NMFS is allocating resources equally
to all of its regions? How is it that we have all the
assessments for one region, and that is the Mid-Atlantic, and
70 percent lacking in the Pacific area? How could this have
happened?
Dr. Merrick. If you follow the traditional ways of
prioritizing, say, science efforts, government science efforts,
it usually goes where the money is, to be honest. And since the
Mid-Atlantic has a number of very valuable fish stocks, that is
why they are well-assessed.
That is not a good way to meet our conservation mandates,
and that is one of the reasons we have been working with Kitty
Simons in the Western Pacific Council to start to understand
what better science can we provide in the territories further
out in the Western Pacific to start to meet those deficiencies.
So we explicitly will be devoting funding just to that.
Separate from anything else that the Pacific Islands Center
would use these funds for, they will be directed further out
into Guam and Samoa----
Ms. Bordallo. Northern Marianas?
Dr. Merrick. Yes.
Ms. Bordallo. What I am hearing from you is that you have
very valuable stocks in the Mid-Atlantic region, but the
Pacific is not that valuable. Is that what you are saying?
Dr. Merrick. In terms of the wealth to the Nation, in terms
of economic wealth, correct. Except for highly migratory
species. But that is--I mean that is part of the problem with
Magnuson-Stevens. On the one hand it wants us to conserve
species, and the other hand we need to worry about the economic
benefit to the Nation. I would lean more toward the need, as a
scientist, to make sure all stocks are adequately assessed.
Ms. Bordallo. Now, you said $6 million will be earmarked.
Is that correct?
Dr. Merrick. Excuse me?
Ms. Bordallo. For this study. I heard you say that earlier.
Dr. Merrick. That is--the $6 million is an increase in
the----
Ms. Bordallo. For the entire region?
Dr. Merrick. Yes, for the expanding of stock assessments--
--
Ms. Bordallo. How much--well, how are you going to allocate
this now? Are you going to be fair and give the Pacific area
some of this?
Dr. Merrick. Right now we have asked the Council and we
have asked the Pacific Island Center how much----
Ms. Bordallo. I don't know that the Ranking Member--I am
sure he is going to agree with me on this----
Dr. Merrick. I am sure he will.
Ms. Bordallo [continuing]. Because we feel it is a very
valuable area there, too. We have a lot of valuable fish stock.
Dr. Merrick. OK. We have asked the Pacific Island Center
and the Council how much they need, so we are waiting to hear
back from them. My expectation is it will be something in the
range, initially, of $500,000 to start the process, in addition
to the ship time what we normally give, and so on.
Ms. Bordallo. Well, you think it will be a fair share now,
as we go on?
Dr. Merrick. I don't know how you define ``fair,'' to be
honest.
Ms. Bordallo. Well, I hope, Dr. Merrick, you will watch out
for our area. OK?
Dr. Merrick. That is why I am proposing this.
Ms. Bordallo. You are what?
Dr. Merrick. That is why I have proposed this.
Ms. Bordallo. Good. OK, all right. All right. Well, thank
you very much----
Dr. Merrick. It is also the same thing in the Caribbean,
OK?
Ms. Bordallo. Yes.
Dr. Merrick. They have the same issues there.
Ms. Bordallo. Absolutely. I am not questioning----
Dr. Merrick. They have a similar initiative there.
Ms. Bordallo. Well, we feel very strong about the
territories.
Dr. Merrick. So do we. Clearly, Kitty Simons feels very
strongly about it.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you.
Dr. Merrick. Every time I see her she talks about it.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Dr. Merrick. It is good to see you
again. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Fleming. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair
recognizes Mr. Southerland for 5 minutes.
Mr. Southerland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
thank all the witnesses for being here today. Dr. Merrick, I
wanted to turn some of my questions to you at first, and I
wanted to talk about the stock assessments.
A few moments ago you made a statement that--for 2013 or
into 2014, that there would be no stock assessment for the
South Atlantic Snapper. You said you will use other techniques,
or other--you will work with industry was your words that you
stated.
For the record, this particular stock has been closed for
1,234 days with no stock assessment scheduled. And by your own
admission, there won't be one. And I am trying to figure out
why has it taken so long. By the time we--this stock was--the
last stock assessment was 2008.
I also noted in your written testimony that priorities are
established--when you determine stock assessments, priorities
are established by evaluating the commercial importance of a
stock. Obviously, the red snapper in the South Atlantic has
significant commercial importance. And I am just--why has that
taken so long? Why can't we get this done? You have done 62
assessments in 2012. Since the 2008 assessment, you could have
conceivably done 240 stock assessments, and yet we have still
not found the necessary time to do this for the red snapper.
Dr. Merrick. Prioritization of stock assessments are done
regionally.
Mr. Southerland. I am sorry?
Dr. Merrick. Prioritization of stock assessments is done
regionally.
Mr. Southerland. I can't hear you, sir, I am sorry. Is your
mic on?
Dr. Merrick. Yes.
Mr. Southerland. OK.
Dr. Merrick. Prioritization of stock assessments is
performed regionally.
Mr. Southerland. OK.
Dr. Merrick. So that is a decision made between the
appropriate council, the Center, the region, and then the
Commission. There it is part of CDR. I would suggest that----
Mr. Southerland. So you are suggesting, then, by that
statement, that the Council doesn't have to listen to you in
regards to a stock assessment that is so critical to the
region.
Dr. Merrick. That is correct. It is a decision made jointly
between NMFS and the Council and the Commission.
Mr. Southerland. Well, I will tell you the Gulf Council
listens to everything you say.
Dr. Merrick. OK.
Mr. Southerland. And I have a representative at every Gulf
Council meeting. And so, for you to say that they don't listen
to you, and they don't have to listen to you, or they don't by
choice, that is not occurring in the--I wish you could send an
email and a memo to the Gulf Council, because they are not
operating like that.
Dr. Merrick. Well, I would hope they listen to us. But I
hope they also have their own mind and make decisions that are
regionally based.
Mr. Southerland. Well, your regional director didn't get
that memo, either. So I would--I just--it irritates me that--
and I think for the average fisherman to understand that when a
stock has been closed for 1,234 days, and you just admitted
that there is not going to be any plans to have a stock
assessment done, it undermines the credibility of the intention
for the well being of both human and our fish.
Dr. Merrick. To be correct, I did not say we had no
intention of doing a stock assessment. This was----
Mr. Southerland. No, by 2014.
Dr. Merrick. Yes.
Mr. Southerland. By 2014. So you did say by 2014. And the
last one was done in 2008. So, therefore, we will have a
fishery that has been closed, by that time, my goodness, it
could be approaching 2,000 days with no stock assessment.
But in your testimony you said stock assessments are
prioritized by their commercial importance. And yet we all know
that the red snapper in the South Atlantic and the Gulf of
Mexico, in our region in Florida, for recreational fishermen
there is hardly a fish that has greater commercial
significance. I see an inconsistency there.
Dr. Merrick. Well, I do not prioritize the stock
assessments. Your folks at the Council, at the Commission, and
then our folks from the regional office and the Center are the
ones that do the prioritization.
Mr. Southerland. Can I ask you--moving on also to--on May
9th, NOAA fisheries published a Federal registry, a final rule
to implement Amendment 37 to the reef fishery management plan
in the Gulf of Mexico regarding the trigger fish. The trigger
fish--correct me if I am wrong, but the trigger fish is not
really a primary fish, but more of a secondary by-catch. Is
that----
Dr. Merrick. I am sorry, I cannot answer that. I don't know
about trigger fish. But perhaps the Gulf Commission could
answer that better?
Mr. Donaldson. It is more a secondary--yes.
Mr. Southerland. OK. And let me say this, sir. You seem
to--if you are familiar with this, it is a by-catch by
recreational anglers going after what fish?
Mr. Donaldson. Red snapper.
Mr. Southerland. Red snapper. I am just curious, Dr.
Merrick. Do you know--well, you don't know, you are not
familiar with trigger fish. We will just keep it down here. Do
you know the size hook that is used by an angler to catch
snapper and grouper?
Mr. Donaldson. Not really, no. I mean it is a normal-sized
J-hook. I mean----
Mr. Southerland. Well, it is a circle hook.
Mr. Donaldson. Right.
Mr. Southerland. OK? We mandate a circle hook.
Mr. Donaldson. A circle hook, you are right.
Mr. Southerland. OK? A 5/0, 6/0, 7/0, 8/0, 10/0, OK?
Trigger fish have a much smaller mouth than snapper and
grouper. Would anyone want to guess what the size hook is to
catch a trigger fish?
Mr. Donaldson. Smaller than a 5/0.
Mr. Southerland. There you go. That is good. Smaller than a
5/0. A 1/0 and a 2/0. OK. So for NOAA to come out and say this
fishery is over-fished, when all the fishermen that go out into
the Gulf of Mexico catch them as by-catch using 5/0, 6/0, 7/0,
8/0, and 9/0, is really not true. There must be another reason.
And I would state that today the greater reason is that the red
snapper are so over-populated that they are hammering the
trigger fish. And the trigger fish are, in fact, not over-
fished, they are over-eaten. And with that, I yield back.
Dr. Fleming. The gentleman yields back. The Chair
recognizes Ms. Shea-Porter for 5 minutes.
Ms. Shea-Porter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In 2000, New
Hampshire had 100 commercial groundfishing vessels. Last year
there were 22. This year there are 14. Our industry is being
absolutely decimated, as I know you are all aware. We have a 70
percent reduction in catches now for cod, haddock, and
flounder. And so many of the younger fishermen have just given
up, and the older ones are wondering what is next for them. It
is just being decimated. It is an economic industry and a way
of life for the fishermen of the New England coastline, and I
am very concerned about this, as I know we all are. We all care
about what happens here.
But there do seem to be some problems. And so, Dr. Merrick,
I would like to ask you if you could explain what progress NMFS
has made in addressing the data gaps in cod assessments
highlighted by the New England Fishery Management Council's
Scientific and Statistical Committee and the Stock Assessment
Review Committee.
Dr. Merrick. Well, the first key one was the concern that
the 2011 assessment was not adequate. The review committee said
it was, but the SSC was concerned. And there was such concern
that we did the assessment again in 2012, and we found the same
results again.
But in between the two there were--there are several issues
that we attempted to resolve that the SSC and the original
review committee had pointed out. One of those was that they
wanted to use--they wanted to have the improved recreational
data, the MRIP data, used in the next assessment, which it was.
They were concerned about discard mortality. At that point we
were using 100 percent mortality from all discards, even though
there was some limited scientific information that suggested
otherwise. We met to discuss with industry a better approach to
this. And so, when the 2012 cod assessment occurred, we used
those revised estimates.
There was also concern about stock structure. We co-hosted
a meeting with the Gulf Committee Research Institute from
Portland to look at stock structure. We have not resolved that
yet, so that is an ongoing area of research.
And then, finally, there is the issue of using CPUE, catch
per unit effort, as observed by the fishermen, whether we could
use that as another index within the stock assessment. It
appears we can. It was not particularly useful in the 2012
stock assessment, we are going to continue to research that and
work with industry to try to use that as a better indicator.
Ms. Shea-Porter. OK, thank you. Also, given the need to
maintain human observers while electronic monitoring methods
are improved, what steps can be taken to ensure the cost of
these observers isn't an undue burden on the small fishermen?
Dr. Merrick. Well, one of the simplest may be to develop a
better strategy for using observers versus electronic
monitoring. Because I think there are many situations that we
are using an observer now because it is the only way we have to
collect data. Implementing electronic monitoring with cameras
and modifying the way the fishery is managed may be the best
solution to dealing with that. That should bring the cost down.
And then we can use observers in a more parsimonious manner. To
collect those data we really have to have an observer, which is
basically where we need biological information or more detail
on the way fish are caught.
Ms. Shea-Porter. OK, thank you. And I would just like to
say for the record, even though it has nothing to do with you,
that this area has been considered a disaster in fishing there,
and no funding has come, and I want to state for the record
that the fishermen up and down the Eastern Seaboard and
certainly in New England deserve to have these problems
addressed.
They all want what we all want. We want to make sure that
we replenish these fish stocks and that we have fishing there
for the next generation and thereafter. And we recognize that
there are challenges. But to just simply say that they can't
fish without offering anything else and coming forward with
assistance for them just seems wrong on every level. Thank you,
and I yield back.
Dr. Merrick. We agree completely with that. As a closure
from our side, that----
Ms. Shea-Porter. I am sorry?
Dr. Merrick. This may be the first of the commercial
fishery disasters that is going to result from climate change.
There may be more.
Ms. Shea-Porter. And actually, I would like to comment. We
just talked about climate change. Because I have been talking
to a lot of the fishermen there, and also some in seafood
restaurants. And they have great concerns. They observe
changes. And so I think we also need to be addressing that.
And I don't want anybody finger-pointing back and forth,
whose fault that is. I just want to see us address that and
address the economic disaster that our fishermen are
experiencing as we take the science and do the right thing by
the American people. Thank you, I yield back.
Dr. Fleming. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair
recognizes Mr. Lowenthal for 5 minutes. Oh, Mr. Lowenthal
declines for this panel.
Therefore, our panel of witnesses, I do thank you for
coming and giving your expert testimony today. Members of the
Subcommittee may have additional questions for the witnesses,
and we ask you to respond to these in writing. The hearing
record will be open for 10 days to receive these responses.
We are now ready for our second panel. Thank you,
panelists.
[Pause.]
Mr. Sablan. Mr. Chairman, Chairman Fleming, I ask unanimous
consent to allow Representative Keating to join us today and
participate in today's hearing.
[No response.]
Dr. Fleming. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
Mr. Sablan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Fleming. OK. Among our panelists today we have Ms.
Linda Behnken, Mr. Christopher Bonzek--let's see. Ms. Behnken
is the Executive Director, Alaska Longline Fishermen's
Association. Mr. Bonzek, Fishery Data Analyst, NorthEast Area
Monitoring and Assessment Program, Department of Fisheries
Science, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of
William and Mary.
Dr. Breidt, Professor of Statistics and Associate Chair,
Department of Statistics, Colorado State University, and member
of the National Research Council's Committee on the Review of
Recreational Fisheries Survey Methods.
Mr. Christopher Horton, Midwestern States Director,
Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation and member of the Marine
Fisheries Advisory Committee's Recreational Fisheries Working
Group.
Dr. Kevin Stokesbury, Associate Professor and Chair,
Department of Fisheries Oceanography, University of
Massachusetts-Dartmouth School for Marine Science and
Technology.
Captain Mike Colby, President, Double Hook Charters,
Clearwater, Florida.
Panel, you may have seen the previous instructions.
Basically, make sure that when you speak, that you push the
button to turn it on and make sure the tip of the microphone is
close by. You have 5 minutes to give your testimony. You will
be under the green light the first 4 minutes, a yellow light
the last minute. And then, if it turns red before you are done,
please go ahead and wrap up as soon as possible, because your
testimony will appear in full in the record.
Therefore--let's see. The Chair recognizes Mr. Keating for
an introduction.
Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,
Ranking Member Sablan, for holding today's hearing. And I also
want to thank Ranking Member Markey for his invitation to
introduce one of today's witnesses. I have the honor of
representing the port City of New Bedford in Massachusetts,
home to the esteemed Kevin Stokesbury, who is an Associate
Professor and Chair at the Department of Fisheries and
Oceanography at the University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth
School for Marine Science and Technology.
Dr. Stokesbury received his bachelor's of science in marine
biology and master's of science in marine ecology at Acadia
University in Nova Scotia in 1984 and in 1987. He then went on
to complete his Ph.D. in marine ecology at the Universite Laval
in Quebec City, Quebec, in 1994. From 1994 to 1996 he worked as
a research assistant for the Center of Marine Science and
Research at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington
before moving on to the University of Alaska Fairbanks, as a
research assistant until 1998.
It was then, nearly 15 years ago, in September 1998, that
he first joined the School of Marine Science and Technology,
SMST, at the University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth as an
associate fellow, and where he quickly became an associate
professor 2 years later. Since 2005, Dr. Stokesbury has served
as the Chair of the Department of Fisheries and Oceanography.
Kevin's contributions to SMST, fisheries research, and the
fishing community both within and outside of Southeastern
Massachusetts is immeasurable. His innovative approaches to
mapping scallop populations have revolutionized scallop
management by using still photos and now high-resolution
videos, as he has paved the way for groundbreaking cooperative
research involving members of the fishing industry.
I think Kevin is a tremendous asset to the marine science
community. I look forward to his testimony and I thank you for
allowing me to introduce him.
Dr. Fleming. The gentleman yields back. The Chair,
therefore, recognizes Mr.--I am sorry. Yes, here we are. The
Chair recognizes Ms. Behnken for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF LINDA BEHNKEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA LONGLINE
FISHERMEN'S ASSOCIATION
Ms. Behnken. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Committee. I work with a group of fishermen who understand the
importance of good data to sustainable fisheries management, as
well as the need to use a diverse set of monitoring tools to
gather good data. We have partnered with NMFS on a number of
research projects to advance data collection. Our most recent
project was a joint cooperative project in electronic
monitoring. That will be my focus today.
EM is in use or in development in Canada, Europe,
Australia, and New Zealand. In the U.S. there have been 20
pilot programs to test EM. In my written comments I cited a
number of the pilot programs and provided information on the
very successful EM system that monitors halibut and groundfish
off of the west coast of Canada.
To summarize, EM systems now generally achieve 98 percent
reliability at catch monitoring, 94 to 96 percent of the fish
can be identified to the species level, and EM achieves a 40 to
60 percent reduction in the cost over human observers for
monitoring. Multiple studies have compared EM to human
observers on providing catch composition data and found EM
equally effective.
For example, a 2011 study concluded EM has been
demonstrated to be an effective tool for at-sea monitoring,
delivering fishing effort and catch data comparable to on-board
observers. ALFA, the group that I run, our pilot program
focused on refining EM deployment, operations, and cost in the
hook-and-line halibut sable fish fishery off of Alaska.
NMFS's role in the pilot was to identify data collection
objectives, performance standards, and the regulatory structure
necessary to integrate EM with the restructured observer
program that went into place in Alaska in 2013. I included a
copy of ALFA's EM pilot program report to the fleet with my
written comments, but I will just summarize here.
EM systems were deployed on 41 longline trips and monitored
215 longline hauls. EM systems captured a complete video record
of 95.3 percent of the hauls. EM proved reliable and fully
capable of providing the assessment of catch and catch
composition that NMFS had identified as their pilot program
objectives. And at $200 to $330 per sea day, EM monitoring
costs were far less than the human observer program in Alaska,
and a third of the human observer cost under the new,
restructured program.
Despite this success, EM is not yet available to our fleet
as an alternative to human observers. Concerns still linger
about collecting biological data and length/weight data on
released fish. I want to briefly address those concerns and put
them to rest.
In Alaska's halibut sable fish fishery, biological data is
collected during annual surveys through dockside sampling of
catch and by observers on the larger boats. Relative to length/
weight data on released fish, our Canadian neighbors use a
measurement board outboard of the hauling station, which is a
brightly painted board with contrasting stripes of color. Fish
are held for three seconds in front of this board to allow the
video to capture the length of the fish, and a reviewer to
calculate the weight. This low-tech strategy works, as does EM,
for monitoring catch and by-catch. This system may be automated
in the future, but reliable and statistically viable systems
are available now, and currently in use.
In short, EM offers benefits for a number of U.S.
fisheries. EM is urgently needed as an at-sea monitoring
alternative by the small boat vessels that cannot afford the
cost, safety concerns, logistical challenges, and intrusions
imposed by observers.
Our fleet pays an assessment. Everybody in the fishery is
paying for the program to monitor all these fisheries. It is an
industry-funded program. What we are looking for is a program
that works on our small boats. What we see is that EM collects
necessary data without any of the issues, costs, or intrusions
associated with a human observer.
In conclusion, the U.S. needs to move from pilot program to
full implementation of EM as an alternative to human observers.
In doing so, managers need to recognize that EM supplements
stock assessment surveys, dockside sampling, and observations
for larger boats. EM technology will continue to evolve. But,
as I said, the perfect should not be the enemy of the good.
Reliable systems are available now to assess catch, and should
be used.
Specific to our fisheries in Alaska, what we need is a
percentage of the fees that are collected from our fleet to be
dedicated to EM deployment in our fleet. We need waivers from
human observer coverage from boats that are carrying EM. And
finally, we need NMFS to provide a vehicle to implement EM in
2014. Thank you, and I would be happy to answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Behnken follows:]
Statement of Linda Behnken, Executive Director,
Alaska Longline Fishermen's Association
Chairman Fleming and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
this opportunity to testify on data collection in our Nation's
fisheries.
I am a commercial fisherman and have been for 30 years. I served on
the North Pacific Fishery Management Council from 1992-2001 and
continue to actively participate in the Council process. I am the
Executive Director of the Alaska Longline Fishermen's Association
(ALFA), based in Sitka, Alaska, and am representing ALFA's over 100
members with this testimony.
ALFA members participate in the halibut/sablefish catch share
fisheries, which are fixed gear or hook and line fisheries managed with
Individual Fishing Quotas (IFQ). Our members are deckhands or owner/
operators of vessels that range in size from open skiffs to 72 foot
vessels, but the majority of the vessels are less than 60 feet in
length. ALFA is a community-based organization with a strong commitment
to sustainable fisheries and healthy fishing communities.
ALFA recognizes the importance of accurate data collection and the
role it plays in science-based fisheries management. Over the years,
our Association has engaged in multiple research projects, including a
number of cooperative research projects with the National Marine
Fisheries Service (``NMFS'') in order to improve the data collection
program so that we can better manage our Nation's fisheries. Of
particular relevance to this hearing is ALFA's recently completed two-
year electronic monitoring pilot program. This pilot program was funded
by a National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Fisheries Innovation Fund
grant. Our project partners were the NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science
Center and other Alaska-based fishing organizations. Our goal was to
assist in developing an electronic monitoring (``EM'') system that
could be used to improve fisheries data collection when Alaska's
Restructured Observer program would be expanded to include small boats.
We were specifically interested in improving deployment efficiencies
and paving the way for a full scale cost effective EM program that met
NMFS' data needs in the halibut/sablefish IFQ fisheries. More on that
project later; but first some background on Alaska's observer program.
North Pacific Observer Program
The Alaska groundfish industry has operated with an industry-funded
observer program for over 20 years. Until 2013, observer coverage
requirements were based on vessel size, with vessels between 60 feet
and 125 feet required to carry observers for 30 percent of their
fishing time, and vessels over 125 feet operating with 100 percent
coverage requirements. Halibut boats and boats less than 60 feet were
exempt from coverage. Vessel owners were responsible for arranging
observer coverage with observer contractors. Vessel owners also paid
for that coverage through a ``pay-as-you-go'' system--vessels that
carried an observer paid a daily fee to the observer contractor.
Vessels that did not carry an observer, or were exempt from coverage,
did not pay a fee. For years, NMFS has managed major groundfish
fisheries based on the data collected from these observers and has
opened and closed target fisheries when bycatch caps for halibut,
salmon or crab were reached. NMFS and the International Pacific Halibut
Commission (``IPHC'') have also successfully managed the non-observed
groundfish and halibut fisheries relying on stock assessment surveys
and dockside sampling for biological data and shore-side delivery
systems for catch accounting.
Restructuring the North Pacific Observer Program
In 2010, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (``Council'')
initiated amendments to change the observer fee structure and the
observer service delivery model for partial coverage vessels. The
Council also identified an interest in additional at-sea monitoring of
halibut vessels and groundfish vessels less than 60 feet. NMFS
clarified that the agency's ``primary monitoring need'' for the
halibut/sablefish fleet was ototal catch composition and species
discards, to complement the existing [International Pacific Halibut
Commission] dockside monitoring program.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/npfmc/PDFdocuments/
conservation_issues/Observer/311_OACreport.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2013, the restructured observer program was implemented. Under
the new program, all fishermen operating in federally managed halibut
and groundfish fisheries off Alaska pay a percentage-based observer fee
on ex-vessel price \2\ of the fish they deliver, whether the boat
carries an observer that year or not. The program also authorizes NMFS
to require observers on any size vessel and, for the first time, on
halibut vessels. In these first years of the program, boats 40 feet and
longer are being randomly selected for coverage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In theory, the observer fee is to be paid equally by fishermen
and processors. In practice, NMFS and the Council acknowledge that the
entire fee will likely be charged to fishermen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Early in the restructuring process, ALFA and other organizations
representing small, fixed-gear boats made clear to the Council and NMFS
that our members support at-sea monitoring and are willing to pay a
fair share of at-sea monitoring costs. We believe in improved data and
support that objective. However, small boats represent 90 percent of
the vessels directly regulated under the new observer program, and
placing human observers on these vessels presents special problems.
Two options are available for gathering at-sea data: human
observers or EM. EM uses cameras, video equipment, and sensors on
fishing vessels to record catch and vessel position. For the small boat
fleet, EM is a better option to gather needed data. EM is a better
option because working space on Alaska's small boat fleet is limited
and living space is cramped at best. Fishermen, fisher women, and
fishing families spend months living in a space that is roughly
equivalent in size to a station wagon. Fishing time is weather-
dependent, and boats can wait in town for weeks for fishable weather.
Few boats have an extra bunk to offer an observer, and almost none can
provide privacy. Observers must be fed and housed during and between
fishing trips and vessel owners must purchase personal indemnity
insurance and add safety equipment to accommodate observers. Observers
need space for their sampling equipment and room to work both on deck
and in cramped living quarters. In sum, human observers impose costs,
safety issues, intrusions, and disruptions for small fishing boats and
their crews.
In contrast, EM equipment collects necessary data without any of
these issues. An EM unit sits idle while the boat waits for safe
fishing weather, requiring neither a hotel nor food. EM units do not
need bunk space to sleep. EM units do not get seasick, nor are they
precluded from working on deck by safety concerns during particularly
rough weather.\3\ Vessel owners do not have to buy additional safety
equipment or purchase liability insurance for EM units. EM
automatically turns on when a boat sets or hauls gear, providing an
accurate and re-creatable record of catch. And EM is accurate. To quote
a 2009 article that evaluated EM monitoring of yelloweye rockfish:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/Publications/AFSC-TM/NOAA-TM-AFSC-
213.pdf. See page 54.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since these data come from video footage collected at the
moment of capture, the video estimate cannot be corrupted by
misreporting of discards or by dumping fish after being
retained. Thus, the video data provide an
unbiased and virtually independent catch estimate--rare in
fisheries
monitoring--that captures the extent to which the official
catch accounting systems might be biased.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ http://dx.doi.org/10.1577/C09-005.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska's halibut/sablefish fleet uses hook and line gear to harvest
fish. Fish are hauled aboard one at a time, which makes this fleet
particularly well suited to EM. As each fish is brought aboard, it can
be recorded on video. Likewise the gear, a single line with hooks
attached, is deployed from one point on the boat and can easily be
video monitored. In short, EM can be used to secure the catch and
bycatch data NMFS identified as its objective for this fleet.
To ensure EM was ready for implementation concurrent with the 2013
launch of the restructured observer program, ALFA initiated the EM
Pilot Program mentioned in the opening paragraphs of this testimony.
Likewise, the Council signaled its intent that EM be used as an
alternative to human observer coverage. The Council stated:
``The Council also approved a motion to task the Observer
Advisory Committee, Council staff, and NMFS staff to develop
electronic monitoring as an alternative tool for fulfilling
observer coverage requirements with the
intent that it be in place at the same time as the restructured
observer
program.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/npfmc/PDFdocuments/
conservation_issues/Observer/ObserverMotion610.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the pilot program, ALFA's responsibility was to refine EM
deployment and operation, capturing costs and equipment effectiveness.
NMFS' role was to identify the performance standards and regulatory
structure necessary to integrate EM with the restructured observer
program. As the Council noted, the pilot program was ``intended to
provide operational experience and thus a basis for adding any
necessary specificity to the regulations.'' \6\ I have included a copy
of ALFA's EM Pilot Program Final Report with this testimony, but have
summarized the results below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/npfmc/PDFdocuments/
conservation_issues/Observer/Council_EMLtr051412.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EM lived up to the fleet's expectation regarding performance,
dependability and costs. ALFA contracted with Archipelago Marine
Services (AMR), the Victoria-based company that has so successfully
developed and deployed EM systems on Canadian halibut and groundfish
vessels, to provide the necessary hardware and software for the pilot
program. AMR's expertise and knowledge of the fishing fleet were
significant factors in the pilot program's success. Over two years, EM
systems were deployed on 41 fishing trips and monitored 215 longline
hauls. The EM systems captured a complete video record of 95.3 percent
of the hauls. Notably, 94 percent of captured fish were identified by
species, with the remainder identified to a species grouping (e.g.,
rougheye/shortraker rockfish). It is also significant that at $200-$330
per day, EM monitoring costs were less than observer costs under
Alaska's previous ``pay as you go'' observer program and less than \1/
3\ of the observer costs under the 2013 restructured observer program.
In short, EM proved reliable, cost effective, and fully capable of
providing the assessment of catch and catch composition that NMFS
identified as the primary monitoring objective for this fishery.
Bolstered by this success, EM was included as an alternative to
human observers for the halibut/sablefish IFQ fishery in the proposed
rule that was reviewed by the industry and recommended by the Council.
To our dismay, NMFS subsequently dropped EM as an alternative to human
observers, stating the observer amendment lacked the necessary
specificity. In its place, NMFS is providing a voluntary EM pilot
program that supplements, rather than acts as an alternative, to human
observer coverage.
Where We Are Now
Although the cooperative research program conducted by ALFA and
NMFS, the Canadian experience, and 20 other EM pilot programs
demonstrate the success of EM, NMFS remains reluctant to use EM as an
alternative to human observers. We understand that the technology will
continue to evolve and improve but we feel strongly that we should not
let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Alaska's small boat fishermen
believe NMFS' fears are inconsistent with the proven history of EM in
the U.S. and Canada, and that adequate technology is available now to
integrate EM with Alaska's restructured observer program. I would like
to take this opportunity to address some of the issues that have been
raised and to relate some of the ways those issues have been resolved.
What EM Can Do
Biological data
NMFS and the IPHC currently secure ``biological sampleso'' from the
sablefish and halibut stock assessment surveys and from the commercial
fishery through at-sea and/or dockside samplers to meet stock
assessment needs. Both sablefish and halibut fisheries have annual,
resource-funded surveys (i.e., the fish are sold to off-set survey
costs) that collect most of the information needed for stock
assessments. The sablefish stock is managed with an age structured
model that uses approximately 1,200 otoliths, or ear bones, collected
from harvest in the commercial fishery each year. Currently, observers
at-sea and in shore-based processing plants collect 3,000 to 5,000
sablefish otoliths each year, but only 1,100 to 1,200 are actually aged
and used in the assessment.\7\ The IPHC uses dockside samplers to
collect biological information from the commercial fishery for the
halibut stock assessment.\8\ This collection program is funded and
conducted independent of the observer program. Of the bycatch species
taken in these fisheries, only rougheye rockfish has an age structured
model and this model uses approximately 300 to 400 otoliths in total
which are currently collected from the fixed gear and trawl fisheries.
All other rockfish species taken as bycatch have stock assessments that
do not rely on biological samples from the commercial fisheries. In
other words, EM does not need to provide biological data for the
halibut/sablefish fisheries. A working system is already in place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ http://access.afsc.noaa.gov/al/searchform.cfm.
\8\ http://www.iphc.int/publications/rara/2010/
2010.67.Commercialcatchsampling.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When designing a monitoring program, it is essential that managers
first conduct this kind of fishery specific assessment. Managers should
ask: what data and biological samples do fishery managers need and how
much of that data will be used? These questions should be separated
from: what data and biological samples can be gathered? For example, if
stock assessment scientists are not using an age structured model, how
relevant is age data? If they are using an age-structured model and
that model requires 1,000 samples--who benefits by observers collecting
3,000 samples?
Second, managers need to consider the full suite of management
tools available to collect necessary data, including biological
samples. To quote one of the Guiding Principles identified by a team of
fisheries experts who met in April, 2011 to develop guidelines for
fisheries monitoring programs: ``Monitoring programs should consider a
comprehensive suite of monitoring options and should be as thorough as
possible at the outset of the program.'' \9\ Can the data be collected
shore-side through dockside sampling? Can sufficient samples be
collected from survey boats or larger commercial boats harvesting the
same species? If some at-sea biological sampling is needed beyond what
is currently gathered--how much? Collecting more data than NMFS has the
resources to analyze or use accomplishes nothing at great cost to the
industry. A careful evaluation of the data that is actually needed
dictates the type of data collection program that is required. As to
our fisheries, biological data is already being gathered. If there is,
in fact, a need for more such data, it can be gathered when the vessels
bring their catch to shore or by the larger vessels participating in
the fishery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ http://www.archipelago.ca/docs/
GuidingPrinciplesForMonitoringPrograms.pdf, p. 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Length and Weight Data
EM is currently used to gather length and weight data from
commercial fisheries. In Canada's west coast halibut and groundfish
fisheries, vessel owners have the option of attaching a brightly
painted ``measurement board'' sporting horizontal stripes of
contrasting colors to the side of their boat where the fish are brought
aboard so the EM unit can record the length of any released fish.
Remember that in these hook and line fisheries fish are brought aboard
one at a time, with the ``rollerman'' carefully assisting each fish
onto the boat. For catch that is retained, weight and length data are
captured when the catch is brought to shore. To secure length data from
fish that will not be retained, these Canadian fishermen are required
to hold the fish over the measurement board for 3 seconds, which allows
video reviewers to estimate length. Length is then converted to weight
using species specific tables that have been developed over the years
during stock assessments and catch monitoring. If the footage fails to
adequately capture length, or a measurement board is not used, an
average length and weight is assumed and assigned.\10\ This low
technology alternative is effective and time tested. It can be deployed
immediately in Alaska's small boat fishery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ http://www.iphc.int/documents/commercial/bc/ifmp2011.pdf,
Appendix 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In time, EM systems can be expected to automate the length/weight
conversion process and we are prepared to work with NMFS to test and
improve automated systems. In the meantime, we should be using reliable
and cost effective monitoring technology to gather the necessary data.
That technology and equipment exist, are dependable, and are already in
use.
Species Identification
Multiple pilot studies have compared the ability of human observers
and EM to identify fish to the species level. While some species (small
flounder and some rockfish) are more difficult to identify than others,
when data produced by human observers and trained EM reviewers are
compared, there is almost no difference in species identification
accuracy. A 2010 IPHC study that compared human observers to EM
reported:
Comparison of species identification of catch between standard
observer estimation, complete hook-status observer coverage, and EM
coverage showed statistically unbiased and acceptable comparability for
almost all species except for some that could not be identified beyond
the species grouping levels used in management. Similarly, comparisons
of total species-specific numbers of fish estimated using EM collected
and hook-status observer-collected data showed few statistically
significant differences. Based on this study, although limited in
scope, EM can provide an additional tool for catch monitoring in the
commercial halibut fishery.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/Publications/AFSC-TM/NOAA-TM-AFSC-
213.pdf, p. iii.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2011 Morro Bay pilot program concluded:
Consistent with the findings of the 2008 study, EM has been
demonstrated to be an effective tool for at sea monitoring,
delivering fishing effort and catch data comparable to on-board
observers. There is no need for continuing to concentrate
future research efforts on comparing EM data with
observers.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/EM_AttB2b-
Att1_FG_MorroBayPilot.pdf, p. 36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Likewise in the previously referenced 2011/12 ALFA pilot program,
94 percent of the fish captured were identified to the species
level.\13\ EM can and is identifying fish to the species level and EM
compares very favorably to human observers in doing so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ http://www.alfafish.org/observer-programelectronic-
monitoring.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost Data
When NMFS analyzed options to restructure the North Pacific
Observer Program, the agency estimated an observer day would cost
$467.\14\ When the 2013 Annual Deployment Plan was released last fall,
the cost of an observer day had increased to $980. (4,153 days
purchased with $4.4 million.) \15\ Although Federal startup funds are
paying 2013 observer costs, fees are being collected from the industry
this year and the industry will foot the entire bill from here forward.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/npfmc/PDFdocuments/
conservation_issues/Observer/Observer_restructuring910.pdf, p. A-23.
\15\ http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/npfmc/PDFdocuments/
conservation_issues/Observer/2013DeploymentPlanFiinal.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In comparison, EM pilot programs in the U.S. and the EM program on
the West Coast of Canada have daily costs that range from $194 per day
to $580 per day, with the upper end cost in a Canadian trawl fishery.
\16\ Costs in ALFA's EM halibut/sablefish pilot program were $200 per
day for Sitka-based boats and $330 per day for Homer-based boats. In
short, EM promises significant cost savings to the fishing industry,
where observer programs are industry funded, and savings to NMFS where
the Federal government is footing the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/EM_AttB2b-
Att1_FG_MorroBayPilot.pdf, p. 31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding EM
Section 313 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act authorizes the North
Pacific Council, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce, to
establish a fee system to fund Alaska's observer program. That fee may
be used to ``. . . station observers or electronic monitoring systems
on board fishing vessels . . .'' \17\ At present, the full revenue
stream from the industry is dedicated to deploying human observers on
boats in Alaska and EM deployment is dependent on grant money or other
opportunistic sources. That needs to change. Since the our fleet is
better suited to EM than human observers, EM is cost effective, and
observers fees paid by the industry may be dedicated to EM deployment,
some or all of the observer tax revenue generated by the sablefish/
halibut fleet should be dedicated to EM deployment in this fleet. Then
EM will have a sustained, industry-funded revenue source.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/magact/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why Not EM?
EM provides a verifiable and permanent record of catch. EM can be
used as part of an integrated monitoring program to meet identified
management needs. EM is currently used with a high degree of accuracy
to identify fish at the species level and to obtain length/weight
measurements. EM is cost effective, less intrusive, and avoids safety
issues associated with accommodating extra people on small boats. The
fleet supports data gathering through EM. Yet, right now in Alaska,
long-time small boat owners are selling their quota and Federal
licenses, unwilling or unable to bear the extra burden of carrying an
observer. By way of example, ALFA has a member I will call Dave who has
been halibut fishing for 40 years. Dave, like many fishermen, is more
comfortable with fish than with people he doesn't know. Even the
potential of being selected for observer coverage this year has caused
him to place his quota on the market. Dave told me: ``I would rather
face a gale than the strain of keeping someone I don't know safe and
comfortable on my boat.'' The job loss and impacts to communities of
this additional consolidation of the fleet will be long-term and
irreversible unless EM is implemented as an alternative to human
observers.
In the Final Rule that implemented the Alaska restructured observer
program, multiple commenters posed the question to NMFS: Why not EM? In
one response, NMFS stated that EM cannot be required because the Agency
has not yet ``developed performance standards and technical
specifications'' but that they are committed to further development of
EM.\18\ After 20 U.S. pilot programs and watching our Canadian
neighbors successfully implement an integrated EM program we can only
ask--what can we do to make sure this proven technology is used in
2014? We thought we had done what was needed with our pilot program but
are standing by to do whatever else is in our power to do to secure an
EM alternative for our fleet by 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/frules/77fr70062.pdf, p.
70081.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Building Better Data Collection Systems
Data collection is critical to fisheries management. Monitoring
fisheries catch is an important element of data collection. In
designing monitoring systems, managers need to first identify goals and
objectives. As a recently released document titled ``Fisheries
Monitoring Roadmap'' states, ``once monitoring objectives are clearly
identified, only then can an appropriate combination of monitoring
activities and tools be identified to successfully achieve these
goals.'' \19\ (Emphasis added.) To ensure these tools are used in the
most effective, efficient and least burdensome way, stakeholders should
be actively engaged in designing the monitoring program. To quote
another monitoring study: ``From the outset of planning a monitoring
program stakeholder engagement is crucial in effectively garnering
support from diverse constituents to work toward common goals, avoid
redundancies, and utilize knowledge within the fishery.'' \20\ Once
objectives are indentified, stakeholders and managers can work together
to identified the right suite of monitoring tools to secure the
necessary data. We stand ready to work with NMFS to improve data
collection and to add capabilities to the existing EM technology. But,
as I stated earlier, we should use what we have that is proven. The
perfect should not be the enemy of the good. Finally, we are willing to
pay for EM deployment in our fleet and urge 30 percent of the observer
program revenue collected from our fleet be dedicated to EM deployment
on halibut/sablefish IFQ vessels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/reg_svcs/Councils/ccc_2013/
K_FisheriesMonitoringRoadmap.pdf, p. 3.
\20\ http://www.archipelago.ca/docs/
GuidingPrinciplesForMonitoringPrograms.pdf, p.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Can Congress Do To Improve Data Collection?
ALFA's recommendations for improved data collection on a National
scale are:
Direct NMFS to identify fishery specific monitoring objectives
and to work with stakeholders to identify the right combination of cost
effective monitoring tools to achieve objectives while ``providing for
the sustained participation of . . . communities.''
Direct NMFS to move beyond pilot programs to full integration of
EM into fisheries monitoring programs, and to provide EM to small fixed
gear boats now, as an alternative to human observer coverage, where at-
sea monitoring is required.
Specific to improving data collection in the Alaska halibut/
sablefish IFQ fisheries, ALFA recommends the following:
Integrate EM now, as an alternative to human observer coverage,
in the halibut/sablefish IFQ fishery with the initial focus on
assessing catch and estimating discards;
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good: recognize that
EM is part of an adaptive, integrated approach to at-sea monitoring
that will accommodate additional or changing monitoring objectives and
technological improvements;
Work with industry and EM experts to deploy vessel appropriate
and reliable technology, resolve logistical details, and achieve
monitoring goals within cost targets;
By 2014 and beyond, adequately and sustainably fund EM
deployment by dedicating 30 percent of the observer fees collected from
halibut and sablefish vessels to EM implementation in these fisheries;
Release vessels carrying EM from human observer coverage in 2013
and beyond, or change policy as needed to allow an Exempted Fishing
Permit to engage the halibut/sablefish fleet in a full-scale EM program
by 2014.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be happy to
provide any additional information that might help you in your work on
this important issue.
______
Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Ms. Behnken.
Next, Mr. Bonzek for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER F. BONZEK, FISHERY DATA ANALYST,
NORTHEAST AREA MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT PROGRAM (NEAMAP),
DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES SCIENCE, VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE
SCIENCE, COLLEGE OF WILLIAM AND MARY
Mr. Bonzek. Good morning. My name is Christopher Bonzek,
and I serve as a member of the professional faculty at the
Virginia Institute of Marine Science, which is a unit within
the College of William and Mary in Virginia. Along with my
research partners, Dr. Robert J. Latour and Mr. James Gartland,
we serve as principal investigators for the Northeast Area
Monitoring and Assessment Programs, Near Shore Fishery
Independent Trawl Survey, or NEAMAP.
While the label NEAMAP is most often associated just with
our cooperative research survey, the trawl survey that we
conduct is actually just one element under the larger Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission's coordination umbrella. The
term ``cooperative fisheries research'' represents a continuum
of partnerships between fishermen and scientists which, at its
best, becomes collaborative research, in which a full and
constant exchange of ideas takes place, with all parties
understanding the goals of and the importance of the
collaboration.
We on the scientific side, along with our industry
partners, Captain James Ruhle and his sons, have worked hard to
make our survey a truly collaborative venture. When first
conceived, our NEAMAP survey was not intended to necessarily be
a cooperative research program. It is our great good fortune
that it became one.
Our survey is designed to complement, both geographically
and temporally, the surveys conducted by NOAA's Northeast
Fisheries Science Center. We cover a broad latitudinal range
between Cape Cod and Cape Hatteras within about 20 miles from
the shore line, where NOAA cannot presently sample, due to the
large size of their research vessel. This relatively narrow
band of water is heavily used by both fish and fishermen. Our
current 6-year time series is just now reaching the point at
which it will become most useful to assessment scientists and
to fishery managers.
Our work is presently funded in what I believe to be a
unique mechanism for large-scale, multi-purpose survey work.
Under the current Magnuson-Stevens authorizations, fishery
management councils can remove, or set aside, small portions of
the quotas for certain species to fund research. Each year the
Mid-Atlantic Council's research set-aside program grants us
fish, rather than dollars: for 2013, a total of about 2.5
million pounds divided among 5 species. While our grant is
administered by NOAA, no Federal dollars are expended. We raise
research dollars by auctioning off our quota to fishermen, in
partnership with the National Fisheries Institute, a private
foundation.
This market-based funding is appealing on many levels. For
example, it literally provides buy-in from stakeholders, which
I believe is one reason why our survey is viewed by many as
being a good model. This funding mechanism is limited, however,
in how broadly it could be expanded.
Among other reasons why our survey is often thought of as a
good model include both transparency and proprietorship. As to
transparency, during so-called ``demo days,'' to date we have
provided about 300 stakeholders, the press, office holders, and
citizens with the opportunity to view firsthand the actual
process that we undertake at each sampling location. Let me
personally invite each of you to spend a few hours with us one
day in the near future.
As to proprietorship, I believe we are the only large-
scale, multi-purpose survey which is conducted by an entity
other than an agency which also sets regulations. That
separation of research and management functions provides for
additional credibility and may be a model to follow in the
future.
A number of new technologies are becoming available which
will have the potential to vastly increase the amounts and the
quality of data provided by surveys such as ours. A few of
these technologies are described in my written statement to the
Subcommittee. Unfortunately, I don't have time to speak about
them right here.
Permit me to offer several recommendations for how fishery-
independent data collection might be improved through
modifications to Magnuson-Stevens. These include, first,
encourage the standardization of sampling gears among surveys;
develop inter-survey and intra-survey calibrations; encourage
the maximization of the amounts and types of data recorded by
fishery-independent surveys; develop regional fish aging and
fish diet centers; and last, and no doubt you will love it,
provide adequate and stable funding for surveys. Details
regarding these recommendations are included in my written
submission.
In closing, I would emphasize that fish stock assessments
and fishery management actions can be no better than the
underlying data upon which they depend. Further, it is a fact
that lack of data results in uncertainty, and under the current
Magnuson-Stevens Act--as you, Mr. Chairman, noted earlier--
uncertainty translates directly to lower quotas and lost
dollars.
While each of my recommendation would mean expenditure of
scarce dollars, the costs are small compared to the potential
that exists in providing for healthy fish stocks and, most
importantly, in healthy fishing communities.
I thank the Chair and the Subcommittee for the opportunity
to play a role in the reauthorization process for Magnuson-
Stevens, and I stand ready to help you in any way that I
possibly can.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bonzek follows:]
Statement of Christopher F. Bonzek, Fishery Data Analyst, Northeast
Area Monitoring and Assessment Program (NEAMAP), Department of
Fisheries Science, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of
William and Mary
I thank the Committee for the invitation to relate our experiences
with cooperative research and how such research has been and can be
incorporated into the fishery stock assessment and management
processes.
Credentials
I serve at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS), which
is the legally assigned marine research agency for the Commonwealth of
Virginia as well as the degree-granting School of Marine Science at the
College of William and Mary. Along with my research partners Dr. Robert
J. Latour and Mr. James Gartland, we serve as Principal Investigators
for the North East Area Monitoring and Assessment Program's (NEAMAP)
Near Shore Fishery Independent Trawl Survey in the Mid-Atlantic and
Southern New England waters. I have been directly involved in fishery
independent monitoring surveys since 1981 and have been responsible for
the design and supervision of such surveys since 2000.
NEAMAP Background
Though the term NEAMAP is most often associated only with the Mid-
Atlantic and Southern New England near shore trawl survey that we
conduct, our survey is actually just one component under the larger,
fishery-independent-surveys umbrella known as NEAMAP. NEAMAP was
originally developed by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
(ASMFC) as a body to coordinate existing and future fishery-independent
data collection efforts in the northeast and mid-Atlantic. Development
of our survey was the first major task of NEAMAP to fill an appreciable
gap in fishery-independent survey coverage in the coastal ocean between
Cape Cod and Cape Hatteras.
Now that our survey is fully operational, the NEAMAP oversight
committees are beginning to expand their efforts to serve other
coordination roles. These expanded roles include such activities as:
Identifying other gaps in survey coverage and developing new or
expanding current data collection efforts to fill data needs.
Exploring standardization of data parameters collected among
surveys.
Exploring and evaluating new technologies (e.g. underwater
cameras, current meters, bottom mapping equipment) that would either
increase or streamline data collection efforts.
Ensuring that data from fishery independent surveys are
available to and included in the stock assessment process to the
greatest extent possible.
Holding a multi-surveys workshop at which survey personnel will
describe and demonstrate their onboard data collection systems. The
goal is to begin a process of data integration among surveys.
Beginning to develop a web site at which multiple surveys will
house their abundance indices at a one-stop address.
Cooperative Fisheries Research
The term ``Cooperative Fisheries Research'' represents a continuum
of partnerships between fishermen and scientists which at the top end
becomes ``Collaborative Research'' in which a full and constant
exchange of ideas takes place in an atmosphere of mutual respect with
all parties understanding the goals of and the importance of the
collaboration.
When planned and executed properly, cooperative research efforts
can yield results beyond answering the original scientific question.
Being the perpetual and well-motivated students of natural processes
that fishermen are, they will often make observations about phenomena
which even an experienced scientist would never have considered. In a
collaborative atmosphere, the scientists can take these observations
which might otherwise be dismissed as ``anecdotal information'' and
form testable scientific hypotheses.
Most often, cooperative research efforts are relatively short term
(1-3 years) projects designed to answer specific questions (e.g. to
develop new fishing gear to reduce by-catch). In the Northeast, these
projects are funded by the Cooperative Research Unit at the Northeast
Fisheries Science Center. A number of excellent projects have been
funded from that Unit.
Less common, at least on the East Coast, are long-term monitoring
programs conducted as cooperative or collaborative ventures. To the
best of my knowledge, out of approximately 20 trawl-based estuarine and
marine fishery-independent surveys on this coast, only two such
programs exist:
The Maine/ New Hampshire Inshore Trawl Survey. This survey has
operated since 2000 in the near coast waters of Maine and New
Hampshire. Funding is annual and has rotated among the Northeast
Consortium, NOAA Cooperative Research, and Congressional line item
funding. The survey now operates under the NEAMAP umbrella described
above.
The NEAMAP Mid-Atlantic and Southern New England Near Shore
Trawl Survey. This is the survey which my partners and I operate. A
full description of the survey and its funding is provided below. In
many of my comments that follow, I will refer to our survey using the
oNEAMAPo moniker even though the entire NEAMAP program encompasses a
broader set of surveys.
NEAMAP Mid-Atlantic and Southern New England Near Shore Trawl
Survey
After successful completion of a pilot survey in the fall of 2006,
funding was stitched together to begin full scale operations in the
fall of 2007. Since then we have conducted two surveys per year, one in
the spring and one in the fall, timed to complement but not to
precisely match the Federal surveys. At the completion of our current
spring 2013 survey, we will have completed six spring and six fall
surveys. For many species, we are just now reaching the point at which
our time series is long enough to reveal any underlying trends in
abundance, or other biological characteristics, and to compare those
trends with data from other sources.
As previously mentioned, our survey covers the near shore waters
between Cape Cod and Cape Hatteras. In the mid-Atlantic region our
survey covers a strip of water between the 20ft. and 60ft. contours,
which corresponds to a region that extends from just beyond the
shoreline to between 3 and 25 miles offshore. In Southern New England
we sample waters between 60ft. and 120ft., or to about 20 miles
offshore (Figure 1). Most of these regions cannot presently be sampled
by the Federal surveys conducted by the Northeast Fisheries Science
Center due to the depth restrictions of the large survey vessel used
since 2009. While the total sampling area of our survey is small
compared to the Federal survey, the zones that we sample are heavily
used by both fish and fishermen and without data such as ours,
assessments would suffer and managers would lack important data upon
which to base their actions.
Both on the scientific side and our industry partners, Capt. James
Ruhle, his sons, and his crew, we have worked hard to make our survey a
truly collaborative venture. Nurturing such a relationship requires an
ongoing effort. Our NEAMAP survey was not designed by ASMFC to
necessarily be a cooperative research program. It is our good fortune
that it became one.
Data from our survey are viewed as being valuable and unbiased not
only by scientists but by most members of both the commercial and
recreational communities as well. Several factors contribute to that
perception:
We underwent an extensive and very positive peer review process
in 2008.
Both scientists and industry members know and trust that we and
Capt. Ruhle will uphold the strictest standards for how our fishing
gear is deployed and how data are collected.
We have strived to be as transparent as possible and have
conducted numerous `den days' during which we invite citizens, press,
local, state, and Federal office holders, NGO's, and others to spend
part of a day on our survey vessel to observe every detail of our data
collection efforts. To date, approximately 300 individuals have direct
experience observing our operations.
It is worth special attention to note that the NEAMAP mid-Atlantic/
Southern New England survey is unique in that it not only is a prime
example of collaborative research but that it is housed at an academic
institution. All other large scale multi-species fishery independent
monitoring surveys of which I am aware are operated by state or Federal
agencies (other academic or private entities do conduct monitoring
surveys but they tend to be very localized in geographic coverage).
Most often these same agencies hold regulatory authority over fish
stocks. Due to its designation as the mandated marine research arm for
the Commonwealth of Virginia, VIMS has a long history of conducting
similar surveys in Chesapeake Bay and along the Virginia coast so we
were able to build upon that historical knowledge base when
constructing the NEAMAP survey. While certain disadvantages may exist,
operating surveys from such an institution has several distinct
advantages:
Most importantly, academic institutions do not hold any
regulatory authority thus there can be no question about whether there
exists any conflict of interest between the management and research
missions. This is not to say that any other agency or survey has or
would purposely skew its survey results, but that removing the
perception of a conflict of interest can be just as important as an
actual conflict.
Conducting a fishery independent monitoring survey necessarily
involves repetitive sampling, month after month, year after year. This
can sometimes lead to complacency among survey investigators and staff.
While this can be true no matter where such a survey resides, at an
academic institution there is more of a tendency to view such surveys
not only in the context of repetitive sampling but also in the larger
context of providing a platform upon which to continually expand the
scope of work. This adds considerable value to the surveys and also
provides for new and more interesting tasks for staff.
Because they have to respond to the requirements of multiple
funding organizations, frequently on short notice, academic research
institutions are often far more nimble in routine management functions
(e.g. hiring, purchasing, contracting) than traditional state or
Federal agencies.
NEAMAP Funding
Our work is presently funded in what I believe to be a unique
mechanism for large-scale survey work, namely through the Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Council's (MAFMC) Research Set-Aside (RSA) program.
This program was developed in previous Magnuson-Stevens authorization
cycles. Under RSA, Councils can withhold (set aside) up to 3 percent of
the total quota from certain species, to fund required research
activities.
For each of the past five years, the MAFMC has granted us portions
of the quotas for several species. For 2013 we own a total of about 2.5
million pounds of fish divided among five species.
Our annual grant is administered by NOAA, though no Federal dollars
are expended. We raise research dollars by auctioning off our quota in
partnership with the National Fisheries Institute (NFI). Both
commercial and charter industry captains can benefit from this auction
because the RSA quota that they purchase can be used during closed
seasons, thus increasing their profit and allowing us to use some of
those extra dollars for research.
This market-based funding is appealing on many levels. For example:
As previously stated, no Federal dollars are expended (though
considerable time is spent by Federal authorities in grant processing,
permit processing, and enforcement).
Industry literally has `buy-in' in regards to the funded
projects.
The total amount of research dollars available is more dependent
on market conditions than on the Federal budget.
For a number of reasons however, there are limitations on how
widely this funding mechanism could be used to support more programs
such as ours. These reasons include:
The RSA quota must be harvested within the calendar year for
which the project is granted. My Institute must `front' approximately
$450,000 during the first half of each calendar year to pay for
personnel, supplies, vessel charters, and so on before the first dollar
is recovered from the auctioned fishes. Further, we are subject to
varying market conditions. When we write our annual grant proposal we
have to guess, about a year ahead of time, what the auction price will
be for our RSA quota species, and then the fishermen have to guess at
what their dockside sale price might be some months later when they
harvest their RSA fishes. There is no guarantee that we will receive
the anticipated research dollars. Many institutions could not support
or would not allow such a situation.
Because our program is so large and expensive, many other worthy
and necessary projects are excluded from funding. Generally, after
NEAMAP receives its quota assignments each year the remaining portions
can support only one or two small projects. RSA was originally intended
to fund smaller short term projects, not large long term monitoring.
The RSA system depends upon there being more demand than supply
for the fish species to be granted. In a future in which existed an
overabundance of presently high value species such as summer flounder
and black seabass, there would be little or no value in the RSA quotas.
Similarly, if the portions of the quotas which could be used for
RSA were to be increased, a situation could arise in which there was
more RSA supply than demand. Only a subset of industry members can or
will participate in raising RSA funds (e.g. through the NFI auction) so
if there were more fish available than demand existed, the value of the
quotas would decrease and the research could not be accomplished.
Inequities can result from selling RSA quotas. Each pound of
fish assigned to RSA is removed from the amounts available to the
general industry and from recreational fishermen. Not all industry
members can afford to participate in RSA fundraising or to wade through
the required permitting process. People in the recreational sector may
not feel the direct benefit of lowering their quota to support
research.
The NEAMAP survey was not developed under the assumption that it
would be funded by the MAFMC's RSA program. ASMFC intended that
dedicated funding would be acquired but after it was recognized in 2006
that funding the NEAMAP survey was imperative, RSA was the only
available mechanism. While the RSA system is currently working well for
us, even in the depressed economy of recent years and even in a
budgetary atmosphere in which many programs are seeing significant
budget cuts, it is still a very unstable and unpredictable way to fund
an ongoing, large scale, $1 million per year program.
NEAMAP Survey Data and Data Uses
Our data have been examined for inclusion in all appropriate NEFSC
and ASMFC assessments and assessment updates over the past two to three
years. They have been incorporated as primary data sources for a
smaller number of assessments. Where our data have not been included,
it is universally due only to our still brief time series (six years).
However, it is worth noting that our data have proved vital for both
short-lived species such as Longfin squid and in NOAA's recent analyses
of data on the extremely long-lived Atlantic sturgeon. Even for species
for which our time series may still be too short, our biological data
such as length-at-age have proven valuable. Further, our methodology
for determining factors such as fish age for some species has forced a
reexamination of the procedures used by other research groups. Our data
have also been used by states to help set regulations such as size and
creel limits.
While our catch processing and data processing methods necessarily
differ from those used on surveys from NEFSC, the end-product data
elements from the two surveys are virtually the same (except that there
is almost no geographic overlap of the surveys). Each survey routinely
produces assessment-related data such as:
Overall and age-specific abundance indices, expressed either in
numbers or biomass
Length-frequencies, overall and by sex
Geographic distribution (within the respective areas surveyed)
Age-frequencies
Sex ratios, overall or by size/age class
Diets
It is worth noting that among large-scale surveys in the Northeast,
the NEAMAP and NEFSC surveys (along with the ChesMMAP survey that our
research group also conducts within the confines of Chesapeake Bay),
are the only ones that routinely record such extensive biological data
elements. Due to logistical, manpower, and historical constraints, most
surveys record only fish counts and length measurements (see
Recommendations below).
New Technologies
As with every field of endeavor, technology is providing
opportunities to collect more and better fishery-independent survey
data and to provide it faster and more reliably. Affordable (given the
importance attached to survey results) technologies exist to:
Run scale model tank tests of fish trawls to determine the
optimal shape while fishing. A fish trawl being used by a monitoring
survey is a scientific sampling device and it should be viewed as being
analogous to any piece of fine scale laboratory equipment. It must
perform consistently.
Allow researchers to constantly monitor the shape of their fish
trawl to assure consistent performance within predetermined
specifications as determined by the tank tests and to assure its proper
deployment during each tow.
Constantly monitor and record bottom type as the vessel conducts
survey operations.
Measure such parameters as temperature, salinity, depth, light
intensity, pH, turbidity, and chlorophyll throughout the water column
at locations where the trawls are deployed.
Incorporate auto-sensing technologies using automatic recording
of surface water quality parameters listed above using constant flow-
through systems.
Document fish behaviors in proximity to trawls using underwater
cameras and other remote sensing technologies to move toward estimates
of trawl capture efficiency.
A very exciting new technology which we plan to deploy later this
year and in which we will collaborate with international partners from
Norway, is a sophisticated camera and recording system which is
installed near the aft end of a trawl and which documents the exact
time when each specimen was captured. Fish can be identified to species
and measured with surprising accuracy. A long list of research
questions can be addressed with such technology, such as:
Exactly when within a tow were specimens from each species
captured?
Within a tow, are some species typically captured together?
For each species, are specimens typically captured in a group
within a narrow time band or are they captured continuously throughout
a tow?
How long of a tow is long enough? A common criticism of
monitoring surveys is that the tows are not long enough in duration to
exhaust and capture larger specimens of some species. By fishing
continuously over a very long duration and recording the exact time
when each specimen is captured, this question can be addressed.
Could adequate or even better data be obtained by fishing over
long distances with an open-ended net, thus covering more ground but
sacrificing fewer fish? This method would have to be supplemented with
tows with a closed net to capture specimens for biological data (sex,
maturity, age, diet, etc.).
Recommendations
Any number of improvements could be made to the extant fishery
independent surveys (as well as the development of new surveys) to
improve the scientific underpinnings of the current fish stock
assessment and management systems. Among the most important are:
Encourage the standardization of sampling gears among surveys
The so-called ``400 12cm 3-bridle 4-seam'' trawl developed by
the former NEFSC Trawl Advisory Panel for use on the FSV
Bigelow and used by NEAMAP as well has proved to be a
remarkably stable and efficient scientific sampling device. The
gear has also been put into use by the Canadian Department of
Fisheries and Oceans. Scaled down versions either have been or
will be deployed in the Great Lakes and in Chesapeake Bay.
Changes in sampling gear would necessarily disrupt the time
series of ongoing trawl programs. However, every survey must
periodically go through such perturbations, often caused by
unforeseen events such as loss of survey vessels or inability
to purchase materials to construct or repair nets. It is better
to plan for such events than to have them thrust upon you.
A change in sampling gear for some surveys would also provide
an opportunity to reexamine issues such as stratification, site
selection, standardized data recording systems, and related
issues.
Develop inter-survey and intra-survey calibrations.
Every survey trawl operates according to its particular design
and has unique catch efficiency characteristics for each
species. For some fish stock assessment mathematical models,
these differences are immaterial, as each survey `index' is
treated independently. However, other models require relative
catch rate efficiencies among surveys to be well documented. A
mechanism to calibrate catch rates among surveys is to complete
multiple side-by-side tows. Such experiments can be quite
expensive.
Encourage the maximization of the amounts and types of data
recorded by fishery independent surveys.
As mentioned above, due to logistical and historical
limitations, many existing surveys record only a small portion
of the biological data elements potentially available. Often,
only counts and length measurements are logged. It is our
experience that obtaining each specimen is expensive (i.e.
paying for vessel time and fuel, paying survey personnel,
purchasing nets, computers and other supplies) but that the
marginal cost of taking more data points from each specimen is
small. Some surveys are limited by vessel space and available
personnel though it is our experience that if something is
considered important enough it can usually be accomplished.
Additional data elements which should be routinely recorded for
the maximum possible number of species include:
Species total and individual specimen weights
Sex, maturity, and reproductive stage on a subsample
of specimens
Preservation of ageing structures (e.g. otoliths,
vertebrae) for the maximum possible number of species.
Preservation of fish stomachs for development of diet
indices. These data are required to advance toward multi-
species and ecosystem management.
Obtaining these types of data from as many sources as possible
not only will lead to better stock assessments but will lead to
a better understanding of the marine environment as a whole,
thus providing the underpinnings for multi-species and
ecosystem models and management.
Develop regional fish ageing and fish diet centers.
Many state and regional surveys, as well as being constrained
in the types of data they feel able to collect, also do not
have the resources to process large numbers of biological
samples that may be preserved during field operations. A series
of laboratories, not necessarily centered only at Federal
facilities, where surveys could send such samples to be
processed would not only significantly add to the types of data
being collected but would assure a high level of
standardization. Some organizations and institutions (my own
being a good example) already have the infrastructure and
knowledge bases to support such efforts so the step to becoming
regional centers is one of scale rather than construction.
Provide funding for surveys.
Fish stock assessments and fishery regulations can be no better
than the underlying data upon which they depend. Fish stock
assessment methods have become increasingly sophisticated and
data intensive. Accurate, timely, and well-accepted
assessments, as well as the subsequent setting of reasonable
fishing regulations, depend upon accurate, timely, and well-
accepted data. Fishery independent surveys are the primary
unbiased source of data which inform us about the present
status of most fish stocks.
Under the current Magnuson law, lack of data literally means
that fewer fish can be kept and that dollars will be lost to
the fishing community. Due to the Magnuson provisions dealing
with uncertainty, when the Fishery Management Councils and
their respective Scientific and Statistical Committees set
their quotas, they must take into account the level of
uncertainty inherent in the associated assessments. The higher
the level of uncertainty, the lower the quota can be. Lack of
data means lower catch, lower income, and fewer jobs.
Several references within this testimony speak to current
logistical limitations as to what data can be collected by some
surveys as well as to unpredictable or unstable funding sources
for surveys. These limitations and instabilities (as well as
accomplishing the other recommendations listed above) can only
be addressed through additional funding.
While recognizing that providing such new funding is difficult
within the parameters of the current Federal budget, I simply
state the need that efficient and effective fishery management
requires it.
Figure 1. NEAMAP mid-Atlantic / Southern New England sampling area
including region boundaries and depth strata.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Mr. Bonzek.
Next, Dr. Breidt, 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF F. JAY BREIDT, PH.D., PROFESSOR OF STATISTICS AND
ASSOCIATE CHAIR, DEPARTMENT OF STATISTICS, COLORADO STATE
UNIVERSITY, AND MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE REVIEW OF
RECREATIONAL FISHERIES SURVEY METHODS
Dr. Breidt. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and
members of the Subcommittee. My name is Jay Breidt. I am a
professor of statistics at Colorado State University.
In 2006 I was one of 10 members of the National Research
Council, NRC, Committee on the Review of Recreational Fisheries
Survey Methods, assembled in response to a request from the
National Marine Fisheries Service, NMFS. NMFS sought
recommendation from the NRC on potential improvements to its
Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey, MRFSS. MRFSS
computes marine recreational catch by multiplying the number of
trips by the catch per trip. The number of trips is estimated
using an offsite survey consisting of telephone interviews of
anglers in coastal households. The catch per trip is estimated
using onsite surveys in which anglers are intercepted while
they are fishing or at their access points.
The NRC Committee concluded that the quality and timeliness
of data from MRFSS were not adequate for effective management
of recreational fisheries. The Committee focused primarily on
MRFSS, but related surveys conducted by State agencies suffered
from the same limitations.
Among the findings and recommendations of the NRC report
were the following specific needs: greater program support for
MRFSS; both financial resources and technical resources needed
to handle surveys of such complexity; revision of the
statistical estimation procedures, which were not matched to
the complex sampling design used by MRFSS, leading to the
potential for bias in the estimates; revision of the telephone
sampling method, which relied on random digit dialing of
households in coastal counties--a comprehensive universal
sampling frame, possibly in the form of a national registry of
salt water anglers was recommended to increase efficiency;
greater quality control in the onsite survey, in which onsite
samplers were given considerable latitude in where, when, and
for how long to sample; greater coordination between Federal
and State programs, and better communication and outreach,
since the cooperation of recreational anglers is essential.
The findings and recommendations of the 2006 NRC report
were arrived at by Committee consensus, and were subjected to
NRC's review process. What follows are my observations, which
do not represent Committee consensus or NRC review.
In my estimation, NMFS has directly addressed the needs
described in the NRC report, and has developed a transparent,
dynamic statistical system with a sound scientific basis. NMFS
first addressed the need for greater technical support by
building a team of academic and industry consultants, including
mathematical statisticians, survey methodologists, and
information technology specialists. This team, including
myself, has collaborated with NMFS in developing a new marine
recreational information program, MRIP. One of MRIP's first
tasks was addressing the mismatch between design and estimation
in the intercept survey, leading to a complete revision of
statistical methods for the intercept data. These methods were
extensively peer-reviewed before revised estimates for 2004 to
2011 were computed and released.
The National Salt Water Angler Registry, which began with
Federal regulations in 2008, offers potential for greater
efficiency in the telephone survey. Most coastal States,
however, are exempted from the registry, because they license
their anglers and provide contact information. Gaps in survey
coverage result from State license exemptions and problems with
the contact information. To fill the gaps, MRIP has been
experimenting with dual frame surveys, which combine angler
license frames with household telephone or address frames.
Designed experiments are underway to determine the most
effective combination of telephone and mail data collection, in
terms of getting good response rates and high-quality data in a
timely manner.
The need for greater quality control in the intercept
survey has been addressed through a 2010 pilot study in North
Carolina in which new field protocols were compared side by
side to traditional MRFSS intercept methods. The new design
removed much of the sampler's discretion in where and when to
sample. After peer review of the pilot study results, the new
intercept survey protocols have been adopted, and are being
implemented on the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts.
Coordination between State agencies and the Federal system
has been a key feature of MRIP, which I have seen while taking
part in the North Carolina pilot, and while assisting NMFSS in
reviewing surveys for Oregon, Washington, California, and
Hawaii. State agencies can obtain MRIP grant support to address
recommendations arising in their reviews. The need for better
communication and outreach has been addressed throughout MRIP.
NMFSS staff responsible for outreach participate in technical
meetings and produce press releases and educational videos
explaining the revised methods to a general audience.
Participation of the angling community is actively sought at
all levels. For example, the technical redesign group for the
large pelagic survey, on which I serve, includes two charter
boat captains.
I do not think that all possible issues in collecting data
necessary to manage recreational fishing are resolved, since
the problems are continually evolving. But MRIP is structured
to adapt effectively to such changes by developing, testing,
and implementing appropriate tools. MRIP is exactly the sort of
statistical program envisioned in the NRC report.
Thank you for inviting me to testify before the
Subcommittee today. I am happy to answer any questions you may
have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Breidt follows:]
Statement of F. Jay Breidt, Ph.D., Department of Statistics, Colorado
State University and Member, Committee on the Review of Recreational
Fisheries Survey Methods, Ocean Studies Board, Division on Earth and
Life Studies, National Research Council, The National Academies
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Sablan, and members of
the Subcommittee. My name is Jay Breidt. I am a professor of Statistics
at Colorado State University, where I served as the Chair of the
Department of Statistics from June 2005 until December 2010. I was also
a member of the National Academies' National Research Council (NRC)
Committee on the Review of Recreational Fisheries Survey Methods in
2006. The National Academy of Sciences was chartered by Congress in
1863 to advise the government on matters of science and technology.
The NRC study was conducted in response to a request from the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for a review of methods used
to collect and analyze recreational marine fisheries data for
application to fisheries management.
The NRC formed a committee of ten experts in fishery science and
statistics. Dr. Patrick Sullivan, an associate professor in the
Department of Natural Resources at Cornell University, served as the
committee chair. After the study was released, Congress amended the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and included
provisions to improve data collection regarding marine recreational
fisheries. This written testimony reviews some major points from that
report, titled Review of Recreational Fisheries Survey Methods, and
describes progress made by NMFS on revising marine recreational data
collection since 2006.
Historically, marine recreational catch in the United States has
been documented through the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics
Survey (MRFSS), which was established by NMFS in 1979. As compared to
commercial fisheries, collecting data on recreational fisheries is more
difficult due to the number of recreational saltwater anglers, the
diverse range of places in which they fish, and the many different
methods of recreational fishing.
Recreational catch is computed by multiplying the number of
recreational trips by the catch per trip. MRFSS uses two complementary
surveys to estimate the two terms in this product. The number of trips,
or effort, is estimated using an offsite survey, consisting of
telephone interviews of anglers in coastal households. The catch per
trip is estimated using onsite surveys, in which anglers are
``intercepted'' while they are fishing or at their access points.
Biological samples are also collected from these onsite intercepts.
It is now evident that for some fish stocks, the recreational
fishery represents a significant component of the total catch. Since
the establishment of MRFSS, marine fisheries management goals,
objectives and context have changed. Management decisions are often
made at finer spatial and temporal scales, the mix of recreational and
commercial fishing has changed for many areas and species, and stock
assessment models now make greater use of data from recreational
fisheries. Accurate and timely data on catch and effort levels in
recreational fisheries is imperative to ensure the sustainability of
popularly targeted fish stocks.
NMFS's request for a study recognized the limitations of the MRFSS
program and the agency sought recommendations from the NRC on potential
improvements and alternative approaches.
STUDY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The NRC committee concluded that the MRFSS program was not adequate
to meet the current demand for data, in terms of quality and
timeliness, required for effective management of recreational
fisheries. The committee's review focused primarily on MRFSS, but many
related surveys conducted by state agencies suffered from the same
limitations, and the committee's recommendations applied to those
surveys as well. Greater coordination among Federal, state, and other
survey programs was recommended to help gain a national perspective on
the status of marine recreational fisheries.
Sampling Issues with the Telephone Survey
The committee identified several concerns with the telephone
interview surveys. First, the increasing use of cellular telephones
reduces the efficiency of the random-digit-dialing (RDD) telephone
surveys conducted by MRFSS. The utility of RDD surveys targeted to
coastal counties is reduced because cellular telephones are not
geographically restricted (unlike land lines). Telephone surveys are
also problematic because they depend on the accuracy of the angler's
memory and their willingness to provide information to the caller.
The committee determined that a comprehensive, universal sampling
frame with national coverage would be an efficient way to improve the
data. The committee also suggested that this could be implemented in
the form of a national registry of saltwater anglers or, alternatively,
a license program that allows for no exemptions. Telephone surveys
would then be based on this more limited sampling frame, rather than
the RDD frame which includes all households, not just those with
saltwater anglers. The report also recommended consideration of dual-
frame surveys; for example, combining a sample from an incomplete list
frame of anglers with an RDD sample of all households to ensure
complete coverage.
Sampling Issues with the Intercept Survey
The committee identified various shortcomings in the intercept
(onsite) survey methods. These methods do not account for anglers who
have access to private fishing areas, and operate on the assumption
that data from private areas would be similar to the data collected at
public access sites. The committee further recommended that the onsite
sampling frame, or list of access points, should be revised to account
for low-activity access points.
MRFSS onsite samplers were given considerable latitude in the
selection of sites and the measurement protocols followed at a selected
site. The committee noted that the sampling process required greater
quality control, with less latitude on the part of the samplers.
Other Sampling Issues
In addition to the suggestions on survey design, the report
suggested further research to provide more reliable estimates of the
number of fish caught in catch and release fisheries as well as a
clearer understanding of mortality rates for fish caught and not
brought to the dock.
The committee concluded that all for-hire recreational fishing
operations should be required to maintain logbooks of fish landed and
kept, as well as fish caught and released. They should be required to
provide the information in a timely manner to the survey program in
order to remain eligible for operation, and all information provided
should be verifiable.
Improving Statistical Estimation
The study found that the sampling designs and data collection
methods of recreational fishing surveys fell short of what was needed
for management. Unverified assumptions may have interjected biases into
some survey estimates. Understanding the extent of such biases would
require testing the assumptions and determining the direction of bias.
The report noted that current estimators of catch rate were likely
to be biased, given a mismatch between the design and estimation
procedures for the onsite survey. Further, the estimators of
uncertainty associated with various survey products were likely to be
biased and too low. The committee concluded that these properties
should be determined, enlisting the expertise of an independent and
permanent research group of statisticians for ongoing evaluation and
advice on the design and adequacy of the survey methods.
Incorporating Trends in Where, When, and Why People Fish
Good surveying requires tracking data on the human dimension of
fishing, including the social and economic factors that might affect
the number and location of fishing access sites. The MRFSS program was
not designed to incorporate this information, but largely focused on
biological factors.
The study recommended the implementation of a national trip and
expenditure survey, which would support economic valuation studies,
impact analyses, and other social and attitudinal studies. The study
further recommended that the national data base on marine recreational
fishing sites should be enhanced to support social and economic
analysis. Examples of site characteristics that should be incorporated
into the data base include: boat ramps, facilities, natural amenities,
parking, size, and type.
Need for Better Communication and Outreach
Recreational anglers are the key source of information for the
surveys and consequently their cooperation and support is essential to
the success of the program. The committee concluded that if anglers
understood the purpose of the surveys, the basic methodology, and the
value of the data produced, they would be more likely to participate
and provide reliable information.
The study recommended improving outreach by advising anglers and
managers on the various uses of the data collected. Outreach and
communication were identified in the report as areas that should be
integral parts of the revised survey program. Last, angler associations
should be engaged as partners with survey managers, and local
knowledge, education, and community activities should be incorporated
into the process.
Need for Greater Program Support
The NRC report concluded that a lack of resources had hindered the
efforts of the MRFSS program staff to implement, operate, and improve
the survey program. This included efforts to improve the program based
on recommendations from earlier reviews. Financial resources available
to the program were not sufficient to tackle the challenges associated
with conducting an efficient and timely survey. Further, NMFS did not
have sufficient technical expertise on its staff to handle surveys of
such complexity.
In addition to a redesign of MRFSS, the study suggested that
provisions be made for ongoing technical evaluation and modification as
necessary. The study recognized that additional funding would be
necessary to design, implement, and maintain a new program and that
this might require a survey office devoted to the management and
implementation of marine recreational surveys.
WHAT CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED SINCE 2006
The findings and recommendations of the 2006 NRC report were
arrived at by committee consensus and were subjected to NRC's review
process, including external peer review. I will now turn to my
observations and opinions regarding changes to NMFS's recreational
survey methods since the release of the NRC report. This reflects only
my own experiences and does not represent either committee consensus or
NRC review.
In my letter of invitation to this Subcommittee meeting, I was
asked for my thoughts on whether the new program has been fully
developed and implemented and whether the program is meeting the goals
envisioned by Congress. It is my opinion that the revised program is
now fully developed in the sense that it is a dynamic system for
implementing necessary revisions, creating state-of-the-art design and
estimation procedures, and adapting to evolving scientific challenges.
The program is transparent, accessible, and subjected to rigorous peer
review. This is exactly the sort of statistical program envisioned in
the NRC report: there could not be a static, one-time fix to the
problems with MRFSS. I now turn to the experiences on which my opinion
is based.
In 2007, I was contacted by Dr. Dave van Voorhees of NMFS and asked
to assist NMFS in their response to the NRC report, in developing a new
Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP). Since that time, I have
acted as a consultant and have advised graduate students who have been
supported on NMFS contracts. I have interacted with other consultants,
including mathematical statisticians, survey methodologists and
information technology specialists. This group includes academics and
industry representatives. We have regularly collaborated with staff
from NMFS and from state agencies.
Program Support
The NRC report recommended the establishment of a permanent and
independent research group to evaluate recreational fisheries surveys
and to guide future innovations. The NRC committee's goals in making
this recommendation included building stakeholder confidence in the
statistical system by involving a group from outside the Federal agency
and by subjecting all work to rigorous peer review. The consultant
model adopted by NMFS is entirely consistent with these goals, in my
opinion. Consultants in collaboration with NMFS staff are establishing
nationally consistent standards for design of marine recreational
fisheries surveys, producing detailed sampling designs and data
collection protocols, documenting all revised design and estimation
procedures, and conducting outreach to stakeholders and to the
scientific community.
Improving Statistical Estimation
One of the first problems addressed through MRIP was the mismatch
between design and estimation in the intercept survey, potentially
affecting the estimates of catch rate and their measures of
uncertainty. The effect of the mismatch on the catch estimates was
unknown, while the estimates of uncertainty were known to be biased and
too low. I worked with other consultants and NMFS staff to revise the
weighting procedure used for the intercept data, producing software and
technical documentation that was then peer-reviewed by statisticians in
industry, in academia, and in the Census Bureau. Revised estimates for
2004-2011 were then computed and released after extensive review. The
improved estimation method directly addressed NRC concerns, and is
transferable to future onsite surveys, to some auxiliary surveys
conducted by NMFS (such as the Large Pelagics Survey), and to some
surveys conducted by state agencies.
Sampling Issues with the Intercept Survey
The NRC critique of the intercept survey included in particular the
fact that samplers were given too much latitude in the sampling
process, including the opportunity to change to alternate sites or
alternate modes of sampling. Samplers also focused on the highest-
activity part of the day, under the untested assumption that this would
be representative of catch rates at other times during the day. To
address these concerns, NMFS undertook a pilot study in North Carolina
during 2010, in which new field protocols were compared side-by-side to
traditional MRFSS intercept survey methods. The new protocols included
time-of-day stratification, to ensure some coverage at all times of the
day and night. The new design eliminated much of the sampler's
discretion in visiting sites, eliminating a source of variation that
was of concern to the NRC committee. Unlike the traditional MRFSS, the
survey design and estimation approach tested in North Carolina adhered
closely to generally accepted statistical survey methods, while
maintaining practical feasibility. Results of the pilot study were
peer-reviewed and the final report was released earlier this spring.
The new intercept survey protocols are now being implemented on the
Atlantic and Gulf coasts.
Sampling Issues with the Telephone Survey
Implementation of the National Saltwater Angler Registry began with
Federal regulations in 2008. States can be exempted from the registry
if they license or register their anglers and provide sufficient
contact information for those anglers for use in recreational surveys.
Most coastal states qualify for this exemption. Gaps in survey coverage
result from exemptions to state licensing requirements and problems
with the contact information. MRIP, supported by statisticians and
survey methodologists, has been experimenting with dual frame surveys
of fishing effort to improve survey coverage. These methods combine
angler license frames with household telephone or address frames.
Surveys of effort are then conducted with a combination of telephone
and mail data collection. Designed experiments are underway to
determine the most effective contact options, in terms of getting good
response rates and high quality data in a timely manner.
Other Sampling Issues
One MRIP project has tested the use of on-board video cameras to
capture data on the species, size, and release condition of
recreational discards. This study is ongoing.
MRIP has studied methods for collecting catch and effort data from
the recreational for-hire sector, most recently focused on electronic
logbook reporting coupled with dockside validation of the logbook data.
These studies are ongoing.
Establishing Nationally Consistent Standards
A key feature of MRIP is cooperation between state agencies and the
Federal system. I have personally observed this cooperation while
taking part in the North Carolina Pilot Study, and while conducting
reviews of the recreational fisheries survey methods for Oregon in
2010, Washington in 2010, California in 2011, and Hawaii in 2012. Each
review included NMFS staff and a team of consultants, and each resulted
in a series of recommendations to the state agency on methods to
improve their recreational fisheries surveys. The agency, in turn,
could apply to MRIP for grant support to address those recommendations.
This helps transfer best practices being adopted at the Federal level
to the states, with appropriate modifications for the unique state-
level characteristics of the recreational fishery.
Communication and Outreach
NMFS has embraced the NRC recommendation of better communication
and outreach. Many of the MRIP projects have the active participation
of the recreational angling community, including fishing club
representatives and recreational angling advocates. For example, I
serve on a technical working group considering redesign of the Large
Pelagics Survey. Two other members of that group are charter boat
captains. NMFS staffers responsible for outreach participate in
technical meetings and produce press releases and educational videos
explaining the revised methods to a general audience. These materials
are of high quality, in my opinion. For example, one of these videos,
in which my colleague and I described the statistical re-estimation
procedures, was awarded a 2013 Gold Screen/Blue Pencil Award of
Excellence from the National Association of Government Communicators.
Materials related to the revisions, together with data, software, and
technical documentation, are now readily available on the MRIP website.
WHAT HAS YET TO BE DONE
One statistical issue in the NRC report that remains to be
addressed is small area estimation, in which auxiliary data are used to
produce estimates at finer spatial and temporal scales than would be
possible using only the weighted survey data. This is an active area of
statistical research, with applications throughout the Federal
statistical system. It is natural that development of such estimators
would come after resolving more fundamental design and estimation
issues. According to the MRIP website, preliminary work on small area
estimation has begun, including developing the necessary data base of
auxiliary information, and constructing appropriate predictive models.
In my estimation, the MRIP program has directly addressed the
concerns noted in the NRC report and is now a complete statistical
system with a sound scientific basis. This was not true in 2006. I do
not think that all issues are resolved, or ever will be, since the
problems in collecting data necessary to manage recreational fishing
are continually evolving. But the system in place now is structured to
adapt effectively to such changes, by developing, testing, and
implementing appropriate tools.
Thank you for inviting me to testify before the Subcommittee today.
I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
______
Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Dr. Breidt.
Mr. Horton, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER HORTON, MIDWESTERN STATES DIRECTOR,
CONGRESSIONAL SPORTSMEN'S FOUNDATION AND MEMBER OF MARINE
FISHERIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE'S RECREATIONAL FISHERIES WORKING
GROUP
Mr. Horton. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Committee. My name is Chris Horton, and I am the Midwestern
States Director for the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation.
In addition to working closely with State legislators in Texas
and Louisiana on sportsmen-related issues including
recreational salt water angling, I was recently appointed to
the Recreational Fisheries Working Group of MAFAC.
An avid angler myself, I began my career as a fisheries
management--for a State agency before eventually having the
opportunity to help represent both fresh water and salt water
recreational anglers in my current role at CSF. I want to thank
you for the opportunity to speak to you today about
recreational data collection relative to the reauthorization of
Magnuson-Stevens.
Recreational salt water angling is an important component
of our Nation's marine fisheries. In 2011, there were 11
million salt water anglers who contributed $70 billion in sales
impact, 22 billion of which was on fishing-related equipment.
Now, when anglers buy rods, reels, lures, line, and other
fishing-related equipment, in addition to the fuel for their
boats, an angler-supported excise tax is paid into the Aquatic
Resources and Boating Trust Fund, which is appropriated back to
the States to reinvest in fisheries resources. These angler-
generated funds, along with the fishing licenses they purchase,
are part of the American system of conservation funding. No
other single group of marine users invest more in our marine
fisheries resources. Recreational salt water angling is not
only good for our economy, it is good for our fisheries, as
well.
Recreational fishing is not always about how many fish we
can harvest. Recreational fishing is an opportunity to relax
with family and friends, presents an enjoyable and rewarding
challenge, and provides an opportunity to reconnect people of
all ages with a genuine appreciation for our great outdoors.
The methods, locations, and means of accessing our fisheries
are as diverse as the fish that we pursue.
Though MRIP has begun addressing many of the data
collection problems outlined in the National Research Council
report of 2006, further improvements to provide timely
reporting require a significant increase in funding. And
although we could spend more and might edge closer to the
accuracy of the commercial data, the quality of the data will
never be equal. It is simply impossible to make contact with
every recreational angler, and count every fish they catch.
However, the ability to count every fish isn't the problem.
The problem lies with how the data is used for management.
Although NOAA tries to treat them the same, commercial and
recreational fisheries are fundamentally different, and they
should be managed differently. Here is why.
Commercial fisheries are pursued by relatively few fishers,
with the same goal: harvest as many fish as allowed as
efficiently as possible in order to maximize profit. Commercial
landings can usually be counted and quotas enforced in real
time. Thus, managing commercial fisheries based on biomass
makes sense. However, managing the recreational component based
on biomass doesn't.
Recreational fisheries are very dynamic, and are enjoyed by
11 million Americans. How often and why we go fishing is
difficult, if not impossible to predict. So catch must be
estimated, not counted, resulting in a significant lag time for
producing such estimates. At best, 2\1/2\ months pass before
the estimates are even available. Because of this delay, the
real-time quota management necessary to be successful under the
current NOAA management strategy is just not practical for
recreational fisheries, or all recreational fisheries.
As a former State fisheries manager, I can tell you that
poundage-based management is not even considered by inland fish
and wildlife agencies. The red snapper fishery in the Gulf of
Mexico is a prime example of where this biomass-based system of
management is having an unnecessary and devastating impact on
recreational angling.
In summary, MRIP is certainly an improvement in terms of
survey methodology. However, a couple of serious and
unavoidable problems remain: the time necessary to produce
harvest estimates and a conversion of those estimates to
pounds. Unfortunately, the current management method preferred
by NOAA hinges on these two deficiencies to be successful. And
it is not.
We need to look at other proven strategies that can
effectively use the current data, rather than continue to
insist a commercial fisheries management strategy will work for
every recreational fishery. For decades now, inland fishery
stocks have been successfully managed based on population
information and harvest rates, not on biomass. These same
successful tools can be applied, in part, to marine
recreational fisheries management. And, like on the inland
waters, we can still protect the stock while maximizing
benefits for recreational anglers and the economy. We can and
must do better for recreational anglers.
Last, I plan to submit an addendum to my written testimony
to the Subcommittee that clarifies the importance of
concurrently addressing not only how MRIP data should be used
for the recreational sector, but also an examination of how the
proposed strategy relates to and potentially affects the
current recreational and commercial allocation quotes for some
fisheries.
Thank you for the time, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Horton follows:]
Statement of Chris Horton, Midwestern States Director,
Congressional Sportsmen Foundation
Good morning Mr. Chairman, Congressman Sablan and members of the
Committee. My name is Chris Horton, and I'm the Midwestern States
Director for the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation (CSF).
Established in 1989, CSF works with Congress, Governors, and state
legislatures to protect and advance hunting, recreational angling and
shooting and trapping.
In addition to working closely with state legislators in Texas and
Louisiana on various sportsmen's related issues, including recreational
saltwater angling, I was recently appointed to the Recreational
Fisheries Working Group of the Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee. An
avid angler myself, I began my career as a fisheries management
biologist for a state natural resource agency where I was tasked with
managing the most popular and sought after group of game fish in the
state--bass. I later became the conservation director for the largest
fishing organization in the world (B.A.S.S.) before having the
opportunity to help represent both freshwater and saltwater anglers in
my current role with the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation.
I sincerely thank the members of this Subcommittee for the
opportunity to speak with you today about recreational data collection
as you begin discussions on the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Management Act. Recreational saltwater anglers are an important
and significant component of our nation's marine fisheries. According
to the 2011 NOAA survey, there were more than 11 million saltwater
anglers who took 70 million fishing related trips and who contributed
$70 billion in sales impacts to our economy--resulting in 455,000 jobs
(both full and part time) in that year alone.
Another significant, yet often overlooked statistic is that
recreational anglers spent $22 billion in 2011 on durable fishing-
related equipment. When anglers purchase rods, reels, lures, hooks,
line, sinkers, trolling motors, marine electronics and other equipment,
an angler-supported excise tax is paid into the Aquatic Resources and
Boating Trust Fund, which is appropriated back to the states to
reinvest in the fisheries resource. These funds, along with angler
license purchases, are part of the American System of Conservation
Funding, and the most successful conservation model in the world. No
other single group of marine users gives back directly or as
substantially for the management and enhancement of our fisheries
resources. Recreational saltwater angling is not only good for our
economy--it's good for our fisheries.
Recreational fishing isn't about how many fish you can harvest.
Granted, the ability to bring home a few fish for the family is
certainly a bonus for recreational anglers. However, the ability to go
fishing for the average American offers so much more in return than
simply the fillets. It's an opportunity to relax with family and
friends, presents an enjoyable and rewarding challenge of figuring out
how to catch specific species and provides an opportunity to reconnect
people, both young and old, with our outdoor heritage and the
appreciation we have for our natural resources. The methods they employ
to go fishing, the locations they fish and the species they try to
catch are as diverse as this nation itself. The private boat angler in
the Southeast has hundreds of inlets and passes to choose from to get
to the ocean, while the Pacific Northwest angler is limited to a few
dozen. Fishing by wading into shallow waters or casting from a beach,
dock or pier is popular in some areas, while shoreline access may be
limited for others.
Unlike a commercial fisherman who has a personal financial stake in
a fishery, and thus its successful management, a recreational angler
just wants to go fishing. It is this individual that is the basis for
the recreational data collection system. This is the critical
difference that must be kept in mind when contemplating recreational
data collection--recreational anglers number in the millions and are
pursuing a hobby.
In their review of the national marine fishery data collection
system, the National Research Council (NRC) found significant problems
with the catch estimation methodologies and suggested remedies. As
other speakers note, NOAA has begun addressing those problems and the
system in place today, the Marine Recreational Information Program
(MRIP), is better than the old catch estimation system known as the
Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS). But, the NRC
also acknowledged the recreational catch will, in the vast majority of
cases, be estimated using survey methodology. The current system,
though an improvement from the last, would require a significant
increase in funding to make it substantially better. And, although we
could potentially get closer to the accuracy of the commercial
fisheries data with additional investments, the quality of the data
will never be equal. It is simply impossible to contact every
recreational angler and count every fish they catch.
Fortunately, it's not necessary that we continue to sink more money
into a program that will never be 100 percent accurate. Instead, it
would make more sense and be less costly to offer a different
management approach for recreational fisheries. The real problem, as we
see it, is not with the recreational data collection system. The
problem lies with how the data is used for management.
It must be recognized that commercial and recreational fisheries
are fundamentally different activities, with dissimilar harvest data
collection systems and thus require different management approaches.
Yet, the last reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, for all
intents and purposes, uses the same management strategy for both
recreational and commercial fisheries--primarily poundage-based hard
quotas with accountability measures. Although the accuracy of the
commercial fisheries harvest data is suited well for this approach, the
accuracy and timeliness of recreational harvest data is not and likely
never will be. Again, it is not possible to contact every recreational
angler and count every fish they catch. Instead, we should develop a
separate management strategy for recreational fisheries based on the
data available.
Commercial fisheries are managed for yield. They are pursued by
relatively few fishers, all with (understandably) the same goal--to
harvest as many fish as possible as efficiently as possible in order to
maximize profit from the sale of whatever species they pursue.
Commercial landings can usually be counted or weighed in real time,
thus quotas can be enforced in real time. This allows managers to close
a fishery before the allowable catch is exceeded. In short, a
commercial fishery's catch can be managed in real time and based on
verified landings. Managing commercial fisheries based on biomass or
yield makes sense.
Managing the recreational component of marine fisheries with
similar yield-based parameters, on the other hand, does not.
Recreational fisheries are dynamic in nature and enjoyed by millions of
individuals with diverse goals. Again, some try to catch fish for food
while others simply want to have fun catching and releasing fish and
enjoying their time outdoors, either in solitude or in the company of
friends and family. The frequency of their trips often depends on
circumstances such as stock abundance, weather, the economy or any of a
myriad of factors. Catch is estimated, not counted, with a significant
time lag for producing such estimates. Landings estimates, at best, are
compiled 45 days after the end of each two-month sampling wave; thus 2
months pass before any estimate of what anglers are catching in a
particular fishery can be developed. Unlike commercial fisheries
management, real-time catch information for the recreational users is
simply not practical (with very rare exception). For this reason,
recreational fisheries cannot be fairly managed under the current
management system.
The Gulf of Mexico red snapper fishery is a prime example of where
managing a recreational fishery based on total yield, rather than in
relation to the health of the fishery, is having a devastating and
unnecessary impact on recreational anglers and coastal economies. Even
though methodologies to estimate recreational harvest have improved
since the last Magnuson-Stevens reauthorization, recreational anglers
continue to be penalized as stock biomass increases. The red snapper
fishery is as healthy as it's been in decades, with more and bigger
fish in the fishery. Because the average weight and abundance of red
snapper has increased, seasonal opportunities to access the healthy
stock are further reduced each year in order to keep the estimated
recreational harvest in pounds under an ACL that is several years old.
Ultimately, the healthier the Gulf of Mexico red snapper population
gets, the less anglers can fish. It is absurd to manage fisheries in
this way. The current management system simply doesn't work and is an
injustice for recreational anglers.
As a former state fisheries manager, I can tell you that poundage-
based management is never even considered when managing game, waterfowl
or most inland fisheries where similar challenges to developing
accurate data exist.
Can you imagine a system where hard poundage quotas on squirrels,
with in season monitoring, were implemented? Suppose the state of
Louisiana was told they could only harvest 10,000 pounds of squirrel
annually. Once they reached 9,999 pounds, they had to close the season
or pay back any overages in the quota next year. That would be a
nonsensical approach and hunters wouldn't stand for it. Yet, that is
exactly what we do in marine fisheries management.
Let's accept the fact we are always going to use surveys to
estimate the vast majority of the recreational harvest. The system is
not perfect, but given the resource available it is a very good system
that produces good estimates of harvest for the more commonly caught,
important species. However, a couple of significant short comings will
inevitably persist. The weakest parts of the recreational data
collection system are the time lag necessary to produce harvest
estimates and the conversion of the recreational catch estimate to
pounds. Unfortunately, the current management method preferred by NOAA
is to measure harvest in pounds with a hard quota, implying that it is
possible to have real time quota management when it is not. The result
is that success of the current management strategies hinges on the
weakest part of the recreational data collection system.
Instead of trying to force a management system designed for
commercial fisheries onto recreational fisheries, NOAA should be tasked
with developing a rational recreational fishery management system that
uses the data available to us now. State fishery and wildlife managers
have done it successfully for decades; one need only look at the highly
effective management of speckled trout (which was the leading
recreationally caught species at 51 million fish in 2011), red drum and
striped bass. They are for the most part abundant, healthy stocks that
are managed primarily by harvest rates rather than poundage quotas.
Let's look to successful management strategies that can effectively
use the current data collections system, rather than continue to insist
what is primarily a commercial fisheries management strategy will work
for recreational fisheries. Inland fisheries stocks are successfully
managed based on population information and harvest rates, not on
biomass. The same successful tools can be applied to marine
recreational fisheries management that still protect stocks while
reducing costs and providing greater benefits for recreational anglers
and the economy.
Aldo Leopold once said that conservation is a state of harmony
between men and land. I don't think he would mind if we extended his
vision to the ocean. The goal for Federal fisheries management should
not be to create a system that unnecessarily severs our connection to
the oceans. Our goal should be to create a management system that
fosters trust and cultivates a state of harmony between the American
people and our marine environment.
______
Clarification Addendum to Statement of Chris Horton
(Addendum submitted May 29, 2013)
Although managing a fishery based on mortality or extraction rates,
and not on poundage, may seem like a significant departure from the
current management approach, in actuality it is not. If we stop
thinking in terms of total allowable pounds we can harvest, and instead
think of harvest in terms of a percentage of the population that can
safely be extracted, we are essentially doing the same thing u keeping
harvest below a level that would cause a population to be overfished.
For recreational fisheries, a maximum fishing mortality rate (F) would
become the MSY, and the actual target fishing mortality rate would be
somewhere below that level as determined by the Commissions and the
Council's SSC's. Contemporary estimates of harvest, effort and
biological indices are necessary to adjust harvest regulations to
achieve and maintain the appropriate rate of extraction from the
recreational sector. With the improved ability for MRIP to collect
fishery-dependent data, and with the state's ability to monitor
population indices, these contemporary estimates of harvest and the
effects on the population would be readily available to make
adjustments to the fishing mortality as needed.
Implementing this approach in predominately recreationally
allocated fisheries would be relatively simple by capping the current
commercial harvest to an appropriate poundage quota, accounting for
that mortality in the F estimate and establishing an appropriate target
rate of recreational fishing mortality that, combined with the
commercial harvest mortality, has an extremely low probability of
exceeding F in any given year.
Where mixed-sector fisheries have both commercially important and
recreationally valuable fisheries, there may need to be additional
considerations. If the stock is rapidly rebuilding, again it might be
possible to set the commercial poundage at or near current levels and
allow recreational anglers to be managed for the remainder of the
growing stock. While this approach wouldn't allow for additional
commercial fishers to enter the fishery, it would ensure that those
currently in operation would remain profitable and provide a product
for American markets. However, this direct approach may not be possible
for all the mixed-sector stocks. Where allocations were established
decades ago, it may be necessary to re-examine quota allocations to
determine the best value for the Nation based on current social,
economic and environmental conditions. Actually, we in the recreational
fishing community have been calling for an examination of allocations
based on current values for several years now.
Ultimately, not all fisheries need to be managed on the proposed
model. Some fisheries, especially those in the Pacific Northwest, may
be appropriately managed based on the current poundage-based system.
However, the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic red snapper/grouper
complex; summer flounder in the mid-Atlantic; black sea bass in the Mid
and South Atlantic; and even black drum along the Atlantic seaboard are
just some examples of where this management approach could be effective
in solving many of the current problems associated with managing
fisheries that are both recreationally and commercially important.
______
Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Mr. Horton.
Dr. Stokesbury, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DR. KEVIN D. E. STOKESBURY, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR
AND CHAIR, DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES OCEANOGRAPHY, SCHOOL FOR
MARINE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS-
DARTMOUTH
Dr. Stokesbury. Thank you. Thank you very much for the
introduction. And I thank the members of the Subcommittee for
the invitation to testify before you today.
I was asked to speak on fisheries data collection,
specifically how we developed an alternative survey for the sea
scallop fishery, and if similar techniques can apply for other
fisheries.
The critical thing about managing fisheries is collecting
accurate data. The Magnuson-Stevens Act gives control of data
collection to NOAA fisheries. However, I think there are
cooperative ways to collect accurate data, as well. The sea
scallops stock has rebuilt from a low harvest of $87 million in
1997 to landings worth about $455 million annually, from 2003
to 2012. The current situation with the groundfish industry is
in stark contrast to the scallop fishery.
Scientific uncertainties are huge, and many fishermen are
saying this is it, it is over, it is the end of the fishery.
How did the scallop stock rebuild so quickly? Can the
groundfish stock rebuild, as well? To answer these questions,
we need to be able to accurately measure the abundance and the
spacial distribution of these animals.
The primary sampling tool for most fishery stocks in the
U.S. are a trawl or a dredge. With them you can say there was
an average of 1,000 scallops per tow in 2012. But this doesn't
mean anything unless you have other tows to compare it to. This
is a relative estimate of a relative estimate. What you need is
an absolute estimate. Then you can say there were 4 billion
scallops on Georges Bank in 2012, which clearly means
something. You can compare that number to other years, other
animals, and you can decide how many of them you would like to
harvest. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, uncertainty in stock
assessment leads to more conservative estimates of allowable
catch.
I believe that the fisheries research should return to a
fundamental principle of field ecology, seeking absolute
measures, which is the numbers per unit area, and determining
the associated uncertainties. For scallops, we set out to get
an absolute measure. Working with the fishermen, we tried to
avoid preconceived notions. We simply tried to estimate the
number of animals at different sizes, and where they were
located.
The fishermen outlined their historic fishing grounds for
us. We had very limited funds, so sampling gear had to be cheap
and readily available. And with that we developed a video
quadratic sampling pyramid and surveyed on a grid. Now we have
completed 150 video crew surveys on Georges Bank and the Mid-
Atlantic. All the vessels have been donated, as well as most of
the food, fuel, and fishermen's time. Within each quadrat, 50
invertebrates and fish are counted, and the substrats are
identified. Counts are standardized to individuals per meters
squared, and these estimates are expanded by the area to give a
population estimate.
Our first surveys were used to support the opening of the
Nantucket Lightship and closed area one scallop grounds,
instantly increasing the harvest by 5.5 million pounds, worth
$55 million. In 2003, we expanded our video survey to cover the
entire scallop resource, and this doubled the estimate of
abundance, which is worth approximately $2.4 billion, U.S.
This system has been accepted by the National Marine
Fisheries Service. It has been published in 25 peer-reviewed
scientific papers, and over 100 students and fishermen have
worked together on this research.
So what is the future? The biggest question in fisheries
continues to be what is the relationship between the spawning
adults and the new recruits. The trick is having the scientific
techniques to see the recruits as soon as it occurs, and the
management structure in place to act quickly and protect it.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act should include this.
We are working on new ways to try and measure groundfish
using acoustics and video techniques. We just conducted a
preliminary survey placing a video camera system in the cod-end
of a groundfish otter trawl. The results look promising, and we
hope to develop into a full-blown survey. If so, it will sample
an order of magnitude more sea floor than the conventional
trawl surveys.
To me, the way forward is to get out there and work with
the fishermen, measuring what is going on. If we can use new
technologies to look at these populations clearly and simply,
perhaps we can start grasping their underlying dynamics. There
is still an incredible amount of potential in the wild
fisheries of New England, and the infrastructure and people
willing to and invested in figuring out how to make it work
sustainably. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Stokesbury follows:]
Statement of Dr. Kevin D. E. Stokesbury, Department of Fisheries
Oceanography, School for Marine Science and Technology, University of
Massachusetts Dartmouth
Fishery data collection, the example of the New Bedford scallop
fishery.
I thank the members of the subcommittee for the invitation to
testify before you today. My name is Kevin Stokesbury. I am a professor
of Fisheries Oceanography, in the School for Marine Science and
Technology at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth. I was asked to
speak on fisheries data collection, specifically how we developed an
alternative survey for the sea scallop fishery and if similar
techniques could apply for other fisheries.
The critical thing about managing fisheries is collecting accurate
data. The Magnuson-Stevens Act gives control of data collection to NOAA
fisheries. However, I think there are cooperative ways of collecting
accurate data.
The sea scallop stock has rebuilt from a low harvest of 5,500
metric tons in 1998 worth about $87 million to harvest above the
estimated maximum sustainable yield. Landings from 2003 to 2010
averaged 26,000 metric tons worth about $455 million, annually (Fig.
1). New Bedford has been the number one fishing port by value in the
U.S. for the last 14 years, due largely to scallop landings; the fleet
landed $289 million worth in 2010 and $297 million in 2011 just in New
Bedford alone (Fig. 2).
The current situation with the groundfish industry is in stark
contrast to the scallop fishery. The latest estimates of New England
groundfish stocks are incredibly low, reductions of 60 percent to 77
percent for Georges Bank and Gulf of Maine cod, respectively.
Yellowtail flounder quota, which is divided between Canada and the
U.S., is so low that it could shut down both the groundfish and the
scallop fishery due to by-catch. The scientific uncertainties in these
estimates are huge and many people are questioning the Federal surveys
and stock assessments. Many fishermen are saying, ``This is it, it's
over.'' The end of the fishery.
How did the scallop stock rebuild so quickly? Can the groundfish
stock rebuild as well? To answer these questions we need to be able to
accurately measure the abundance and spatial distributions of these
animals.
Estimating the abundance of marine species is difficult.
Traditional fisheries assessments generally use modified commercial
gear or fisheries landing data to provide relative abundance estimates
recorded in catch per unit effort such as kg per tow. These sampling
approaches generally focus on the target species of the fishery, and
collect information on other species incidentally (by-catch). The
efficiency and selectivity of these collections are usually unknown.
Selectivity is the range of sizes and morphologies of individuals
captured by a specific gear, and efficiency is the proportion of
individuals caught by the gear compared to the total number of
individuals in the gear's path (Stokesbury et al 2008). Relative
estimates are relative only to themselves. You have to compare one year
to another, and if you see a change you assume it is occurring in
nature because your sample design is the same. However, if you know the
efficiency of the sampling gear you can use it to calculate an absolute
estimate, the actual number of fish in the sample area. Then if you
know the total area your resource covers you can multiply these values
to give you the number of animals in the resource. It is this number
(or biomass if it is in weight) that managers use to set the total
allowable catch for a fishery. ``There was an average of 1,000 scallops
per tow in 2012'' doesn't mean anything unless you have other tows to
compare it too. ``There were 4 billion scallops on Georges Bank in
2012'' clearly means something. You can compare that number to other
years, other animals and you can decide how many of them you would like
to harvest.
Each of the parameters has an associated error in measurement and
these uncertainties are often so large that they frequently mask real
changes in populations. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act uncertainty in
stock assessments leads to more conservative estimates of allowable
catch.
I believe that fisheries researchers should return to fundamental
principles of field ecology; seek absolute measures (numbers per unit
area) and determine the associated uncertainties (Stokesbury et al
2008). I'll describe the implementation of these principles using a new
technology to examine the sea scallop fishery of the Northeast Untied
States.
The U.S. Sea scallop Fishery
Two spatial management changes drastically altered fishing
distribution replacing the traditional unrestricted movement of the
fleet from one scallop aggregation to another. In 1977, the Hague Line
divided eastern Georges Bank between Canada and the United States. In
1994 three large areas (17,000 km\2\) of the United States portion of
Georges Bank were closed to mobile gear fisheries in an effort to
protect depleted groundfish stocks (Murawski et al. 2000). These
changes substantially reduced the scallop grounds available to the
fishing fleet and concentrated intense fishing pressure on the
remaining open areas.
By 1998 the scallop fishery was facing severe restrictions.
Fishermen were desperate for access into the large closed areas of
Georges Bank that had supported their traditional fishery. However the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) survey suggest that scallop
abundance was not high within these areas (NEFMC 1999 SAFE Report page
93). There were several reasons for this: violation of the assumptions
of the sampling design and huge uncertainties associated with the
efficiency of the fishing gear used.
The NMFS scallop survey uses a modified New Bedford style
commercial dredge towed by a scientific research vessel, and stations
were selected using a stratified random survey design (Hart and Rago
2006). In a stratified random survey the population is divided into
subpopulations which do not overlap and which together make up the
entire population. The animals within each subpopulation are assumed to
be relatively evenly distributed. Each subpopulation or ``strata'' is
randomly sampled and then these values are combined. On Georges Bank,
strata roughly follow depth contours. The establishment of closed areas
cut across strata and with the number of animals increasing within the
closed area, the assumption of an ``even distribution within strata''
was violated. This results in taking only a few samples in areas that
have high densities of animals.
Another problem is that there is a great deal of uncertainty
concerning the efficiency of the dredge, how many scallops a scallop
dredge catches, and how many scallops it leaves on the sea floor. Small
differences may have large effects on scallop estimates, especially
when you are using samples to extrapolate estimates for an entire
population.
The SMAST sea scallop video survey
Working cooperatively with the scallop fishermen, we set out to
develop a video survey using quadrat techniques based on SCUBA diving
studies (Stokesbury and Himmelman 1993; 1995) that would provide
spatially explicit, accurate, precise, absolute estimates of sea
scallop density and size distributions along the off-shore northeast
waters of the United States including the Georges Bank Closed areas
(Stokesbury 2002; Stokesbury et al 2004).
In designing this survey we tried to avoid the preconceived notions
of formal fisheries stock assessments, such as:
1) Estimating biomass rather than the number of individuals
2) Assuming homogeneous densities within survey strata.
We met with fishermen who outlined their historic fishing grounds.
We had very limited funds, so sampling gear had to be cheap and readily
available. In addition, we wanted a portable system, deployable from
any commercial scallop fishing vessel, and we wanted to avoid the
permitting process required to sample in closed areas with fishing
gear, which often results in delay (or denial).
Three scientific principles guided our design:
1) Scale: According to scallop population biology sampling grain
needed to be at the scale of cm (individual distribution) and to the
extent of 100-1000 of km\2\ (bed-level distribution) (Stokesbury and
Himmelman 1993; 1995)
2) Experimentation: To measure the impact of the scallop fishery on
the benthic habitats with a level of precision that allowed statistical
testing a Before-After-Control-Impact experiment (Green 1979;
Stokesbury and Harris 2006). We had to take enough measurements to be
sure we could observe a change when it occurs.
3) Continuity: Sampling in an expandable way such that subsequent
surveys would build a mosaic suitable for mapping benthic substrates
and macroinvertebrates. We have added to our system with improved
technology but we've keep the basic sampling unit the same so that all
our samples can be compared to one another and combined.
We developed a video-quadrat sampling pyramid and selected a
multistage centric systematic design with three station grid
resolutions (1.6, 2.3 and 5.6 km). Since 1999, we have completed 150
video cruises surveying Georges Bank and the Mid Atlantic (>1,000 days
at sea) We began sampling the entire resource in 2003 and have done so
until 2012 (Fig. 3). The system is composed of a mobile video recording
system compatible with any scallop vessel wheelhouse layout, an
electro-hydraulic winch and a sampling pyramid. In its present
configuration the sampling pyramid, supports four cameras and eight
lights (Stokesbury 2002; Stokesbury et al. 2004; Fig. 4).
Within each quadrat, macroinvertebrates and fish are counted and
the substrates are identified (Stokesbury 2002; Stokesbury et al. 2004)
(Fig. 5). Counts are standardized to individuals m^\2\. This procedure
has been published in 25 peer-reviewed scientific papers.
Results of the video survey.
Small Scale surveys: Our initial work focused on estimating the
density of sea scallops within the closed areas of Georges Bank. Sea
scallops were highly grouped into patches (beds) on the scale of km\2\
and strongly associated with coarse sand-granule-pebble substrates. The
three areas surveyed contained approximately 650 million scallops
representing 17,000 metric tons of harvestable scallop meats. These
data assisted in developing an access program in 1999-2000 that
provided an instant increase in harvest of 5.5 million lbs, worth $55
million (Stokesbury 2002).
Large Scale Surveys: In 2003, at the request of the scallop fishing
industry we expanded our video survey to cover the entire scallop
resource in U.S. waters based on the footprint of the 2002 fishery. Sea
scallop densities in the Mid-Atlantic and Georges Bank represented
approximately 217,520 metric tons of scallop meats (approximately U.S.
$2.4 billion); twice that estimated by the NMFS (J. Boreman Director of
NEFSC statement to The Standard Times, New Bedford, MA, USA, 4 November
2003). Sea scallops were highly aggregated in areas closed to mobile
fishing gear. A large number of pre-recruit scallops were observed in
the southern portion of the Hudson Canyon closed area extending south
into open waters. This area, the Elephant Trunk, was closed in 2004 and
sustained the fishery until 2011.
I don't think people realize what a cooperative effort this was
with the fishermen, particularly the New Bedford fleet. We had no money
for those first trips; they were all backed by individual fishermen,
people donating their time, vessels, know-how, food and fuel. Now 150
week-long trips later and over 10 years of surveying the continental
shelf from Virginia to the Canadian line 200 miles off shore on Georges
Bank; that is still the case. The food, fuel, vessels and fishermen's
labor are still all donated. The fishermen and my students have made
our efforts a success. Our video survey is the largest in the world
(that I know of). It provides an estimate of the numbers of scallops by
size by location for the entire resource. This has enabled a rotational
management plan that moves the fishing fleet around different closed
areas on Georges Bank and in the Mid-Atlantic depending on how numerous
and large the scallops are in each area. The system was presented at
New England Fisheries Management Council sea scallop Plan and
Development team meetings as well as the NMFS stock assessments. It was
subjected to a number of critiques that resulted in further testing and
development. Now, this system has been reviewed and accepted by the
National Marine Fisheries Service and is combined with their research
to provide yearly estimates of scallop abundance.
So ``what is the future?'' The closed areas may have played a part
in the scallop recovery but there was also a huge recruitment in the
Mid-Atlantic in 2003 that has sustained the scallop fishery for the
last 10 years. There seems to be a cycle in scallop populations. The
biggest scientific question in fisheries continues to be ``what is the
relationship between the spawning adults and the new recruits?'' I
think there are several underlying patterns to recruitment. There can
be a relatively low annual recruitment equal to around 25 percent of
the populations and then, when the correct environmental conditions
occur, a huge year-class (Fig. 6).
That is what rebuilds a fishery. The trick is having the scientific
techniques to see the recruitment as soon as it occurs and the
management structure in place to act quickly and protect it. This just
happened with scallops in 2012, we (our video survey and the NMFS
scallops survey) saw another good recruitment in the mid-Atlantic and
with the support of the fishermen, the management council quickly
closed the area protecting the scallops and allowing them to grow
undisturbed until they were ready to harvest. In considering the data
requirements for the Magnuson-Stevens Act this should be considered, to
look for and take advantage of significantly large year classes. It is
very hard to rebuild a population with an average annual recruitment.
We're working on new ways to try and measure groundfish using
acoustics and video techniques. We just conducted a preliminary survey
placing a video camera system in the cod-end of a groundfish otter
trawl to see if we could accurately identify and count the fish as they
passed through (Fig. 7). The results look promising and if we can
refine this technique we will be able to greatly increase the area
sampled for groundfish, which should reduce the scientific uncertainty
in these estimates. To me the way forward is to reduce the scientific
uncertainty and the best way to do this is to get out there with the
fishermen and measure what's going on. If we can use new technologies
to look at these populations clearly and simply, perhaps we can start
to grasp their underlying dynamics.
There is still an incredible amount of potential in the wild
fisheries of New England, and the infrastructure and people willing to
and invested in figuring out how to make it work sustainably.
I suggest the following criteria in designing surveys and
experiments (Stokesbury et al 2008):
1. Always answer a question using a hypothesis driven approach with
experimental design based on observations to determine the appropriate
sampling design and scale; the temporal and spatial scales of the
sampling design must match that of the hypotheses.
2. Use as much information as possible in collecting initial
observations; include historic literature, perspective of non-
scientists, and especially observations and perceptions from fishers
and other resource users.
3. Start as simply as possible with a scalable sampling design and
build a mosaic as knowledge increases.
4. Make your experimental design as adaptive to new technologies as
possible; absolute measures are essential.
5. Incorporate spatial and temporal variability in your
experimental design (strongly consider systematic sampling designs).
6. Use collection and analysis procedures that allow for the
development and inclusion of your intuition and understanding of the
ecosystem (automation can kill intuition) as well as new information
and technology.
Thank you.
______
Literature Cited
Green, R.H. (1979). Sampling design and statistical methods for
environmental biologists. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Gunderson, D.R. (1993). Surveys of Fisheries Resources. John Wiley &
Sons, Inc. New York.
Hart, D.R., Rago, P.J. (2006). Long-term dynamics of U.S. Atlantic sea
scallop Placopecten magellanicus populations. North
American Journal of Fisheries Management, 26, 490-501.
Harris, B.P., & Stokesbury, K.D.E. (2006). Shell growth of sea scallops
(Placopecten magellanicus Gmelin, 1791) in the southern and
northern Great South Channel, USA. ICES Journal of Marine
Science, 63, 811-821.
Hilborn, R., & Walters, C.J. (1992). Quantitative fisheries stock
assessment: choice, dynamics and uncertainty. Chapman &
Hall, Inc., New York.
Murawski, S.A., Brown, R., Lai, H.-L., Rago, P.J. & Hendrickson, L.
(2000). Large-scale closed areas as a fishery-management
tool in temperate marine ecosystems: the Georges Bank
experience. Bulletin of Marine Science, 66, 775-798.
Stokesbury, K.D.E. (2002). Estimation of sea scallop, Placopecten
magellanicus, abundance in closed areas of Georges Bank.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 131, 1081-
1092.
Stokesbury, K.D.E. (2012). Stock definition and recruitment:
Implications for the U.S. sea scallop (Placopecten
magellanicus) fishery from 2003 to 2011. Reviews in
Fisheries Science 20:154-164.
Stokesbury, K.D.E., & Harris, B.P. (2006). Impact of a limited fishery
for sea scallop, Placopecten magellanicus, on the
epibenthic community of Georges Bank closed areas, Marine
Ecology Progress Series, 307, 85-100.
Stokesbury, K.D.E., Harris, B.P., Marino II, M.C. & Nogueira, J.I.
(2004). Estimation of sea scallop abundance using a video
survey in off-shore USA waters. Journal of Shellfish
Research, 23, 33-44.
Stokesbury, K.D.E., Harris, B.P., & Marino II, M.C. (2008).
Astonishment, stupefaction, and a naturalist's approach to
ecosystem-based fisheries studies. In The Future of
Fisheries edited by Rothschild, B.J. & Beamish, R. American
Institute of Fisheries Research Biologist (in press).
Stokesbury, K.D.E. & Himmelman, J.H. (1995). Biological and physical
variables associated with aggregations of the giant scallop
Placopecten magellanicus. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and
Aquatic Sciences, 52, 743-753.
Stokesbury, K.D.E. & Himmelman, J.H. (1993). Spatial distribution of
the giant scallop Placopecten magellanicus in unharvested
beds in the Baie des Chaleurs, Quebec. Marine Ecology
Progress Series, 96, 159--168.
FIGURE 1. UNITED STATES SEA SCALLOP LANDINGS (SOURCE: NOAA).
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
FIGURE 2. DECK LOAD OF SCALLOPS IN THE NANTUCKET LIGHTSHIP AREA IN
2006 DURING AN ACCESS TRIP (PHOTO BY BRAD HARRIS).
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
FIGURE 3. MAP OF THE 2012 COOPERATIVE VIDEO SURVEY, EACH DOT
REPRESENTS 4 DROPS OF THE PYRAMID WITH 4 CAMERAS
RECORDING DATA, RED DOTS ARE THE NUMBERS OF
SCALLOPS PER STATION.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
FIGURE 4. THE SMAST VIDEO SAMPLING PYRAMID MOUNTED ON THE SIDE OF A
COMMERCIAL FISHING VESSEL.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
FIGURE 5. A DIGITAL STILL QUADRAT SAMPLE COVERING 1.13 M2 WITH 11
SCALLOPS AND 1 STARFISH.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
FIGURE 6. RECRUITMENT OF JUVENILE SCALLOPS FORM THE SEA SCALLOP
RESOURCE FROM 2003 TO 2011 (STOKESBURY 2012).
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
FIGURE 7. A DIGITAL IMAGE OF GROUNDFISH FROM A TEST SYSTEM THAT MAY
ALLOW THE SAMPLING OF FISH AS THEY PASS THROUGH AND
THEN EXIT THE NET WITHOUT DAMAGING THEM.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Dr. Stokesbury.
And finally, Captain Colby. You are recognized for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN MIKE H. COLBY, PRESIDENT,
DOUBLE HOOK CHARTERS, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA
Mr. Colby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member and
Subcommittee members, for giving me the opportunity to respond
from a fisherman's perspective on data collection and how we
move forward with MSA reauthorization. If I may quickly, I
would like to recognize to the Ranking Member and your
colleagues from the Pacific Rim that a week-and-a-half ago at
the Managing Our Nation's Fisheries conference I had the
pleasure of meeting some of those participants and staff in the
Western Regional Council. It was entertaining and educational,
and I felt that I needed to let you know that.
Mr. Chairman, in your kind invitation to me you indicated
that you had three comments, questions, or overarching ideas
that you wanted me to address to the Subcommittee. And I would
like to do that one by one, if I can.
The first would involve your question about whether MRIP is
operational and fully implemented. In terms of the full
implementation, I know that we have small steps to go there. I
think we have a mailing component that is going to be used,
along with the phone canvassing, in addition to some other, I
believe, enhancements to the dockside intercepts. So--and I
would fully expect--and some fisherman think--that will happen
certainly before the end of the year, or as soon as possible.
In terms of it being operational, from a fisherman's
perspective--and I am a charter-for-hire operator--the
transition from the old system to the new system for us is
seamless. It is without controversy. I mean we are reporting,
anyway. We have been reporting, anyway. So it was a very easy
transition into the new system. And I think, again, the
challenges will be, for us, to identify in the broad component
of the recreational fishery who is using MRIP. Are they
satisfied with it? Certainly we will need a query or some kind
of census, if you will, to find out if fishermen are enjoying
the system and find it easy to use, and are willing to
cooperate with it.
The other was your interest in any new pathways or
technology for data collection that we might use in
reauthorization, or certainly use in the fishery. And we have
one that is on our doorstep now, it is being used right now. It
is right here, it is right on an iPhone, and it is called
iSnapper. You can use it on an iPad or an iPhone. It has been
tested several times by pilots using charter-for-hire fishermen
in the Western Gulf, and some in the Northern Gulf.
And Dr. Greg Stunz and the Harte Research Institute, Texas
A&M, Corpus Christi, developed this. It is menu-driven. It is
dumb-proof. It is easy to use. The fisherman goes out with
this, they log in, the give near-to-real-time, while-they-are-
fishing estimates on catch and effort. On your way home you hit
enter, and that is it. You can even go home and log in on the
iSnapper website and look at a lexicon of your fishing
activities over a period of time. It is a wonderful opportunity
for recreational fishermen to become responsible and obligated
to their fishery to use this.
I think if you put iSnapper with some other validation or
documentation component--for instance, a fish tag--in terms of
validating that self-reported data, the fish tag being used
only for effort purposes, I think you have a powerful tool that
will immediately result in us setting better ACLs, or rather
better annual catch targets, accepted biological catch, making
determinations of optimum yield. We now have the badly needed
fishery-dependent data that we have been waiting for.
And the third thing was your question about whether I, as a
fisherman, feel that MSA needs to be reauthorized, particularly
in terms of data collection. And I think what I just said there
was that if we already have those tools in place--the National
Standard 2 is what it is. It is National Standard 2, requires
the best-available science and data. It is time for fishermen
to quit thinking of themselves as participants in the fishery,
and become responsible for this fishery.
Bring fishermen to the table. Start putting in good, real-
time, as best real-time data as we can. And I think you will
see the workable Magnuson-Stevens Act that we need from them.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Colby follows:]
Statement of Michael H. Colby, President, Double Hook Charters
Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Sablan, and Members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity today to speak to you today on
the importance of data collection in sustainably managing our nation's
fisheries. My name is Mike Colby and I have been a participant in the
Gulf of Mexico fishery for the better part of 50 years. I spent many
years part-time in the for-hire fishery while I was a contractor for
the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and an adjunct instructor in the
environmental sciences. In 1986, I received my first Merchant Mariners
Credential and became a full-time operator in 1995. I have always felt
that the charter industry was my pathway to becoming an ambassador for
our fishery.
Over the past several decades, I began to see myself not just as a
participant in the fishery, but as someone who is responsible for the
fishery. This was a growth in perspective that I attribute to my
background in the biological sciences and a true concern for natural
resources. My involvement in current fishery management issues is the
direct result of my vested interest in our fishery resources.
This hearing and last week's Managing Our Nation's Fisheries
Conference call attention to the importance of sustainable fisheries to
our coastal communities and economies. NOAA, the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) and regional fishery management councils have
made strides over the past decade to rebuild stocks and to end
overfishing and increase the number of stock assessments and status
reviews. Since 2000, 32 fish stocks have been rebuilt and many more
have been assessed; 11 have been rebuilt since I last testified in
2011. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act is
working and fish populations are rebuilding. This is good for fish,
fishermen and the coastal economies that depend on a healthy resource.
Science based catch limits and accountability measures are key
components of the successes we have seen on the water in ending
overfishing and rebuilding fisheries. National Standard two of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act requires that
``Conservation and management measures shall be based on the best
available science.'' Data collection in the recreational and commercial
fisheries forms the basis for the best available science used when
managing our nation's fisheries.
As a young wildlife and fisheries student I can remember a fishery
biologist telling me that he ``never saw a perfect data set''. He also
reminded me that all data give us direction, trends and the need for
more data. While I can think of no one who would argue the need for
more reliable fishery data, we need to look at the existing science and
scientific process we have now.
Existing Data Collection Methods for Gulf Recreational Fisheries
Three separate programs are used to sample and calculate catch and
effort estimates for the marine recreational fishery in Gulf of Mexico:
the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP), Southeast Regional
Headboat Survey (SRHS) and the Texas Marine Sport-Harvest Monitoring
Program (TPWD).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Research Council. 2006. Review of recreational
fisheries survey methods. Committee on the Review of Recreational
Fisheries Survey Methods, National Research Council. The National
Academies Press. 187p.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before we address MRIP, we need to address its predecessor the
Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS). The Magnuson
Fishery Conservation and Management Act \2\ passage in 1976 mandated
collection of data for both commercial and recreational marine
fisheries by National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). NMFS established
MRFSS as a program in 1979 to serve as a reliable data base for
estimating the impact of marine recreational fishing on marine
resources.\3\ A nationwide standardized data collection methodology and
statistical estimation process began in 1981. All of the Gulf of Mexico
states originally participated in MRFSS; however, Texas dropped out of
the program in 1986 and returned to its original survey design.
Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida have continued to use MRFSS
as their primary marine recreational fishery sampling methodology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 16 U.S.C. 1801-1884 (specifically 303 & 304(e)).
\3\ http://data.recfin.org/mrfssov.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MRFSS was not specifically designed for management rather it was to
estimate the impact fishing had on the resource; however, as this
program was the main source for recreational fishery catch and effort,
managers had to rely on it as there source of recreational information.
As management needs evolved, MRFSS could not provide catch and effort
estimates in a manner fitting to these needs. These concerns, and
others, prompted a study by the National Research Council. In their
final report, the NRC recommended a systemic overhaul of the survey
methods of MRFSS and additional changes were mandated in the MSA
reauthorization of 2006.
MRFSS was thusly rebranded `Marine Recreational Information
Program' (MRIP) and work began to redesign the survey. The redesigned
system was supposed to be operational by 2009, however due to the
complexity of the new system, it did not launch in 2013.
Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP)
The goal of MRIP (and MRFSS) is to provide a reliable data base for
estimating the impact of marine recreational fishing on marine
resources.\4\ The function of the survey is to provide Fishery
Management Councils, Interstate Fisheries Commissions, and State and
Federal fishery management agencies to draft fishery management plans,
to evaluate future demands on fish stocks, to predict and evaluate the
impact of fisheries regulations, and to develop recreational facilities
for anglers. MRIP, like MRFSS, calculates recreational fishery catch
and effort estimates for all water areas (inland, state and EEZ) and
all species of recreational take, including discarded species.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/recreational/pubs/data_users/
chap_1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two regions and some U.S. territories, the 15 Atlantic States and
four of the Gulf of Mexico States (Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and
Florida) participate in MRIP.\5\ The west coast, Texas and Alaska do
not use MRIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ As of 5/2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The basic design of MRIP is through two independent, yet
complementary, surveys: a telephone survey of households \6\ and an
intercept survey of anglers at fishing access sites. The telephone
survey captures number of trips and other similar aspects; whereas, the
intercept survey captures creel data, basic spatial data, time fished
and avidity data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Note: effort data collection will incorporate mail based
interview methods possibly by 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The telephone survey is completed in a two-week period that starts
the last week of each wave through first week of the following new
wave. Participants asked to recall on a trip-by-trip basis all marine
recreational fishing trips made within their state during the 60 days
prior to the interview. The two month period was selected as it has
been shown this is the limit of reasonable data recall by multiple
studies. Important to note, the original design limited the phone
survey to coastal households. As the NRC found, and other critiques,
this biased the data and potential resulted in under coverage of the
angler frame.\7\ MRIP addresses this issue and will use an angler
license data base and some random digit dialing to account for
unlicensed anglers to accomplish the same task. This should result in
better coverage of the sampling frame (i.e., anglers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ National Research Council. 2006. Review of recreational
fisheries survey methods. Committee on the Review of Recreational
Fisheries Survey Methods, National Research Council. The National
Academies Press. 187p.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The intercept survey consists of onsite interviews which gather
catch and demographic data from marine recreational anglers in three
fishing modes: party/charter boat, private/rental boat, or shore based
(e.g., man-made structures, beaches, and banks). The Gulf of Mexico
MRIP has not collected catch data from headboats since 1985. This is
covered by a separate survey, the Southeast Regional Headboat Survey,
run by NMFS/SEFSC in Beaufort, NC.
In the Gulf of Mexico, the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission
(GSMFC) administers the survey. GSMFC is responsible for data entry.
MRIP Data Flow & Timeline:
MRIP calculates catch effort estimates in two month `wave' periods.
The following table and figure summarize the process. The gray shaded
areas are the estimation period. In short, estimates, for any given
wave, are not available until 45 days after the wave ends, e.g., May/
June (wave 3) estimates are available August 15.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post Sample to Next
Step Level Example Receival Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Field Data: 2-7 days to June 3
Supervisor
2 2 days to GSMFC June 9
3 7-10 days to Data Entry June 21
3.5 July Data: 12 days to July 22
GSMFC
4 7 days to Final Data July 29
Entry
5 Telephone Data to GSMFC July 29
6 Estimate August 15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
FIGURE 1. GENERIC TIMELINE FOR MRFSS ESTIMATES. BASED ON SALZ &
ROSSETTI, 2011.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ www.countmyfish.noaa.gov/workshop/
Salz_Rossetti_lag_timeliness_workshop--final.pdf.
MRIP was not designed as a management tool for in season
management, it was designed to address the surveys biases identified in
the NRC report. MRIP provides catch and effort estimates in six two-
month waves, over a calendar year. The estimates for each wave are
produced 45 days after the wave ends, e.g., May/June (wave 3) estimates
are available August 15. A final annual estimate is produced
approximately two months after the start of the year, essentially a re-
run of the data to incorporate any corrections. Another important note
is many fishing seasons are completed within a wave or straddle two
waves. For example, the red snapper season is contained within a wave,
but total catch estimates are not available until 45 days after the
wave ends. MRIP does not have the ability to calculate in-season
estimates or forecasts, which often leads to overfishing the quota in
many species.
Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) is relied upon to
predict catch per unit effort for the recreational angler; not an easy
task given there were more than 3 million recreational anglers in the
Gulf of Mexico in 2011. This model is commonly referred to by some
fishermen as ``junk science''. In August 2010 the Gulf Regional Council
re-opened the Gulf red snapper season for a fall fishery after the BP
Deepwater Horizon disaster based on data from MRFSS. The data indicated
that the recreational quota had not been caught during the regular
fishing season and that additional quota could be released to the
recreational sector allowing for a fall fishing season. Recreational
fishing organizations praised this decision. Yet, when MRFSS showed
that a fishery closure was needed in the recreational greater amberjack
fishery, it was dismissed as faulty data. Interesting, that the data
are decried as ``junk science'' when they tell us what we don't want to
hear, yet applauded when they give us the outcome we want.
MRIP vs MRFSS:
While the NRC recommended a complete redesign of MRFSS to address
survey biases, it did not dictate changes of monitoring a specific
fishery. While NRC mentioned timeliness as a a needed component, the
NRC focused on methods to ``improve its effectiveness and
appropriateness of sampling and estimation procedures, its
applicability to various kinds of management decisions, and its
usefulness for social and economic analyses.\9\''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ NRC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The purpose of MRFSS was to establish and maintain a reliable data
base of recreational catch and effort to better understand the Nation's
impact on marine fisheries. The NRC report notes ``[MRFSS] mission is
to provide accurate, precise, and timely fisheries-dependent
information for U.S. marine waters through the coordination and
administration of recreational fisheries surveys nationwide;\10\''
however, the term `timely' is difficult to define. Each fishery has
different temporal data delivery needs, some need monthly estimates,
while others can operate on annual estimates. MRIP, like MRFSS, is
designed to provide estimates for the entire marine recreational
fishery and not the fine scale management units currently employed by
fishery managers to meet conservation goals. The levels of sampling for
a national survey lack the precision necessary for reduced spatial and
temporal scales. Therefore, to provide estimates for specific
fisheries, using the scope at which MRIP operates, is impractical.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2005. NOAA
Recreational Fisheries Statistics Program. [Online]. Available: http://
www.st.nmfs.gov/ st1/recreational/index.html [2013, May 14].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, in-season management has the most need of timely data
delivery to prevent overrun of quota. This requires, in general,
sampling the fishery at a very high rate at a smaller geographic scale
and greatly increases the cost.
Texas Marine Sport-Harvest Monitoring Program
The Texas program was established in 1974. The state was sampled by
the MRFSS through 1985. The goal of this survey is to estimate
participation in the Texas sport fishery. The primary focus of this
survey is those anglers fishing in inshore and nearshore waters. There
have been added components to capture EEZ fishery data, but at this
time \11\ is not a high priority with the state. Currently, Texas has
not performed shore based (i.e., man-made structures and beaches) creel
surveys due to budgetary issues since 1992.\12\ The survey is focused
on private boats and for-hire boats. federally permitted headboats are
sampled by the SRHS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ May 2013.
\12\ Mark Fisher, TPWDs Science Director, stated they were to
complete these surveys every 10 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TPWD calculates catch and effort estimates based on field surveys.
Unlike MRIP, Texas does not employ a phone survey component to obtain
effort data. The components of the survey are an access point intercept
survey for angler information and catch data and a roving count of
effort at boat ramps.
Whereas MRIP produce estimates based on a calendar year, TPWD does
not. The basic timeline of TPWD's survey is based on High-Use (May 15-
Nov 20) and Low-Use (Nov 21-May 14) seasons Meaning, Texas does not
follow the more common used scheme of Jan--Dec, but rather May to May.
In general, final estimates are published 3-4 months after the survey
year ends. Estimates are therefore a combination of 7 months of the
first calendar year and 5 months of the following.
Data Flow & Timeline
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post Sample to Next
Step Level Example Receival Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 7 days June 7, 2011
2 2 months August 7
3 Final estimate (annual) June 1, 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southeast Regional Headboat Survey
The SHRS has been administered since 1972 and is the one of the
longest recreational fishery time series in the U.S.\13\ This survey
started in the Gulf in 1986. The first goal of this survey is to
collect, dockside, biological samples (length, weight, otoliths, etc.)
from headboat landings. This is the primary source for SEDAR and stock
assessment age-growth structures.\14\ The second goal of this survey is
logbooks from each of the headboats. Crew completed logbooks are a
mandatory requirement for all federally permitted headboats. Each boat
must report, on a trip by trip basis, such information as location,
anglers, fish (A, B1 &2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Brennan, Ken, Southeast Region Headboat Survey Program
Description. SEDAR 24, South Atlantic Red Snapper Data Workshop, April
28, 2010.
\14\ http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/labs/beaufort/sustainable/headboat/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data Flow & Timeline
There are two components to the survey, biological specimen
collection and logbook data. SEFSC samplers sample headboat catch to
obtain biological data and obtain the logbooks from the vessels.
Logbooks not collected by the sampler are sent to the Beaufort Lab
monthly.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Note: As of 2014, all headboat logbooks will be electronic and
sent on a more timely basis (weekly).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post Sample to Next
Step Level Example Receival Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 7-30+ days July 1, 2011
2 14 days July 15
3 2-4 months Sept-Nov
4 3 4 months post new March or April 2012
year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improving Data Collection in the Recreational Fishery:
MRIP cannot address all the challenges with recreational data
collection. With sufficient participation it can estimate catch and
effort but to go above and beyond MRIP and improve timeliness in the
data we need to have better industry and angler engagement.
Recreational anglers have traditionally been participants, but as a
user group that can have such a large impact on the resource, it is
time that we fulfilled our role as stewards. Fishery managers are
working to address problems on the water and it is now up to industry
and anglers to find solutions that work for the fishery. There are a
variety of methods we could employ to better track recreational catch
effort
1. Increase funding for data collection and monitoring: U.S.
commercial and recreational fisheries represent a multi billion dollar
industry and supports millions of jobs. Congress should invest in fish
and fishermen through increasing funding for fisheries management.
Increased funding would help provide additional stock assessments, an
important tool in setting ACLs; improve recreational data collection
and monitoring; and facilitate cooperative research.
2. Promote innovation in fisheries data collection: One of the key
ways NMFS could improve data collection without the need for
Congressional legislation is to explore the use of modern, electronic
methods for collecting data from fishermen. Electronic data collection
can be more timely, accurate, and cost effective compared to
traditional sampling methods. Recently a pilot study conducted by the
Texas A&M Corpus Christi Hart Research Institute demonstrated that data
could be collected from for-hire fishermen using a mobile device, in
this case an iphone, and sent directly to the NMFS. This application
collected catch, discard, location, fishing effort, and economic data.
This data collection platform called isnapper has shown great promise
in several pilot programs within the charter for-hire sector. Isnapper
is a self-reporting electronic program that enables the user to collect
and report on a daily basis. Using a tag or other harvest documentation
in conjunction with isnapper could likely give managers the higher
certainty in recreational harvest data that is needed. Congress should
support efforts to modernize our fisheries data collection by funding
efforts to expand these types of programs to support region-wide
implementation.
3. Use tags to measure effort: Tags are used to measure effort in
numerous ways from land based hunting to salt water game fish like
snook and tarpon. Tags can be used to supplement monitoring and
enforcement and provide data on fishing effort. For the purposes of
this testimony, tags would be used to estimate effort only and not to
control effort.
4. Bring fishermen to the table: This is where recreational fishing
advocates and participants answer the challenge of improving fishery
dependent data and collection. MRIP provides the platform, and now
fishermen need to provide the near to real time harvest data that
fishery managers need. As stewards of the resource it is incumbent on
us to provide as much information as we can to state and Federal
managers. Lack of information does not mean management efforts will
cease; it unfortunately requires managers to estimate the needed
information for reliable harvest numbers. I have heard from fishermen
who are reluctant to participate in creel surveys (dock side
intercepts) and many times do not participate in the random phone
surveys. Our challenge is to inform fishermen of their obligation to
provide badly needed fishery dependent data. As users of a public
resource I believe it is our obligation to report our impact on that
resource.
Conclusion
Our Nation's fishery resources are an integral part of our coastal
economies and cultural heritage. Healthy fisheries not only promote
strong business and coastal jobs but also our way of life. Nationwide,
progress is being made to end overfishing and as we look to reauthorize
the MSA we need to ensure that we work to improve the law and not roll
back the key conservation measures that are workings. Many of the ideas
I have suggested can be done without reauthorizing the law and we would
see benefits on the water sooner. Innovation in data collection and
management that works for our country's fishing public will ensure the
long-term prosperity in our coastal fishing communities. Thank you for
the opportunity to share my thoughts on this important issue.
______
Dr. Fleming. Well, thank you, Captain. And thank you,
panel, for your testimony. At this point we will begin
questions for our witnesses. And again, to allow all Members to
participate, Members are limited to 5 minutes for their
questions. However, if Members have additional questions, we
can have more than one round. I now recognize myself for 5
minutes.
Dr. Breidt, I have a question. And just a quick response is
all I need. I don't want to spend a lot of time on it. But what
is the gold standard, when it comes to surveying a fish
population? I mean there is--we have talked about different
techniques, newer techniques. We have self-reporting, we have
electronic monitoring. What is--if you had the perfect, or
near-perfect test, and you had all the money and the time in
order to perform it, what is the gold standard, from a
statistical standpoint?
Dr. Breidt. Yes. The gold standard would be--recalling that
we are not trying to survey fish, but actually survey catch, we
are trying to estimate catch--so if you had a complete,
universal frame so that you could go out and find every fishing
trip, every fish caught, sample those--you told me I had all
the resources in the world? Well, then, I would measure every
fish. But since I don't have that, I need to take a sample, a
representative sample, so that I can generalize from that
sample to the population. And I want to do that by some
probability mechanism, where I know the probabilities. If data
are sort of volunteered to me, I don't know those
probabilities, so I can't extrapolate to the whole population.
But if you really give me all the resource in the world, I will
just measure everything.
Dr. Fleming. So measuring the actual catches would give you
the best data, if that were theoretically possible.
Dr. Breidt. If you could just track every single fish that
was harvested, and know that every released fish--you knew
whether it lived or died, then you would be done.
Dr. Fleming. So, really, the goal here is to find one or
more methods that correlates best with the results you would
get from that, I would infer from your statement, then.
Dr. Breidt. Yes. And I think that if you have other methods
that you want to bring in, other data sources, then if you have
some baseline that includes representative sampling, then there
are ways to do that. But without that baseline, it is hard to
know how to assess the relative contributions of those
different data sources.
Dr. Fleming. Right. OK, thank you. Mr. Horton, if NOAA were
to continue to manage the commercial fisheries in the Gulf--
like red snapper, for instance--the way they have been, how
could they change the way they manage and allocate to the
recreational sector without allowing too many fish from being
taken and sending us right back into a situation that we have
already been, over-fishing.
Mr. Horton. Sure, Mr. Chairman. You know, the methodology
or the strategy we are proposing works really well right off
the bat, right out of the gate, it would work well for
predominantly recreational fisheries. The striped bass example,
Atlantic striped bass example that Congressman Hastings gave--
or that Congressman Wittman mentioned earlier, is--that was
pretty much an 80/20 percent--80 percent rec, 20 percent
commercial. So it was fairly easy to implement in that regard.
And there are other recreational fisheries that are
predominantly recreational that, again, it would be fairly easy
to implement.
There are some fisheries, like red snapper and some others,
that are significant commercial fisheries as well as
significant recreational fisheries. Can it be implemented
there? Arguably, yes, it could. Would it require or potentially
require a revisiting or re-examination of allocations? Yes.
There is a potential we would have to re-examine allocations.
And many of these allocations were determined years ago,
decades ago. And I think the recreational fishing community in
a way has been calling for a re-examination of those
allocations, based on the latest social, economic, and
environmental conditions and the changes we have had over the
years.
Dr. Fleming. OK, thank you. Let me ask you another
question, Mr. Horton. You suggest that recreational fisheries
be managed using a harvest rate. Would this change require a
change in the Magnuson-Stevens Act?
Mr. Horton. That is a good question, Congressman.
Dr. Fleming. In your opinion. I mean, obviously, you are--
--
Mr. Horton. I think what it would have to do--there would
have to be some provisions, basically. We are not talking about
writing specifically this--managing based on fishing mortality
into Magnuson-Stevens. I think giving the councils and the
commissions the latitude, like we do at the Mid-Atlantic
striped bass fishery, to be able to manage a fishery that way,
give the councils and the commissions the ability to do that, I
think is the direction that we would like to see it go.
Dr. Fleming. OK, thank you. The Chair recognizes the
Ranking Member, Mr. Sablan.
Mr. Sablan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And let me--
Mr. Horton, before we let you go, I have one other question.
You pointed to management of terrestrial game as a model
for management of marine recreational fisheries. And many game
programs operate by requiring hunters to tag and report all
animals harvested. Would you support a tagging program to help
data collection in the recreational sector for important
species like red snapper?
Mr. Horton. Honestly, I think that would be a very
difficult program to implement, again, just because of the
sheer numbers of recreational snapper fishermen that are out
there.
Whenever you talk about tag reporting from a terrestrial
aspect, typically we are talking about big game and big game
management. We are not talking about--what would be comparable,
I guess, to a snapper fishery would be water fowl harvest or
dove--you know dove harvest, or dove seasons, where there is no
tag reporting requirement for----
Mr. Sablan. Thank you.
Mr. Horton [continuing]. Those particular species.
Mr. Sablan. I have 5 minutes. Thank you very much, though,
Mr. Horton.
Now, Dr. Stokesbury, welcome. You also talked about a
couple of different data collection techniques that you have
used, working with fishermen, to gather high-quality data at a
low cost. So, in your opinion, are these type of solutions
going to be necessary to meet our fisheries assessment and
management challenges in the absence of a stronger Federal
funding commitment? And could you or can you describe in
greater detail the potential advantages of your video trawl
technology?
I'm sorry, English is my second language--did you get my
question?
Dr. Stokesbury. I get----
Mr. Sablan. My two questions are, in your opinion, are
these types of solutions going to be necessary to meet our
fisheries assessment and management challenges, in the absence
of a stronger Federal funding commitment, and can you describe
in greater detail the potential advantages of your video trawl
technology?
Dr. Stokesbury. Yes. To answer the first question, I think
they are. And I think even with more Federal funding, you are
going to have to take that type of approach. As long as the
fishermen and the scientific surveys disagree and argue over
how it is being done, you are always going to have problems.
And I think that we need to move forward.
And I believe that the preliminary survey we did with the
trawl video work is a step in the right direction, because we
did have a member of the Marine Fisheries Service out there
with us, their expertise helped with this. Now, that system is
not rocket science, it is simply putting a video camera--Simrad
donated the camera--and we basically just constructed a frame
that we put in the cod-end of a otter trawl. And the idea is to
count the fish that go through. And if you can get that count
to be the same as if you dumped the fish on the deck, then you
can trawl continually. And so you can increase the amount of--
where most scientific tows are only a half-hour long or so on
Georges Bank, you could tow continually. And so you could
greatly increase the time your net is in the water, and that
would reduce some of the spatial holes that are presently in
the survey.
Mr. Sablan. All right, thank you. And I got to go to
Captain Colby, because he has taken the time to meet my people.
But Captain, Mr. Horton claimed that it is an injustice to
recreational fishermen that, as the Gulf red snapper population
gets healthier, anglers are allowed to fish less. While the
population of red snapper may be growing, it is far from being
rebuilt, and only a few years removed from being over-fished.
Aside from abundance, what other measures are there of fish
stock health, one. Number two, do you think they are moving in
the right direction with the current management system by
assessing the data and following the science, especially since
the annual catch limit is increasing every year?
Mr. Colby. Thank you, sir. I think abundance is certainly
one index that gives us an idea of, I guess you could say, a
healthy fishery, or at least, excuse me, is one--abundance is
one index to certainly give you the idea of if it is a healthy
fish or perhaps, more appropriately, a thriving fishery.
When you look at other parameters like fecundity and age
class structure, then you start getting a clearer picture of
how a fishery looks, at least to a fishery biologist, in terms
of its relative health. Gil McCrae, in our Florida Fish and
Wildlife Commission, gave an interesting talk on the biology of
red snapper. And, yes, we are seeing large numbers of red
snapper. Fortunately, many of those in that population are
teenagers.
And, unfortunately, with a teenage red snapper--certainly
one that can start spawning at 18 inches--the genetic fitness
of that larva is far less than if you get up into the higher
poundages, say 18, 20, and 25-pound egg-bearing females, who
have a long-term genetic fitness for larval survival.
Everything else in between are classes of fish that we need to
see moving in to the next 2 or 3 or 4 years before we can
actually say this is a healthy population of red snapper.
If you roll in the unknowns in the BP oil spill, in terms
of how that will affect fecundity of our egg-bearing females,
you may have a recipe for caution, in terms of how we analyze
that population.
Mr. Sablan. All right. So--the Chairman is generous enough
to allow me one more question. So, Captain, what are the
potential downfalls of managing a stock like red snapper, based
on harvest rates rather than on pound and space quotas?
Mr. Colby. Well, I would agree, certainly, with Dr.
Merrick, that there are iterations--or rather, internal
derivations that we could do, going back from numbers to
weight. The problem with that is it is kind of like passing a
note among yourselves, and all of you asking to rewrite the
note. You lose something in the translation every time that
note is done.
So, if we take away weight, which is certainly one of the
tools we use to estimate spawning stock biomass, let's say,
which helps validate the SPR, particularly for red snapper, if
you go back to doing it with a harvest rate, the rate of
removing an individual from a population, you are going to go
through some changes in terms of the certainty of that
information.
And I believe that if you want to manage, if you want to
assess a population of fish and manage it by rate of renewal,
you darn well better be spot on with your stock assessments,
because you are right back having the same problem as
canvassing the recreational fishermen to gain that data of the
rate of removal. High peak periods, low peak periods, when are
people fishing? We are right back to the problem of having
recreational fishermen step up to the plate and be responsible
for----
Mr. Sablan. Thank you, Captain. The Chairman is generous,
but he is not that generous. But I just----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Sablan. Let me just make one observation, because you
are agreeing with Dr. Merrick. And Dr. Merrick, apparently, and
I need to have a meeting with Ms. Bordallo to determine how he
values fish in the Pacific region, a region that supports the
economy of South Korea, Japan, Thailand, and apparently, he
feels that there is more value of fish elsewhere than in the
area we live. But thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
everyone, for being here.
Dr. Fleming. The gentleman yields back. And I want to thank
the panel for your valuable testimony today in answering our
questions. Hopefully we are getting closer to better solutions
to these problems. They have certainly been vexing ever since I
have been on Natural Resources, which is now over 4 years.
The hearing record will remain open for 10 days, so we
might submit more questions in writing. So we would ask that
you respond likewise.
There being no further business before us, and without
objection, the Committee now stands adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:48 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]