[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE MAGNUSON-STEVENS
FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-41
__________
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
82-948 WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman
PETER A. DeFAZIO, OR, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, AS
Louie Gohmert, TX Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
Rob Bishop, UT Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Doug Lamborn, CO Rush Holt, NJ
Robert J. Wittman, VA Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
Paul C. Broun, GA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
John Fleming, LA Jim Costa, CA
Tom McClintock, CA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Glenn Thompson, PA CNMI
Cynthia M. Lummis, WY Niki Tsongas, MA
Dan Benishek, MI Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Jeff Duncan, SC Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Scott R. Tipton, CO Tony Cardenas, CA
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Steven A. Horsford, NV
Raul R. Labrador, ID Jared Huffman, CA
Steve Southerland, II, FL Raul Ruiz, CA
Bill Flores, TX Carol Shea-Porter, NH
Jon Runyan, NJ Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Mark E. Amodei, NV Joe Garcia, FL
Markwayne Mullin, OK Matt Cartwright, PA
Chris Stewart, UT Vacancy
Steve Daines, MT
Kevin Cramer, ND
Doug LaMalfa, CA
Jason T. Smith, MO
Todd Young, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Legislative Counsel
Penny Dodge, Democratic Staff Director
David Watkins, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Wednesday, September 11, 2013.................... 1
Statement of Members:
DeFazio, Hon. Peter A., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon............................................ 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Hastings, Hon. Doc, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Washington........................................ 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Bruno, John F., Ph.D., Professor, Department of Biology,
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill................ 64
Prepared statement of.................................... 65
Deem, Jeff, Recreational Fishing Alliance.................... 60
Prepared statement of.................................... 61
Dorsett, Chris, Director, Ecosystem Conservation Programs,
Ocean Conservancy.......................................... 66
Prepared statement of.................................... 68
Giacalone, Vito, Policy Director, Northeast Seafood Coalition 53
Prepared statement of.................................... 55
Hilborn, Dr. Ray, Professor, School of Aquatic and Fishery
Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.... 38
Prepared statement of.................................... 40
Moore, Rod, Executive Director, West Coast Seafood Processors
Association................................................ 47
Prepared statement of.................................... 48
Rauch, Samuel D. III, Acting Assistant Administrator,
National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.... 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Robins, Richard B., Jr., Chairman, Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council......................................... 17
Prepared statement of.................................... 19
Sullivan, Patrick J., Ph.D., Department of Natural Resources,
Cornell University, and Co-Chair, Committee on Evaluating
the Effectiveness of Stock Rebuilding Plans of the 2006
Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act,
Ocean Studies Board, The National Academies................ 13
Prepared statement of.................................... 14
Additional materials supplied:
Natural Resources Defense Council report entitled ``Bringing
Back the Fish: An Evaluation of U.S. Fisheries Rebuilding
Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act,'' retained in the Committee's official
files, Web link to report.................................. 91
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ``THE REAUTHORIZATION OF THE MAGNUSON-STEVENS
FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT.''
----------
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in room
1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Doc Hastings
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Hastings, Young, Wittman, Fleming,
McClintock, Tipton, DeFazio, Pallone, Bordallo, Costa,
Cardenas, Huffman, Lowenthal, Garcia, and Tierney.
The Chairman. The Committee will come to order.
The Chairman notes the presence of a quorum, which under
rule 3(e) is a couple of Members. The Committee on Natural
Resources is meeting today to hear testimony on an oversight
hearing on the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act.
Under rule 4(f), opening statements are limited to the
Chairman and the Ranking Member of the Committee. However, I
ask unanimous consent that if any Member wishes to have a
statement that he hand the statement to the clerk of Committee
prior to the close of business today.
Without objection, so ordered.
I will now recognize myself for my opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOC HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
The Chairman. This is the fourth oversight hearing we have
held this Congress on the reauthorization of the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the primary
statute governing the harvests of U.S. fisheries. This Act
governs both the recreational and commercial harvests of
fisheries in Federal waters, and the Act significantly affects
many coastal communities. It requires that fishery managers
balance the biological needs of the fish with the economic
needs of the fishermen. The Act also requires that fishery
managers base the management decisions on science.
Over the last 3 years legitimate questions have been raised
about whether the data being used to make management decisions
is sound. Further, many are concerned that the balance between
fish and fishermen has shifted. At a time when fisheries jobs
and the economic activity they create are critical to keeping
our coastal communities alive, it is important that we ensure
the laws and regulations that govern these activities are not
unnecessarily rigid.
Last week the Ocean Studies Board of the National Academies
of Science released a report titled, ``Evaluating the
Effectiveness of Fish Stocking Rebuilding Plans in the United
States.'' This is not the first time the Ocean Studies Board
has weighed in on fisheries management issues. Congress and
NOAA have asked the board to study tough issues on a number of
occasions. The most recent report comes at a perfect time.
While I don't want to preempt the testimony of the report's
cochair, I believe the report tracks what we have been hearing
both during congressional hearings and at our Managing Our
Nation's Fisheries Conference.
Generally, the report correctly finds that while the 2006-
2007 amendments were well intentioned, some modifications
should be considered to give fishery managers additional
flexibility to deal with the complexities of fisheries. In
particular, we have heard testimony that the Act's rebuilding
provisions are too rigid and are causing unnecessary economic
hardship during rebuilding periods. The Ocean Studies Board
report examined this aspect of the Act, and today, we will hear
from Dr. Patrick Sullivan, the cochair of the committee, who
has spent a lot of time and effort examining the effectiveness
of the rebuilding provisions and will offer some
recommendations on whether Congress should consider additional
flexibility in these provisions.
Since we last met to discuss the Magnuson-Stevens Act, a
number of things have occurred, which are not necessarily the
direct topic of today's hearing but are issues that are on the
Members' minds and relate to the reauthorization of the Act.
The first issue relates to the topic of our last hearing on the
management of the red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico. Last week,
the State of Louisiana announced it no longer had confidence in
the Federal recreational data collection program and that it
would no longer participate in that program.
I hesitate to ask the National Academy of Science to take
on another task, but it appears that the recreational data
collection recommendations that you issued in 2006 have not
been adequately implemented by NOAA, and perhaps a fresh look
at the data needs in the Gulf of Mexico is warranted. Seven
years after Congress told NOAA to create a better recreational
data collection program, based on the National Academy's
recommendations, little has changed since 2006. Recreational
fishermen doubt the data and managers continue to be forced to
make decisions without adequate or real time data. Management
cannot happen without sound data, and fishermen must trust the
science for management measures to be effective.
And second, at a time when we are asking fishery managers
to increase the amount and types of data they collect, concerns
have been raised about how proprietary and sensitive
information is protected by these managers. This is a delicate
balancing act and I hope that NOAA will proceed with caution.
And with that, I will yield back my time and recognize the
Ranking Member, Mr. DeFazio.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hastings follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Doc Hastings, Chairman,
Committee on Natural Resources
This is the fourth oversight hearing we have held this Congress on
the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act--the primary statute governing the harvest of U.S.
fisheries.
This Act governs both the recreational and commercial harvest of
fisheries in Federal waters and the Act significantly affects many
coastal communities. It requires that fishery managers balance the
biological needs of the fish with the economic needs of fishermen. The
Act also requires that fishery managers base the management decisions
on science.
Over the last 3 years, legitimate questions have been raised about
whether the data being used to make management decisions is sound.
Further, many are concerned that the balance between fish and fishermen
has shifted. At a time when fisheries jobs and the economic activity
they create are critical to keeping our coastal communities alive, it
is important that we ensure the laws and regulations that govern these
activities are not unnecessarily rigid.
Last week, the Ocean Studies Board of the National Academies of
Sciences released a report titled ``Evaluating the Effectiveness of
Fish Stock Rebuilding Plans in the United States.'' This is not the
first time the Ocean Studies Board has weighed in on fisheries
management issues. Congress and NOAA have asked the Board to study
tough issues on a number of occasions. This most recent report comes at
a perfect time.
While I don't want to pre-empt the testimony of the report's co-
chair, I believe the report tracks what we have been hearing both
during Congressional hearings and at the Managing Our Nations Fisheries
conference. Generally, the report correctly finds that while the 2006/
2007 amendments were well intentioned, some modifications should be
considered to give fishery managers additional flexibility to deal with
the complexities of fisheries.
In particular, we have heard testimony that the Act's rebuilding
provisions are too rigid and are causing unnecessary economic hardship
during rebuilding periods. The Ocean Studies Board report examined this
aspect of the Act and today we will hear from Dr. Patrick Sullivan, the
Co-Chair of the committee who has spent a lot of time and effort
examining the effectiveness of the rebuilding provisions and will offer
some recommendations on whether Congress should consider additional
flexibility in those provisions.
Since we last met to discuss the Magnuson-Stevens Act, a number of
things have occurred which are not necessarily the direct topic of
today's hearing, but are issues that are on Members' minds and relate
to the reauthorization of the Act.
The first issue relates to the topic of our last hearing on the
management of red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico. Last week, the State
of Louisiana announced it no longer had confidence in the Federal
recreational data collection program and that it would no longer
participate in that program. I hesitate to ask the National Academies
of Sciences to take on another task, but it appears that the
recreational data collection recommendations that you issued in 2006
have not been adequately implemented by NOAA, and perhaps a fresh look
at the data collection needs in the Gulf of Mexico is warranted.
Seven years after Congress told NOAA to create a better
recreational data collection program, based on the National Academies'
recommendations, little has changed since 2006: recreational fishermen
doubt the data and managers continue to be forced to make decisions
without adequate or real-time data. Management cannot happen without
sound data and fishermen must trust the science for management measures
to be effective.
Second, at a time when we are asking fishery managers to increase
the amount and types of data they collect, concerns have been raised
about how proprietary and sensitive information is protected by those
managers. This is delicate balancing act and I hope NOAA will proceed
with caution.
With that, I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses.
______
STATEMENT OF PETER A. DeFAZIO A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I represent about half of the Oregon coast
and a number of fishing communities. I actually grew up on the
East Coast and am very familiar with the issues, particularly
as it relates to Georgia's banks and Cape Cod from my early
life, so I have a long association with the ocean and ocean
resources.
Magnuson-Stevens has made some tremendous progress, but I
agree with you that the law, as currently written, particularly
some of the amendments in 2006, have had some unintended
consequences, and it does need review and potential revision by
this community. There is a balance to be struck here. No one
wants to see that we are having a race to catch the last fish
or to crash a stock that just won't ever come back.
But, on the other hand, we are dealing with people's lives
and livelihoods here, and many are multigenerational families
who have fished. We are dealing with a food of choice for many
Americans, a renewable sustainable resource. And we have to be
good stewards of it, but we also have to be cognizant of the
impacts as we regulate it.
I share concerns about the data, and we have to find ways
to better integrate the scientists with those who actually are
on the water and doing the fishing. I know there are issues
here in terms of budgetary constraints, but we have to find a
way to do that better. That will give people more confidence,
and it may give us some different data sets and give us more
confidence in the data.
I want to look at where we set hard targets for recovery.
If we begin to make progress in recovery, it is kind of ironic;
on the way down, essentially we don't regulate and you can
overfish until you get to the point where we have to declare a
stock depleted and then put in place a 10-year plan. On the way
up, there is very little flexibility. I would suggest that we
want to look at these plans and see whether if you reach
certain points during recovery, that you could then perhaps
allow a little bit more enhanced fishing and maybe, at some
point, even say, OK, recovery is going well, what we have done
is working, but now we are going to take a little longer window
than 10 years to get there. And we are going to relieve some of
the pressure in the interim on the economic hardships.
So my intent here is not to overexploit the resource but my
intent is that we develop something that works both for the
resource and for those who are dependent upon it for a living
and those who prefer it on a dietary basis. It is a large and
important industry, not only in my district but for the Nation,
and we have to both use it wisely and husband it for the
future.
So, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't have all the answers,
and that is why I am here today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. DeFazio follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Peter A. DeFazio, Ranking Member,
Committee on Natural Resources
During the first 20 years of federal fisheries management under the
Magnuson-Stevens Act we saw boom and bust cycles, dangerous derby
fishing, and harvest rates that could sustain neither coastal economies
nor ocean ecosystems in the long run. By the time we realized that
there were too many people fishing for too few fish, we had allowed--
and in some cases promoted--massive investments in boats, gear, and
shoreside infrastructure that sometimes proved to be more than the
supply of fish could support. Contraction, though painful, was
inevitable.
We did learn from this mistake that the only path to expansion of a
domestic fishery is through rebuilding of depleted stocks. NOAA
projects that fully rebuilding all of our domestic fisheries could
generate $31 billion for our economy and provide employment for half a
million Americans. Even at this early stage, revenue generated from
stocks subject to rebuilding plans has increased more than 50 percent--
$565 million--since before rebuilding began. This is in large part due
to the changes to the Magnuson-Stevens Act brought about by bipartisan
reauthorizations in 1996 and 2006. The decisions to require an end to
overfishing, establish science-based annual catch limits, set
rebuilding deadlines, and inject accountability into the management
process have put us on the brink of achieving the type of fisheries
restoration success that many thought impossible.
Unfortunately, the benefits of rebuilding have accrued unevenly
across fisheries. Some stocks like Pacific whiting and Atlantic sea
scallop have bounced back and helped fuel local economies. Others like
Atlantic cod have continued to limp along at levels far below what we
once saw as an endless bounty. That some of these failures have
happened in some of our most storied fishing communities, especially in
New England, has made the situation even more frustrating.
In its recent report, the National Research Council explores the
ways in which rebuilding under Magnuson has succeeded, and how it might
be improved to secure the desired management outcomes at a lower short
term cost to fishing communities. Their findings will surely spark a
lively discussion here today, and I look forward to hearing more about
the repot from Dr. Sullivan. However, I would like to point out a few
things that caught my eye.
First, the report points out that the current rebuilding approach
has generally performed well in identifying overfished stocks,
decreasing fishing mortality, and increasing stock biomass, leading to
numerous rebuilding successes. The 1996 and 2006 Magnuson amendments
required managers to make tough choices, rather than continuing to kick
the can down the road, and many fisheries are now reaping the benefits.
For those that have not rebounded, reexamining the rebuilding framework
is necessary and appropriate, but we should not throw the baby out with
the bathwater.
Second, we lack the scientific understanding necessary to account
for the effects of climate change, food web interactions, habitat
degradation and other environmental factors on rebuilding fish stocks.
The report states clearly that better science and more frequent
assessments can lead to minor adjustments rather than extreme swings in
allowable harvest levels. We desperately need to develop the tools to
apply an ecosystem approach to fisheries management.
Third, the report notes that gradually reducing harvest before a
stock requires rebuilding is the best way to keep fisheries healthy,
but restoring stocks which are already severely depleted is more
challenging and can have adverse economic impacts on fishing
communities. The report suggests that additional flexibility in
rebuilding plans could produce the desired results with less economic
harm, but notes that additional accountability measures and
precautionary buffers may be necessary in exchange for greater
flexibility.
Fisheries management in the United States has made significant
progress after the reforms to Magnuson in 1996 and 2006, especially in
the area of rebuilding depleted stocks. However, there is not much
solace in that for people who have not seen their fisheries rebound. As
we look toward the next round of Magnuson reauthorization, we must
ensure that fishing communities can stay viable while the stocks they
depend upon rebuild, but also that we do not backtrack on the progress
we've made.
______
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman for his statement, and
I look forward to obviously working on this on the
reauthorization.
I want to welcome our first panel. We have Mr. Samuel
Rauch, who is the Acting Assistant Administrator for fisheries
for the National Marine Fisheries Service; Dr. Patrick J.
Sullivan, Cochair of the Committee on Evaluating the
Effectiveness of Stock Rebuilding Plans of the 2006 Fishery
Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act.
You could have had a shorter title for that I would think.
At any rate, from the Ocean Studies Board.
And then Mr. Richard Robins, who is the Chairman of the
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council.
Welcome to you all.
You were asked to present a full statement, and that will
appear in the record, but you notice you have the timing clock
in front of you. And the way that works, when the green light
goes on, you have the start of your 5 minutes, and then when
the yellow light comes on, you have 1 minute to go, and I would
ask you to try to wrap it up in that timeframe, and when the
red light goes on, boy, well, anyway, we just won't go there.
But if you would, keep your oral arguments within the 5 minutes
so we can have time to have an interchange.
And so, with that, Mr. Rauch, we will recognize you first.
You are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF SAMUEL D. RAUCH III, ACTING ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR FOR FISHERIES, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE,
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Rauch. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking
Member DeFazio, and members of the Committee. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify before you today. My name is Samuel
Rauch, and I am the assistant, Acting Assistant Administrator
for NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service.
Our most recent economic estimates show how economically
important marine fisheries are. In 2011, U.S. commercial
fisheries landed 9.9 billion pounds of seafood valued at $5.3
billion. This represents the highest landings volume since 1997
and the highest value in nominal terms ever recorded. In 2011,
the seafood industry generated $129 billion in sales and $37
billion in income impacts and supported 1.2 million jobs.
Recreational fishing generated $70 billion in sales impact, $20
billion in income impacts, and supported 455,000 jobs in 2011.
That was a 40 percent increase in jobs over 2010.
This success is a product of hard work and ingenuity by the
industry, the fishery management councils, and the entire
Federal fishery management system that is effectively
rebuilding U.S. fisheries, putting them on a sustainable basis.
Since its initial passage in 1976, the Magnuson-Stevens Act
has charted a groundbreaking course for sustainable fisheries.
Today the law requires rebuilding plans for overfished stocks
and annual catch limits and accountability measures to prevent
overfishing. Under the Act, if a stock is determined to be
overfished, the council has 2 years to develop and implement a
rebuilding plan. By statute, the period to rebuild a stock may
not exceed 10 years except in cases where the biology of the
fish stock and international agreement or other environmental
conditions dictate otherwise. However, because a stock must be
rebuilt in a time period that is as short as possible,
rebuilding cannot extend beyond the 10 years and may be even
less than the 10 years if it is possible to rebuild in that
time.
Of the 43 active rebuilding plans with a target time to
rebuild, 23 of them are set longer than 10 years. For example,
the Pacific yelloweye rockfish has a rebuilding timeline of 71
years, and red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico is 32 years. The
remaining 20 rebuilding plans are set for 10 years or less.
Flexibility does exist under the Act to adjust these rebuilding
plans when a stock is failing to make adequate progress or when
our understanding of the population dynamics of the stock
change. In these situations, the council can amend the plan
with revised conservation measures and, as we said, can amend
the timeline.
To successfully rebuild, though, under any of these plans
we must end overfishing. Annual catch limits are a powerful
tool to accomplish this. Prior to implementation of annual
catch limits, a number of rebuilding plans experienced
difficulty in ending overfishing and achieving the fishing
mortality rate called for in the plan. As a result, rebuilding
was delayed and the plans had trouble meeting their targets.
Since the implementation of ACLs and accountability measures,
we expect the number of stocks on the overfishing list to
continue to decrease and to see further declines in the number
of overfished stocks and to see increases in the number of
rebuilt stocks, and we are, in fact, seeing the success. The
number of stocks subject to overfishing was the highest in 2000
when 48 stocks were on the overfishing list. At present, 28
stocks are listed as subject to overfishing, and 40 stocks are
overfished, both all-time lows. Since 2000, 33 stocks have been
rebuilt.
Ending overfishing and rebuilding depleted fisheries brings
significant biological, economic, and social benefit. Of the 26
rebuilt stocks for which information is available, half of them
now produce at least 50 percent more revenue than they did when
they were overfished, but doing so takes time, persistence, and
sacrifice, and adherence to scientific information.
While significant progress has been made, we recognize that
this progress has not come without a cost. Fishermen, fishing
communities, and the councils have had to make difficult
decisions, and many areas have had to absorb the cost of
conservation and investment in order to secure the long-term
economic and biological sustainability goals. That is why NMFS
is committed to generating the best fisheries science and
research in support of the goals of the Magnuson Act.
In 2011, in response to concerns raised by stakeholders and
Members of Congress, we supported the 10-year study that you
are going to hear about from Dr. Sullivan in order to look at
the rebuilding timeframe. The results of that study are going
to fit well within our current administrative process to
revisit the guidelines that we have put forth that are called
the National Standard 1 Guidelines. These are the guidelines
that we adopt to implement the statutory goals. We have
announced and we are in the process of revisiting those, and
the results of the report are going to feed well into that
process. As we look to the future, we must also look for
opportunities to build on the success we are seeing now. We
need to approach the challenges we are facing in our fisheries
in a holistic, deliberative, and thoughtful way that includes
input from the wide range of stakeholders who care deeply about
these issues. Thank you again for inviting me to testify before
the Committee today, and I will be happy to answer any
questions.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Rauch.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rauch follows:]
Statement of Samuel D. Rauch III, Acting Assistant Administrator,
National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
Introduction
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Thank
you for the opportunity to testify before you today. My name is Samuel
D. Rauch and I am the Acting Assistant Administrator for the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) in the Department of Commerce. NMFS is
dedicated to the stewardship of living marine resources through
science-based conservation and management. Much of this work occurs
under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act), which sets forth standards for conservation,
management, and sustainable use of our Nation's fisheries resources.
Marine fish and fisheries--such as salmon in the Pacific Northwest,
cod in New England, red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico, and pollock in
Alaska--have been vital to the prosperity and cultural identity of
coastal communities in the United States (U.S.). U.S. fisheries play an
enormous role in the Nation's economy. Commercial fishing supports
fishermen and fishing communities, and it provides Americans with a
sustainable, healthy food source. Recreational fishing is an important
social activity for individuals, families, and communities; and it is a
critical economic driver of, and contributor to, local and regional
economies, as well as the national economy. Subsistence fishing
provides an essential food source, and it is culturally significant for
many people.
Our most recent estimates show that the amount landed and the value
of commercial U.S. wild-caught fisheries was up in 2011 while
recreational catch remained stable. U.S. commercial fishermen landed
9.9 billion pounds of seafood valued at $5.3 billion in 2011, which
reflects an increase of 1.6 billion pounds (20 percent) and $829
million (18 percent) over 2010 figures. 2011 saw the highest landings
volume since 1997 and highest value in nominal terms ever recorded.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See NOAA Fisheries Annual Commercial Fisheries Landings
Database available at http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/commercial-fisheries/
commercial-landings/annual-landings/index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The seafood industry--harvesters, seafood processors and dealers,
seafood wholesalers and seafood retailers, including imports and
multiplier effects--generated $129 billion in sales impacts and $37
billion in income impacts, and supported 1.2 million jobs in 2011.
Recreational fishing generated $70 billion in sales impacts, $20
billion in income impacts, and supported 455,000 jobs in 2011. Jobs
supported by commercial businesses held steady from the previous year,
while jobs generated by the recreational fishing industry represented a
40 percent increase over 2010.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Fisheries Economics of the U.S. 2011. NMFS Office of
Science and Technology, available at: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/
economics/publications/feus/fisheries_economics_2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We all share the common goal of healthy fisheries that can be
sustained for generations. Without clear, science-based rules, fair
enforcement, and a shared commitment to sustainable management, short-
term pressures can easily undermine progress toward restoring the
social, economic, and environmental benefits of a healthy fishery.
Although challenges remain in some fisheries, the benefits for the
resource, the industries it supports, and the economy are beginning to
be seen as fish populations grow and catch limits increase.
My testimony today will focus on the progress we have made,
together with our partners, in implementing the Magnuson-Stevens Act's
key domestic provisions, particularly the success of the requirement to
rebuild overfished fish stocks.
Progress in Ending Overfishing and Rebuilding Fish Stocks Under the
Magnuson-Stevens Act
Ending Overfishing and Rebuilding Fisheries
The federal fishery management system is effectively ending
overfishing and rebuilding overfished fisheries. We continue to make
progress toward long-term biological and economic sustainability and
stability. Since its initial passage in 1976, the Magnuson-Stevens Act
has charted a groundbreaking course for sustainable fisheries. When
reauthorized in 2007, the Act gave the eight Regional Fishery
Management Councils and NMFS a very clear charge and some new tools to
support improved science and management. We are now seeing the results
of those tools. In 2012, six stocks were determined to be rebuilt, and
there were decreases in both the numbers and percentages of fish stocks
listed as overfished or experiencing overfishing.
At present, only 28 stocks (10 percent) with a known status are
listed as subject to overfishing, and 40 stocks (18 percent) are
overfished--both all-time lows. The number of stocks subject to
overfishing was highest in 2000, when 48 stocks were on the overfishing
list. In 2002, 55 stocks were overfished. Since 2000, 33 stocks have
been rebuilt.\3\ We expect the number of stocks on the overfishing list
to continue to decrease as a result of management under annual catch
limits. Ending overfishing allows stocks to increase in abundance, so
we expect to see further declines in the number of overfished stocks
and increases in the number of rebuilt stocks.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The recently-released National Academy of Sciences study notes
that the most recent assessment for some rebuilt stocks indicates they
were not overfished at the time they were placed in rebuilding plans.
However, the best scientific information available at the time
indicated the stock was overfished, and the rebuilding plan was
successful in increasing the size of the stock to support higher
sustainable yields.
\4\ These statistics were compiled from the quarterly stock status
reports at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/statusoffisheries/SOSmain.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits of Annual Catch Limits
One of the most significant management provisions of the 2007
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act is the mandate to implement
annual catch limits, including measures to ensure accountability and to
end and prevent overfishing in federally managed fisheries. An annual
catch limit is an amount of fish that can be caught in a year so that
overfishing does not occur. Accountability measures are management
controls to prevent the limits from being exceeded and to correct or
mitigate overages of the limits if they occur. This is an important
move away from a management system that could only be corrected by
going back through the full Council process in order to amend Fishery
Management Plans--often taking years to accomplish, all while
overfishing continued.
Now, when developing a fishery management plan or amendment, the
Councils must consider, in advance, the actions that will occur if a
fishery does not meet its performance objectives. As of June 30, 2013,
we have confirmed that overfishing has ended for 22 (58 percent) of the
38 domestic U.S. stocks that were subject to overfishing in 2007 when
the Magnuson-Stevens Act was reauthorized.\5\ Annual catch limits
designed to prevent overfishing are in place for all stocks that need
them. Preliminary data show that annual catch limits have been
effective in limiting catch and preventing overfishing for the majority
of stocks. Fisheries have successfully stayed within their annual catch
limit for over 90 percent of the stocks for which we have catch data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Successes and Challenges
The Magnuson-Stevens Act created broad goals for U.S. fisheries
management and a unique, highly participatory management structure
centered on the eight Councils. This structure ensures that input and
decisions about how to manage U.S. fisheries develops through a bottom-
up process that includes fishermen, other fishery stakeholders,
affected states, tribal governments, and the Federal Government. By
working together with the Councils, states, tribes, and fishermen--
under the standards set in the Magnuson-Stevens Act--we have made great
strides in ending overfishing, rebuilding stocks, and building a
sustainable future for our fishing-dependent communities.
This success has come with the new requirements of the reauthorized
Magnuson-Stevens Act to end overfishing, implement annual catch limits,
and rebuild overfished fisheries. Despite being in a national economic
downturn, the fishing industry as a whole has seen great economic
gains, both in terms of revenues and landings, particularly in the past
2 years.
While significant progress has been made since the last
reauthorization, we recognize that this progress has not come without
cost and, even with national successes we are still seeing challenges
regionally. Fishermen, fishing communities, and the Councils have had
to make difficult decisions and, in many areas, have had to absorb the
cost of conservation and investment in long-term economic and
biological sustainability. In some instances where quotas have been
cut, stocks are not rebounding as we would have expected, and we are
working with the Councils, academia, the states, and fishermen to
examine how environmental factors outside of fishing mortality may be
influencing the ability of these stocks to rebuild. We need to approach
these challenges in a holistic, deliberative, and thoughtful way that
includes input from the wide range of stakeholders who care deeply
about these issues.
Flexibility Is Inherent in the Act's Rebuilding Requirements
Rebuilding Requirements and Timelines
Rebuilding plans are required when a stock is determined to be
overfished. Each stock has a minimum stock size threshold that has been
established by the Council based on the best scientific information
available--this represents the size of the stock below which its
ability to produce maximum sustainable yield is impaired. If a stock
assessment finds that the biomass is below the stock's minimum stock
size threshold, the stock is determined to be overfished and the
Council has two years to develop and implement a rebuilding plan.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that the period to rebuild a
stock not exceed 10 years, but it permits a longer time period in
certain cases where the biology of the fish stock, management measures
under an international agreement in which the United States
participates, or other environmental conditions dictate otherwise,
although this period still must be as short as possible. Current
rebuilding time periods for stocks with active rebuilding plans range
from four years to more than 100 years. Of the 43 active rebuilding
plans with a target time to rebuild, 23 of them (53 percent) are set
longer than 10 years due to the biology of the stock (slow reproducing,
long lived species) or environmental conditions. For example, Pacific
yelloweye rockfish has a rebuilding timeline of 71 years. The remaining
20 rebuilding plans are set for 10 years or less. Of the 33 stocks
rebuilt since 2000, 18 stocks were rebuilt within 10 years. Two
additional stocks in 10-year plans were rebuilt within 12 years.
Rebuilding Successes and Benefits
Rebuilding fisheries brings significant biological, economic, and
social benefits, but doing so takes time, persistence, sacrifice, and
adherence to scientific information. Of 26 rebuilt stocks for which
information is available, half of them now produce at least 50 percent
more revenue than they did when they were overfished. Seven stocks have
current revenue levels that are more than 100 percent higher than the
lowest revenue point of the overfished stock.
Atlantic sea scallops provide one example of rebuilding success. In
the early 1990s, the abundance of Atlantic sea scallops was near record
lows and the fishing mortality rate was at a record high. Fishery
managers implemented a number of measures to allow the stock to
recover, including an innovative area management system. The stock was
declared rebuilt in 2001. Revenues increased five-fold as the fishery
rebuilt, from $44 million in 1998 to $353 million in 2011, making New
Bedford the Nation's top port by value of landings since 2000.
Another example of rebuilding success can be seen with Bering Sea
snow crab. In 1999, scientists found that Bering Sea snow crab was
overfished. In response, managers reduced harvests to a level that
would allow the stock to rebuild, and the stock was declared rebuilt in
2011. In the 2011-2012 fishing year, managers were able to increase the
harvest limit by 64 percent to nearly 90 million pounds. By 2012,
revenue from the fishery had increased to almost 400 percent of the
2006 revenue (the low point during the rebuilding period).
Ending Overfishing in a Rebuilding Plan
Ending overfishing is the first step in rebuilding. Prior to the
implementation of annual catch limits, a number of rebuilding plans
experienced difficulty in ending overfishing and achieving the fishing
mortality rate called for in the plan. As a result, rebuilding was
delayed. Conversely, stocks where overfishing has ended quickly have
seen their stock size increase and rebuild more quickly. For example,
Widow rockfish in the Pacific was declared overfished in 2001. Fishing
mortality on Widow rockfish was immediately substantially reduced
resulting in a corresponding increase in stock size. The stock was
declared rebuilt in 2011, ahead of the rebuilding deadline. The 10-year
rebuilding timeframe itself does not typically constrain catch for a
rebuilding stock.
Most major reductions in allowable catch experienced by fishermen
when stocks enter rebuilding plans are predominantly from the
requirement to prevent overfishing--which is now required through
annual catch limits for all stocks, not just those determined to be
overfished. When unsustainably large catches have occurred due to high
levels of overfishing on a depleted stock, large reductions in catch
will be needed to end overfishing, and the stock must rebuild in
abundance before catches will increase.
Because ending overfishing is essential to rebuilding, annual catch
limits are a powerful tool to address prior problems in achieving
rebuilding. Nine of the 20 stocks currently in 10-year (or less)
rebuilding plans had failed to end overfishing as of their last stock
assessment. Annual catch limits, which are now in place as a mechanism
to control catch to the level specified in the rebuilding plan, are
working and we anticipate the next stock assessments for these species
to confirm that overfishing has ended. With that result, we will begin
to see stronger rebuilding for these stocks. The next quarterly status
update (for the period ending September 30, 2013) will show that
overfishing has ended for five additional stocks in rebuilding plans of
10 years or less--Gulf of Mexico gag, Gulf of Mexico gray triggerfish,
Gulf of Mexico greater amberjack, South Atlantic black sea bass, and
South Atlantic red grouper. In addition, preliminary data on the
performance of annual catch limits have shown that fisheries have
successfully stayed within their annual catch limits for at least 78
percent of the stocks currently in rebuilding plans.
Flexibility in Rebuilding Plans
The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides flexibility to adjust rebuilding
plans when a stock is failing to make adequate progress toward
rebuilding. In these situations, the Councils can amend the rebuilding
plan with revised conservation and management measures. The Act
requires that the revised plan be implemented within two years and that
it end overfishing (if overfishing is occurring) immediately upon
implementation.
Rebuilding plans are also adaptable when new scientific information
indicates changing conditions. For example, the target time to rebuild
Pacific ocean perch off the Pacific Coast was recently lengthened based
on information within a new stock assessment. The assessment, conducted
in 2011, revised our understanding of the Pacific ocean perch stock
status and productivity and showed that, even in the absence of
fishing, the time it would take to rebuild the stock would be longer
than the previously established target time to rebuild. Given this
information, NMFS worked with the Pacific Fishery Management Council in
2012 to modify the rebuilding plan and extend the target time for stock
rebuilding from 2017 to 2020.
Rebuilding timelines can also be shortened based on new
information. As one example, the original rebuilding plan for cowcod, a
Pacific Coast groundfish, was 95 years. The rebuilding time has been
modified based on updated scientific information, and is currently 67
years.
Stakeholder Input and Concerns
The Managing Our Nation's Fisheries 3 conference, held this past
May in Washington, DC, provided us an exciting opportunity to engage
with a variety of stakeholders on the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and the
topic of rebuilding was discussed extensively at the first session on
Improving Fishery Management Essentials. We heard from conference
participants about adjustments they would like to see regarding
rebuilding time requirements. We heard their concerns, and we are
taking a hard look at the recommendations they provided in the context
of how we and the Councils do business. We are also engaged in
conversations with the Councils, constituents, and Congress on the next
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and we will look carefully
at any recommendations regarding rebuilding timeframe flexibility.
National Academy of Sciences Report on Rebuilding
We've heard concerns from stakeholders that the 10-year rebuilding
timeline may be arbitrary and too restrictive. In response to these
concerns and similar concerns expressed by Members of Congress, in 2011
NOAA commissioned the National Academy of Sciences' National Research
Council (NRC) to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of success in stock
rebuilding and identification of changes made to fisheries management
in response to rebuilding requirements. NOAA asked the NRC to study
seven topics related to rebuilding to help us and the Councils better
construct efficient and effective rebuilding plans.
The NRC rebuilding study was released on September 5, 2013. We are
thankful for the in-depth and forward-looking review provided by the
NRC, and at present we are carefully analyzing the report's details.
The timing of the report fits nicely with our work to revise National
Standard 1 Guidelines. Since the guidelines were last updated in 2009,
a number of issues regarding the application of the guidelines have
been identified by stakeholders and managers, and these issues may
warrant revisions. An Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was
published on May 3, 2012 to solicit public input, and several report
findings reflect possible revisions to the guidelines similar to those
currently being considered by NMFS. At this time, NMFS would like to
acknowledge a few aspects of the report:
From the NRC's assembly of technical results from all
rebuilding plans, we are pleased to see that rebuilding plans
are effective at increasing stock abundance, especially when
fishing mortality is quickly reduced below overfishing levels.
The report identifies several challenges with
implementation of rebuilding plans that are based upon specific
biomass targets and rebuilding timeframes. They note that more
flexible rebuilding plans could be based on strict requirements
to keep fishing mortality rates at about 75 percent of the
overfishing limit.
The report notes that some rebuilding plans have had
large social and economic consequences in order to rebuild to
specific biomass levels in fixed time frames but that the
economic consequences had rebuilding not occurred are difficult
to determine. Continued investments in social and economic data
collection and analysis will inform the process of developing
future rebuilding plans.
The report's investigation of ecosystem factors
includes a general finding about the complexity of ecosystems
and the challenges of making specific forecasts, especially
over longer-term time frames. NMFS is keenly interested in
increasing the linkage between ecosystem/environmental factors
and fish stock assessments and forecasts. The FY 2014
President's Budget Request includes a $10 million increase for
NOAA to fund research on the impacts of climate on fisheries
with a focus on the Northeast groundfish region and NOAA has a
variety of activities underway to understand climate impacts on
marine ecosystems and increase the use of this information in
management of fisheries resources.
Conclusion
The Magnuson-Stevens Act has galvanized the United States' efforts
to end overfishing in federally managed fisheries, rebuild stocks, and
ensure conservation and sustainable use of our marine fisheries.
Fishery harvests in the United States are scientifically monitored,
regionally managed, and legally enforced under 10 strict national
standards of sustainability. But we did not get here overnight. Our
Nation's journey toward sustainable fisheries has evolved over the
course of over 35 years.
In 2007, Congress gave NOAA and the Councils a clear mandate, new
authority, and new tools to achieve the goal of sustainable fisheries
within measurable timeframes. Notable among these were the requirements
for annual catch limits and accountability measures to prevent, respond
to, and end overfishing.
We are seeing progress in our effort to end overfishing and rebuild
stocks. Both the number of stocks subject to overfishing and the number
of stocks that are overfished are at an all-time low. This progress has
been due to the collaborative involvement of our U.S. commercial and
recreational fishing fleets and their commitment to science-based
management, improving gear technologies, and application of best-
stewardship practices. These rebuilt fish stocks have often resulted in
improved revenues, helping sustain fishing communities.
While we are seeing progress and realizing benefits in some
fisheries, we recognize that challenges remain. Looking ahead, we must
continue to increase the quality and quantity of scientific data,
continue progress made to address overfishing and rebuild stocks, and
better address the difficult transitions that can come with management
changes leading to more biologically and economically sustainable
fishery resources. It is also increasingly important that we better
understand ecosystem and habitat factors, including climate change, and
incorporate them into our stock assessments and management decisions,
because resilient ecosystems and habitat form the foundation for robust
fisheries and robust economies.
It is important to take time to reflect on where we have been to
understand where we are. The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides flexibility
in adapting management plans to the life history differences among
species and nuances of particular fisheries, as well as to the unique
regional and operational differences among fisheries and in the fishing
communities they support. NOAA supports the collaborative and
transparent process embodied in the Councils, as authorized in the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, and strongly believes that all viable management
tools should continue to be available as options for the Councils to
consider when developing management programs. Together with our
partners, we continue to explore alternative approaches that will
produce the best available information to incorporate into management.
We had productive discussions at the recent Managing Our Nation's
Fisheries 3 Conference, and we will continue to engage with our
stakeholders. We are also thankful for having the new National Academy
of Sciences study on rebuilding and will be reviewing it carefully.
Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss implementation
progress of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and future efforts of
reauthorization. We look forward to the discussions that will take
place and will work with Congress on efforts to reauthorize the
Magnuson-Stevens Act.
*_____
The Chairman. Dr. Sullivan, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF PATRICK J. SULLIVAN, PH.D., CO-CHAIR, COMMITTEE ON
EVALUATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF STOCK REBUILDING PLANS OF THE
2006 FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT REAUTHORIZATION ACT
OCEAN STUDIES BOARD, THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
Dr. Sullivan. Great. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman
and members of the Committee.
My name is Patrick Sullivan. I am an Associate Professor in
the Department of Natural Resources at Cornell University. My
colleague, Dr. Ana Parma, and I co-chair the Committee on
Evaluating the Effectiveness of Stock Rebuilding Plans. In
2010, Senator Olympia Snowe and Representative Barney Frank
requested NOAA fund a study by the National Academy of
Sciences. The committee reviewed the technical specifications
that underlie the current set of federally implemented
rebuilding plans, the outcomes of those plans in terms of
trends in fishing mortality and stock size, and changes in
stock status with respect to fisheries management reference
points.
Fish stock rebuilding plans have proven successful in
reducing fishing pressure on many overfished stocks, and stock
sizes have generally increased. However, in some cases,
fisheries have not rebuilt as quickly as the plans projected,
due to factors such as overestimation of the sizes of the
stocks and incidental catch by fisheries targeting other
species. Even when fishing is reduced appropriately for the
actual size, the rate at which rebuilding occurs will depend on
ecological and other environmental conditions. Because of all
of these factors, it is difficult to make accurate predictions
of the time it will take stocks to rebuild. Therefore,
rebuilding plans focus more on meeting selected fishing
mortality targets rather than on adhering to strict schedules
for achieving rebuilding may be more robust to assessment
uncertainties, environmental variability, and the effects of
ecological interactions. Well managed productive fisheries
provide a livelihood, a nutritious source of food, and
recreational activity for coastal communities around the
country. However, if overfishing takes place and stocks
experience serious declines, the loss of productivity affects
the fishing industry and the communities that depend on fishing
and raises concern about the overall health of the associated
marine ecosystem.
To meet these provisions, rebuilding plans have required
substantial reductions in catch for many fisheries, resulting
in social and economic impacts to fishing communities and
industry. This report reviews the technical specifications that
underlie current federally implemented rebuilding plans and the
outcomes of those plans. The National Marine Fisheries Service
evaluates the status of U.S. fish stocks to determine which
stocks are overfished. That is which stocks are too small in
size to sustain productive fisheries. Once a stock is
classified as overfished, the appropriate regional Fishery
Management Council selects and implements the rebuilding plan.
Rebuilding plans are simple in theory. Annual catch limits
are set to reduce fishing, which allows the stock to grow and
recover. However, in order to design a rebuilding plan,
fisheries managers need to anticipate how the stock may respond
to different levels of fishing pressure. Currently rebuilding
plans use a concept called maximum sustainable yield, MSY for
short, to determine when a stock is overfished and to set
annual catch limits and rebuilding targets for stock sizes.
The concept of maximum sustainable yield can be useful in
establishing population sizes and harvest rates that a
population can sustain. Rebuilding plans based on MSY have
proven successful for many stocks. As we mentioned maybe
earlier already, 85 stocks declared overfished are approaching
an overfished state between 1997 and 2012. Forty-one are no
longer classified as overfished. Of these, 11 are rebuilding
and 30 are rebuilt. However, a further 41 stocks have not yet
rebuilt and are still classified as overfished.
Because it is not possible to count every fish in the
stock, scientists rely on a variety of statistical sampling
procedures. The accuracy of population estimates and the
projections depend on this data. The frequency of stock
assessments can vary widely, both within and among regions from
stocks that are assessed annually to those that have never been
assessed. The challenge here, of course, is that climate,
environmental conditions, and ecosystem interactions have
significant effects on the rate at which a stock rebuilds.
Although these factors affect the time it takes for a stock to
rebuild, it is not currently possible to incorporate them into
models to improve projections to a degree of accuracy useful
for management.
In terms of mixed stocks, when one stock is within a mixed
stock fishery and declared overfished, reduction in fishing
required rebuilding plans that affect all the stocks in the
fishery. This leads to a loss of yield and income. The
management of mixed stock fisheries is complex and a
contentious issue, one that needs to be looked at.
We also outline a number of other things, including
gradually reducing the catch instead of waiting until
rebuilding plan kicks in, using fishing mortality reference
points instead of biomass-based reference points, setting F
limits below FMSY and also make some comments on data-poor
stocks. Half of the stocks that the National Marine Fisheries
Service manages are data poor and are in need of something
there.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Sullivan.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Sullivan follows:]
Statement of Patrick J. Sullivan, Ph.D., Department of Natural
Resources, Cornell University, and Co-Chair, Committee on Evaluating
the Effectiveness of Stock Rebuilding Plans of the 2006 Fishery
Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act, Ocean Studies Board,
Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council, The
National Academies
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. My name is
Patrick Sullivan. I am an Associate Professor in the Department of
Natural Resources at Cornell University. My colleague Dr. Ana Parma and
I co-chaired the Committee on Evaluating the Effectiveness of Stock
Rebuilding Plans of the 2006 Fishery Conservation and Management
Reauthorization Act.
In 2010, U.S. Senator Olympia Snowe and U.S. Representative Barney
Frank requested that NOAA fund a study by the National Academy of
Sciences' National Research Council regarding the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act's rebuilding requirements.
The committee reviewed the technical specifications that underlie
the current set of federally-implemented rebuilding plans, the outcomes
of those plans in terms of trends in fishing mortality and stock size,
and changes in stock status with respect to fishery management
reference points.
Fish stock rebuilding plans have proven successful in reducing
fishing pressure on many overfished stocks and stock sizes have
generally increased. However, in some cases fisheries have not rebuilt
as quickly as the plans projected, due to factors such as
overestimation of the size of stocks and incidental catch by fisheries
targeting other species. Even when fishing is reduced appropriately for
the actual stock size, the rate at which rebuilding occurs will depend
on ecological and other environmental conditions. Because of all these
factors, it is difficult to make accurate predictions of the time it
will take stocks to rebuild. Therefore, rebuilding plans that focus
more on meeting selected fishing mortality targets than on adhering to
strict schedules for achieving rebuilding may be more robust to
assessment uncertainties, environmental variability, and the effect of
ecological interactions.
Well-managed, productive fisheries provide a livelihood, a
nutritious source of food, and recreational activity for coastal
communities around the country. However, if overfishing takes place and
stocks experience serious declines, the lost productivity affects the
fishing industry and communities that depend on fishing, and raises
concerns about the overall health of the associated marine ecosystem.
In the United States, the 1976 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act was the first piece of major legislation to regulate
federal fisheries. Although the Act contained language to ``prevent
overfishing,'' it focused on developing the domestic fishing industry.
Major declines in the productivity of several important fisheries led
Congress to amend the Act in 1996. The amendment, the Sustainable
Fisheries Act, more clearly defined overfishing and required rebuilding
of overfished stocks within a specified time limit. In 2006, Congress
made additional mandates for conserving and rebuilding fish stocks and
strengthening the role of scientific advice in fisheries management.
The Act now includes regulatory provisions such as ending overfishing
immediately, annual catch limits and accountability measures.
To meet these provisions, rebuilding plans have required
substantial reductions in catch for many fisheries, resulting in social
and economic impacts to fishing communities and industry. This report
reviews the technical specifications that underlie current federally-
implemented rebuilding plans, and the outcomes of those plans.
Implementing Rebuilding Plans
The National Marine Fishery Service evaluates the status of U.S.
fish stocks to determine which stocks are overfished; that is, which
stocks are too small in size to sustain continued productive fisheries.
Once a stock is classified as overfished, the appropriate Regional
Fishery Management Council selects and implements a rebuilding plan.
Rebuilding plans are simple in theory; annual catch limits are set
to reduce fishing, which allows the stock to grow and recover. However,
in order to design a rebuilding plan, fishery managers need to
anticipate how the stock may respond to different levels of fishing
pressure. Currently, rebuilding plans use a concept called Maximum
Sustainable Yield (MSY) to determine when a stock is overfished, and to
set annual catch limits and rebuilding targets for stock size.
The Challenges of Rebuilding Plans
The concept of Maximum Sustainable Yield can be useful in
establishing population size and harvest rates that a population can
sustain. Rebuilding plans based on MSY have proven successful for many
stocks: of the 85 stocks declared overfished or approaching an
overfished state between 1997 and 2012, 41 are no longer classified as
overfished (of these, 11 are rebuilding and 30 are rebuilt). However, a
further 41 stocks have not rebuilt yet, and are still classified as
overfished. The committee identified several challenges associated with
current rebuilding plans.
MSY Reference Points
A major challenge comes from the fact that current rebuilding plans
use a static metric of MSY, which in theory represents average
conditions. In reality, ecosystems are dynamic and as a consequence MSY
varies with factors such as changes in environmental conditions and
ecological interactions. Generating reliable estimates of MSY depends
on having extensive information about the biology of the species and
its abundance in the years before it was overfished. This wealth of
information is only available for a relatively few stocks, hence there
is considerable uncertainty in the MSY estimates for most stocks.
Although the MSY approach has been successful for some fisheries,
management based on MSY can fall short in addressing ecosystem
complexity and variability and in accounting for uncertainty in the
estimates of reference points.
Uncertainty in Stock Assessments
Because it is not possible to count every individual fish in a
stock, scientists rely on a variety of sampling and statistical methods
to estimate abundance. These estimates are used in models to project
trends in future stock size. The accuracy of the population estimates
and the projections depends on the quality and amount of data available
and the ability of models to reproduce the primary determinants of the
species' population growth. The frequency of stock assessments can vary
widely, both within and among regions, from stocks that are assessed
annually to stocks that have never been assessed. As more data are
collected and new models and assessment methods become available, past
estimates of the status of fish stocks can change substantially. For
example, some stocks that were previously classified as overfished (and
put under rebuilding plans) would not have been considered overfished
based on the most recent assessments. The inverse may also have
occurred, with overfished stocks misclassified as not overfished.
Climate, environmental conditions, and ecosystem interactions can
have significant effects on the rate at which a stock rebuilds.
Although these factors affect the time it takes for a stock to rebuild,
it is not currently possible to incorporate them into models to improve
projections to a degree of accuracy that is useful for management.
Mixed Stock Fisheries
Fish do not live in isolation--each stock is part of a community of
species that live in the same waters. For example, when a fishing net
is cast into the ocean, it can capture several different fish species.
This is called a mixed-stock fishery.
When one stock within a mixed-stock fishery is declared overfished,
reductions in fishing required by the rebuilding plans affect all the
stocks in the fishery, leading to a loss of yield and income. For
example, juvenile red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico are incidentally
caught during shrimp trawl fishing, driving the red snapper to
overfished status. Devices were installed in shrimp nets to reduce
bycatch, but were not sufficient to end overfishing. Subsequent
rebuilding plans included a shrimp trawl fishing threshold, in addition
to fishing limits for red snapper.
The management of mixed-stock fisheries is a complex and
contentious issue, but the problem will need to be addressed to allow
more practical guidance on the balance of fisheries harvest across
stocks, subject to assurances that the less productive species are not
driven to unacceptably low abundance.
Alternative Management Strategies
Current rebuilding plans rely on a prescriptive approach, which has
had demonstrated successes in identifying and rebuilding some fish
stocks. However, the plans' focus on achieving rebuilding targets
within set timeframes forces reliance on forecasts and estimates of
MSY-based reference points, which often carry a high level of
uncertainty. Rebuilding plans that focus on meeting selected fishing
mortality targets may be more effective than a plan with an exact time
period for rebuilding. The report makes several suggestions for
alternative management strategies for rebuilding fish stocks.
Gradual Reductions in Annual Catch
Delaying reductions in annual catch until the stock biomass has
declined to overfished status means that fishery managers must then
make immediate and substantial decreases in fishing. Alternative
management actions, such as harvest control rules that promptly but
gradually reduce fishing as estimated stock size falls would result in
a lower likelihood of a stock becoming overfished.
Fishing Mortality Reference Points
Fishing mortality reference points seem to be more robust to
uncertainty than biomass reference points, both in the context of
rebuilding and more generally. Estimates of biomass are expected to
change, and hopefully improve, as stocks rebuild--but predicting these
changes is difficult as it requires predicting average future
recruitment of juvenile fish to the adult population. In contrast,
setting reference points based on fishing mortality requires
comparatively less information.
Environmental Considerations
Most fisheries select for the largest fish, and by doing so, reduce
the average age of the fished population. A rebuilding strategy based
on maintaining reduced fishing mortality for an extended period--longer
than the mean generation time of the stock--would help restore the
stock's age structure (i.e., increase the average age) and would be
more robust to changing environmental conditions than strategies that
require rebuilding to pre-specified biomass targets by a given time
limit.
Setting Fishing Limits Below FMSY
The Magnuson-Stevens Act specifies that stocks designated as
overfished must rebuild within a maximum time period (usually 10
years). This strategy means rebuilding usually occurs quickly once a
stock is designated overfished. However, if rebuilding is slower on
average than expected when the plan was adopted--for example, due to
unfavorable environmental conditions that affect recruitment of
juveniles--ever more severe controls on fishing must be applied to try
to keep rebuilding ``on schedule''. These reductions in fishing can
have significant economic and social impacts to the fishing industry
and community. Maintaining fishing at some constant level below
FMSY may help achieve rebuilding goals on a schedule that
accommodates natural variability in stock productivity.
Data-Poor Stocks
Analytical assessments are not available for many of the stocks
classified as overfished because there are not enough data and
information to build the required models and to estimate MSY reference
points. Without these data, catch limits are difficult to establish. In
these cases, empirical rebuilding strategies that rely on input
controls to reduce fishing--for example, reductions in fishing
operations, or closing fishing areas--may be more effective and
defensible than strategies based on annual catch limits and biomass
(BMSY) targets.
Socio-Economic Impacts of Rebuilding Plans
It is clear that reducing fishing to meet rebuilding targets can
have severe social and economic impacts on fishing communities and the
fishing industry. However, socio-economic information is not readily
available to evaluate the broader and long-term impacts of rebuilding
plans. Retrospective reviews of the socio-economic impacts of
rebuilding plans would help in refining rebuilding plans and
objectives, thus improving the consequences of future plans.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to testify before the
Committee today. I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
______
The Chairman. And last and certainly not least, Mr. Richard
Robins, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD B. ROBINS, JR., CHAIRMAN,
MID-ATLANTIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL
Mr. Robins. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
DeFazio, and members of the Committee. I am Rick Robins,
Chairman of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. I
appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today
regarding the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. My
testimony today will reflect my own experience in the Mid-
Atlantic, and I will also touch on concerns that have been
identified by the other seven councils in the U.S.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act laid the foundation for the U.S.
to develop one of the strongest and most successful fishery
management systems in the world. Consequently, any amendments
to the Act should be limited in their scope. Historically, one
of the greatest strengths of the system is that it does not
require us to apply a one-size-fits-all management approach to
our 446 federally managed stocks and stock complexes and allows
councils to develop management solutions at a regional level.
However, over time, amendments have rendered the Act
increasingly prescriptive and focused more narrowly on
biological accounting. While some of these changes have been
necessary to end overfishing in certain fisheries, they have
limited the ability of the councils to effectively manage data-
poor fisheries; they have resulted in a lack of stability in
some fisheries; and they have limited our ability to balance
important social and economic considerations in certain
circumstances. Successful conservation and management of U.S.
fisheries should not be defined exclusively in biological
terms. Rather, the Act should enable the councils to manage
fisheries for biological, ecological, social, and economic
success.
My testimony will focus on areas of the Act where adding
targeted flexibility would enable more effective management of
our Nation's fisheries and enhance their stability without
compromising the integrity of our management system. Although
my written testimony outlines a much broader range of issues,
my oral comments today will focus on four issues that have
relevance nationally, including stock rebuilding, ending
overfishing, ACLs and AMs in data-poor fisheries, and ecosystem
considerations.
With respect to stock rebuilding, councils are charged with
managing U.S. Fisheries for the greatest overall benefit of the
Nation. This responsibility is not limited to data-rich stocks
or stocks that are in great shape. It applies to every fishery
we manage. Achieving this mandate while rebuilding stocks and
designing an optimal rebuilding plan requires an effective
evaluation of tradeoffs. The 10-year maximum rebuilding
timeline often precludes any meaningful evaluation of tradeoffs
during rebuilding and marginalizes social and economic
considerations. Stocks that can be rebuilt in 10 years must be
rebuilt within 10 years whereas stocks that can be rebuilt
within 11 years have a maximum rebuilding timeline of 11 years
plus one mean generation time. This is an inconsistent
treatment of our fisheries, and this inconsistency can be
resolved by replacing the 10-year timeline with a new TMAX of
TMIN plus one generation time.
Overfished stocks often do not become that way solely as a
result of excessive fishing effort. Habitat modification,
pollution, climate change, and other factors beyond the control
of councils can contribute to stock depletion. The term
``overfished'' should be replaced with depleted to reflect the
fact that fishing effort is not the sole cause of stock
depletion. Once a depleted stock is in a rebuilding plan, the
council can control fishing mortality on that stock, but
rebuilding can be affected by other factors that the council
has very limited ability to either predict or control. The MSA
and NS1 guidelines both should allow rebuilding dates and rates
to be adjusted when environmental factors limit rebuilding. In
some cases, councils have even been required to continue
rebuilding stocks after a new assessment indicated that the
stock was never overfished. The MSA should include clear
criteria for superseding a rebuilding plan in a timely way
under these circumstances.
In terms of ending overfishing, the requirement to end
overfishing immediately has destabilized some U.S. fisheries,
red snapper being one example. Overfishing is a transient
condition that can occur on both depleted and healthy stocks
with different implications. The council should have the
ability in certain circumstances to eliminate overfishing over
a multiyear period through phased reduction fishing rates. This
may be particularly important in situations where stock
assessments change dramatically.
Turning to ACLs and AMs and data-poor stocks, the new
system of ACLs and AMs works very well in fisheries with
adequate stock assessments. For some data-poor stocks, however,
it has resulted in a loss of stability and a lack of confidence
in the quota setting process. ACLs and AMs may not be the best
tools for managing incidental or small-scale data-poor
fisheries. In each situation councils should have the
discretion to determine alternative control mechanisms for
data-poor stocks.
With respect to ecosystem considerations, we do need to
strengthen our management of ecological aspects of our marine
fisheries. The management of mixed species fisheries may not be
optimized by applying single stock principles. Stocks in a
complex vary in abundance over time, and it is unlikely that
all will be at high abundances at the same time. Managing
complexes or trophy guilds for system-level optimum yield would
result in a better approach but may require changes to the
mixed stock exception in those fisheries. More broadly, though,
the ecological references and ecosystem considerations in the
Act would benefit from additional clarity as they relate to the
management of species interactions, foraged stocks, the
importance of ecosystem structure and function, and the current
definition of optimum yield.
In conclusion, the next reauthorization should build on the
past success of the Act by making minor improvements in order
to position our fisheries for sustainable future in terms that
extend beyond simply preventing overfishing. The Act should
enable the councils to manage all of our fisheries for the
greatest overall benefit of the Nation. I sincerely appreciate
the opportunity to testify and look forward to your questions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Robins,
for your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Robins follows:]
Statement of Richard B. Robins, Jr., Chairman,
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council
Chairman Hastings, ranking member DeFazio, and members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today
regarding the Reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act, MSA, or the
Act). I am Richard B. Robins, Jr. and I serve as the Chairman of the
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. The Mid-Atlantic Council has
primary management authority for 12 species of fish and shellfish in
federal waters off the coast of North Carolina through New York. In
2014 I will also serve as the Chairman of the Council Coordination
Committee (CCC), which comprises the Chairs, Vice-Chairs, and Executive
Directors of the eight regional councils.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify before the Committee on
Natural Resources about the regional councils' perspectives on the
reauthorization of the MSA. My testimony will reflect my own experience
in the Mid-Atlantic region. I will also summarize several common themes
of the concerns that have been identified by the other U.S. regional
fishery management councils. While these concerns do not represent
formal positions from the councils, they are relevant to your
Committee's ongoing reauthorization work. The individual councils and
the CCC look forward to continued discussions and opportunities to
provide input into the reauthorization process in the months ahead.
The United States has one of the strongest federal fishery
management systems in the world. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act established a framework for sustainable
fishery management which has contributed to the rebuilding of many
depleted U.S. fisheries. The underlying goal of the Act is to conserve
and manage U.S. fisheries for the greatest overall benefit of the
nation. This same goal is central to the oath of office that every
appointed Council member takes at the beginning of their term.
As we reflect on the experience of the 2006 reauthorization and
look forward to this reauthorization, I think it is important to ensure
that the Act and its requirements will position the regional fishery
management councils (RFMCs or councils) to manage fisheries for the
greatest overall benefit of the nation, across the full spectrum of
stock assessment characteristics, stock conditions, and dynamic
environmental conditions.
One of the greatest strengths of our fishery management system is
that it does not require us to apply a one-size-fits-all management
approach to our 446 federally managed stocks and stock complexes.
Instead, the Act delegates a portion of decision-making authority to
the individuals on councils who are most familiar with each region's
fisheries. As such, this allows management plans to be tailored to the
specific characteristics of each fishery. However, over the past year
in discussions about reauthorization of the MSA, it has become apparent
that the councils' need more flexibility to make the decisions that are
best for each fishery.
The next reauthorization should build on the past success of the
Act in order to position our fisheries for a sustainable future in
terms that extend beyond simply preventing overfishing. Successful
conservation and management of U.S. fisheries should not be defined
exclusively in biological terms; rather, the Act should enable the
councils to manage fisheries for biological, ecological, social, and
economic success. Changes should be undertaken very carefully and
should not compromise the integrity or ambition of the U.S. fishery
management standards. My testimony today will outline several critical
areas where small, targeted changes in the Act can have a major impact
without jeopardizing the sustainability of our nation's fisheries.
Rebuilding Requirements
Rebuilding Timeframes
Provide the councils flexibility to consider a range of rebuilding
plans and timeframes.
The councils recognize that a short rebuilding time period may be
desirable because healthy stocks provide higher catch levels than
stocks that are overfished, thus providing greater long-term socio-
economic benefits. However, there are always tradeoffs between
biological, social, and economic outcomes, and the councils need
flexibility to evaluate the tradeoffs associated with a wider range of
timelines. Rebuilding requirements could be made more flexible by
allowing councils to rebuild stocks to their biomass targets as quickly
as practicable and in a manner that protects an overfished stock from
further decline. This would allow the councils to tailor each
rebuilding plan to the life history of the stock, the socioeconomic
characteristics of the fishery, and the statistical characteristics of
the data used to inform management decisions.
Replace the 10-year rebuilding target with biologically-derived maximum
rebuilding times for all species.
The current 10-year rebuilding timeframe results in inconsistent
management approaches depending on the life history of the stock. For
example, a stock that is expected to rebuild in slightly less than 10
years in the absence of fishing mortality could require much more
restrictive management than a stock that is expected to rebuild in
slightly more than ten years. This results from the fact that the
maximum rebuilding timeframe (TMAX) for a stock that cannot
be rebuilt within 10 years is the minimum time that it would take to
rebuild the stock in the absence of fishing plus one mean generation
time.
In the Mid-Atlantic, the rebuilding plan for the spiny dogfish
fishery fell within the 10-year rebuilding timeframe. As a result, the
fishery, which was landing over 60 million pounds annually in the mid-
1990's, changed abruptly to an ``exit-fishery'' mode for one year
before a 600-pound trip limit was implemented in the fishery. This
effectively eliminated directed fishing in federal waters.
In some cases, including spiny dogfish, the requirement to rebuild
stocks within a fixed 10-year time frame precludes the councils from
effectively considering social, economic, and ecological tradeoffs. As
a result, some of our rebuilding successes have been successful in
biological terms but have resulted in Pyrrhic victories that have come
at unnecessarily high short-term and cumulative costs to our fishing
communities. Amending the Act to replace the arbitrary 10-year
rebuilding requirement with a biologically derived metric for
TMAX (e.g., TMIN plus one mean generation time)
would result in more consistent management for all fisheries and would
give the councils flexibility to minimize the adverse economic impacts
of rebuilding.
Address inherent uncertainties related to environmental, ecological,
and anthropogenic factors and other conditions that can affect
a fishery's rebuilding progress.
Overfished stocks, as defined by the current Act, often do not
become that way solely as a result of excessive fishing effort.
Environmental factors and changing stock assessment methodology can
also play a significant role in the status determination of a fishery.
The Act should be amended to use the term ``depleted'' instead of
``overfished'' to reflect the fact that a fishery's status is typically
influenced by multiple factors.
Rebuilding requirements should also accommodate variability in
environmental conditions once a stock is being managed under a
rebuilding plan. The councils have limited ability to predict, and no
ability to control, many of the factors other than fishing mortality
that affect the rebuilding process. For example, Pribilof blue king
crab, managed by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, has
failed to rebuild even in the absence of fishing pressure. The Act
should be amended to allow the councils to manage contingencies when
stock rebuilding is precluded by environmental factors.
As a result of these uncertainties, the New England Council has
recommended focusing on ending overfishing and controlling fishing
mortality during stock rebuilding, rather than focusing on fixed
rebuilding timelines.
Include clear guidance for responding to changes in stock status
associated with updated stock assessments.
The Act requires that management decisions be based on the best
available data. In some instances, such as Widow rockfish, managed by
the Pacific Fishery Management Council, the councils have been required
to continue rebuilding to a biomass target after new stock assessments
indicate that the stock was never overfished. Rebuilding plans should
not be this inflexible, and councils should be able to set Annual Catch
Limits (ACLs) derived from their Scientific and Statistical Committee's
(SSC) catch recommendations based on current stock assessment results.
Economic Impacts of Rebuilding
Prioritize the minimization of adverse economic impacts in the
development of rebuilding plans.
It is difficult to separate economic impacts due to poor stock
conditions in some regions from the impacts of statutory requirements,
but it is apparent that rebuilding a depleted fishery can have severe
and long-lasting adverse impacts on fishing communities. By nature of
reducing total catch, all rebuilding plans contribute to negative
short-term economic impacts. However, the councils are optimally
positioned to develop strategies that will mitigate some of the social
and economic consequences of rebuilding without jeopardizing the
ability of a stock to rebuild to its biomass target.
Rebuilding Data-Poor Stocks
Provide distinct provisions for rebuilding data-poor stocks.
Despite ongoing efforts to improve stock assessments and catch
estimates, data-poor stocks continue to pose a range of challenges for
the councils. Congress strengthened the Act by placing a greater
emphasis on science-based decision-making through the 1996 and 2006
amendments, but for some of our fisheries, councils simply do not have
the information necessary to support this process. This becomes
particularly clear when rebuilding data-poor fisheries. Given the
highly uncertain nature of these fisheries, it does not make sense to
use the same set of requirements for data-poor and data-rich species.
Stock rebuilding targets and schedules for data-poor species may imply
a level of assessment certainty that does not exist. The Act should be
amended to include clearer guidance on the determination of an
overfished or depleted status for a data-poor stock and on the
development of a rebuilding plan for that stock.
Other Issues
Mixed-Species Fisheries
Include distinct provisions for managing and rebuilding multi-species
complexes.
Single-species moratoria are impractical, unrealistic and result in
unnecessary impacts on healthy stocks in a multi-species complex.
Implementing measures to immediately end overfishing on a single
component stock of a complex may unnecessarily adversely impact other
species in the complex. South Atlantic red snapper and Southern New
England/Mid-Atlantic winter flounder are examples of fisheries that
were closed due to the single-species rebuilding requirements of the
Act, despite the fact that these species are components in mixed stocks
and fisheries. In the South Atlantic region, moratoria on 4 stocks have
precluded new assessments on those stocks because the harvest moratoria
eliminated the only available data source for those species.
Mixed-species fisheries cannot be adequately managed by applying
single-stock principles. Stocks in a complex will vary in abundance
over time, and it is unlikely that all will be at high abundances at
the same time. Rather than expecting all stocks in a multi-species
complex to be at Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) levels simultaneously,
a desirable fishery yield should be specified for an overall complex
allowing individual stocks more normal variability.
ACLs/AMs and Overfishing Determinations
Annual Catch Limits (ACLs) and Accountability Measures (AMs) have
the potential to be powerfully effective management tools, but their
utility depends on the quality of the data used to assess stock size
and set appropriate catch limits.
Allow ACL/AM exemptions for a broader range of fisheries.
Many fisheries are appropriately managed with ACLs (quotas) but
there are instances when ACLs are not the optimal management strategy
and there are no clear benefits achieved by establishing them. A first
step in this direction would be for Congress to maintain the overall
language for ACLs but to give the councils limited discretion to apply
ACLs where practicable.
Councils should have the ability to decide when implementing ACLs
for data poor stocks may not be appropriate based on current management
and monitoring programs. For example, ACLs may not be the best
management strategy for small-scale, subsistence fisheries in the
Western Pacific region. Another difficulty with the ACL requirements is
that many species are considered incidental or rarely encountered
components of actively managed target species. For large multi-species
targeted fisheries, the mandate to establish ACLs for incidental
species can lead to closures that cause unnecessary economic losses
relative to the harvest of the targeted species and result in minimal
biological gain for either the targeted or incidental species. In other
instances, it may be very important to control incidental fishing
mortality on a stock in a mixed fishery and the councils should have
the ability to distinguish between and among these situations in order
to achieve their management objectives.
Extend the timeline for ending overfishing in non-overfished stocks.
Overfishing should be managed as a transient condition (i.e., a
rate) that can occur on both overfished stocks and stocks that are not
overfished. Temporary or short-term overfishing on a non-overfished
stock, which can often be corrected in a relatively short period of
time, does not jeopardize the long-term ability of a stock to achieve
MSY or Optimum Yield (OY) on a continuing basis. By comparison, an
overfished stock is the result of years of overfishing or environmental
changes that can typically only be corrected over a longer time period.
The current requirement to end overfishing immediately, regardless
of whether the fishery is actually overfished, has likely caused undue
and severe economic impacts in U.S. fisheries. Providing for a multi-
year reduction in fishing rates to eliminate transient overfishing
conditions, particularly in cases where the stock is healthy, would
enhance regulatory stability.
For long-lived species, consider basing the overfishing limit on
recruitment overfishing instead of MSY.
In the context of rebuilding long lived species, such as South
Atlantic red snapper, some councils have suggested that recruitment
overfishing and growth overfishing pose different risks to the long-
term health of the stock and should be treated differently. In cases
such as South Atlantic Red snapper, some transient growth overfishing
could be tolerated during stock rebuilding without jeopardizing the
stock's ability to recover. As a result, the South Atlantic has
suggested that the limit of exploitation (the OFL) should be based on
recruitment overfishing rather than MSY for this species. Basing OFL on
recruitment overfishing could provide a more meaningful standard if
overfishing must be eliminated immediately. The fishing public can
understand the need to fish at or below a rate that allows a population
to replace itself. However, problems occur when their fisheries are
forced to endure the very low exploitation rates that are often
necessary to achieve MSY on a long-lived, slow growing stock.
Include provisions which allow councils to end overfishing over a
multi-year period to avoid severe social and economic impacts.
The requirement of the Act to end overfishing immediately has
destabilized some U.S. fisheries. The Red snapper fishery and New
England groundfish are examples of fisheries that have been
dramatically impacted by this requirement. Quotas must ultimately be
aligned with stock assessments, so some adverse outcomes are
unavoidable in certain fisheries that may have experienced chronic
overfishing and overcapacity. However, specific flexibility to
eliminate overfishing under certain circumstances over a multi-year
period would allow the councils to substantially mitigate short-term
social and economic dislocation in our managed fisheries. Examples of
stocks that were rebuilt prior under these types of approaches prior to
the 2006 reauthorization include King mackerel and Spanish mackerel in
the South Atlantic, which were rebuilt within a generation time and
still allowed a viable fishery to operate.
Include specific provisions for setting ACLs or AMs for data-poor
stocks.
The new system of ACLs and AMs has worked well in fisheries that
have moderate to high levels of data and stock assessments upon which
to establish an appropriate ACL, but such a prescriptive approach of
often challenging in data-poor fisheries. These fisheries often lack
the catch data or life history information (e.g., age and growth, size
at reproductive maturity, and reproductive potential) that are needed
to manage effectively with ACLs and AMs. Octopus in the North Pacific,
black sea bass in the Mid-Atlantic, and reef fish in the Caribbean are
examples of data-poor stocks that have been difficult to manage under
the new ACL requirements. The councils need some limited flexibility to
more effectively manage small scale, incidental, or data-poor fisheries
that may be managed more effectively using management tools other than
ACLs and AMs. Councils should have more discretion in setting ACLs for
data-poor stocks. This discretion could be established by making the
SSC catch advice on data-poor stocks advisory rather than binding, if
certain conditions are met.
Include provisions for addressing dramatic changes in the perception of
stock status.
The requirement to end overfishing immediately would benefit from a
narrowly-defined exception when there is a dramatic change in the
perception of stock status. Gulf of Maine Cod is the most recent
example of a fishery that was dramatically impacted by the results of a
new stock assessment. Changes to the Act or to the National Standard 1
guidelines could provide for a tempered management response in cases
where there is both a significant change in the perceived status of a
stock as well as considerable uncertainty in the assessment.
Consider ACL/AM provisions for transboundary stocks that are not
subject to international treaties or transboundary resource
sharing agreements.
In cases where a transboundary stock is not subject to an
international resource sharing agreement, such as Atlantic mackerel,
U.S. fisheries may be disadvantaged by the ACL/AM requirements. In the
mackerel example, the Mid-Atlantic Council is required to account for
projected Canadian catch when it sets the U.S. ACL. If the anticipated
Canadian catch approaches the overall Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC)
for the stock, the U.S. fishery could be closed. Unfortunately, there
is little incentive for other nations to enter into our more
restrictive management framework, and U.S. councils should have more
flexibility in these situations when setting ACLs in U.S. waters.
Fishery Data and Funding
Ensure that science-based requirements of the Act are adequately
funded.
The 2006 ACL requirements have increased the demand for assessment
products from the regional science centers. As previously described,
the effectiveness of the regional councils is integrally linked with
the availability of quality fishery data at adequate frequencies. In
particular, additional scientific resources are needed to bring data-
poor stocks up to an adequate assessment level.
Expand cooperative research programs and establish dedicated sources of
long-term funding.
Cooperative research programs provide a means to improve the
accuracy of stock assessments while engaging stakeholders in the
research process. Despite the importance of these programs, many of
them face inadequate or uncertain funding from year to year. The Mid-
Atlantic Council has funded the Northeast Area Monitoring and
Assessment Program (NEAMAP) through its Research Set-Aside (RSA)
program for the past 6 years, but the allocation of these funds solely
to NEAMAP prevents us from funding other projects that address our
annual research priorities. NEAMAP has become a core monitoring program
in the Mid-Atlantic and its funding should be secured through the next
reauthorization, using Saltonstall-Kennedy funds or other dedicated
funding sources to ensure its future. The reauthorization should
include provisions for funding of cooperative research programs around
the country.
Include explicit authority for the funding of monitoring and observer
programs.
The councils depend on having effective monitoring and reporting
systems in place to help inform catch and bycatch estimates and to
detect potential problems in a fishery as early as possible. Not only
do these programs require adequate funding to operate, but they require
consistent funding from one year to the next. Given the critical nature
of these programs, an amendment to the Act should include specific
provisions securing long-term funding for necessary monitoring and
reporting programs. Amendment 5 to the New England Fishery Management
Council's herring management plan included innovative cost-sharing
mechanisms to support observer coverage that were disapproved by NMFS.
Councils should have a broader range of options for funding observer
coverage to ensure that U.S. fisheries are adequately monitored,
including fisheries that are not managed under Limited Access Privilege
Programs (LAPPs). The reauthorization should include cost-sharing
options for observer coverage.
Ensure that all mandates are sufficiently funded.
Congress should avoid adding any new unfunded mandates and should
ensure that appropriate funds are available for the councils to meet
the existing requirements of the Act. Continued investment in stock
assessment capacity is of paramount concern in this reauthorization
process.
Social and Economic Stability
Allow the councils greater flexibility to consider social and economic
factors in the development of management measures.
Although the councils have always incorporated socioeconomic
information into their decision-making processes, the use of such
information has been limited largely to describing the likely impacts
of potentially restrictive management measures on revenues or
participation, rather than being used to improve participants'
socioeconomic well-being. The Act should be amended to include specific
social and economic objectives that would encourage proactive analysis
of socioeconomic impacts.
Establish and fund a national seafood certification for U.S. fisheries
managed under MSA.
The U.S. has one of the strongest fishery management programs in
the world, and several councils have voted to support establishing a
U.S. fisheries sustainability certification in the next reauthorization
This issue deserves to be addressed--U.S. fishermen fishing under
today's Magnuson Act should be standing tall among their international
peers. In a market transformed by globalization, the sustainability of
U.S. fisheries needs to be affirmed, and U.S. fishermen and processors
should be able to identify and label their products as fish that were
harvested responsibly and sustainably under the gold standards of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. A public affirmation of the core strengths of the
U.S. management system would be an important step to facilitate
education, awareness, and marketing for the benefit of U.S. fisheries.
Data Confidentiality
Revise data confidentiality requirements to facilitate informed
decision making.
Several councils have experienced significant problems associated
with the issue of data confidentiality. In some cases in the South
Atlantic, it is preventing the Council from being able to conduct
accurate stock assessments. In other case, it prevents councils from
making informed management decisions. Mid-Atlantic tilefish allocations
were made without the benefit of knowing what the allocations would be
within each tier due to the confidentiality provisions, and New England
has encountered similar obstacles. In some cases, such as the Mid-
Atlantic's effort to protect deep-sea corals, the best available
information is coming directly from fishermen, and the councils should
be able to use this voluntarily supplied data as long as it is
presented without direct attribution to individuals.
Referendum Requirements
Clarify referendum requirements.
The Gulf Council indicates that Section 407 would benefit from
revisions to streamline and clarify the referendum requirements for Red
snapper Individual Fishery Quota (IFQ) program and provide a consistent
set of requirements for referenda across Gulf of Mexico IFQ programs.
Safety at Sea
Allow the U.S. Coast Guard to access data from Vessel Monitoring
Systems (VMS) for search and rescue efforts.
Section 402(b)(1)(H) states that fisheries information submitted to
the Secretary can only be shared with the Coast Guard in support of
fisheries enforcement and homeland and national security missions.
Safety at sea is a concern of great national importance and the Act
should be amended to allow the U.S. Coast Guard to access VMS data for
search and rescue efforts.
Governance and Representation
Allow Council liaisons in the Northeast Region to vote and make
motions.
It was clear from our Council's port meetings in southern New
England that fishermen in those states desire some form of
representation on the Mid-Atlantic Council. Similarly, the Mid-Atlantic
lands over $200 million of sea scallops annually, and our
representation is limited to participation on the New England Scallop
Oversight Committee.
This issue is expected to be exacerbated by ongoing and substantial
shifts in fisheries populations in response to changing ocean
temperatures. I submit that vesting the liaisons of both councils with
motion-making and voting rights in this reauthorization would resolve
this issue in the interest of both councils.
Recreational and Subsistence Fisheries Management
Revise ACL/AM requirements to accommodate catch estimate uncertainty in
recreational fisheries.
The 2006 reauthorization required ACLs and AMs for commercial and
recreational fisheries. The implementation of recreational AMs,
including paybacks for overages, has been difficult in some regions.
The Mid-Atlantic Council recently completed an Omnibus Amendment that
involved a comprehensive review and overhaul of our recreational AMs.
Our recommendations were designed to enhance stability of recreational
fisheries by improving alignment of our management strategies with the
statistical characteristics of the recreational catch estimates.
Councils should not be required to manage their recreational fisheries
beyond the limitations of their available catch data, and the Act
should support recreational AMs that are reasonable relative to the
data.
Add explicit definitions of recreational and subsistence fisheries.
The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council recently endorsed
the following definitions recommended by its SSC:
Recreational fishing--Fishing undertaken for sport and pleasure, in
which the fish harvested, in whole or in part, do not enter commerce or
enter commerce through sale or barter or trade.
Subsistence fishing--Fishing undertaken by members of a fishing
community in waters customarily fished by that community in which fish
harvested are used for the purposes of direct consumption or
distribution in the community through sharing in ways that contribute
to food security and cultural sustainability of the fishing community.
For this purpose, the term ``sharing in the community'' shall be
defined regionally by the RFMCs.
State Waters' Catch
Promote consistency in the management of interjurisdictional fisheries.
Managing state waters' catch poses unique challenges around the
country under the new ACL requirements. In the Mid-Atlantic region,
most fisheries that have significant state waters' catch components are
managed jointly with the ASMFC. The challenge in these plans is the
fact that the enabling legislation for the ASMFC, the Atlantic Coastal
Fisheries Conservation and Management Act, does not have the same
requirements, standards, or provisions for review. However, in recent
years, the ASMFC and the Mid-Atlantic Council have been able to reach
consensus on quotas and associated management measures through our
joint meetings.
Similar challenges exist in other regions, and the councils should
not be forced to disadvantage their federal fisheries if management in
state waters results in an ACL overage. Effective state involvement is
essential to successful interjurisdictional management, and resources
should be made available to the councils and the states to achieve
coordinated management outcomes.
Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management
Address possible conflicts between requirements of the MSA and the
implementation of ecosystem-based management.
The Mid-Atlantic Council has taken several significant steps toward
a more ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management since the last
reauthorization. Our Council is pursuing an incremental, evolutionary
strategy to incorporate species interactions, environmental conditions,
and habitat associations into our management decisions. The process
should ultimately enhance the ecological sustainability of our managed
fisheries, but it may be necessary to fish some species at levels above
MSY and other species well below MSY in order to achieve ecosystem
level objectives. The act should be clear on these issues and the
ecological objectives in the Act as they relate to the definition of
OY.
I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to testify before your
committee, and I look forward to your questions.
______
The Chairman. As a programming note, we are going to have a
ceremony at 11 a.m., which is a half hour from now. It is not 4
p.m. as that clock says back there. I don't know what happened,
so we anticipate with the number of Members here, we will
probably go through the questioning period of this panel and
probably, depending on the time, will probably break right
after that, so just to keep Members apprised.
I will recognize myself, and I just have a couple
questions, and it is a question to all of you. In all of your
testimony, you somewhat alluded to this, but I just want to ask
this question for the record. We will start with you, Dr.
Sullivan, and go down the line.
Do you believe that the current Magnuson-Stevens Act works?
Yes or no?
Dr. Sullivan. Yes, I think it is doing a good job.
The Chairman. Mr. Rauch?
Mr. Rauch. Yes, I think the economic numbers represented
indicate that it is working nationally.
The Chairman. OK. Mr. Robins?
Mr. Robins. Yes, sir, I think it is the strongest system in
the world, and I think it can be improved.
The Chairman. I thought you said that in your opening
comments, so I just wanted to reiterate here.
Another question. Do you support, then, a change in the
Magnuson-Stevens Act to allow councils more flexibility in
rebuilding overfished fisheries or ``overdepleted.'' Might be a
pretty good word?
Again, Dr. Sullivan, we will start with you.
Dr. Sullivan. If the flexibility is strategic, yes.
The Chairman. You say it is a key part?
Dr. Sullivan. If it is strategic.
The Chairman. If it is strategic, OK. Yes. Mr. Rauch?
Mr. Rauch. The Administration has not taken a position on
whether or not the Act should be changed. We are looking
through our own regulatory processes to see if we can use the
regulations to increase some of the flexibility inherent in the
Act, and we are certainly open to discussing the issue about
whether tests should be changed with this Committee, but we
have not taken a formal position yet.
The Chairman. Mr. Robins?
Mr. Robins. Yes, sir, I think the discontinuity at the 10-
year mark in the rebuilding requirements need to be resolved. I
think some very carefully targeted flexibility would facilitate
better decision making and a better and more full evaluation of
social and economic tradeoff associated with different
rebuilding options.
The Chairman. This kind of follows on that question. Then I
will just ask Dr. Sullivan and Mr. Robins. Would both of you
believe that you can make some modifications without, in your
mind, jeopardizing what the success of the Magnuson-Stevens Act
has been? You believe that we can make those modifications? We
will start with you, Dr. Sullivan.
Dr. Sullivan. Yes, I would say so. In fact, in our report,
I think we outline some things that are easy to do and then
there are some other things a little bit harder to do that
would take longer term.
The Chairman. OK, Mr. Robins?
Mr. Robins. Yes, I believe they could, and in my opinion,
you don't want to take the ambition out of the Act. I mean, I
don't think we should set aside stock rebuilding as an
objective. On the contrary, it should remain an objective, but
the way we go about it I think should more fully incorporate
the evaluation of the social, economic, ecological, biological
aspects in the decisionmaking process, and I think some degree
of flexibility is needed to better incorporate those things.
The Chairman. And the last question that I want to have
again for the record, and I mentioned this in my opening
statement about the--I won't say controversy or discussion
about the rebuilding stocks. Do you believe that we should make
modifications in the rebuilding provisions within the Act? Dr.
Sullivan?
Dr. Sullivan. Yes, I think we should. I think the focus on
fishing mortality as opposed to biomass is a key one.
The Chairman. OK.
Mr. Rauch?
Mr. Rauch. We have not taken a position on that, but I do
believe that as we said there are a number of regulatory
changes that may be useful to take, and we would certainly
welcome that discussion about whether or not the statute should
be amended.
The Chairman. Mr. Robins?
Mr. Robins. Yes, I believe the maximum timeline could be
modified, and I think that change is fairly evident as an
opportunity. What is less clear I think is what sort of control
rules you might put in place during stock rebuilding if you are
going to focus more on the rebuilding rates rather than the
targets. I think at the outset of a rebuilding plan you still
have to have targets for the stock size, but it seems that
there could be more flexibility to deal with environmental
contingencies and the biological characteristics of the stock
as you go forward. Where we have had a lot of problems has been
when you are 5 or 6 years into a plan and suddenly the
performance departs from what was projected, and then you have
to crank down or ratchet down fishing mortality. I think there
ought to be more opportunity as environmental conditions change
or in response to the biological forms of the stock to
reevaluate the fishing rates and the schedule by which you are
rebuilding the stock.
The Chairman. Dr. Sullivan, just to follow up, I think you,
when I asked you about the flexibility in the rebuilding, you
said strategically as part of your response, just elaborate on
that for a moment if you would.
Dr. Sullivan. Yes, I wouldn't throw the baby out with the
bath water. I mean, I think there is a lot of good things in
the plan, and I think the report suggests a couple different
things that might be adjusted, so focusing on rates rather than
on biomass I think is an important one, and I think a lot of
those things might allow one to avoid the problems. Ten-year
plan may be some issues associated with that. I think there
could be some minor adjustments that could be helpful there.
The Chairman. OK. If you want to add more to that or if
that is part of your report, then obviously, we will have that
as part of the record. Thank you very much.
I recognize the distinguished Ranking Member, Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would yield to
Mr. Pallone.
The Chairman. I will recognize Mr. Pallone then.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have a question initially for Dr. Sullivan. As many on
this Committee know, since the 2006 amendments to the Magnuson-
Stevens Act were adopted, I have been advocating for
flexibility to be incorporated into the Act, and I have called
the 10-year rebuilding timeframe too rigid and arbitrary.
So, Dr. Sullivan, your report states, and I quote, that the
requirement to rebuild within 10 years if biologically possible
eliminates certain management options from consideration that
could lead to greater social and economic benefits while still
supporting stock recovery in the long run.
So I just had two questions. First, could you explain what
the report means when it says ``if biologically possible'' and
then also if you could describe to what extent you found that
the current rebuilding timeframe, if at all, allows fisheries
managers to adjust if it becomes clear that a stock cannot be
rebuilt in 10 years or if rebuilding in that timeframe means
severe social and economic damage to coastal communities?
Dr. Sullivan. I will give that a try. It is quite a
question. So in terms of biological, obviously, there are other
constraints besides fishing on whether stocks can recover, so
climate is one and recruitment and so forth are another. So,
even though we might do all in our capacity to, let's say,
reduce fishing or do other kinds of ameliorating actions, it
may still not be biologically possible for the stock to
recover.
Your second question was----
Mr. Pallone. Well, basically if you describe to what extent
you found that the current rebuilding timeframe, if at all,
allows fisheries managers to adjust if it becomes clear that a
stock can't be rebuilt in 10 years or if rebuilding in that
timeframe means severe social and economic damage to coastal
communities.
Dr. Sullivan. Right. So, currently there are some
provisions that allow that, which is good. Part of the things
that we outline in the report suggest that there may be ways to
avoid having to do rebuilding altogether if we can. Not in all
circumstances, and certainly if we can reduce fishing rates to
a point where we avoid having to do a rebuilding plan, that is
really good. Certainly some areas of the country are doing that
already; other areas not so much. And what happens is when you
kick into the rebuilding phase, suddenly, really draconian
actions need to take place.
More broadly, in terms of economics, currently the plan is
focused on biology, which I think is probably a good thing, but
there are some economic options that could be looked at to give
alternative mechanisms for allowing rebuilding other than,
let's say, a fixed schedule. So that is where that comes in.
Mr. Pallone. All right, thank you so much. Let me ask Rick
Robins, as the Chairman of the Mid-Atlantic Council, do you
agree with the NRC report's findings that the 10-year timeframe
eliminates your ability to pursue management measures that will
support the health and rebuilding of stocks while also leading
to greater social and economic benefits? And then I guess if
Congress were to add--well, why don't you answer that and then
I will go to the flexibility issue.
Mr. Robins. Thank you. I believe it does limit our ability
to consider an adequate range of options. If we have a stock,
for example, that can be rebuilt within 9 years, there is
really no contrast among the options there, and so eliminating
that I think would allow for maybe a broader consideration of
those other factors, and then again there is a discontinuity of
the 10-year mark that is highlighted by the report. I think
that can be fairly easily resolved.
Mr. Pallone. OK. So if Congress were to add flexibility
into the law, which is obviously what I advocate, are there
problems created by the 10-year rebuilding requirement that you
would be better equipped to address?
Mr. Robins. I think the 10-year rebuilding requirement
should be superseded by a better set of metrics. So we had
discussed this before, I think, through the Managing Our
Nation's Fisheries discussion, and that is also referenced in
the report, but the idea of changing the maximum rebuilding
timeline to what is essentially the minimum rebuilding timeline
plus a mean generation would at least better consider the
biological characteristics than what we have now.
Mr. Pallone. OK, thanks so much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
I recognize the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Fleming.
Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In listening to your testimony today from the panel, I hear
a consensus that the Magnuson-Stevens Act is good, it is
working, but that it tends to be a bit too centralized, maybe
too calcified, lacks some of the more dynamic parameters
necessary for measurement and maybe upon which to take action,
and certainly that is illustrated by a question I am going to
ask here.
Fishermen in the Gulf are getting whiplash from all of the
changes in stocks and seasons. The latest we hear is that NOAA
is approving a 14-day fall season for recreational fishermen.
This is certainly welcome, but it goes back to two basic
questions: How many fish are out there, and how many are being
caught? NOAA has been consistently failing to answer those
questions. Earlier this year, NOAA revised their quota from 8.5
million pounds to 13 million pounds. Now, NOAA is claiming that
recreational fishermen have exceeded their quota significantly,
all thanks to the estimates provided by NOAA's new model.
So, Mr. Rauch, management of gulf and red snapper this year
has been a disaster for all Gulf States, with each State having
different needs and fishing patterns. Do you have a plan that
would properly manage recreational fishing of red snapper in
the Gulf of Mexico?
Mr. Rauch. Thank you for the question. I think the answer
to that question is as complex as the question. The Gulf
Council is currently working on a plan that would support
regional management, which would allow the States a degree of
flexibility within an overall Federal construct to meet their
individual State needs, and we are very supportive of that plan
being developed. The Gulf Council is scheduled to discuss this
in October, and if they take final action in October, it is
possible we could put such a plan into place for next year. I
completely agree with the opening premise that the fishery is
being hampered by a lack of stability. We collectively need to
find a way to provide, at least on the recreational side,
better certainty as to the seasons and the catch so that we are
not constantly in a position where the fishermen don't know how
many days they are going to fish or when they are going to
fish. Particularly with the charter fishery, you need advance
notice so you can plan and advocate your trip. So I think that
we all believe in the same goal.
Dr. Fleming. And if I could add to that, when you talk to
the charter fishermen, you are talking about as much as 6- or
12-month advance notice in terms of booking hotels. I mean,
this of course is a seasonal annual type of business, and you
can't go by a 2-week notice or a 1-month notice. You may open
it up, but you have no customers to go out there for
recreational fishing. So we definitely need transparency,
continuity, and plenty of advance notice.
Mr. Rauch. I agree, and that is our shared goal. I think
the States also have that goal. We need to get a more stable
management regime in place. I am very hopeful that the council
will take final action on this regional plan.
Dr. Fleming. Well, let me ask you this question because I
am going to run out of time. If you would describe how NOAA
goes about measuring the stocks in the landings.
Mr. Rauch. So the way that we measure the stocks for red
snapper in general is we work with the States to come up with
an assessment technology both in terms of sampling design and
in terms of how you deal with the answer. So it is a
collaborative effort. On the recreational side, the biggest
issue here has been on the recreational side, estimating the
recreational catch. We have had a lot of difficulty doing that.
Recreational catch is much harder to estimate than commercial
catch. Congress in its last reauthorization required us to
revise the way that we did that. We are in the process of doing
so. That continues to be a work in progress as we continue to
discover biases that were inherent in the prior old sampling
regime.
Dr. Fleming. So are you open, then, to some of the
suggestions here today that we go after other approaches or
additional parameters and more flexibility on a regional basis?
Mr. Rauch. I think we are certainly open to more
flexibility in the interest of trying to provide a stable
fishing opportunity. We have focused on overfishing for a long
time. Now that overfishing is largely solved, we need to start
focusing on getting the economic opportunity, the economic
development out of that, and there is a lot of ways to do that,
and I am happy to work on ways, whether that is more
flexibility, more data collection, any of those opportunities.
I think that is where we need to focus next.
Dr. Fleming. Thank you.
I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman, and his time has
expired and I recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. Mr. Rauch, could you tell me, how could we get
better data? I mean, we have sort of a set of scientific data,
we have a set of experiential data from those who fish, but
they often don't seem to be integrated optimally. How could we
do that?
Mr. Rauch. On one hand, the data collection is a budget
issue. If you have----
Mr. DeFazio. It is what?
Mr. Rauch. It is a budget issue. If you have more ship
time, you have more scientists, you have more surveys, you can
get better data. Both the Administration and Congress has
supported, even through declining budget cycles more stock
assessments. So every year Congress has approved and the
Administration has asked for more funds for stock assessments.
That helps with the better data. We are also looking at better
data platforms. One of the biggest concerns right now is the
ability to link environmental parameters, such as changing
temperature and acidification in the ocean to fish response. We
believe that in the Northeast, that is one of the factors that
is impacting the cod fishery up there, and it is very difficult
to get a handle on with changing environmental parameters, how
are the fish going to respond, so we are working with our other
partners at NOAA and in academia to try to get those better
connections, and we are looking at better sampling technologies
so that maybe we don't have to go out and catch every fish, can
we look at unmanned underwater vehicles, sonar techniques and
other kinds of things to better get a sense as to how many fish
are out there. It is a difficult question, there are not quick
answers, but we are working on all those fronts to get better
data.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. In the Pacific Northwest, testimony that
we will get later from Mr. Moore, and I would just ask this
panel about it, it goes to Mr. Pallone's points about
flexibility, our Ninth Circuit Court made a judgment saying
that the time period must be as short as possible, although the
agency may take into account the status and biology of the
overfished species and the needs of the fishing community. It
seems to me that the interpretation of the court, if accurate,
makes this very inflexible. Must be as short as possible, and
it gives an example of one species where it could have been
rebuilt in the same year by estimates, but a few months later,
and therefore, because of the court decision, we were bound to
go for the as short as possible option, which significantly
constrained fishing that could have gone forward and had
declared recovery the same year. Wouldn't you admit that does
need a little bit of perhaps statutory change?
Mr. Rauch. Well, the government lost that court decision.
Mr. DeFazio. What is that?
Mr. Rauch. The government lost that court decision, so we
were advocating for a broader, more flexible approach to
interpreting that language.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. So, But earlier when you were asked I
believe by the Chairman, I mean, you said the Administration
didn't have a position on statutory changes. It seems that we
are now pointing toward a needed statutory change because your
own opinion has been found wanting by a court.
Mr. Rauch. As I indicated, we did not take a position on
statutory changes. I will say that provision has been very
difficult to apply. It is very hard to determine. The standard
is, as soon as possible, taking into account these things. The
Ninth Circuit seems to suggest that one way to do that is to
have a bicatch-only fishery. I know that the testimony from Mr.
Moore suggests that you allow just a few fish over the level
that would have devastating commercial community impacts. I
don't think we want to manage that close to the edge, nor do I
think realistically we can manage that close to the edge. Our
data is not sufficient to just get over the level of community
impacts. So it has been difficult to address. We have addressed
it. I am not prepared to say that it should be a statutory
change, but I will agree with you that it is a difficult
provision to implement.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. So how about as short as practicable?
Mr. Rauch. That would provide more flexibility.
Mr. DeFazio. That is as close as I am going to get to
support I think. Just one other quick question. In the National
Academy of Sciences study, they did come up with a couple of
examples where stocks were placed in overfished status, and
then it turned out that they weren't, but they do go on to say,
Well, then they became even more abundant, and I think that
goes back to the data issue. Yes?
Mr. Rauch. Yes, I think that it does indicate that
fisheries science is good, in the U.S., it is the best in the
world, but there are still a lot of uncertainties, particularly
when you have environmental parameters like temperature change
in the ocean or acidification in the ocean, which we have
trouble as fishery managers predicting and controlling. So many
times we find out that there was a different impact on the
fishery than what we thought. I do think that that argues for
us being as flexible as we can to try to recognize that when we
set biological targets 10 years ago, today our understanding
may be completely different as to what is the appropriate
target.
Mr. DeFazio. OK, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank the gentleman.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado, Mr.
Tipton.
Mr. Tipton. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. Huffman.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and my thanks to our
panel today.
I want to ask Mr. Rauch about one species, one of the many
species that are addressed by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and
that is sharks. We have a Federal Shark Conservation Act
separately that permits removal of shark fins at sea.
California and many other States, as you know, have passed
State laws that prohibit the sale and trade of detached shark
fins. We believe, the State of California believes, that its
law is complementary to Magnuson-Stevens and to Federal law.
There has been some litigation recently on that and the Ninth
Circuit recently reaffirmed, but there is no conflict between
California's shark fin ban and the Magnuson-Stevens Act. And
yet your agency has previously rolled out a draft regulation
that would assert Federal preemption of all State shark fin
bans, including States like Illinois that don't even have shark
fisheries, so very hard to imagine that there could really be a
conflict there. I know that you have said that the Federal
position is under reconsideration, that you are taking comment.
We now have a Ninth Circuit ruling rejecting the Federal
preemption argument. Can you give me an update on where that
stands, please?
Mr. Rauch. Yes, thank you for the question. The Magnuson-
Stevens Act does assert statutorily exclusive Federal authority
over fishing and sovereign rights to fishing but does allow the
States to regulate under certain limited circumstances, and the
way that we interpret that is as long as there is not a direct
conflict, those can work, and so it is a factual question with
any of the 11 jurisdictions that have restrictions on
possession of a type of fish product whether there is an actual
conflict. We are also required by an Executive Order before we
take final action in a rule to consult with those States to try
to avoid it because nobody, neither the Federal Government nor
the State government, wants to be debating this issue in court,
and we would much rather have an interpretation where we are
consistent and trying to achieve the same objectives. So I have
been in discussions personally and with the NOAA general
counsel, with the State of California Attorney General's
offices, and with the Attorney Generals' Offices for 10 of the
other 11 jurisdictions. I have yet to reach out to Illinois.
Our goal is to try to find an interpretation in which we would
determine that there is no need to raise any preemption
arguments, and I am hopeful with California that, although
those discussions are still preliminary, that we will end up
with such a case.
The statute does not assert that it preempts all of those
State laws. It asserts that preemption is a possibility, and it
is a factual discussion, and so what I would like to do is
assuming that I can find a scenario in which we can say that
the United States is not concerned about preemption issues with
any of these States, we could put that as guidance in the
regulation so that we could avoid this situation in the future.
I am hopeful that we will find a resolution which would allow
both the State laws and the Federal laws to be looked at
compatibly, and we are still working on that.
Mr. Huffman. I appreciate that very much, and I will thank
you for your answer.
The Chairman. Does the gentleman yield back his time? The
gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Wittman.
Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, thank you so much for joining us today. Rick, I
want to begin with you. You and I have talked a lot about data-
poor stocks and the challenges that they face for our fisheries
managers. Tell me, in your perspective and looking at Magnuson-
Stevens reauthorization, how through the reauthorization can we
help improve the quality of science and address these data-poor
stocks? Can you give us a little more on your perspective on
that?
Mr. Robins. Certainly, Mr. Wittman. I think first and
foremost the goal should be to move these data-poor stocks into
a situation where they have an adequate quality stock
assessments, and doing that in our region I think can be done
strategically, but I think, in the long run, we need to do that
by enhancing cooperative research. We have some species that
are data poor because they are model resistant, and so you have
to get out of some of these multispecies surveys and do some
specific work to resolve some of those outstanding scientific
questions, so first and foremost I think we have to do that,
and one of the data needs in our region in the Mid-Atlantic, at
least, is with an E-map survey, because we have been funding
that very tenuously with our research set-aside funds, and that
has become a critical and ongoing piece of the monitoring
program in our region. It complements the work of the Bigelow
in the Northeast, and that is something I think we need to
secure for the future.
But with respect to the reauthorization, as we look at the
management of data-poor stocks, I think the councils do need
more discretion in the management of those, in other words
determining when ACLs and AMs are the most effective strategy
for dealing with a data-poor stock, whether it is small scale
or incidental. There are certain situations where ACLs are
being imposed on data-poor stocks, and there is simply not
enough data to support establishing an effective ACL or an
appropriate ACL, and so you see as a result of that a lack of
confidence I think in the management process within those
fisheries, and just because they are small scale doesn't mean
they are not important. They may be very important to Pacific
communities. So this is an important area to consider through
the reauthorization.
Mr. Wittman. I am going to pick up on your comment on stock
assessments, and obviously, those being used to set ACLs and
AMs. Give me your perspective. You talk a little bit about the
lack of data and science affecting that. Tell me, give me an
example of how that would negatively affect the element of not
having a proper stock assessment, and then how does that ripple
down the chain as far as decisionmaking with management
decisions?
Mr. Robins. Well, the way the process works, the data
usually go through the Northeast Fisheries Science Center in
our region at least. They will go to a regional science center.
They then come to the staff. You may have a plan development
team that considers the data. The staff evaluates it. They make
a quota recommendation through that process. That goes to the
scientific and statistical committee. Now if you come through
that process and you don't have an adequate stock assessment,
then the SSC is left with a situation where they may be just
evaluating historical catch. And frankly, some of our fisheries
have catch history data that are quite lacking, and that varies
around the country, but there is some fisheries that have very
poor historical data, even on catch. Now that is changing, and
now I think we are all moving toward the point that we have
much better catch data, at least on our commercial fisheries,
and obviously, there are ongoing reforms MRIP to ensure that we
have better recreational catch data in the future, but when the
SSC is left in those positions, often times they are making
decisions on an ad hoc basis, and the result is unpredictable,
and that can contribute to a loss of stability in those data-
poor fisheries.
Mr. Wittman. I think that is a great point about the lack
of catch data there or the richness of the catch data. Let me
ask you this: There is a lot of discussion about how do we do
all we can to collect that data, and obviously, there is other
points of data out there to collect, especially with fishermen.
Can you give me your perspective on what the current MSA may
limit you as far as being able to gather that data from
fishermen? And then what should we consider in the current
reauthorization to maybe expand that and make sure we are
including all the different sources of data, whether it is
fishermen or other institutions or other elements that are
critical to make sure we do the proper stock assessments to
make the proper decisions?
Mr. Robins. Well, there are a couple points there, and one
would be the fact that there are some provisions with respect
to data confidentiality that pose some problems around the
country. For example, if we wanted to go collect voluntarily
supplied data from fishermen and then use that in management
decisions, that may in fact be the best available data. For
example, in our deep sea coral amendment, we are considering
how to get that data that fishermen want to provide into the
process, but data confidentiality concerns come up, and so that
is one issue. The other, though, would be to more explicitly
seek to bring in voluntary sources of data, so, for example,
with recreational fishermen, a lot of them want to participate
in providing recreational catch data, but there is not a
mechanism fully for incorporating that into the Federal
management process. There are a few State programs around the
country that collect voluntary angler data, and self-selecting
groups like that can have statistical limitations, but I think
there are clearly opportunities to do more to collect data in
that type of way that could be used to perhaps benchmark or
ground truth some of the recreational catch estimates that we
have.
Mr. Wittman. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield
back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. I made an announcement
earlier that because of the ceremony at 11 a.m. that we would
break, but because of the interest of Members here in the issue
at hand, I have decided that we will just keep going, and
obviously, Members if they want to go they can.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
Cardenas.
Mr. Cardenas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Just very, very quickly. When it comes to this Act, when
invasive species, is that a different environment of law that
interjects with this one or does this actually take that into
account primarily as well, not just overfishing, et cetera, and
reduction of species, but invasive species tend to have a
tremendous detrimental impact, don't they, in certain areas?
Mr. Rauch. Yes, sir. I will take that question. The Act
does not refer to invasive species, per se. We do know that as
the Academy study indicating, we need to take into account more
of the ecosystem considerations. When you are determining both
in management regime and the stock status and what is going to
happen, invasive species are one of the kinds of things that
might limit a stock productivity. We have historically thought
that there was a very linear relationship. If you cut fishing,
the fish populations will grow, but now there are a number of
environmental factors, and invasive species being one, but the
Act does not directly talk about invasive species as--it is not
mentioned in the Act.
Mr. Cardenas. Thank you. I yield back my time.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back his time.
The gentleman from California, Mr. McClintock.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My previous district included the Klamath River. When I was
first invited up there to take a look at it, the Administration
is pushing to tear down four perfectly good hydroelectric dams
because of what they describe as a catastrophic decline of the
salmon population on the Klamath, and I said, Well, that's
terrible, how many are left. Well, just a few hundred. I said,
That is awful, why doesn't somebody build a fish hatchery?
Well, it turns out somebody did build a fish hatchery at the
Iron Gate Dam. It produces 5 million salmon smolts every year;
17,000 return annually as fully grown adults to spawn. The
problem is we don't include them in the population counts, and
then to add insult to insanity, when they tear down the Iron
Gate Dam, the Iron Gate Fish Hatchery goes with it, then you do
have a catastrophic problem. Do you count hatchery fish in your
population counts?
Mr. Rauch. Thank you for the question. This is a question
related to the Endangered Species Act and not the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, so----
Mr. McClintock. No, I understand, but my point is that fish
hatcheries, appear to me, to play an absolutely central role in
assuring abundant populations of all species, including those
regulated under Magnuson-Stevens.
Mr. Rauch. So, for Magnuson-Stevens Act purposes, when we
assess the overall number of salmon in the Pacific Ocean, much
of what is harvested commercially are hatchery caught or
hatchery bred salmon.
Mr. McClintock. Yes.
Mr. Rauch. And so for Magnuson-Stevens Act purposes, there
is not a distinction when we are looking at our targets, our
volatile targets between hatchery and wild fish.
Mr. McClintock. OK.
Mr. Rauch. There is a distinction when we are talking about
the Endangered Species Act and what is the population we are
trying to preserve for the Endangered Species Act. The
Endangered Species Act discusses that populations must be
populations that are supported in the wild, and the
interpretation that we have long held with the fishery service
is that means that they are in the wild for the majority of
their life cycles, and that means they need to be born in the
wild.
So, for the stocks that have had hatchery parents that are
born in the wild, those are considered part of the population,
but we do not often consider hatchery fish the same fish as a
wild fish.
Mr. McClintock. Which is silly, of course, as one biologist
pointed out, the principle there. The only difference between a
hatchery fish and a fish born in the wild is the difference
between a baby born at home and a baby born at the hospital.
All right. And the same forces of natural selection act on both
hatchery and wild born fish, but the principal thrust of my
question with respect to Magnuson-Stevens is what are we doing
to promote hatchery production? Again, to me, this seems to be
the key to assuring abundant populations of those that are
regulated under Magnuson-Stevens.
Dr. Sullivan. If I may respond to that. So, I think you
raise an important point, and there is a kind of tension that
exists in the field between hatchery raised and natural
systems, and I think one of the goals behind looking at the
natural system is trying to work in balance with the ecosystem,
as opposed to replacing the ecosystem. So if we might look at
rice patties going in, just take out the ecosystem and you put
in your own.
Mr. McClintock. No, no----
Dr. Sullivan. In many ways, hatchery is sort of like that.
Mr. McClintock. That would require draining the ocean,
which is--as Will Rogers once pointed out, is a difficult
problem doing that sort of detail, and he wasn't a detail man.
Dr. Sullivan. Yes.
Mr. McClintock. Nobody is suggesting draining the ocean.
What we are suggesting is supplementing the populations with
hatchery born fish to assure abundant populations, and from
what I am hearing if by you talking around the question is you
are not doing anything on hatchery.
Dr. Sullivan. No, there are issues with hatchery----
Mr. McClintock. What are you doing?
Dr. Sullivan [continuing]. In terms of genetics, for
example. Fish tend to be pretty uniform genetically and that
makes them susceptible to a lot of what like our agricultural
products are likely to be susceptible to.
Mr. McClintock. Well, again, you are not answering the
question. What are you doing to promote hatchery production of
fish?
Dr. Sullivan. I am not.
Mr. McClintock. Then the answer I seem to be getting from
you is damn near nothing.
Mr. Rauch. Well, the Federal Government does support
hatchery programs for fish stocks around the country. What the
idea is that the hatchery fish can be done. The National Marine
Fisheries Service does not have a hatchery program within
itself, but the Interior Department runs one. Many States run
hatchery programs that we support.
Mr. McClintock. And quite successfully as well.
Mr. Rauch. I would agree.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Chairman, if we do decide to
reauthorize this Act, I would hope that a principal component
of the reformed act would be the promotion of hatchery
production of all the species regulated by the Act.
I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back his time.
I want to thank all of the members of the first panel here.
As happens frequently, sometimes another issue comes up with a
Member, and they will let you know or ask you to elaborate on a
question. That may or may not happen. If that happens, I hope
you would respond in a very timely manner.
So, with that, I want to dismiss the first panel and while
that dismissal is happening, ask the staff to prepare for the
second panel.
OK. I want to thank the second panel for joining us. By way
of introduction, we have Dr. Ray Hilborn, Professor of the
University of Washington School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences
and went to the university that beat Boise State badly the
first round, I might add. There is nobody from Idaho here, so
nobody cares, I guess.
We have Mr. Rod Moore, Executive Director of the West Coast
Seafood Processors Association. Mr. Vito Giacalone, Policy
Director of the Northeast Seafood Coalition. Mr. Jeff Deem,
Recreational Fishing Alliance. Dr. John Bruno, Professor of the
Department of Biology at the University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill. And Mr. Chris Dorsett, Ecosystem Conservation
Programs with the Ocean Conservancy.
I think you were all in the audience when I mentioned how
the timing lights work. Your full statement will appear in the
record, but I would ask you to keep your oral argument within
the 5-minute window, and the way that works, for instance, when
the green light goes, you are doing very well, and when the
yellow light comes on, that means you have 30 seconds remaining
and I hope you would wrap it up before the red light comes, and
I will try to be flexible, but we do want to keep this as much
on time as we can.
So, with that, Dr. Hilborn, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF DR. RAY HILBORN, PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF
WASHINGTON, SCHOOL OF AQUATIC AND FISHERY SCIENCES
Dr. Hilborn. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Ranking
Member and other members. If I could have the next slide
please.
I would like to basically talk about evaluation of how well
we are doing, and the gist of my presentation is that we have
defined U.S. fisheries management a success almost solely in
terms of rebuilding overfished stocks, and to some extent, I
believe we have lost sight of the intentions of the Act, in my
testimony, I go into this more in my written testimony in more
detail.
But basically, I think it is pretty clear from the Act that
we want to assure benefits from employment, food supply, and
revenue. In order to do that, we have to maintain the
biological health of the fish resources, and there is certainly
a concern 20 years ago that overfishing was a major threat to
the sustainability of our resources.
Next slide, please.
But I would note that, at present, the only report to
Congress is on overfishing, and stopping overfishing is merely
a means to an end, and no, it does not systematically report
how well we are doing on delivering benefits to the United
States, in particular, what is impeding us from producing more
benefits.
Next slide, please.
Since 2007, an international group of scientists has formed
a data base on the status of fish stocks, including the data
from NOAA, and that group has produced 27 scientific papers,
including 10 in science, nature, and the proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences.
Next slide, please.
Just as one way we visualize these, and I notice that the
NRC panel has used this as well, is to have the biological
stock size on the X axis--that is how many fish we have--and
how hard we are fishing on the Y axis. And the target to
produce maximum food and employment benefits is what is
generally called maximum sustained yield, so think of that as
the target. I am sure there is quite a few sportsmen here on
the panel.
Next slide, please
In the U.S., we define regions in this space as fully
exploited, underexploited, overfished and then a combination of
overfished and overfishing, the upper left-hand corner where we
don't want to be.
Next slide, please.
If we think about trying to achieve jobs and food benefits,
we think about where we would like to see a grouping of our
shots, and if we could just--the next slide, then the next
slide. And that would be--if our objective was to produce jobs
and revenue and food, we would expect to see a clustering of
our fish stocks around there.
The next slide, please.
This is the current status of U.S. West Coast stocks. That
big cross hairs is that target of maximum sustainable yield.
The size of the dots is the long-term potential sustainable
yield from the stocks, so you will see there are some big
stocks. There are some small stocks. And I have drawn solid
lines at the point where that is sort of the median between--
and what you see is that we are fishing much, much lower on
average than would produce maximum sustained yield. And many
stocks are hardly being fished at all. In fact, we only harvest
1 percent of the groundfish on the West Coast.
Next slide, please
If we look at all regions of the U.S., we see a similar
picture now. The colors represent where they are from, and we
see that the big stocks are almost uniformly underfished and
that the stocks of concern, primarily from New England, are in
the upper left-hand corner.
Next slide, please.
So, if we say, what happened? If we rebuilt all stocks to
their maximum sustainable yield, we would increase our yield 1
to 3 percent, but if we fully utilize the underutilized
species, we could increase yield by 30 to 50 percent. So, the
key point is that the biggest threat to producing the maximum
sustainable jobs and food from the United States is not
overfishing anymore. It may have been 20 years ago. Now, it is
underutilization.
Next slide, please.
One of the issues that comes up is these environmental
changes in fish production. This is an example of Icelandic
cod, where the X axis is the stock size and what you see is
there is very little relationship between the production of the
stock, that is how much it biologic produces, and its
abundance.
Next slide, please.
But if we look over time, this stock exhibited a dramatic
decline in productivity.
Next slide, please.
In a paper published in the proceedings of the National
Academy, we showed that 69 percent of the stocks that we have
data on showed these jumps in productivity.
Next slide.
What this means is that rebuilding targets to biomass
targets are very problematic, and I am going to have to
definitely hurry up.
Next slide.
We have solved the overfishing problem. Rebuilding targets
cannot be met if we have regime shifts, and I am going to have
stop right there.
Thanks very much.
The Chairman. Dr. Hilborn that was done very, very well,
but your full statement, of course, is part of the record, and
that is the important part.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Hilborn follows:]
Statement of Ray Hilborn, Professor, School of Aquatic and Fishery
Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
Introduction
Good morning and I want to thank the members and staff for the
opportunity to address this committee. My name is Ray Hilborn, I am a
Professor of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences at the University of
Washington. I have been studying fisheries management for over 40
years, both in the U.S. and in a number of other countries and
international commissions. This has resulted in 250 peer reviewed
journal articles, and several books including most recently
``Overfishing: what everyone needs to know'' published by Oxford
University Press.
I am not representing any group, although I do receive research
funding from a wide range of foundations, NGOs, and commercial and
recreational interest groups, the National Science Foundation and NOAA.
I am not here to argue for specific changes to the Magnuson-Stevens
Act, rather to provide background on our growing knowledge of how fish
populations behave, and how U.S. fisheries are performing.
What are our objectives?
The text of the Act begins with ``To provide for the conservation
and management of the fisheries, and for other purposes'', but then
becomes more specific by stating that rebuilding fish stocks, ensuring
conservation and protecting essential habitat are all intentions of the
act. Also, the Act makes it clear that one objective is to provide for
``the development of fisheries which are underutilized or not utilized
. . . to assure that our citizens benefit from the employment, food
supply and revenue which could be generated thereby.''
In short, the objective of the Act appears to be to provide for
sustainable employment, food supply, recreational opportunity and
revenue, and to achieve that, conservation of fish stocks and habitats
is essential. The two specifically targeted actions are to rebuild
overexploited stocks and develop fisheries on underutilized species.
Yet, as I will show below, while we have reduced overfishing, one
consequence has been far more underutilized fish stocks and we seem to
have lost sight of the actual goals of employment, food supply,
recreational opportunity and revenue.
In its annual report to Congress, NOAA reports on the status of our
fisheries regarding the biological status and whether the stocks are
assessed. The biological status is reported as both the number of
stocks that are overfished (are at low enough abundance to reduce
sustainable yield), and the number of stocks that are subject to
overfishing (fished at a rate harder than would produce long term
maximum sustainable yield). There is no systematic scorecard of the
fisheries contribution to employment, food supply, recreational
opportunity or revenue with reference to the potential contribution, or
is there any evaluation of underutilization. While measuring these no
doubt requires specific assumptions, there appears to be a tacit
assumption among policy makers that if we prevent overfishing, we will
produce something like maximum food production, employment,
recreational opportunity and revenue, or at least that the greatest
threat to these objectives is overfishing.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act has been quite effective at reducing
overfishing so that the proportion of stocks estimated to be
overfished, which the Act defines as fish stocks at lower abundance
levels due to environmental factors, fishing pressure, or other
factors, has declined from 38 percent in 2000 to 19 percent in 2012,
and the proportion subject to overfishing declined from 33 percent in
1999 to 10 percent in 2012. The decline in the number of fish stocks
subject to overfishing has largely been accomplished by major
reductions in fishing pressure off the west coast, east coast and Gulf
of Mexico. Alaskan fisheries were never subject to major overfishing
and there has been no need to reduce fishing pressure there. Fishing
pressure has declined dramatically from previous peaks; a 40 percent
decline in the East Coast a 48 percent decline in the Southeast and
Gulf of Mexico and a 75 percent decline on the West Coast. Across all
U.S. fisheries where assessments are available, the exploitation rate
is about 40 percent of what would produce maximum sustainable yield.
U.S. fisheries management is now extremely conservative and while
almost all attention seems to be focused on the few stocks where
overfishing is occurring, we seem to be ignoring the fact that
exploitation rates are now, on average, so low.
The Status of Stocks
The status of fish stocks can be summarized by plots that compare
the biomass of the stock to the level that would produce maximum
sustainable yield (called BMSY) on the X axis, and the fishing pressure
compared to the level that would produce maximum sustainable yield
(called FMSY) on the Y axis. Figure 1 is such a plot for US west coast
stocks status as reported in NMFS stock assessments.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2948.001
.epsEach point on the graph represents one fish stock and the size
of the point is proportional to the potential maximum sustainable yield
for the stock if the stock was fully rebuilt. The thick cross-hairs
represent the traditional target of maximum sustainable yield. In the
U.S. terminology any F greater than 1.0 on the Y axis would be
classified as ``overfishing'' and any biomass less than 0.5 on the X
axis would be classified as ``overfished.'' The thin black lines are
the median values of the x and y axes, showing that, on average U.S.
west coast stocks are exploited at about 40% of the level that would
produce maximum sustainable yield and biomass is, on average, about
130% of the biomass that would produce maximum sustainable yield. If
our management objective is to produce maximum sustainable yield we are
missing the target by quite a bit, hitting well below and to the right
of the target.
If we combine all U.S. fisheries in a single plot we see a
generally similar pattern in Figure 2, with blue representing the West
Coast, green Alaska, yellow the Gulf of Mexico and S.E. Atlantic, and
red the mid-Atlantic and New England. We see the most overfished stocks
in the northeast.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2948.002
.epsOn average, the biomass of U.S. fish stocks is above the level
that would produce maximum sustainable yield and fishing pressure is
much lower than would produce maximum sustainable yield. Also, the
overfished stocks are generally small stocks, while the large stocks
are typically fished very lightly.
Behavior of Fish Stocks
The modern theory of fisheries management developed in the early
20th century and by the 1950s the basic principles had been well
established around the general theory that holding a stock at or near a
specific biomass, often called BMSY or the biomass that produces
maximum sustainable yield, was optimal. This theory and approach was
written into national regulations around the world, including the
original Magnuson Act, and international agreements like the Law of the
Sea.
In this theory, the average sustainable yield depends upon the
biomass of the stock, and sustainable yield is maximized at an
intermediate stock level, usually 35-50 percent of what it would be in
the absence of fishing. Environmental variability is acknowledged as a
form of year to year noise, good years and bad years come randomly.
This view of the world has dominated our management strategies,
including setting target biomass and harvest rates, and in the stock
rebuilding requirements. The theory asserts that if stock biomass
controls productivity, then reducing fishing pressure on stocks at low
abundance allows biomass to rebuild, and stock productivity will
increase as the biomass increases.
In the last two decades, the evidence has become strong that this
view of the world is incorrect, and most fish stocks experience
sustained periods of good times and bad times. This is often called
productivity regime shifts. In a paper published in 2013 a group of us
showed that for 230 fish stocks where we had long term data, 69 percent
showed such regime shifts, and only 18 percent of fish stocks appeared
to conform to the simple theory that biomass determines productivity.
The remaining 13 percent of stocks showed no relationship between
biomass and productivity or temporal regime shifts. We found that
increases in productivity were slightly more common than declines.
If regime shifts, which are natural environmental fluctuations, are
driving productivity, then reducing fishing pressure will increase the
abundance of the stock, but productivity (and subsequent sustainable
yield) will not increase until the regime changes. Rebuilding to former
biomass may indeed be impossible unless productivity changes,
regardless of reductions in fishing.
Figures 3 and 4 illustrate the relationship between fish stock
abundance and productivity for cod in Iceland (figure 3), and the
temporal pattern in productivity (Figure 4). It appears that there was
a major drop in productivity for this cod stock in the mid 1980s (as
there was for most cod in the Western Atlantic), and for the present
Iceland must simply live with a less productive cod stock.
Accepting that regime shifts are common does not mean we do not
need to regulate fisheries. We must always be careful not to harvest
more than the production, and when regime shifts move systems from high
to low productivity, the yield must decline.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2948.003
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2948.004
.epsLost Yield, Jobs, Recreational Opportunity and Revenue
U.S. fisheries management has been successful at largely stopping
overfishing and reducing the number of overfished stocks--but since
stopping overfishing is a means to an end, not an end itself, we must
ask how is the U.S. doing at producing food, jobs, recreational
opportunity and revenue?
We can calculate the lost food production by comparing the long
term yield under current fishing pressure with the long term yield
under the fishing pressure that would produce maximum sustainable
yield. We lose food production (and potential jobs, recreational
opportunity and revenue) in two ways, by fishing too hard or fishing
too little, and the Magnuson-Stevens Act makes specific reference to
both of these in its objectives. U.S. stocks for which we have
assessments have a potential sustainable yield of a little over 7
million tons per year. Under current fishing pressure the stocks that
are subject to overfishing (22 percent of stocks) would lose, on
average, 44 percent of their potential yield, but because these are
generally small stocks it only constitutes 1-3 percent of the potential
yield of U.S. fisheries combined. Thus overfishing has almost no impact
on the long term yield of U.S. fish stocks. In contrast, 77 percent of
stocks are ``underfished,'' that is, fished at rates less than would
produce maximum sustainable yield. These stocks on average lose 55
percent of their potential yield, and because these are the larger fish
stocks in the U.S. we are losing 30-48 percent of U.S. potential yield
by underfishing. Further, 95 percent of this lost yield comes from
stocks that are at or above the level that produces maximum sustainable
yield. So we are losing almost all of our yield from underfishing
abundant productive stocks.
We Lose 1-3 Percent of U.S. Potential Yield by Fishing too Hard, 30-48
Percent of Potential Yield by Fishing too Little
The major threat to sustainable jobs, food, recreational
opportunity and revenue from U.S. marine fisheries is no longer
overfishing, but underfishing. However, many groups, particularly some
e-NGOs, are still actively pushing for less fishing pressure by giving
a high priority to maintaining fish stocks at high abundance. Perhaps
it is time for Congress to explicitly state the extent to which we wish
to forego food, jobs, recreational opportunity and revenue in order to
have more fish in the ocean either because of their intrinsic value, or
as food for marine birds and mammals.
Why is fishing pressure so low? This is a question we are actively
investigating but there are a number of explanations. In some cases
this is due to lack of markets, but increasingly the low fishing
pressure results from the layers of precautionary regulation that have
been imposed to prevent overfishing.
We do know that if our national objective were to maximize the
profitability of fisheries, our management targets would be less
fishing pressure than that which produces maximum sustainable yield,
and if we could calculate lost profit under current U.S. fishing
pressure, the loss from economic overfishing would likely be higher,
and the loss from economic underfishing would be lower.
So perhaps Regional Fisheries Management Councils have explicitly
reduced fishing pressure to increase profitability. Some stocks are
underexploited because of lack of markets. Others are underexploited
because they are subject to rebuilding plans. Many stocks are caught up
in mixed stock fisheries, where healthy stocks (Georges Bank haddock)
cannot be fully exploited because they are caught in conjunction with
rebuilding stocks (Georges Bank cod). Finally, much of the under-
exploitation comes from the layers of precaution built into the system.
The fact that any stock which is fished at rates above FMSY is called
``subject to overfishing'' means that we are intrinsically aiming to
fall below FMSY. The consequence of that is we are losing a significant
fraction of our potential yield, jobs, recreational opportunity and
revenue.
Some would argue that the current low fishing pressure is necessary
to rebuild overfished stocks and once all stocks are rebuilt fishing
pressure can rise again. Under the current management system this will
never happen because some stocks are always going to be depleted due to
natural fluctuations and climate change, and, as we add annual catch
limits for more minor species in a mixed stock fishery, the problem
will only get worse.
In summary, U.S. fisheries policy is currently very conservative,
and if our objectives are jobs, food, recreational opportunity and
revenue then we should focus national legislation and management
guidelines on fully exploiting the underutilized species and place less
emphasis on assuring that nothing is overfished.
Layers of Independent Legislation
Federal fisheries are subject to a wide range of legislation
including the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act,
the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.
Each of these imposes independent requirements that result in a set of
uncoordinated regulations whose net outcome may result in a combination
of lower economic benefits to the nation, and poorer conservation
benefits than a coordinated management system. There is no doubt that
there are trade-offs between utilization and preservation, but the
current set of regulatory mandates is putting us in a position that is
far from the best set of trade-offs. I address some specific
recommendations in the section below on ecosystem based management.
The 10 Year Rebuilding Requirement
One of the most influential layers of regulation is the 10-year
rebuilding requirement. This has the result of often ratcheting catches
down as the 10 year time comes closer even though the stock size may be
increasing. So long as it is not rebuilding on a timetable that will
hit the 10-year mark, catches must be further reduced to try to make
the timeline. Thus we can find decreasing allowable catches even though
fish stock abundance is increasing.
The 10-year timeline was largely predicated on two assumptions, (1)
that the greatest threat to benefits from the nation's fisheries is
overfishing, and (2) that there are tipping points and stocks that are
overfished are in danger of not being able to recover if pushed too
low. Our research has shown both of these assumptions to be false. As I
showed earlier there is little loss of benefits to U.S. from
overfishing, and our research also shows no evidence for tipping
points. If fishing pressure is reduced stocks will recover, and the 10-
year timeline will definitely speed the recovery, but it is not
necessary for recovery to occur.
Annual Catch Limits for all Species
A looming crisis is coming with requirements to set annual catch
limits on all stocks. At present the management system does assessments
and provides management plans for the great majority of stocks that
contribute to the benefits to U.S. society, but there are many stocks
that are caught in U.S. fisheries to some degree that are not a
significant contribution to these benefits. We simply do not have the
money and resources to collect scientific data, perform stock
assessments, and manage all of these stocks. Current requirements to
greatly expand the number of stocks that are assessed is resulting in
highly conservative ``low information'' approaches that will combine
with other measures such as the 10-year rebuilding requirement to make
the management system even more precautionary than it is now and
further reduce benefits to the nation from fisheries. I suggest that we
focus federal management on the fish stocks that are important to the
nation's food, jobs and income and not subject the hundreds of small
stocks to the same process, relying on other legislation such as the
Endangered Species Act to protect them.
Integrating With Ecosystem Based Management
In my view, ecosystem based management has two major categories of
actions. First is rather straightforward elimination or major reduction
of by-catch, reducing fishing pressure to sustainable levels, and
protection of sensitive habitats. The councils have done a good job of
solving these problems. The second element is the underlying trade-off
between utilization and preservation. This trade-off exists and
different groups within society have different preferences on where
along the range of possible trade-offs we should be. A current topic
for such debate is in reduction of fisheries for forage fish.
Preservation oriented NGO's would like to see fishing for forage fish
significantly reduced or eliminated in order to provide more food for
other species.
Science can provide estimates of the trade-offs between utilization
and conservation, but it cannot provide policy guidance on what level
of trade-off we should accept. Policy makers such as Congress or the
Fishery Management Councils need to provide this guidance, and at
present Congress has provided it only with respect to some species
through the ESA and MMPA.
The Importance of Predictability for Recreational and Commercial
Fisheries
Recreational and commercial fishing are both economic activities
that provide jobs, income and profit to the nation, but also
satisfaction and enjoyment to individuals engaged in these activities.
As in most economic activities stability is desirable, sudden changes
in regulations disrupts commercial supply and demand, and is highly
disruptive for recreational fishing when seasons are abruptly closed
and fishing opportunities are highly variable from year to year. Given
natural variability and uncertainty in our management system, constancy
of commercial and recreational opportunity is not possible.
Any harvest strategy effectively assigns some of the intrinsic
variability to the harvest, and some of it to the stock abundance. As
it happens the typical harvest strategy used to achieve biomass based
reference points effectively assigns most of the variability to
harvest, and attempts to reduce variability in biomass. Other policies,
specifically using exploitation rate reference points, would shift more
of the variability from harvest to stock biomass. Such policies
typically provide for more social and economic benefit while not
threatening conservation and sustainability goals.
Conclusions
U.S. citizens should be proud of our record of fisheries
management, it is unrivaled for rebuilding of fish stocks, transparency
of management, and quality of the science that goes into it. NOAA
should be congratulated on the job it has done. However, there has been
a loss of focus on what we are trying to achieve, and sustainable jobs,
recreational opportunity, and income seem to have been lost in the
focus on overfishing as the threat to fisheries benefits. The
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens act is a time where the
management system can be fine-tuned to maintain our current healthy
fish stocks, but dramatically increase the benefits the citizens of the
U.S. receive from those stocks.
______
Mr. DeFazio. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent,
the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Tierney, be allowed to
sit on the dais and participate in the hearing.
The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered, and I will
recognize Mr. Tierney in a moment, but first, we will go to Mr.
Rod Moore, who is the Executive Director of the West Coast
Seafood Processors Association.
Mr. Moore, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF ROD MOORE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
WEST COAST SEAFOOD PROCESSORS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
Committee. I am not sure I can be as fast and glib as Ray, but
I will try.
Just to get into the meat of this. From the Pacific Council
area, we are dealing with four fishery management plans. We
have over 100 species of fish in our groundfish plan alone. We
deal with four State agencies, tribal fishery managers,
National Marine Fishery Service, the National Ocean Sanctuary
Program, five international or bilateral management measures,
offshore hydropower or hydropower and rivers, offshore energy,
the Endangered Species Act, the Administrative Procedures Act,
the National Environmental Policy Act, and whole bunches of
marine mammals eating some of those endangered species.
We need flexibility in order to be able to balance all of
these things out, sustain our fish stocks and provide a living
to people in our West Coast communities and provide food for
the community.
The biggest issue in terms of rebuilding that affects us is
something that Mr. DeFazio alluded to earlier, and I appreciate
him giving my testimony for me. The way the Act is worded in
conjunction with a Ninth Circuit court case, which we were part
of sort of in defense of NMFS, the court essentially says you
have to rebuild in as short a time as possible no matter what,
and that has led to absurdities where, for example, looking at
our rebuilding plan for canary rockfish, we could have rebuilt
those rockfish or had a harvest level allowing for rebuilding
that would rebuild them in January of a particular year or
allow a slightly larger harvest level and allow them to rebuild
in December of that same year. Under the court case, we had to
rebuild them in January. Same is true of darkblotched rockfish
that particular year.
You know, leaving aside whether our science is even capable
of telling us whether we can rebuild in January versus
December, the practical effect of it was significant
restriction on sport, commercial, tribal fisheries, not because
we are targeting canary rockfish--in fact, we try to take steps
to avoid our overfished species--but rather those species act
as a choke on the system.
Just to give you an example, last year, looking at the
groundfish trawl landings, of the amount of groundfish that was
available to the trawl fleet, we were able to harvest only 29
percent. That is a pretty dismal number, and that means a
significant loss again to our communities, to our fishermen.
You start translating that onto the sport side, you had some
significant losses there as well.
So, there is a real need for some flexibility in the Act.
The same is true with the annual catch limits. We support catch
limits. Our council has had catch limits in effect long before
they were required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The problem is
now, we have to do catch limits every year. We have a 2-year
management plan for rockfish, or for groundfish. It doesn't
matter that we have a 2-year plan. We have to set annual catch
limits.
So, even if we were able to juggle some of the numbers
during the year to take in account market conditions, weather
conditions, environmental factors, so forth and so on, we have
to stay with what is going on each and every year. So, in
conclusion, my time is running out. I hope the Committee will
take a look at the rest of the issues that are listed in our
testimony. We appreciate you looking at all of these issues and
moving forward, and we stand ready to help and assist you in
your reauthorization of the Act.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Moore.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Moore follows:]
Statement of Rod Moore, Executive Director,
West Coast Seafood Processors Association
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, my name is Rod Moore and I
serve as the Executive Director of the West Coast Seafood Processors
Association (WCSPA). Our Association represents shore-based seafood
processing companies and associated businesses that are primarily
located in Oregon, Washington, and California. Collectively, our
members handle the majority of Pacific groundfish landed on the west
coast, along with significant amounts of Pacific sardines, albacore
tuna, and Pacific salmon--all species managed under the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA). In addition,
our members process the majority of the Pacific shrimp and much of the
Dungeness crab landed in west coast states, species that are managed
under state authority. Our members range from literal mom and pop
operations to some of the largest seafood companies in the United
States and employ thousands of workers in harvesting, processing,
transporting, and distributing seafood across the country and
throughout the world.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council has four fishery management
plans in place that generally regulate the fisheries that occur in
federal waters: Coastal Pelagic Species (primarily sardines, anchovies,
squid, and mackerel); Pacific Salmon; Highly Migratory Species
(albacore and other tunas, most pelagic sharks); and Pacific Groundfish
(including Pacific whiting or hake). However as we all know, neither
fish nor those who attempt to catch them all live in discrete
jurisdictional areas. Thus for many fishery management actions, there
is significant involvement with state fish and wildlife agencies,
tribal fishery managers (several coastal tribes have judicially
recognized tribal fishing rights that extend into portions of the
exclusive economic zone), international fishery management
organizations, and bilateral entities. We have five extensive National
Marine Sanctuaries off our coast, which requires interaction with
NOAA's National Ocean Service. While there is very little ocean hydro-
carbon extraction other than in some California state waters, we have a
developing marine hydrokinetic energy (wind, wave, and current)
industry that potentially can compete with fish harvesters for space in
the ocean. Our anadromous species are affected by competing claims to
water rights and the need to balance fishing, farming, power, flood
control, and navigation issues on our major rivers. We have several
different ESA-listed species--marine, anadromous, and amphibious--to
avoid. And we have several hundred thousand marine mammals to contend
with, including those that are happily devouring some of the afore-
mentioned ESA-listed species.
Add to this mix the requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act, the Administrative Procedures Act, and several federal
court rulings and you can see why fisheries management on the west
coast is challenging, to say the least.
That is also why it is essential that the MSFCMA provide our
fisheries managers with the maximum amount of flexibility consistent
with sound science and reasonably prudent conservation.
Flexibility in Rebuilding
First and foremost on the need for flexibility in the Pacific
Council area is a revision of section 304(e)(4) of the MSFCMA. Since
enactment of this section in 1997, ten species have been designated as
overfished under the Pacific Groundfish Fishery Management Plan. Three
of those species fell within the 10-year rebuilding requirement and the
rest have been exceptions due to the biology of the species. Two of the
short-lived and one of the long-lived species have been fully rebuilt;
the rest continue to act as ``choke'' species that hamper the harvest
of abundant fish stocks.
Aside from the arbitrary time frame allowed for rebuilding under
normal circumstances--10 years is not any magic number given the vast
differences in habitat, life history, and environmental conditions for
fish stocks around the nation--our biggest problem results from a 9th
Circuit Court opinion on how the language in this section is to be
applied. Ruling on a case contesting the harvest levels set for the
2002 groundfish fishery, the court said the following:
``Section 1854 contains two significant mandates that constrain
the Agency's options in adopting a rebuilding plan for an
overfished species. First, the time period must be ``as short
as possible,'' although the Agency may take into account the
status and biology of the overfished species and the needs of
fishing communities.''
The practical effect of this ruling is that in setting catch levels
for overfished species we must start with an assumption of zero fishing
and incrementally add harvest amounts until we reach the point that is
one step above economic devastation for fishing communities. This has
led to absurdities where the Council has been forced to choose lower
harvest limits even though analysis provided by its Scientific and
Statistical Committee shows that a higher limit would allow rebuilding
in the same year, albeit a few months later than the lower limit. In
two cases involving harvest levels for 2013--canary rockfish and
darkblotched rockfish--this was a difference of 30 metric tons, a
considerable disparity for species that are managed along the entire
coast and must be shared by commercial, sport, and tribal fishermen. To
put this in context, 30 metric tons of Canary Rockfish is 75% of the
entire groundfish trawl allocation for that species for 2013. While the
direct landed value of those fish is not significant, the indirect
value is enormous: having more incidental species available would
provide additional opportunity for commercial, sport and tribal
harvesters to access abundant stocks of fish that currently go
unharvested due to the choke species effect.
One way to resolve this issue would be to modify the existing
language in section 304(e)(4)(i) to require rebuilding in a time period
that is ``as short as practicable.'' The intent of this change is not
to allow fisheries managers unfettered permission to set harvest levels
wherever they choose; rather, it lets them exercise some reasonable
judgment so they could--for example--allow a fish stock to be rebuilt
in December rather than January, which were the choices available for
canary rockfish harvest this year.
A second problem exists with NMFS' interpretation of the MSFCMA.
Under the National Standard 1 guidelines, a stock is considered
overfished if it is below its minimum stock size threshold (MSST). Once
designated as overfished, a rebuilding plan must be put in place and
that rebuilding plan must remain in effect until the stock reaches a
level equivalent to maximum sustainable yield (MSY). Essentially, you
assume a direct correlation between the level of harvest and stock
size. While this sounds great in theory, in fact there are a whole lot
of things that influence stock growth, including our inability to
accurately measure stock size.
The National Standard 1 guidelines also suggest that a Council put
in place a system to establish and if necessary reduce harvest levels
when a stock is someplace between MSST and MSY. This is generally known
as a control rule and it is designed to correct for stock size
reductions when a stock declines for whatever reason. However, while we
are told to use the control rule if a stock is on the way down, we are
not allowed to use that same control rule once a stock dips below MSST
and is designated as overfished, even if it rebuilds to a point between
MSST and MSY where normally it would fall under that control rule.
Ironically, NMFS essentially ignores this disconnect when they are
reporting to Congress on status of stocks. For a Council and its
constituent fishermen, a stock is overfished once it dips below MSST
and stays overfished (and subject to a rebuilding plan) until it hits
MSY. For NMFS, once a stock gets above MSST, it is no longer
overfished, it is ``rebuilding.'' While this sounds great in the media
bites, it doesn't help the fisherman or processor who is trying to make
a living.
Again, if we had the flexibility to switch from a rebuilding plan
to an established, scientifically recommended and legally approved
control rule, we could provide some relief.
A third problem resides with the arbitrary 10 year maximum
rebuilding time for species that don't meet certain exceptions. In the
Pacific Council region, this has not been an overwhelming problem yet
as most of our overfished species are long lived and do meet the
exceptions. However, we cannot in good conscience support continued
reliance on a number that was picked to apply nationally because some
scientists theorized that was how long it would take George's Bank cod
stocks to rebuild. And as you may have noticed, their theories were
wrong.
Let me conclude my remarks on this aspect of the MSFCMA by
emphasizing that we are not advocating an end to efforts to rebuild
stocks nor do we suggest that catch limits on overfished--or even
healthy--stocks be set as high as anyone wants. All we are suggesting
is that there be some practical application of the rules and that our
fisheries managers have the flexibility they need to deal with unique
circumstances.
Flexibility in Annual Catch Limits
We think catch limits are an excellent idea; in fact we have used
them long before they were required under the MSFCMA. While we may
argue about what the level of allowable catch might be at any given
time, the concept is a good one, keeping in mind that there are some
very short lived species where setting a limit makes little sense if
you have other rules in place to adequately protect stock productivity.
Where we believe flexibility would help is in the concept of
``annual'' catch limits. As required by law, a catch limit must be set
for each fishing year (however that period is defined in a fishery
management plan). If you have a biennial plan, you still must establish
a catch limit for each of the two years, no exceptions. We believe some
latitude should be provided so you could have a multiple year period in
which an overall limit would be set but annual harvest could fluctuate
based on fishing conditions, market conditions, weather, water
temperature, and any of the multitudes of other variables that affect
harvest. Obviously, such a multi-year program would require rigorous
scientific analysis, sufficient survey or other data gathering
capabilities, and robust stock assessments. However, if the proper
scientific constraints are in place, we see no reason to specify that
harvest levels must be set each and every year.
Overfished vs. Overfishing
Under section 3(34), these two terms are given the same definition.
In reality, they are not the same thing and the responses to each of
them should be different. Further, the inappropriate use of these terms
unfairly maligns the commercial, sport, and tribal fishing sectors,
especially when reported in the media.
``Overfishing'' refers to how hard you are fishing. If you are
overfishing, you are catching fish faster than stocks can replenish
themselves. ``Overfished'' refers to how many fish you have in a stock
relative to a number that can sustain that stock and may bear no
relationship to the level or rate of harvest. For example, a stock
might be subject to minimal or even zero fishing yet still become
overfished due to predation, disease, changes in water temperature, or
lowered ocean productivity. Yet when the public is told that a stock is
overfished, it's the fisherman who gets the blame.
We recommend the MSFCMA be amended to provide separate and
appropriate definitions for these two terms. Further, we suggest a more
accurate term such as ``depleted'' be adopted to replace ``overfished''
as was recently recommended in a paper presented by Dr. Andre Punt of
the University of Washington at the ``Managing Our Nation's Fisheries''
conference.
Relationship Between the MSFCMA and Other Laws
One of the biggest procedural headaches we face in the Pacific
Council area is the dual and mainly redundant requirement to comply
with the process requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) while simultaneously ensuring that the proper scientific
analysis and public transparency required by the MSFCMA are followed.
How bad is the problem? While this hearing is being convened, the
Pacific Council is starting its September meeting. At that meeting, the
Council will begin the formal decision-making process for harvest
levels and associated management measures for Pacific groundfish that
will go into effect in 2015 and 2016. They will be using the most up-
to-date stock assessments available, which means at best looking at
data collected through 2012. In other words, by the end of 2016 we will
be managing our fisheries--in the best case scenario--based on 4-year-
old data. For those species where a current stock assessment is not
available, the basic data will be even older.
Obviously, if we had all the money and people we needed, our data
collection and analysis would be up-to-the minute on every one of the
100+ species currently covered by the Pacific groundfish fishery
management plan. Nevertheless, it shouldn't take 15 months to put in
place regulations for a fishery, no matter how good or bad our data may
be. Unfortunately, the reason it takes so long is that we are required
to meet the processes and timelines of both the MSFCMA and NEPA.
To offer another example of how bureaucratically silly this gets,
several years ago the Council--with the full support of both the
fishing community and environmental groups--wanted to establish a depth
based management line that would expand a closed area in order to
protect a sensitive stock of fish. The line would have gone into effect
in the middle of a fishing year. The MSFCMA said we could do that, and
in fact it encourages such conservation measures. Our fishery
management plan said we could do it. But the lawyers said we couldn't.
Why? Because we had not appropriately analyzed the possibility of
establishing that precise depth line in the environmental impact
statement that accompanied the regulations that went into effect at the
beginning of the fishing year. We could establish a deeper line
offering less protection. We could establish a shallower line to
protect far more water than needed and result in adverse impacts to
commercial and recreational fishing. But we couldn't establish the line
that would work and would make sense.
While we have now fixed that particular problem--the committee
would no doubt be amazed at the number of depth lines that have been
excruciatingly analyzed under NEPA--the underlying problem remains and
needs to be fixed.
The MSFCMA provides for rigorous scientific analysis and
documentation of decisions. Councils--both at their own meetings and
through their required advisory committees--provide significant
opportunities for public comment. Council material is readily available
to the public and Council meetings are recorded and often live web-
cast. Post-Council regulatory actions by NMFS are guided by the
Administrative Procedures Act and provide for even more public
participation. The Councils, their advisors, the public, and NMFS have
a full set of economic and environmental data available before
decisions are made, with trade-offs fully recognized. These are the
same things that are required by NEPA.
In 2006, when Congress last amended the MSFCMA, an environmental
review process provision was added under section 304 to conform
timelines and procedures under NEPA and the MSFCMA. Seven years later,
no effective process has been put in place. It's past time to fix the
problem so we can go about conserving and managing fish stocks, not
worrying about paperwork.
A second problem we have in the Pacific Council area regarding the
relationship to other laws is the lack of clarity and disputed
jurisdiction between the MSFCMA fishery management system and the
National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA).
As mentioned above, we have five National Marine Sanctuaries off
the west coast. At issue is who controls fishing within those
sanctuaries and under what process. As currently interpreted by NOAA--
which is the overarching agency for both NMFS and the National Marine
Sanctuary program--a Sanctuary that wishes to do something involving
fishing will first invite the Council to develop regulations. If the
Council doesn't do so, can't do so quickly enough because of the
lengthy Council decision-making process established to ensure public
participation and exacerbated by NEPA requirements, or simply does
something the Sanctuary doesn't like, then the Sanctuary can go ahead
and do what it wants as long as it is consistent with the NMSA and the
Sanctuary's own designation documents.
To date--other than in one egregious case involving the Channel
Islands National Marine Sanctuary where some brilliant legal mind
decided the Council had jurisdiction over the ocean floor and possibly
the surface of the ocean, but not the water column itself--we have
maintained a somewhat uneasy truce with the Sanctuary program. However,
many in the commercial, sport, and tribal fishing sectors would like to
see the law amended to make clear that when it comes to regulations
affecting fishing--including the establishment of closed areas--the
MSFCMA process will be the one used. We hope the committee will
strongly consider this as they move forward with a reauthorization
bill.
Sustainability
Many of us in the seafood industry are becoming increasingly
concerned that the only seafood products considered ``sustainable'' by
federal agencies are those certified as such by private companies and
non-governmental organizations who maintain their own criteria and
often their own political agendas. A recent example is the decision by
the National Park Service to require its vendors to only provide and
serve seafood which carries a certification label from the Marine
Stewardship Council or is approved by the Monterey Bay Aquarium's
Seafood Watch program. It is ironic that visitors to Crater Lakes
National Park in Oregon will be unable to eat trawl-caught Oregon
rockfish because those fish meet neither criterion even though they are
subject to rigorous management under the MSFCMA.
We suggest that the MSFCMA be amended to define sustainable seafood
as any fish--or product produced therefrom--that has been legally
harvested by a vessel of the United States under a fishery management
plan approved under the MSFMCA, under an equivalent state law or
regulation, or under an international agreement to which the United
States is a party and which establishes conservation and management
measures equivalent to those required by the MSFCMA. Further, the
Secretary of Commerce should be given the authority to design and make
available a label which may be used without charge to identify
sustainable seafood.
Dungeness Crab Fishery
Finally, I need to make mention of a provision of the MSFCMA that
affects only the three Pacific coast states and which needs renewal.
Section 306 note provides specific limited authority for the states of
Washington, Oregon, and California to manage the Dungeness crab fishery
in both their respective state waters and adjoining federal waters.
This section was enacted in its original form in 1996 and slightly
amended and renewed in 2006. It is currently set to expire in 2016.
Our Pacific coast Dungeness crab fishery is a major success story,
in no small part due to the cooperative management that is enabled by
the provisions of this section. While there are--and always will be--
occasional minor disputes among fishermen and even state agencies, the
resource overall is in good shape, the industry overall is economically
healthy, we have excellent opportunities for sport harvest, and we have
provisions for meeting treaty obligations to the four Washington State
coastal tribes who have legally acknowledged fishing rights.
At the last meeting of the Tri-State Dungeness Crab Committee
earlier this year--the umbrella committee set up through the Pacific
States Marine Fisheries Commission to coordinate crab research and
management--there was unanimous support among crab fishermen, crab
processors, and state fish and wildlife agencies for renewal of this
section of the law. I expect similar support will be expressed when the
full Marine Fisheries Commission meets later this month. We join all of
those groups in asking that you extend this section indefinitely or at
a minimum for another 10 years.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. We look forward to
working with you, committee members, and committee staff in developing
a thoughtful set of amendments to the MSFCMA that will provide our
fisheries managers with the flexibility that they need to provide both
fisheries harvest and appropriate science-based conservation of our
fish stocks. I would be happy to answer any questions.
______
The Chairman. And for purposes of introduction, I recognize
the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Tierney.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you very much, Chairman Hastings, and
Ranking Member DeFazio, for giving me the courtesy and this
opportunity to participate in this important hearing and to
introduce Vito Giacalone. He is a good friend and a Policy
Director of the Northeast Seafood Coalition, which is located
in Gloucester, Massachusetts, part of our district. And Vito
was a third generation Gloucester fisherman and a founding
board member of the Northeast Seafood Coalition. He is an
active member of the community, and he also serves as the
Executive Director of the Gloucester Fishing Community
Preservation Fund.
Alongside fishermen and their families in Gloucester, he
has witnessed firsthand the devastating effect that regulatory
decisions have had on the community and the industry in the
last few years.
As Vito will discuss, I am sure, in further detail, the
Northeast multispecies groundfish fishery has suffered
tremendously in the last several years, in no small part due to
the inflexibility that has been built into the system designed
to regulate an incredibly complex fishery. Fishermen in
Gloucester and throughout New England are struggling to make
ends meet following tremendous cuts in the groundfish stocks
for this fishing year. Today's situation was foreseen by many,
including the Secretary of Commerce, who declared the region's
commercial fishery a disaster nearly 1 year ago.
Vito has worked tirelessly with Federal and State lawmakers
to ensure the voices of fishermen are heard. He has been
testifying before other Congressional Committees as well and he
has been raising awareness through very effective advocacy.
Through his work on the Northeast Seafood Coalition, he has
played a critical role in developing solutions to pretty
complex fishery problems. I have been working with my
colleagues and with Vito and with other members of the
community to ensure that fishermen and their family get the
support that they need.
However, the current situation didn't have to transpire,
and I believe that it can be avoided in the future. As Vito can
attest, fishermen, above all others, have a vested interest in
ensuring that the stocks remain at healthy levels. It is my
hope that this hearing will make clear that the current rigid
and often arbitrary regulations must be reconsidered and that
the social and economic impact of fisheries management will be
given equal attention to conservation measures.
I want to thank Vito for all the work that he has done in
the fishing industry and for the fishermen in New England and
for joining us here today, and I look forward to his testimony
and that of the other members of the panel.
Again, thank you for your courtesy.
The Chairman. Very good. You forgot to mention he is from
an Irish family.
Mr. Tierney. I was going to leave that to him.
The Chairman. Mr. Giacalone, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF VITO GIACALONE, POLICY DIRECTOR, NORTHEAST SEAFOOD
COALITION
Mr. Giacalone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, distinguished
members of the Committee. Thank you for this opportunity to
share my thoughts on the reauthorization of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act. As an active fisherman and a policy director for
the Northeast Seafood Coalition, I have been deeply involved in
the process to implement key provisions to the Act as they
relate to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery. The bottom line,
Mr. Chairman, is that the current statute is not working for
the Northeast Multispecies Fishery. The agency's narrow
interpretation of the statute has made this worse, but
fundamentally, the basic management strategy set forth in the
statute places demands on science that far exceed its capacity
in the case of Northeast groundfish.
Mr. Chairman, we greatly appreciate the recommendations
presented by Mr. Sullivan on behalf of the National Research
Council Committee. In many ways, it feels like our fishery is
the poster child for their findings and recommendations.
Georges Bank and Gulf of Maine ecosystems are highly
dynamic and perhaps less stable an environment than was
contemplated in the statute or reflected in the agency's
interpretations and implementation. As noted repeatedly in the
NRC report and stated throughout my written testimony, stock
recruitment, individual growth, and natural mortality are
biological parameters over which man has no control that are
highly susceptible to environmental and ecological conditions.
As the NRC noted in their report, quote, ``While the
Committee attributes some of the variable of mixed performance
of rebuilding plants to scientific uncertainty, this should not
be interpreted as a criticism of the science. It often reflects
a mismatch between policymakers' expectations for scientific
precision and the inherent limits of science because of data
limitations and the complex dynamics of ecosystems,'' unquote.
A timeframe-based rebuilding strategy depends on relative
stability and thus predictability of population parameters that
cannot be controlled. In our fishery, none of that stability or
predictability exists; therefore, it should not be expected
that each assessment is reflective of the actual level of
change occurring in nature, yet we have nothing in place
currently that allows managers the flexibility to buffer
management responses in either direction to account for the
known volatility and assessment results.
We also have nothing in place that adequately buffers the
severe social and economic cost of being wrong. The most
profound cost of accepting assessment results that are known to
be volatile and rife with uncertainties is the instability
suffered by small businesses in the fishery.
If we are to succeed in managing these stocks to achieve a
sustainable resource and a sustainable fishery, then we will
need fundamental revisions of the Act as part of a longer-term
strategy. In our view, section 304(e)(4), rebuilding policy,
should be expanded to provide the councils with such authority
to implement alternative rebuilding strategies, such as an F-
based strategy. Although it may not be necessary or desirable
to use an F-based strategy to rebuild and prevent overfishing a
stock in all cases, it certainly may be the only realistic
alternative for some stocks and fisheries. Let's add that tool
to the toolbox.
One such F-based strategy is to set ACLs at or below the
fishing mortality that which will achieve MSY, known as FMSY.
This strategy will, by definition, prevent overfishing and
will, over time, on average, achieve BMSY, which is a fully
rebuilt stock. Prudent management would be to allow managers
the opportunity to smooth volatility inherent in individual
stock assessments by providing them with the statutory tools
that can buffer management responses in both directions.
In my opinion, and from my experience, this would protect
fish stocks from abrupt increases in ACLs that may later be
found to be incorrect, while providing fishing businesses with
the stability of more sensible and controlled downward
management response mechanism. In doing so, we will provide
some insurance against the cost of being wrong.
The critical point is the need for stability and so there
is good cause to provide the council with the flexibility to
implement alternative management strategies that are not
entirely founded on traditional stock assessments. Instead,
authority should be provided in the statute and/or the National
Standard 1 guidelines to assess the performance of stock's
biomass over history in response to various catch levels to
identify a so-called sweet spot where catch levels can be
maintained at relatively stable levels over time. In such case,
conservation gains would be achieved by forfeiting spikes in
ACLs and thus provide a conservation offset for avoiding
reductions in catch limits.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, you specifically asked in your
letter and invitation that I provide examples of instances
where the interpretation of the Act may have created undue
hardship and whether changes to the Act should be considered to
address these concerns. I provided one such example in my
written testimony and would be happy to answer any questions
you or members of the Committee may have regarding our efforts
to use interim measures on the authority for Gulf of Maine cod.
Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of this Committee, I
would be remiss not to remind you of the immediate reality. All
of the long-term policy improvements in the world are not going
to matter much if there aren't many people left standing when
they are implemented. We are in the midst of a crisis that
needs immediate attention. Nothing short of an appropriation
for disaster relief will rebuild the bridge sufficient to
sustain the New England fishing industry. Thank you for this
opportunity to address you directly. I am happy to answer any
questions.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Giacalone, for your
testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Giacalone follows:]
Statement of Vito Giacalone, Gloucester Fisherman,
and Policy Director, Northeast Seafood Coalition
Introduction:
Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for
the opportunity to testify at this important hearing. I am Vito
Giacalone. I am a third generation fishermen from Gloucester
Massachusetts and I serve as the Policy Director for the Northeast
Seafood Coalition (NSC).
Approximately 361 small fishing businesses and shoreside
enterprises are members of the NSC. Our fishermen belong to 12 NSC-
sponsored sectors which account for approximately 67 percent of the
groundfish allocations. NSC has been a leading voice in groundfish
management policy since its founding in 2002.
Problem:
The current statute does not work for the Northeast (NE) multi-
species (groundfish) fishery.
The agency's narrow interpretation of the statute has made this
worse; but fundamentally, the basic management strategy set forth in
the statute places demands on science that far exceed its capacity in
the case of NE groundfish. I believe this is due in part to the
inherent and perhaps increasing instability in the physical and
biological elements of the ecosystems in which our fisheries operate.
As noted repeatedly in the recently released National Research
Council's (NRC) Committee on Evaluating the Effectiveness of Stock
Rebuilding Plans of the 2006 Fishery Conservation and Management
Reauthorization Act:
``While the Committee attributes some of the variable or mixed
performance of rebuilding plans to scientific uncertainty, this
should not be interpreted as a criticism of the science. It
often reflects a mismatch between policy makers' expectations
for scientific precision and the inherent limits of science
because of data limitations and the complex dynamics of
ecosystems.''
Rapidly changing water temperatures and other aspects of the
physical oceanography in our region are now driving a highly dynamic
biological environment. Everything from primary plankton productivity
to species distributions and interactions are affected at all trophic
levels. We are seeing dramatic changes. But, we've seen them before and
we've seen our stocks follow cycles that clearly have nothing to do
with fishing mortality. It's a very dynamic place.
With respect to the Gulf of Maine (GOM) and Georges Bank (GB)
ecosystems I am familiar with, it appears that recruitment, individual
growth and the natural mortality rate play a far greater role in
determining the future status of a groundfish stock than our regulation
of the fishing mortality rate. These three biological parameters (over
which man has no control) are highly susceptible to environmental and
ecological conditions. And so it follows, the less stable environmental
and ecological conditions are, the less stable recruitment, growth and
natural mortality will be.
These known and highly variable conditions also affect system
carrying capacity, facilitate regime shifts associated with inter-stock
complex competitions within that variable carrying capacity, and in the
case of our multi-species complex, intra-complex competitions. Yet,
none of these realities are reflected adequately in the current single
stock management strategy currently required by the Act.
The NRC report notes:
``In nature, growth, maturity, and natural mortality are
influenced by interactions with other species that may be
competitors, predators, or prey.''
The GB and GOM marine ecosystems are highly dynamic and perhaps
less stable an environment than was contemplated in statute or
reflected in the agency's interpretations and implementation.
And, with this instability comes unpredictability. In our case,
we're talking profound unpredictability. Some managers and scientists
like to dismiss this as mere `uncertainty'. In truth, it's hard cold
unpredictability.
But, the current statute is founded on predictability. It depends
on the ability of science to predict future levels of recruitment,
growth and natural mortality, and, worse, to predict exactly when those
levels will occur.
And, then, it requires managers and industry to commit to plans to
control fishing mortality spanning specific timeframes that are
entirely disconnected from the natural conditions that actually drive
these dominant population parameters.
For the NE groundfish complex I am now convinced it cannot be done.
Given the dynamics and complexity of the GOM and GB ecosystems and
environment, I'm not sure why we ever thought that this management
strategy might work--that we could ever predict with sufficient
precision how NE groundfish populations would behave in discrete
timeframes when we can predict and control so little of what matters.
So, why does the current statute appear to work relatively well in
some other fisheries and not ours?
It is surely not because we have failed to develop and abide by a
responsible management regime. Our fishery operates under what is
considered by some as the most progressive style of fishery management
including hard total allowable catches (TACs) and a catch share system
implemented in 2010.
In the past decade we have not once exceeded our annual TACs but
instead have substantially under-harvested the annual catch limits for
most stocks.
Yet with each stock assessment the scientists report back to us
retrospectively that their predictions of biomass and fishing mortality
rates were indeed incorrect. Often, substantially so--suddenly
discovering overfishing long after the fact.
Perhaps other fisheries operate in a physical and biological
environment that is relatively more stable--or they target species that
are less susceptible to environmental and ecological dynamics. If so,
it would make the population dynamics of those fish stocks more
predictable over time.
All I can say for sure is that for our fishery, it simply hasn't
worked. And that is a problem.
Solutions:
About one year ago the Commerce Department declared a ``commercial
fishery failure'' for our fishery--the Northeast Multispecies Fishery
pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) and the Interjurisdictional
Fisheries Act.
This was 2 years after a declaration was first requested by
Massachusetts Governor Patrick (November 2010). More recently, all of
the NE Governors made this request.
The disaster declaration finally came during the 2012 fishing year
for which catch limits had already been drastically reduced for stocks
that are the core of the economic engine that runs this fishery and our
communities.
That preceded the additional and even greater reductions in this
fishing year 2013 which included a 61 percent reduction in GB cod and a
78 percent reduction in GOM cod catch limits, for example.
It's been a veritable ``perfect storm'' of circumstances the effect
of which on our fishermen--their businesses, families and communities--
has been nothing less than catastrophic.
Many fishermen are not only facing the loss of their profession and
the source of their income, they are also facing the loss of their
homes which have been mortgaged to support their businesses.
This scientific unpredictability and dramatic swings in perceived
stock abundance have completely confounded fishery management and every
aspect of our fishing industry and community. We are perilously close
to losing the oldest fishery in America which was at the core of our
colonial economy four centuries ago and is still at the core of our
communities today.
There are--or were--both short and long term solutions.
1. Short Term Mitigation
What we needed when these declines began to escalate was a
relatively short term bridge to mitigate their impacts and keep the
fishery afloat until longer term strategies could be put into place
and/or the biological situation changed.
And so, in advance of the FY 2012 season and during the time the
Commerce Department was considering the fishery disaster declaration,
NSC was already working on developing management strategies based on
what we felt were inherent flexibilities built into the statute by
Congress to enable fishery managers to mitigate the impacts of this
very kind of situation.
Among the most important of these was the application of Magnuson-
Stevens Act (MSA) section 304(e)(6) authority to implement interim
measures on a temporary basis to reduce overfishing rather than end it
immediately.
The intent was to soften the landing from such drastic swings in
estimated abundance from one stock assessment to another. In fact, the
2008 stock assessment for GOM cod indicated that the stock was well
above the MSST and would likely be fully rebuilt well before the final
year of the rebuilding plan. Three years later, the 2011 assessment
indicated the stock was nowhere near the levels previously estimated
and that in fact, the new perception of stock status was determined to
be far below MSST and biologically incapable of rebuilding by the
rebuilding plan deadline of 2014.
Which assessment was correct? Perhaps neither, but the reality is
that under the current interpretation and implementation of the
Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act (MSRA) the most recent assessment
is considered ``best available'' and the management response has been
catastrophic for the industry and dependent communities.
The GOM cod stock is a prime example of why the current MSA and
management implementation is untenable to sustaining fish and fishing
communities simultaneously. This cod stock has been managed and
monitored closely for nearly two decades. The fishery has managed
within the recommended TACs since the inception of the rebuilding
program which was revised in 2004. In 2010 the fishery converted to a
full possession, catch share program that was monitored both at sea (up
to 38 percent) and dockside (50 percent) and fishing mortality rates
set far below Frebuild on GOM cod because the control rule of 75
percent of Fmsy was nearly 30 percent lower than Frebuild due to the
optimistic 2008 assessment. The policy in place under the National
Standard 1 Guidelines directs managers to use Frebuild or 75 percent of
Fmsy, whichever is lower.
Imagine the disruption that has occurred in the Northeast region
when seemingly out of the blue, after nearly a decade of strictly
adhering to catch limits and being told that the stock was about to be
fully rebuilt in only the 8 year of a 10 year rebuilding period, the
fishery is presented with the 2011 assessment results that has
prescribed 90 percent reductions over just the last 2 fishing years.
Just as no fish stock should be subjected to a 90 percent increase
in fishing pressure simply because our most recent scientific
``perception'' of a stock seems to warrant such increased pressure, no
fishing business or dependent fishery infrastructure should be
subjected to abrupt and steep reductions in catch levels to the
magnitude presented to our fishery over the years.
This volatility is inherent in the assessment methodologies given
the limitations of scientific resources and knowledge we have today.
The volatility present in the scientific recommendations is
typically not reflective of the actual level of change occurring in
nature, yet we have nothing in place currently that allows managers the
flexibility to buffer management responses, in either direction, to
account for the known volatility in assessment results. We also have
nothing in place that adequately buffers the severe social and economic
costs of being wrong. The most profound costs of accepting assessment
results that are known to be volatile and rife with uncertainties is
the instability suffered by small businesses in our fishery.
In the case of GOM cod, the sudden drop off of catch advice and
stark differences in the two assessments placed the vast majority of
fishery participants in serious financial peril. We needed a bridge--
some stability.
I should note Mr. Chairman that perhaps our primary goal above
all--and maybe for us it is only a dream--is stability. For our fishing
businesses to succeed, we need a stable fishery management regime. An
interim measure would help provide this stability.
NSC developed and presented to the New England Fishery Management
Council (Council) and NMFS leadership an analysis that indicated this
interim measures authority could be applied to GOM cod in Fishing Year
2012--the most important stock in the Gulf of Maine.
Although unprecedented in U.S. fisheries management, both the
Council and NMFS accepted and approved this approach which enabled a
catch that reduced overfishing but which could help avoid a collapse of
the Gulf of Maine fishery.
This action provided the crucial beginnings of a bridge and
stability for 1 year. It was a major achievement of collaboration and
cooperation among the agency leadership, the Council and the industry.
Being that it was an NSC initiative, we were very pleased.
After that things went downhill.
Although the statute, specifically MSA section 304(e)(3), clearly
contemplates a 2-year process for the Councils to prepare and implement
rebuilding plans--and although a coherent, logical interpretation of
MSA sections 304(e)(6) and 305(c)(3) is to provide authority for the
Councils to request (and for the agency to approve) a separate,
sequential interim measure for the second year of that 2 year process--
the agency refused to approve the Council's request for this authority.
It made no sense. Essentially, the agency said that it was OK to
build a bridge half way across the harbor but then we had to jump to
our deaths instead of finishing the bridge. This for a fishery they had
just declared as a disaster.
To add insult to injury, the agency refused to provide us with
their legal rationale--their interpretation of the statute--by
asserting attorney client privilege as a means to avoid a serious
explanation or accountability for their decision.
Given the magnitude of the consequences, we still find both their
rejection of the Council's request and the refusal to share their legal
justification simply incredible.
Mr. Chairman, you specifically asked in your letter of invitation
that I provide examples of ``instances where the interpretation of the
Act may have created undue hardship and whether changes to the Act
should be considered to address these concerns''.
This is precisely one such an example. And, while it is probably
too late now for the affected fishermen, it may be worth clarifying in
legislation that a second, sequential interim measure can be
implemented under MSA 305(c)(3) for the purpose of implementing the MSA
section 304(e)(6) authority should this be needed in the future.
In addition, and perhaps more far reaching would be for Congress to
expressly prohibit the agency from hiding behind attorney client
privilege when disapproving a Council request for interim measures--or
any other Council action for that matter. It had been our understanding
that Congress had already made clear its intent for the agency to fully
explain the legal basis for disapproving a Council action under the MSA
(see section 304(a)(3)). Maybe this needs further clarification.
Mr. Chairman, the GOM cod situation provides a perfect example of
how existing flexibility in the statute was not used by the agency to
the great detriment of our industry.
However, the fact remains that our fishery disaster is the product
of steeply reduced Annual Catch Limits (ACL) on a long list of stocks
affecting every component of the NE fishery. Due to the stringent
qualification requirements of Section 304(e), only GOM cod met the
criteria to be eligible for interim measures to temporarily reduce
rather than end overfishing immediately. For our fishery, GB yellowtail
flounder received a 90 percent and four other key stocks received ACL
reductions in excess of 50 percent. Currently, there exists no
flexibility in the Act to address the severe costs of allowing
management responses to mirror assessment results instantaneously.
Prudent management would be to allow managers the opportunity to
smooth the volatility inherent in individual stock assessments by
providing them with statutory tools that can buffer management
responses in both directions. In my opinion and from my experience,
this would protect fish stocks from abrupt increases in ACL that may
later be found to be incorrect, while providing fishing businesses with
the stability of a more sensible and controlled downward management
response mechanism. In doing so, we will provide some insurance against
the costs of being wrong.
If we are to succeed in managing these stocks to achieve a
sustainable resource and a sustainable fishery then we will need
fundamental revisions of the Act as part of a longer term strategy.
2. Long Term Strategies
The fishery management community and policy makers have long
expressed the need for additional tools in the tool box to give the
Councils the ability to tailor their management strategies to the
peculiar realities of their region and fisheries. However, with respect
to a rebuilding strategy, the statute today only provides one tool in
the toolbox. This sole strategy is based on trying to do whatever
necessary to rebuild a stock to a pre-determined biomass within a
specified timeframe.
However, a timeframe-based rebuilding strategy depends on relative
stability and, thus, predictability of population parameters including
recruitment, growth and natural mortality that cannot be controlled. In
our fishery, none of that stability or predictability exists. As stable
as other ecosystems and as predictable as other stocks may be, ours are
not. While a timeframe-based rebuilding strategy has worked for many
stocks across the nation, it simply has not worked for our fishery. We
do not think that strategy should be eliminated from the statute as
some have suggested, but we do think Congress should provide additional
authority for the Council to implement alternative strategies for
achieving the fundamental goals of preventing overfishing and
rebuilding overfished stocks.
One such strategy is to set ACLs at or below the fishing mortality
rate that will achieve MSY (Fmsy). This strategy will, by definition,
prevent overfishing and will over time on average achieve Bmsy--a
rebuilt stock. But, it will achieve that rebuilding according to the
timeframe and to a biomass that reflects the prevailing ecological and
environmental conditions. Man cannot dictate those conditions and so
cannot reliably predict much less dictate when a stock will rebuild,
particularly when there is great instability in those conditions.
In our view, section 304(e)(4) rebuilding policy should be expanded
to provide the Council with such authority to implement alternative
rebuilding strategies--perhaps if and when certain conditions or
circumstances exist. It may not be necessary or desirable to use an F-
based strategy to rebuild and prevent overfishing a stock in all cases,
but it certainly maybe the only realistic alternative for some stocks
and fisheries. Let's add that tool to the toolbox.
Another alternative interpretation or desirable modification of the
statute might be to allow for multi-year evaluations of ``overfishing''
and perhaps even the ``overfished'' threshold as those terms are
defined in section 3(34) of the Act. Could a 3-year rolling average of
the fishing mortality rate replace the current one-year approach for
evaluating whether overfishing is occurring? Would that approach
``jeopardize the capacity of a fishery to produce MSY on a continuing
basis''? This may be a very important source of flexibility that
already exists in the Act but for the Agency's interpretation now set
forth in the National Standard 1 Guidelines.
Similarly, is it always necessary and desirable to trigger a full-
blown rebuilding plan response when a stock biomass falls below the
overfished threshold in one single year? Would a multi-year evaluation
of stock biomass ``jeopardize'' the fishery?
Such multi-year evaluations coupled with a moderated management
response to stock performance would go a long way towards achieving the
``holy grail'' for NE groundfish--stability. These were among the
concepts NSC included in its comments on the National Standard 1
Guidelines revision now under consideration by the Agency.
Further to this need for stability, there is good cause to provide
the Council with the flexibility to implement alternative management
strategies that are not entirely founded on traditional stock
assessments. Such assessments are often based on statistical models
that can provide reliable estimates of relative abundance and a trend
in the status of a stock, but can be very poor in supporting specific,
point-in-time quantitative estimates of abundance and the resulting
setting of catch limits. This is precisely our experience for many
critical NE groundfish stocks.
Instead, authority should be provided in the statute (and/or the
National Standard 1 Guidelines) to assess the performance of a stock's
biomass over history in response to various catch levels to identify a
so-called ``sweet spot'' where catch levels can be maintained at
relatively stable levels over time. In such case, conservation gains
would be achieved by sacrificing catch levels associated with dramatic
highs in stock abundance and thus provide a conservation ``offset'' for
avoiding severe reductions in catch limits when the stock biomass
swings to a low level. Again, our experience with such seminal stocks
as GOM cod and GB yellowtail flounder would have been much different
had the Council utilized such an approach.
Summary:
Mr. Chairman, we believe there are existing flexibilities in the
statute that could be taken advantage of including through the revision
of the National Standard 1 Guidelines. We also believe there are other
sources of flexibility that need to be incorporated into the statute
through your reauthorization process. We are certainly committed to
working with you, the Committee and your staff to pursue long term
alternative management strategies that are consistent with and
responsive to what may be the unique realities of NE groundfish stocks
and ecosystem. We want to see NE groundfish management work, but we
can't see how under the current statutory framework.
Having said that, our immediate reality is that all of the long
term policy improvements in the world aren't going to matter much if
there aren't any of us still standing when they are implemented. We are
in the midst of a crisis that needs immediate attention.
And so, while I realize this is outside of the scope of this
Committee's jurisdiction, I must ask all of the Members of the
Committee and the full House for their support of measures such as
those included in the Senate FY 2014 appropriations to provide
fisheries disaster assistance funding.
To say that the future of our fishery is in your hands is an
understatement. We need disaster assistance. It's the last hope for a
bridge for the future of our fishery.
______
The Chairman. I recognize Mr. Jeff Deem, who is with the
Recreational Fishing Alliance. The gentleman is recognized for
5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JEFF DEEM,
RECREATIONAL FISHING ALLIANCE
Mr. Deem. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to present this
testimony on the need for flexibility and the reauthorization
of the MSA. I am Jeff Deem, and although I have the honor of
being one of Virginia's representatives on the Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Council and on serving on various State
level committees, I am here today to speak on behalf of the
Recreational Fishing Alliance.
We have been informed of the National Research Council's
criticism of specific rebuilding time periods. I think that is
very timely, and quite frankly, an understatement because our
oceans are changing, especially in the Mid-Atlantic, in ways
that we will not really understand for many years to come. Any
attempt to set specific rebuilding time periods in the near
future will be based on our current knowledgeof the ocean,
which may have little to do with the ocean we are creating.
I believe three of the most pressing examples of pending
changes are, increasing ocean temperature. Whether this is
caused by mankind or not, the fact is that fishermen and
scientists are also telling us that the ocean temperatures are
rising, and we are seeing the northerly movement of some
species as they apparently search for cooler water
temperatures. What effect this relocation will have on the
status of any particular stock is unclear.
Ocean acidification: Although global warming may ignite
some vigorous debates, it is difficult to deny mankind's
responsibility for the increasing carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere and the resulting increase in ocean acidification.
Although there are some studies under way, we are just
beginning to analyze what effects these will have on any
particular species' spawning, recruitment, reproductive
capability or even the abundance of the species they rely on
for forage.
Offshore energy: The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management is
projecting the installation of 20 gigawatts of wind turbines by
2020 and 54 gigawatts by 2030. At 7 megawatts per turbine, that
is 1,400 turbines by 2020 and 7,700 by 2030. We add to that oil
and gas platforms, liquified natural gas terminals, piping,
cabling, construction and support traffic, we are talking about
significant physical changes in the ocean environment. We do
not have the experience to know all of the questions these
changes will raise, much less the answers.
I have included five other substantial changes that are
coming to our oceans in my written testimony for your
consideration. These address protected species, ecosystem
management, species we don't manage, invasive species, and then
natural cycles of the fish stocks.
One more point about flexibility, if I may. I believe the
rigid timelines in the 1996 reauthorization resulted in the
loss of hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs. It would have been
far worse without the critical extension that Congress granted
with the summer flounder fisheries. This flexibility not only
kept people working but provided time for the science to
improve. The original target stock size, excuse me, for this
fishery set in 1996 was 338 million pounds. The numerous
benchmark assessments performed over the 13-year period
resulted in a determination that the stock could only support
42 percent of the original stock target. As we witnessed, the
science improved, but it is irresponsible to assume it is
accurate enough to justify the socioeconomic damage that can be
inflicted through mandatory deadlines.
In closing, in the near future, now more than ever before,
it appears that there will be far too many variables for us to
make the finite long-term projections about what will or will
not happen to any particular species. I would ask that you
consider regulations which focus on turning around any fishery
that is in decline and monitoring its progress. We need the
flexibility to address whatever issues arise that impede that
progress, whether the issues be one of those I have listed or
one of the many this new ocean has yet to reveal. I have no
doubt there will be many surprises in the midst of these
changes. Thank you for your time and effort. If I can be of
further assistance, please do not hesitate to ask.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Deem, for your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Deem follows:]
Statement of Jeff Deem, on Behalf of the Recreational Fishing Alliance
Introduction
Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee.
Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony this morning on
the need for flexibility in the re-authorization of the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. I am Jeff Deem and
although I have the honor of being one of Virginia's representatives on
the Mid Atlantic Fisheries Management Council and various state level
committees, I am here to speak on behalf of the Recreational Fishing
Alliance. In these capacities, I have a responsibility to represent
fishermen from my state while working to achieve balance between
conservation goals mandated by the Magnuson Act and the needs of the
fishing community.
The premise that balance can be achieved between these two needs is
reasonable and should be a defining principle of successful fisheries
management. Yet, during my tenure on the Council, I have seen the
implementation of some MSA mandates cause significant socioeconomic
harm on the recreational fishing community while producing no
conservation benefit. An example can been illustrated through the
application of accountability measures and annual catch limits on the
recreational fishing sector. The application of these management tools
demands a timely, accurate and reliable data collection program. Even
with improvements to MRFSS and the partial roll out of MRIP, no program
currently exists which can responsibly or fairly enforce the
accountability measures and annual catch limits on recreational
anglers.
Management objectives must be in line with the limitations of the
data collection at the time and when there is a disconnect, the impacts
on the recreational sector can be severe, i.e., red snapper, black sea
bass, etc. That said, the Council just recently took action to address
this shortcoming with the passage of the Omnibus Recreational
Accountability Measure Amendment which will allow recreational catch
limits to be evaluated in 3-year periods to account for the limitations
of MRIP which is primarily designed to capture and estimate trends of
recreational catch and harvest. Recreational fishing seasons will no
longer be cut short through emergency action based on projected
landings derived from preliminary estimates. Also, the amendment would
take into account the status of the stock when applying accountability
measures to the recreational sector. These are measures that will
ultimately improve the management of recreational fisheries under
Council jurisdiction and move federal management more toward achieving
the balance mentioned above. It is my hope that the members of the
Committee look to this recent action by the Mid Atlantic Fishery
Management Council as you develop reauthorization priorities in the
coming months and use this example to draft pragmatic revisions to
sections in MSA that deal with the application of annual catch limits
and accountability measures on the recreational fishing community.
I believe it is critical that flexibility be part of the
reauthorized MSA because our oceans are changing, especially in the
Mid-Atlantic, in ways that we will not really understand for many years
to come. It may be impossible to predict the long term effects of the
pending changes on any particular species.
I believe the most pressing examples are;
1. Increasing Ocean Temperatures:
Whether this is caused by mankind or not is really not an issue in
the discussion of flexibility. The fact is that fishermen and
scientists are telling us that the ocean temperatures are rising and we
are seeing the northerly movement of certain species as they apparently
search for cooler water temperatures. What effect this relocation will
have on the status of any particular stock is unclear. Adding to the
uncertainty are other, less obvious, potential changes such as the
timing of plankton blooms and juvenile production which currently
coincide to some extent. Because many juvenile species rely on plankton
as their first forage, the ability of juvenile fish to survive and
stocks to flourish may be negatively effected if rising temperatures
separate these two occurrences.
2. Ocean Acidification:
While global warming may ignite some vigorous debates, it is much
more difficult to deny mankind's responsibility for the increase in
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the resulting increase in ocean
acidification. Although there are some studies underway, we are just
beginning to analyze what effect it will have on any particular
species' spawning, recruitment, maturity or even the abundance of the
species they rely on for forage.
3. Ecosystem Management Strategies:
Most experts will agree that not all species can be at their peak
at the same time. It is generally accepted that as we move into
ecosystem management, we will be forced to decide which particular
species are favored over others and then maintained at their peak
abundance. As we begin to manage under an ecosystem model, what will we
learn about species interactions and how will our potential management
of those interactions affect our ability to set mandates and schedules
for the growth of an individual stock? The only thing we can really be
sure of is that the fish and other sea life will not always follow our
schedules.
4. Protected Species:
As we take measures to further protect mammals such as dolphins and
whales, and numerous species of sharks such as great whites, how will
we calculate the effect of their increasing abundance on a particular
species we are trying to manage? The average dolphin weighs around 450
lbs. and consumes 20 to 40 lbs. of forage a day. A 200 ton blue whale
consumes 4 to 6 tons of forage a day. A great white shark may weigh up
to 5,000 lbs. and consume 150 to 500 lbs. per day. If you can think of
the ocean as an aquarium, how much confidence can you have in your
projections of stock growth for other species when you are increasing
the number of large predators?
5. Species Not Managed:
For example, there has been a noticeable increase in the number of
skates or rays in recent years. Some scientist tell me that the bycatch
reduction steps we are taking to avoid taking protected species in nets
and other gears also allow skates to escape. These and other un-managed
species may compete with and feed upon the species we are trying to
rebuild.
6. Invasive Species:
Unfortunately, my home State of Virginia has two prime examples of
the damage invasive and transplanted species can cause. Snakeheads and
Mississippi catfish are having a substantial negative effect on the
natural balance in our tidal rivers. These catfish are surprising even
the experts with their ability to thrive in brackish waters where they
devour crabs, small flounder and other native species. I would expect
that they also consume a substantial portion of the herring and other
species that inhabit our tidal rivers during their spawning migrations.
How can our projections for any particular species account for these
relatively new competitors and any others introduced during a fixed
rebuilding time frame?
7. Natural Cycles of Fish Stocks:
Last fall we witnessed a huge increase in the number of small red
drum in the Chesapeake Bay, on Virginia's eastern shore and throughout
much of the mid-Atlantic. This is great if red drum happens to be the
species you are trying to rebuild, but if such a species rebuilds
faster than expected and competes with or consumes other species we are
trying to rebuild, how do we account for that without flexibility in
our plans?
8. Offshore Energy:
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management is projecting the
installation of 20 gigawatts of wind turbines by 2020 and 54 gigawatts
by 2030. At 7 megawatts per turbine, that's 1,400 turbines by 2020 and
7,700 by 2030. Add to that oil and gas platforms, liquified natural gas
terminals, piping, cabling, construction and support traffic and we are
talking about significant physical changes in the ocean environment. We
do not yet have the experience to know:
Which species will benefit and which will suffer?
Will there be an increase in top level predators?
Will the electrical fields generated by submerged power lines
affect spawning or migration?
How will the changes in wind flows affect the turning of the water
at different depths and what effect will that have on our fish stocks?
In the near future, more than ever before, it appears that there
will be far too many variables for us to make finite, long term
projections about what will or will not happen to any particular
species.
My testimony thus far has illustrated that the ocean and the marine
resources within are extremely variable and influenced by many more
uncontrollable factors than just fishing pressure. It is unrealistic to
assume that fish stocks can be rebuilt or maintained without
acknowledging these factors. Language included in the 1996
reauthorization of MSA mandated very strict adherence to rebuilding
timeframes and did not give fishery managers the ability to account for
biological and environmental variable that may impact the speed at
which a stock can rebuild. The scenario played out in the summer
flounder fishery which was under a 10-year rebuilding timeframe.
Tremendous progress had been made and the stock had reached historic
levels of abundance. The rate of increase slowed during the final years
of the rebuilding plan and the lack of flexibility forced managers to
set fishing quotas so low that it was unlikely that directed fishing
for summer flounder would be possible. In the final hours of the
reauthorization, Congress allowed a 3-year extension to the summer
flounder rebuilding timeframe which allowed the fishermen to retain
reasonable access to the fishery. Ultimately the summer flounder stock
was rebuilt on schedule and the rebuilding timeframe extension did not
have any negative impact on the stock. This successful example
illustrates that limited flexibility is a useful tool that should be
afforded to all federally managed species.
This extension was a success from the scientific perspective as
well. This ``buffer'' not only kept people working but provided time
for the science to improve. The original target stock size for this
fishery set in 1996 was 338 million pounds of total stock biomass. The
numerous benchmark assessments performed over this 13 year period
resulted in a determination that the stock could only support a
population of 132.4 million pounds of spawning stock biomass, which
equates to about 143 million pounds of total stock biomass. That is 42
percent of the original stock target. As we witnessed, the science is
improving, but it is irresponsible to assume that it is accurate enough
to justify the socioeconomic damage that can be inflicted through
mandatory deadlines.
In closing, I urge the members of the committee to incorporate
limited flexibility in rebuilding fish stocks when deemed appropriate
and when not a detriment to the overall conservation of the stock in
question. Experience has shown that management flexibility can have
both a positive impact on the fishing community and rebuilding
objectives. In addition, the Committee needs to acknowledge that the
limitations of recreational data collection programs and the failure of
NOAA to fully implement section 401(g) of the 2006 reauthorization make
it impossible to apply annual catch limits and accountability measures
on the recreational sector in a fair and responsible manner. Currently,
the recreational fishing community is being disadvantaged due to this
inconsistent enforcement of MSA. I believe that H.R. 6350 the
Transparent and Science-based Fishery Management Act of 2012 is a very
good starting point as the Committee undertakes MSA reauthorization in
the 2013 Congress.
Thank your for this opportunity and the time and effort you and
your staff have dedicated to protecting our resources and the citizens
that rely upon them. If I can be of further assistance, please do not
hesitate to contact me through the RFA.
______
The Chairman. And I will recognize now Dr. John Bruno,
professor of the Department of Biology at University of North
Carolina.
You are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JOHN F. BRUNO, PH.D., PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF
BIOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL
Dr. Bruno. Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member DeFazio, my
name is John Bruno. I am a marine community ecologist and
professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I
appreciate the invitation to talk with you today about fishing
and how it affects and is affected by the health of our oceans,
and I thought I would offer a somewhat broader perspective.
As you heard in other hearings and from other panelists and
probably read in the recent National Research Council report,
the Magnuson-Stevens Act is working and is helping to rebuild
our highly depleted fisheries. It is an exaggeration to declare
that overfishing has ended in America, but we are moving in the
right direction. Yet the changes ahead of us present an even
bigger challenge. Let's not squander the sacrifices that got us
here by ignoring these growing problems.
First, the loss of coastal habitats, including salt
marshes, seagrass beds, and mangroves is profoundly affecting
fisheries. Many fish depend on these habitats as nurseries and
as adult feeding grounds, yet they are disappearing faster than
rain forests. In North Carolina, we lost over 90 percent of our
oyster reefs, and this has had a big impact on our fishes, like
our flounder and our red drum.
Second, we have learned that ocean warming due to
greenhouse gas emissions is having a huge impact on fisheries.
Ocean warming is depressing fish populations by killing their
living habitats, like corral reefs in places like Hawaii and
Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands, and is also
causing fish to shift their geographic ranges to higher
latitudes by nearly 200 miles per decade, so that is almost 20
miles a year.
Fisheries' productivity hot spots are moving, and fish
composition is changing. We will be catching very different
fish off Gloucester in 50 years than what we are catching there
today. Ocean acidification will also challenge or outright
destroy many fisheries, such as some of our most productive
shellfish.
Third, the dependence of most fisheries management on the
theoretical concept of maximum sustainable yield is the
underlying cause of overfishing, not the solution to it.
Estimates of MSY are usually based on oceanographic conditions
that don't even exist anymore. Restoring fish populations to
MSY does not restore ecological function or maximize profits
and is a highly risky strategy in a changing world. MSY also
ignores critical interactions among species, which is a
fundamental reason it has caused so many unanticipated
problems. In short, maintaining fish populations at roughly
one-third their natural density, which is what MSY prescribes
and is also the current threshold for overfished, undercuts the
social, ecological, and economic value of fish.
To secure our hard-won gains, we need to invest in
strategies that will stabilize fish populations for the long
term. Critically, we need to ensure that we conserve very large
females, the ones that produce the most and the healthiest
offspring. Fully restoring fish populations in natural
population structure would maximize profit, greatly reduce the
effort and risk that goes into commercial fishing. It would
improve opportunities for recreational fishermen. They would be
catching more and much larger fish, and it would buy us
insurance against warming and acidifying oceans.
I think the MSA has done enormous good and should be
reauthorized, but it is time to move beyond MSY and start
managing fish based on their real value and in a whole
ecosystem context. Climate change, habitat loss, and other
factors that influence fish populations need to be considered
explicitly in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. And fisheries
management must recognize that the oceans are changing. We
should be mitigating this change directly, tackling it head on
and also building the resilience of our fishing communities and
our marine ecosystems to it. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Dr. Bruno.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Bruno follows:]
Statement of John F. Bruno, PhD, Professor, Department of Biology,
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Chairman Hastings and Ranking Member DeFazio,
My name is John Bruno and I am a marine community ecologist and
Professor of Biology at The University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill.
I appreciate the invitation to talk with you today about fishing
and how it affects and is affected by the heath of our oceans and I
thought I'd offer a somewhat broader perspective.
As you have heard in other hearings and from other panelists and
probably read in the recent report from the National Research Council,
the Magnuson-Stevens Act is working and is helping to rebuild our
highly depleted fish stocks. It is an exaggeration to declare that
overfishing has ended in America, but we are moving in the right
direction. Yet the changes ahead of us present an even bigger
challenge. Let's not squander the sacrifices that got us here by
ignoring these growing problems.
First, the loss of coastal habitats including salt marshes,
seagrass beds, and mangroves is profoundly affecting fisheries. Many
fish depend on these habitats as nurseries and as adult feeding grounds
yet they are disappearing faster than rain forests. In North Carolina
we've lost over 90 percent of our oyster reefs and much of our coastal
marshland. This has greatly impacted our fish like our flounder and red
drum.
Second, we've learned that ocean warming due to greenhouse gas
emissions is having a huge impact on fisheries. Ocean warming is
depressing fish populations by killing their living habitats like coral
reefs. It is also causing fishes to shift their geographic ranges to
higher latitudes by nearly 200 miles per decade.\1\ Fisheries
productivity hot spots are also moving and fish composition is
changing. We'll be catching different fish off Gloucester in 50 years
than we are catching today. Ocean acidification will also challenge or
outright destroy many fisheries, such as some of our most productive
shellfish.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Burrows, M. T. et al. 2011. The pace of shifting climate in
marine and terrestrial ecosystems. Science 334:652-655. Poloczanska,
E.S. et al. 2013. Global imprint of climate change on marine life.
Nature Climate Change doi:10.1038/nclimate1958. Download PDFs here. The
mean rate of expansion of the leading range edges for all marine
species for which data is available is 72 km/decade (14
SEM). For bony fishes this value was 278 km/decade (77
SEM).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, the dependence of most fisheries management on the
theoretical concept of Maximum Sustainable Yield is the underlying
cause of overfishing, not the solution to it. Estimates of MSY are
usually based on oceanographic conditions that don't even exist
anymore. Restoring fish populations to MSY does not restore ecological
function or maximize profits and is a highly risky strategy in a
changing world. MSY also ignores critical interactions among species,
which is a fundamental reason it has caused so many unanticipated
problems.
To secure our hard-won gains, we need to invest in strategies that
will stabilize fish populations for the long-term. Critically, we need
to ensure that we conserve very large females--the ones who produce the
most and healthiest offspring. Fully restoring fish populations, and
natural population structure, would maximize profit and greatly reduce
the effort and risk that goes into commercial fishing, it would improve
opportunities for recreational fisherman--they'd be catching more and
much larger fish--and it would buy us insurance against warming and
acidifying oceans.
In short maintaining fish populations at roughly one third their
natural density--which is what MSY prescribes and is also the current
threshold for ``overfished''--undercuts the social, ecological, and
economic value of fish. Our fisheries would be more profitable, more
sustainable, and more resilient at higher biomass levels.
I think the MSA has done enormous good and should be reauthorized.
But it is time to move beyond MSY and start managing fish based on
their real value and in a whole ecosystem context. Climate change,
habitat loss, and other factors that influence fish populations need to
be considered explicitly in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. And fisheries
management must recognize that the oceans are changing: we should be
mitigating this change and also building the resilience of our coastal
communities and marine ecosystems to it.
Thank you,
______
The Chairman. And our last panelist is Mr. Chris Dorsett,
director of the Ecosystem Conservation Programs and the Ocean
Conservancy, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF CHRIS DORSETT, DIRECTOR, ECOSYSTEM CONSERVATION
PROGRAMS, OCEAN CONSERVANCY
Mr. Dorsett. Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member DeFazio, and
members of the House Natural Resources Committee, thank you for
the invitation to testify in front of you today.
My name is Chris Dorsett, and I am the director of
Ecosystem Conservation Programs for Ocean Conservancy. I have
worked on fishery science and policy issues for almost two
decades starting as a fishery observer in the Gulf of Mexico
and more recently directing Ocean Conservancy's sustainable
fisheries' work. My testimony today will focus on the current
performance of the MSA in rebuilding U.S. fisheries, describe
the essential elements that make this management program
successful, and provide recommendations for continued progress
in securing sustainable fisheries and healthy fishing
communities.
Over the past decade, significant and historic progress has
been made in ending overfishing and rebuilding overfished
populations in the United States. Our Nation has witnessed
record rebuilding of overfished fisheries for the past 2 years,
and the rate of overfishing is now at an all-time low. I
brought a graphic to show the rebuilding over the past or since
2001 that shows species by region that have been rebuilt and
the record progress in 2011 and 2012.
This progress, important from both ecological and economic
standpoints, resulted from the rebuilding requirements of the
MSA, the work of fishery managers in implementing the law, and
the efforts of fishermen and fishery stakeholders. Last week,
the NAS report came to the same conclusion in finding
demonstrated success in identifying and rebuilding overfished
stocks and positive long-term net economic benefits.
Key to the success is the MSA. The MSA provides the
framework for these achievements containing as central
attributes for successful recovery of overfished species as
identified by a recent assessment of global rebuilding
programs. These include well-defined objectives, finite time
scales, credible, consistent, and transparent scientific
monitoring of progress, predefined rules for triggering
corrective management action, and substantial measurable
reductions in fishing mortality at the onset of the plan.
In addition, the MSA already provides the flexibility to
incorporate socioeconomic concerns. Thanks to the MSA,
rebuilding and fishery depletion are becoming more and more a
problem of the past.
When analyzing the performance of the MSA, it is important
to consider the state of fisheries and fisheries management
before the rebuilding provisions were added. As noted by the
NAS report, repeated delays and the lack of accountability led
to continued overfishing and fishery collapse which prompted
Congress, in a bipartisan manner, to institute the rebuilding
requirements in 1996 and to strengthen them in 2006.
The MSA addresses many of these faults, and as a result,
our fisheries are on the road to recovery. While this progress
is encouraging, challenges remain. Not all rebuilding plans
have thus far been effective, and a host of stressors impacting
the marine environment and our fisheries require a management
approach evolves to ensure long-term success. As Congress moves
forward with a reauthorization of the MSA, I would like to
highlight three recommendations.
First, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Once fish stocks are depleted, options are limited and economic
pain is almost inevitable. The best option for both fish and
fishermen is to avoid depleting populations in the first place.
Strengthening the current system of annual catch limits,
accountability measures, and rebuilding requirements with the
addition of a key finding in the NAS report calling for the
more widespread use of harvest control rules to take correction
action sooner when stocks are starting to head in the wrong
direction, rather than waiting until stocks are officially
classified as overfished, can help ensure we avoid depleted
fisheries and associated negative environmental, social, and
economic consequences.
Second, long-term success requires broadening our
perspective. Fish don't live in a vacuum, and fishery
scientists and managers can't afford to look at these fisheries
in isolation.
We, therefore, need the MSA to support an ecosystem-based
approach to fisheries management to ensure our Nation can meet
the challenges of the future.
Finally, we must be disciplined and constantly tracking our
progress. The MSA currently requires a review of rebuilding
plans every 2 years, but the regularity of revised stock
assessment varies widely from region to region. Failure to
adequately track our progress is both risky for fish stocks and
unfair to fishermen.
In summary, our Nation has made significant and historic
progress in restoring overfished fisheries and addressing
overfishing. This progress means healthier ocean ecosystems,
more prosperous fishing communities, more fresh and local
seafood for consumers and enhanced fishing opportunities for
marine anglers. Continued success in restoring and maintaining
U.S. fisheries at healthy and sustainable levels requires
strengthening the MSA by transitioning to an ecosystem-based
approach to management that ensures we are best equipped to
meet the challenges of the future. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Dorsett.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dorsett follows:]
Statement of Chris Dorsett, Director, Ecosystem Conservation Programs,
Ocean Conservancy
Introduction
Over the past decade, significant progress has been made in ending
overfishing and rebuilding overfished populations in the United
States.\1\ This progress, important from both ecological and economic
standpoints, resulted from the rebuilding requirements of the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), the work of
fishery managers in implementing the law, and the efforts of fishery
stakeholders. The MSA provides an adaptable framework that includes the
essential elements for success found in a global analysis of rebuilding
program performance while providing flexibility for incorporating
social and economic needs. The rebuilding provisions of the MSA are
showing signs of success in achieving the goal of returning fisheries
to levels that support healthy and sustainable fish populations and
fishing communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Marine Fisheries Service, 2012 Report to Congress,
Status of U.S. Fisheries (May 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The recent report from the National Academy of Sciences, Evaluating
the Effectiveness of Fish Stock Rebuilding Plans in the United States
(NAS Report), came to a similar conclusion finding ``demonstrated
successes in identifying and rebuilding overfished stocks.''\2\ For
stocks that were placed under a rebuilding plan, fishing mortality has
generally been reduced, and stock biomass has generally increased. The
long-term net economic benefits of rebuilding have also proved
generally positive.\3\ The report highlights the challenges and
complexities of trying to evaluate science, and make decisions about
catch limits and other management measures. In the face of those
challenges, the report underscores the historic progress that has been
achieved under the current law in ending overfishing and rebuilding
fish populations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ National Academy of Sciences, Evaluating the Effectiveness of
Fish Stock Rebuilding Plans in the United States, (Sept. 2013) at 81
(hereinafter NAS Report).
\3\ NAS Report at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overview and Analysis of the Rebuilding Requirements of the MSA
While rebuilding was mentioned in the original 1976 Act, it was the
1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA) amendments, supported by a
bipartisan group of Congressional members, that developed provisions to
ensure rebuilding success and established specific mandates for
rebuilding overfished populations. These changes were driven, in part,
by the significant depletion of key groundfish species in New England.
To address this issue, major revisions that now form the basis of the
federal rebuilding program include:
An explicit requirement to rebuild overfished
species;\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1853(a)(1), (10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secretarial identification of overfished species and
official notification to the Regional Fishery Management
Councils (RFMCs);\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Id. Sec. 1854(e)(1), (2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A time limit for RFMCs to develop and implement a
rebuilding plan once notified;\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Id. Sec. 1854(e)(3) (modified in the 2006 MSRA amendments).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A requirement that populations are rebuilt in a short
a time as possible but not to exceed 10 years, with limited
exceptions;\7\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Id. Sec. 1854(e)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A requirement that conservation and management
measures (including rebuilding) take into account the
importance of fishery resources to fishing communities and, to
the extent practicable, minimize adverse economic impacts;\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Id. Sec. 1851(a)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The law, as interpreted by the courts, includes the essential
attributes for restoring overfished populations as identified by a
recent assessment of global rebuilding programs. These include (in
part):
1. Well defined objectives;
2. Finite time scales;
3. Rebuilding plan established in an open and transparent
process;
4. Credible, consistent and transparent scientific monitoring
of progress;
5. Simple and easily understood metrics of status and success;
6. Predefined rules for triggering corrective management
action; and
7. Substantial, measurable reductions in fishing mortality at
the onset of the plan.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Murawski, S.A. 2010. Rebuilding depleted fish stocks: the good,
the bad, and, mostly, the ugly. ICES Journal of Marine Science,
67:1830-1840.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In recognizing the demonstrated success in identifying and
rebuilding overfished stocks, the NAS Report concludes that:
The strong legal and prescriptive nature of rebuilding forces
difficult decisions to be made, ensures a relatively high level
of tractability, and can help prevent protracted debate over
whether and how stocks should be rebuilt.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ NAS Report at 185.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the NAS Report describes ``inefficiencies'' of this
management framework, it is important to remember why these provisions
were enacted and strengthened by Congress. Repeated delays and weak
action are precisely what prompted Congress to institute the rebuilding
requirements in 1996, and to tighten them in 2006. As noted by the NAS
Report in citing a 1993 paper,
U.S. fisheries management was problematic because of
``continued overfishing of some stocks; lack of coordination
between councils and the NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service
in setting research agendas; conflicts among users; the
vulnerability of the fishery management process to delays and
political influence; lack of accountability; inconsistency in
state and federal management measures; and adoption of
unenforceable management measures.''\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Id. at 24 (citing Parsons 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since then, as the NAS Report and National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) Status of the Stocks reports have found, the
track record of rebuilding in the U.S. has been positive with record
rebuilding of overfished populations over the past 2 years and
overfishing at an all-time low.\12\ Due to the MSA's rebuilding
mandate, rebuilding is more and more a problem of the past, as the
annual catch limit (ACL) and rebuilding system continues to work to
prevent overfishing and depletion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ National Marine Fisheries Service, 2012 Report to Congress,
Status of U.S. Fisheries (May 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To address these challenges and ensure the long-term health for our
ocean, the prosperity of our nation's fishing industries and associated
businesses, and the opportunities for world-class recreational fishing,
we offer a number of recommendations described in further detail below:
First, build on the successful legal framework provided by the MSA by
ensuring the proper application of ACLs and accountability provisions
to avoid the need for rebuilding programs in the first place. Second,
set criteria for when a population is considered overfished in a manner
that avoids significantly depleted populations and lengthy rebuilding
timelines. Third, use management procedure and management strategy
evaluation (known as MSE) to improve management. Fourth, take an
ecosystem approach to rebuilding. Finally, implement a monitoring,
observation and research program for our nation's large marine
ecosystems to provide additional information for successful management.
Benefits of the MSA Rebuilding Requirements
There are significant economic, social and ecological reasons for
fully restoring overfished populations. From an economic standpoint,
while a full accounting of increased profitability for commercial and
recreational fisheries does not exist, rebuilding is estimated to at
least triple the net economic value of many U.S. fisheries.\13\ NMFS
estimates that rebuilding U.S. stocks would increase the current ex-
vessel value by an estimated $2.2 billion (54 percent) annually, from
$4.1 billion to $6.3 billion annually. Rebuilding would generate an
additional $31 billion in sales and support an additional 500,000
jobs.\14\ From an ecological standpoint, benefits of rebuilding include
helping to restore ecosystem structure, function and resilience. These
improvements ensure continued production of ecosystem goods and
services beyond just fisheries benefits. As described below, the
ecosystem benefits of rebuilding could be increased if a broader view
of rebuilding is adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Ussif Rashid Sumaila, et al. ``Fish Economics: The Benefits of
Rebuilding U.S. Ocean Fish Populations,'' Fisheries Economics Research
Unit, October 2005.
\14\ Testimony of Steven A. Murawski, Ph.D. Director, Scientific
Programs and Chief Science Advisor, National Marine Fisheries Service,
on Implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Reauthorization Act before the House Subcommittee on Insular
Affairs, Oceans, and Wildlife, Washington, D.C. (October 27, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unprecedented Progress in Restoring U.S. Fish Populations
The MSA rebuilding requirements are achieving the stated goals of
recovery for the benefit of the environment and coastal economies. In
recent years, unprecedented progress has been made in ending
overfishing and rebuilding overfished species. According to the recent
NAS Report, of the 85 stocks declared overfished since 1997, 42 are no
longer classified as overfished: 31 have been designated as rebuilt,
and 11 are rebuilding.\15\ Furthermore, a recent evaluation of all 44
stocks subject to rebuilding plans to comply with the 1996 Sustainable
Fishery Act amendments and with sufficient information to assess
progress under the plans found that 64 percent had been rebuilt or had
made significant rebuilding progress (defined as achieving at least 50
percent of the rebuilding target and at least a 25 percent increase in
abundance) since implementation of the rebuilding plan.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ NAS Report at 59.
\16\ Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Bringing Back the
Fish: An Evaluation of U.S. Fisheries Rebuilding Under the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment 1 shows the decline in the percentage of managed stocks
subject to overfishing and in an overfished condition from 1997-2011.
Rebuilding success stories include Atlantic sea scallops in New
England, bluefish in the Mid-Atlantic; lingcod in the Pacific and blue
king crab in the North Pacific. The addition of science-based ACLs and
accountability measures to the law in 2007 \17\ strengthens the
management framework to achieve not only continued success in
rebuilding overfished species but also significant safeguards against
future fishing-related depletion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1853(a)(15).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avoiding the Perils of Depleted Fish Populations
The MSA rebuilding framework is essential to the health of our
ocean and the economic and social well-being of our nation's coastal
communities. Aside from the obvious loss of yield and accompanying
socio-economic benefits that cannot be realized from a depleted
population, maintaining fish populations at low abundance levels poses
significant risks, in particular to fishery stability. Fishing
generally alters the age and size structure of a population by removing
the older, larger individuals from the population.\18\ Depleted
populations are often made up predominantly of younger fish with
population dynamics dominated by recruitment variability that is
largely influenced by environmental factors. This leads to greater
fluctuations in biomass and fishery yield, instability and
unpredictability in the fishery.\19\ Increased variability combined
with low population size is a factor in increased extinction risk.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Berkeley, S.A., et al. 2004. Fisheries sustainability via
protection of age structure and spatial distribution of fish
populations. Fisheries 29:23-32.
\19\ Hsieh, C,. et al. 2006. Fishing elevates variability in the
abundance of exploited species. Nature 443:859-862; Shelton, A.O. and
Mangel, M. 2011. Fluctuations of fish populations and the magnifying
effects of fishing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
108:7075-7080; and Brunel, T and GerJan, J. 2013. Is age structure a
relevant criterion for the health of fish stocks? ICES Journal of
Marine Science 70:270-283. See also, NAS Report at 133.
\20\ Johst, K and Wissel, C. 1997. Extinction risk in a temporally
correlated fluctuating environment. Theoretical Population Biology 52:
91-100. See also, NAS Report at 133.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An additional peril of delayed rebuilding is that the likelihood of
fishing-induced regime shifts increases when key populations are highly
depleted. A regime shift in marine ecosystems occurs when ecological
systems and the services they provide are transformed from one stable
state to an alternative state. Examples of this can be found in several
North Atlantic large marine ecosystems where trophic cascades due to
fishing-induced changes in top predator abundance (most notably cod)
have led to an increased abundance of lower trophic species.\21\ The
best way to prevent such sudden and catastrophic ecosystem changes is
to maintain ecosystem resilience by maintaining large, stable
populations and maintaining biodiversity.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See, for example, Frank, K.T., et al. 2005. Trophic cascades
in a formerly cod-dominated ecosystem. Science 308(5728)1621-1623; and
Osterblom, H., et al. 2007. Human-induced trophic cascades and the
ecological regime shifts in the Baltic Sea. Ecosystems 10:877-889.
\22\ Folke, C,. et al. 2004. Regime shifts, resilience, and
biodiversity in ecosystem management. Annual Review of Ecology,
Evolution, and Systematics 35:557-581; Scheffer, M., et al. 2001
Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Nature 413:591-596.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ample Flexibility To Incorporate Social and Economic Considerations
A popular criticism of the MSA is that it provides little
flexibility to managers for incorporating socio-economic concerns into
rebuilding programs. A key part of this criticism is aimed at the
selection of a ten year rebuilding limit (with limited exceptions)
which is considered by some to be arbitrary. U.S. Ocean Fish Recovery:
Staying the Course published in Science in 2005 found that the 10 year
limit is reasonable and beneficial. It noted that the drafters of the
1996 SFA amendments to the MSA balanced the advice of population
dynamics experts that many depleted marine organisms were capable of
rebuilding to target levels within about 5 years in the absence of
fishing, socio-economic concerns and the desire for successful
rebuilding and sustainable fisheries in deciding upon a 10 year
limit.\23\ The article notes that ``[t]his optimizing balance was
deliberate and compassionate, not arbitrary.''\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Safina et. al., Science, Vol 309, at 707 (July 29, 2005).
\24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The other key part of the criticism is that this 10 year rebuilding
limit does not allow for adequate incorporate of socio-economic
concerns. In reviewing rebuilding plans from 1997-2011, the NAS Report
found that the 10 year limit on rebuilding determined the target year
for 31 of the 70 stocks for which rebuilding plans with a defined
timeframe were implemented. Thus, the MSA and NS1 guidelines provide
ample flexibility to incorporate socio-economic concerns.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ NAS Report at 81.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In March 2013, Ocean Conservancy analyzed rebuilding timelines of
the 65 stocks currently subject to rebuilding plans which were included
in the 2011 Status of Stocks Report to Congress ``Fish Stocks in
Rebuilding Plans'' trend analysis in order to determine what level of
flexibility is afforded to the regional fishery management councils
(RFMCs) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).\26\ Overall, our
analysis (Attachment 2) shows that the RFMCs and NMFS have interpreted
and applied the MSA's rebuilding requirements with ample flexibility in
establishing target rebuilding dates upon which to base annual catch
limits. In only 1 of the 19 rebuilding plans in our analysis for which
TMIN information was available did the TMIN
estimate actually come close to the 10-year rebuilding limit (Pribilof
Island blue king crab managed by the North Pacific Fishery Management
Council (NPFMC)).\27\ In five of the nine stocks to which the 10-year
rule applied, RFMCs set target rebuilding timelines at the maximum
legally permissible limit, even though shorter rebuilding timelines
were possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ NMFS, Fish Stocks in Rebuilding Plans: A Trend Analysis
(2011), available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/statusoffisheries/
2011/RTC/2011_RTC_TrendAnalysis.pdf. (We analyzed all stocks reviewed
by NMFS in the analysis except those 1) that have been rebuilt, 2) for
which a formal rebuilding program had not been submitted under the MSA
(Atlantic salmon), 3) for which a rebuilding plan was not required
(South Atlantic pink shrimp), 4) that did not have reliable estimates
of biomass and/or fishing mortality (all Caribbean and Western Pacific
complexes and species identified as overfished), and 5) that are highly
migratory species. We also did not include West Coast salmon rebuilding
plans. For the remaining thirty-seven plans, we requested
TMIN (the rebuilding timeframe in the absence of all
fishing), TMAX (the maximum amount of time allowable for
rebuilding under the protocol set forth in the national standard
guidelines) and TTARGET (the target date chosen for
rebuilding) information from NMFS and the RFMCs in order to assess the
amount of flexibility used in setting rebuilding targets.)
\27\ As noted in the NAS Report at pg. 131, it appears that regimes
in the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska have shifted to a state less
conducive for crab productivity. As such, even in the absence of
fishing mortality for over a decade, the population has not recovered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, the drafters of the 10 year rebuilding requirement of
the MSA carefully considered the tradeoffs associated with action
forcing provisions to restore the health of U.S. fisheries and the need
to consider important socio-economic concerns in rebuilding programs.
Our analysis shows that the RFMCs and NMFS have utilized the
flexibility of the law and NS1 guidelines in setting recovery dates for
overfished species.
Future Considerations and Recommendations
While the overall rebuilding trend is positive, challenges remain.
The NAS Report found that poor performance for some stocks could be
attributed to the combined effects of delays in implementing rebuilding
plans and difficulties implementing reduced target fishing
mortalities.\28\ In other cases, the failure of rebuilding plans to end
overfishing has been due to difficulties to reduce overall fishing
mortality when a species is caught as bycatch of a different
fishery.\29\ To address these challenges and to deliver on the
sustainable fishery goals of the MSA, we recommend that any future
changes to the law, national or regional policies either build upon or
improve implementation of the current legal framework for successful
rebuilding as described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ NAS Report at 69.
\29\ Id. at 71.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NAS Report makes a strong case that the best option is to avoid
depleting populations in the first place and calls for taking
corrective action sooner--when stocks are heading in the wrong
direction--rather than waiting until they are officially classified as
``overfished.'' Once fish stocks are depleted there are limited options
for minimizing the reductions in fishing necessary to rebuild the
population.
The addition of requirements for setting science-based ACLs and
accountability measures (AMs) \30\ in the MSA in 2006 has profoundly
impacted rebuilding success and the future need for rebuilding plans in
a positive way. With ACLs and AMs now in place for all managed species,
NMFS recently declared that the United States has turned the corner on
ending overfishing.\31\ A review of the past NOAA Status of the Stocks
reports shows that indeed RFMCs with a history of science-based catch
limits that are monitored closely against actual catch and bycatch have
fewer species classified as subject to overfishing. These new
management requirements, if implemented properly, should end the serial
depletion of fisheries by preventing overfishing and by achieving
established management targets, thus negating the need for rebuilding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1853(a)(15).
\31\ NOAA Press Release, ``U.S. `Turning a Corner' in Ending
Overfishing (March 8, 2011), available at http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/
stories2011/20110308_endingoverfishing.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Importance of Proper Catch Accounting and Monitoring of Stock Recovery
One important aspect of success is ensuring that catch accounts for
all types of mortality--both directed landing and bycatch mortality--
given the significant role that bycatch mortality can play in
overfishing. As interpreted by the NS1 Guidelines, ACLs and AMs must
account for ``the total quantity of fish . . . taken in commercial,
recreational, subsistence, tribal, and other fisheries . . . as well as
mortality of fish that are discarded.'' \32\ The MSA provision
requiring a standardized bycatch reporting methodology to assess the
amount and type of bycatch occurring in the fishery \33\ is also a
critical component of long-term success. For those RFMCs lacking an
adequate methodology, factoring management uncertainty into the catch-
setting process becomes especially important.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ 50 C.F.R. Sec. 600.310(f)(2)(i) (defining ``catch'') (emphasis
added); Oceana, Inc. v. Locke, 831 F. Supp. 2d 95, 115-16 (``Since the
`catch' limited by [annual catch limits] includes both fish that are
retained (landed) and bycatch that are discarded at sea, see 50 CFR
Sec. 600.310(f)(2)(i), the [annual catch limits for the stocks at
issue] may be exceeded by accumulation of bycatch alone.'').
\33\ 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1853(a)(11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another important aspect of success is carefully tracking progress
in preventing overfishing and recovery of overfished species. The
review requirements of the law and NS1 Guidelines, which focused on
assessing adequate progress and incorporating new information into
rebuilding trajectories,\34\ are important provisions that must be
fully embraced in the regions to ensure rebuilding success. As noted by
the NAS Report, the MSA requires review of the progress of rebuilding
plans every 2 years but the frequency of updated, qualitative stock
assessments varies widely both within and among regions. The report
concludes that more frequent assessments might lead to more frequent
but less extreme changes in rebuilding plans and closer adherence to
fishery management providing greater long term stability for fishing
communities.\35\ Furthermore, more frequent stock assessments can help
better refine estimates of long term biomass associated with management
benchmarks like maximum sustainable yield to ensure recovery is
achieved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Id. at Sec. 1854(e)(7); 50 CFR Part 600.310(j)(3)(ii).
\35\ NAS Report at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendations: Better implementation of the MSA focused on
revising processes for setting annual catch limits and accountability
measures consistent with the ``one in four rule'' contained in the NS1
Guidelines as needed; ensuring that annual catch limits adequately
address bycatch; establishing adequate standardized bycatch reporting
methodologies; and ensuring that Secretary of Commerce review of
rebuilding plans is conducted to assess progress, incorporate new
information, and guide plan modifications.
Proper Setting of Criteria for When a Population is Overfished
Minimum Stock Size Threshold (MSST) is a key benchmark used by
RFMCs to determine when a fish population is overfished and requires a
rebuilding plan. The Technical Guidance on the Use of Precautionary
Approaches to Implementing National Standard 1 of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Technical Guidance) offers a
number of suggestions for setting MSST correctly. In order to avoid
perceived conflicts with the MSA's 10-year rebuilding limit, MSST must
be set in a manner that best ensures a short rebuilding timeline. This
kind of thinking is already incorporated into the existing Technical
Guidance in the recommendation that natural mortality be taken into
account when setting MSST.\36\ Following this recommendation means that
species with low natural mortality rates, or that exhibit evidence of
depensatory natural mortality (such as cod, haddock and Alaskan walleye
Pollock),\37\ which generally take longer to recover from an overfished
status, will have MSSTs set closer to the biomass level at MSY
(BMSY) than species with higher resilience.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Restrepo, V., et al. 1998. Technical Guidance on the Use of
Precautionary Approaches to Implementing National Standard 1 of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. NOAA
Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-40.
\37\ Keith, D.M. and Hutchings, J.A., 2012. Population dynamics of
marine fishes at low abundance. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and
Aquatic Sciences 69:1150-1163.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In cases where the acceptable biological catch (ABC) is set such
that fishing mortality declines when biomass falls below
BMSY, it is somewhat less critical to properly define MSST,
as those management procedures, in theory, are self-correcting.
However, not every region employs such a control rule. We therefore
support the finding of the NAS Report related to better use of harvest
control rules to promptly but gradually reduce fishing mortality rates
once a population falls below MSY based thresholds in order to prevent
populations from becoming overfished and in need of a rebuilding
plan.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ NAS Report at 2 and 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation: Better implementation of the MSA via use of
existing information like life history, catch and bycatch to set MSST
at a level that will avoid lengthy rebuilding timelines. For species
with low resilience or in cases where information is lacking, set MSST
close to MSY to rebuild more quickly and buffer against uncertainty.
Furthermore, more widespread use of harvest control rules that require
prompt but gradual reductions in fishing mortality rates to avoid fish
populations from becoming overfished and in need of rebuilding plans.
Rebuilding Directly to Biomass at Optimum Yield
Optimum yield (OY), as defined by the MSA, is the maximum
sustainable yield (MSY) as reduced by economic, social, and ecological
factors.\39\ This means the biomass at optimum yield levels
(BOY) is greater than BMSY to incorporate
important social, ecological or economic considerations. These
considerations include desired management targets (for example, a focus
on larger fish as opposed to maximizing total pounds landed for
recreational fisheries) and ecosystem health and resiliency (managing
population levels above those at MSY to best fulfill roles in the
ecosystem). There is currently an inconsistency in MSA objectives with
regard to fish population levels, depending on whether or not stocks
are in an overfished condition. For the management of stocks that are
not overfished the goal is OY, which occurs at BOY, and is
greater than BMSY.\40\ However, the goal for overfished
stocks is to rebuild to BMSY.\41\ Thus, MSY is treated as
both a limit and a target, depending on whether or not a stock is
overfished. Given that the goal of NS1 is to achieve optimum yield on a
continuing basis, the goal of a rebuilding plan should also be to
rebuild directly to a population level supporting OY, as opposed to
rebuilding to BMSY and then having to take subsequent
management action to achieve BOY.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1802(33)(B).
\40\ National Standard One, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1851(a)(1)
(``Conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing while
achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery
for the United States fishing industry.'').
\41\ 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1802(33)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation: Amend the MSA to specify that the rebuilding
biomass target is the biomass at optimum yield, where OY occurs at some
level below MSY and consequently at a biomass level above
BMSY.
Use of Management Strategy Evaluation/Management Procedure Approach
We strongly agree with the recommendation of the NAS Report to
advance the use of management strategy evaluation (MSE) to entertain a
broader spectrum of ecosystem dynamics and possible outcomes than is
typically considered in single-species rebuilding projections.\42\ The
``traditional'' approach to managing fisheries consists of evaluating
the status of the resource via the stock assessment process.
Scientists' advice to managers about current stock status and allowable
future catches, including rebuilding trajectories, is usually based on
a ``best'' model run, chosen to be the most likely representation of
reality from a number of possible configurations of one or more model
families. There are a number of problems with this approach that can
lead to poor performance of the fishery management system and failed
rebuilding plans. First is the variability in catch level advice that
can result from one assessment to the next due to the addition of new
data, change of modeling environment or change of model configuration.
These types of assessment changes can also lead to significant changes
in rebuilding targets which can throw off rebuilding progress. Second
is an inability to properly evaluate long-term trade-offs among
alternative rebuilding strategies, including proper consideration of
risk, which directly impacts rebuilding success. Third is the political
haggling that arises over setting management benchmarks such as ABC
that provide the upper limit for ACLs. In the absence of a proper risk
policy that determines acceptable risk of overfishing in light of all
the proper trade-offs, RFMCs have the ability to reject their
scientific advisers' ABC recommendations on the basis that they would
like a different risk level.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ NAS Report at 138.
\43\ An example for this can be found in the current Gulf of Mexico
ABC Control Rule which gives the Council the ability to set risk on an
ad hoc basis: ``The indicated default risk of exceeding overfishing
limit for Tier 2, or default acceptable biological catch buffer levels
for Tier 3a and 3b, are to be used unless specified otherwise by the
Council on a stock by stock basis.'' GMFMC. 2011. Final Generic Annual
Catch Limits/Accountability Measures Amendment for the Gulf of Mexico
Fishery Management Council's Red Drum, Reef Fish, Shrimp, Coral and
Coral Reefs, Fishery Management Plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Management strategy evaluation (MSE) or the management procedure
(MP) approach present alternative ways to manage a fishery.\44\ MSE and
MP are able to deal with the above issues inherent in the
``traditional'' approach and therefore have the potential to result in
increased success of rebuilding plans. These methods employ catch
control rules that specify how ABC is calculated from available data on
an annual basis, but unlike the traditional approach, these catch
control rules are thoroughly evaluated against alternative options via
simulation testing before they are implemented. The simulations
determine which of the alternative catch control rules perform best in
terms of achieving management goals (such as rebuilding by
TTARGET with a certain probability) while avoiding
undesirable outcomes (such as falling below a minimum biomass threshold
or exceeding some pre-specified socio-economic limit reference point).
Candidate control rules or rebuilding strategies are tested against
factors like observation error, model misspecification, management
uncertainty, and environmental variability. Where the MSE/MP approach
has been applied successfully, there has been a more thorough
evaluation of risk, less inter-annual catch variability, and less
scientific and management debate about catch limits. MSE and MP also
allow evaluation of simpler ABC-setting methods that are not
necessarily model-based, which can save time and resources in the long-
run. Although these methods may take time to develop initially, the
benefits of implementing the resulting more robust management and
rebuilding strategy generally outweigh the cost of the initial
investment in the long run.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Butterworth, D. 2007. Why a management procedure approach?
Some positives and negatives. ICES Journal of Marine Science 64:613-
617.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation: NMFS, RFMCs and Scientific and Statistical
Committees (SSCs) should make better use of MSE and MP in making
management decisions, including specification of biological reference
points and evaluation of alternative rebuilding strategies against
management goals in rebuilding plans.
Taking an Ecosystem Approach to Rebuilding
In a world of increasing environmental variability, we face greater
uncertainty today about how fish populations and ecosystems respond to
human activities, including rebuilding measures. In addition, fishing
itself has broad ecosystem impacts that can compromise the health of
natural populations, the fishery that depends on them, and the services
ecosystems provide. Fishery models that rely on the single-species
theory of fishing, and do not take into account ecosystem factors when
trying to explain trends in population biomass and dynamics, may
predict stock recovery rates that are much higher than subsequently
observed in the fishery. The classic example of this phenomenon is
Atlantic cod.\45\ Similarly, rebuilding strategies that focus solely on
attaining single-species fishing mortality and biomass goals fail to
recognize the importance of rebuilding ecosystem structure, diversity,
and processes which are crucial to maintaining or rebuilding resilience
of ecosystems and the coastal communities that rely on revenue from
fish stocks and ecosystem services.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ Murawski, S.A., et al. 2001. Impacts of demographic variation
in spawning characteristics on reference points for fishery management.
ICES Journal of Marine Science 58:1002-1014 and Murawski, SA. 2010.
Rebuilding depleted fish stocks: the good, the bad, and, mostly, the
ugly. ICES Journal of Marine Science 67:1830-1840.
\46\ Pitcher, TJ and Pauly, D. 1998. Rebuilding ecosystems, not
sustainability, as the proper goal of fisheries management. In:
Reinventing Fisheries Management (ed T Pitcher, D Pauly, and P Hart).
Chapman & Hall Fish and Fisheries Series. p 311-325.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An ecosystem based approach that accounts for the uncertainty of
changing environmental conditions and the broader impacts of fishing
will be critical to rebuilding success for U.S. fisheries. This
approach will likely require the development of new rebuilding metrics
and management reference points that go beyond the traditional biomass
and fishing mortality thresholds and address other factors vital to
proper fisheries management such as population demographics, ecosystem
characteristics and services, and socio-economics. One reference point
that should be further evaluated is fishery selectivity pattern, which
determines population age and size structure on the single-stock scale
and community properties such as the size-spectrum slope on an
ecosystem level.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Brunel, T and GerJan, J. 2013. Is age structure a relevant
criterion for the health of fish stocks? ICES Journal of Marine Science
70:270-283; and Garcia, SM, et al. 2012. Reconsidering the consequences
of selective fisheries. Science 335:1045-1047.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation: The MSA should be strengthened in a manner that
supports an ecosystem based approach to management, including
rebuilding overfished species. This includes improving the law by
better incorporating ecosystem considerations into management through
the development of fishery ecosystem plans and strengthening current
implementation of the rebuilding requirements of the law to include
aspects of ecosystem rebuilding and resiliency to changing
environmental conditions such as restoring population demography,
habitat, ecosystem structure and diversity, and coastal communities.
Establish Monitoring, Observation and Research Programs for our
Nation's Large Marine Ecosystems
Given the significant stressors facing our nation's large marine
ecosystems and the longstanding call to transition fisheries to an
ecosystem-based management approach, the RFMCs and NMFS can greatly
benefit from reliable and timely information on existing and changing
environmental conditions in order to manage fisheries sustainably,
including recovery under rebuilding plans. Investments in regional
monitoring, observation and research programs for each of the nation's
large marine ecosystems (LMEs) can help provide fishery managers and
the public with information necessary to make better informed
decisions. The resulting data can also help ensure that other uses of
marine resources are compatible with fishing, fisheries management, and
the community benefits that come from resilient ecosystems and robust
fish populations.
Recommendation: Establish monitoring, observation and research
programs for our nation's large marine ecosystems to provide additional
information for management.
Response to the NAS Reports Treatment of the Mixed Stock Exception
The NAS Report suggests that greater use of the ``mixed stock
exception'' could reduce the impact of rebuilding on the catch of
healthy fish stocks. It proposes that the operational feasibility of
the mixed stock exception could be modified to expand the range of
situations to which it can be applied, subject to assurances that the
less productive species are not driven to unacceptably low levels.
Unfortunately, while the Report seems to imply that a greater level of
risk is appropriate, it provides no additional guidance as to what
constitutes adequate ``assurances'' or ``unacceptably low levels''
beyond what is currently in the NS1 Guidelines. As the report
acknowledges, stocks at depleted levels are at risk for increased
variability and are more susceptible to environmental changes, which
could negatively impact future rebuilding efforts.\48\ Furthermore, the
report fails explain how RMFCs should go about choosing one stock over
another when conflicts inevitably arise. In this regard, the NAS Report
falls short of addressing the problem with operationalizing the mixed
stock exception to date: that it would allow overfishing to continue.
Allowing overfishing on any stock violates both the spirit and the
letter of the MSA by permitting overfishing on a stock within a stock
complex in order to achieve optimum yield for another stock. We have
made substantial progress toward ending overfishing and rebuilding U.S.
fish stocks. Allowing overfishing on some stocks is shortsighted and
could undo the long-term progress we are making. Finally, one species
viewed as limiting the catch of healthier populations by one fishery or
group of fishermen could be of significant value to another fishery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ NAS Report at 133.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
Over the past decade, significant progress has been made in ending
overfishing and rebuilding overfished populations in the United States.
While the NAS Report highlights the challenges and complexities of
trying to evaluate science, and make decisions about catch limits and
other management measures, it underscores the historic progress that
has been achieved under the current law in ending overfishing and
rebuilding fish populations. For stocks that were placed under a
rebuilding plan, fishing mortality has generally been reduced, and
stock biomass has generally increased. Moving forward, the NAS Report
is the latest report to highlight the need to move to a management
system that does not look at fish stocks in a vacuum, but takes into
account the rest of the ecosystem in which they live and the impacts of
changing environmental conditions. Building upon the successful
rebuilding approaches of the MSA will ensure healthy oceans and fishing
communities for present and future generations.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2948.005
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2948.006
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2948.007
.eps__
The Chairman. I thank all of you for your testimony.
I will now recognize myself for questioning as we start,
and I want to ask all of you essentially the same questions I
asked the first panel, and we will start with Dr. Hilborn and
move that way.
Do you believe that the current Magnuson-Stevens Act works?
Dr. Hilborn, start with you, yes or no?
Dr. Hilborn. Yes, with reservation.
The Chairman. Of course.
Mr. Moore.
Mr. Moore. For the most part, yes.
The Chairman. OK. Mr. Giacalone.
Mr. Giacalone. Yes, definitely with reservations, as Dr.
Hilborn said needs to be----
The Chairman. We will explore those reservations, I am
sure.
Mr. Deem?
Mr. Deem. Yes, I do, but it needs some fine tuning based on
the things we are learning as we go.
The Chairman. OK.
Dr. Bruno?
Dr. Bruno. Yes.
The Chairman. OK.
Mr. Dorsett?
Mr. Dorsett. When it comes to overfishing and rebuilding,
yes.
The Chairman. OK. Well, we got a ``yes'' with reservation,
so now let me ask another question that follows maybe that
reservation that we are talking about.
Do you support then a change in the Magnuson-Stevens Act to
allow the councils to have more flexibility in rebuilding the
fisheries?
Yes or no, and we will start with Dr. Hilborn.
Dr. Hilborn. Yes, if there were strategic constraints, as
Dr. Sullivan mentioned.
Mr. Moore. Yes, if properly written.
The Chairman. Very good.
Mr. Giacalone?
Mr. Giacalone. Yes. I think it is one of the core benefits
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act is the regional council process
because of the localized knowledge, so absolutely yes.
The Chairman. Mr. Deem?
Mr. Deem. Yes, as long as we can track the growth of this
particular stock.
The Chairman. Good. Dr. Bruno?
Dr. Bruno. Yes.
The Chairman. Good. Mr. Dorsett?
Mr. Dorsett. No, because I am not sure what ``flexibility''
means exactly in this case.
Mr. Tierney. Don't exactly know what now?
Mr. Dorsett. Because I don't know what ``flexibility''
means in this case.
The Chairman. OK. Well, talking about the reservations that
some of you made and they maybe individual, and I just
mentioned one of those reservations. Do you believe that some
changes then, with specifically flexibility, can be done
without harming the overall Magnuson-Stevens Act?
Dr. Hilborn?
Dr. Hilborn. Definitely.
The Chairman. Mr. Moore?
Mr. Moore. Yes.
The Chairman. Good.
Mr. Giacalone?
Mr. Giacalone. Yes, definitely.
The Chairman. Mr. Deem?
Mr. Deem. Without a doubt. It sets up a great framework for
success in fisheries management, and I think we need to
continue with it.
The Chairman. Dr. Bruno?
Dr. Bruno. Yes. Flexibility could improve it, could also
gut it. It depends on how it is done.
The Chairman. And Mr. Dorsett?
Mr. Dorsett. And for that reason, I would say no.
The Chairman. OK. Well, we are getting a consensus here.
Specifically on the rebuilding of stocks, because that has been
kind of a common theme throughout virtually all the testimony
that we have had and the hearings we have had, do you believe
that Congress should make modifications to the rebuilding
provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act? And again, yes or no.
We will start with Dr. Hilborn.
Dr. Hilborn. Yes.
The Chairman. OK.
Mr. Moore?
Mr. Moore. Yes, as I laid out in my testimony.
The Chairman. Yes, you did.
Mr. Giacalone?
Mr. Giacalone. Yes, I think they should be expanded to
include other alternatives.
The Chairman. OK.
Mr. Deem?
Mr. Deem. Yes.
The Chairman. OK.
Dr. Bruno?
Dr. Bruno. Yes.
The Chairman. And Mr. Dorsett?
Mr. Dorsett. I would say if we are going to enhance them
with more tools in the toolbox to address things like changing
environment, et cetera.
The Chairman. Boy, if we get six yeses here, this should be
an easy part of it then.
Well, thank you very much. Again, I just wanted to ask that
question kind of for the record. I understand there are
reservations, and it was pointed out. I know Mr. Moore put that
in his testimony and we appreciate that part.
So, with that, let me recognize the Ranking Member, Mr.
DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. Mr. Chairman, I defer to Mr. Pallone.
The Chairman. OK. We will do Mr. Pallone first.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In addition to the rest of the panel, I wanted to welcome
Jeff Deem from the RFA. Do you know that I work a lot with Jim
Donofrio, who is the Executive Director of the RFA in reforming
Magnuson-Stevens. So I am glad to see that you are represented
here today.
I wanted to ask a question of Mr. Deem, but then if anyone
else wants to answer it, they can. The NRC report discussed
today finds that when data is insufficient to perform
analytical stock assessments or to establish important
reference points with sufficient confidence that alternative
paradigms should be considered, so I wanted to ask if you would
discuss what types of tools or alternative paradigms can be
provided to fishery managers that will allow them to
accommodate for specific uncertainty but also considering the
social and economic effects of rebuilding?
Mr. Deem. Well, that is an interesting question. What we
have now is we have to go by what the science and statistics
committee tells us, so in order to increase their ability to
give us good answers, I think we need to allow them to have
more flexibility to do intake field data from fishermen and
people that participate in the fishery.
At the moment, a lot of that is suspect and it has to be
weighed, and it always should be weighed, of course, but it
doesn't carry the weight that the science does. And the other
problem, of course, is that we take or we are asked to take the
science as absolute, and we know, as hard as they try, that it
is not always accurate; it is not always the correct stock
size, and we need a balance. We need to be allowed to balance
the two together. Thank you.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you. Would anyone else--I mean, you
don't have to. Anybody else want to answer the question?
Go ahead.
Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Pallone. I am not sure I could
give you a specific means of addressing rebuilding if you don't
have the data, but I think it is obvious that in a lot of
cases, we don't have data, as Mr. Deem pointed out. We need
more of it, and when we don't have the data, while we should
act cautiously, that doesn't mean we should do nothing. Either
don't do rebuilding, or in the worst case, from our standpoint,
don't allow any fishing.
You need to have some ability to deal with what you have
and move forward in a cautious but positive manner to allow
harvest up to a reasonable point, as recommended by your
scientists.
Mr. Pallone. OK. Anybody else want to take a stab at it?
Go ahead.
Mr. Giacalone. Data-poor stocks that have no directed
fishery on them, the SSC should be offered an opportunity to
come up with alternative ways to set those catch advisers than
forcing the science centers and SSCs to come up with some
scientific methodology that shows that there is a biomass
target, and we have had, in our fisheries, we have three or
four nontarget species that most people don't even see and now
rebuilding plans on them, so we question, without assessments,
how the Magnuson-Stevens Act is sort of forcing those issues to
occur, because as we march along in the 10 years, they are
going to bear root into problems for us.
Mr. Pallone. OK. I see another hand up.
Mr. Dorsett. I was really curious about that particular
recommendation in this rebuilding report, and the reason is, is
because in the case of species without formal stock
assessments, they are primarily of unknown status, and
therefore, they don't have a rebuilding plan associated with
them. I think the current system of having annual catch limits
and accountability measures then as a safety net for those
fisheries helps prevent serial depletion so we don't find out
when it is too late and the science catches up to the reality
on the water for these species that we are in a situation of
significant depletion, so I think the current safety net is an
incredibly important attribute in the management system that
can help ensure sustainable fisheries in the future.
Mr. Pallone. All right. That is all I have, if no one else
wants to answer, I will leave it alone.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman and recognize the
gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Fleming.
Dr. Fleming. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Hilborn, excellent, excellent presentation, an
excellent 3-D view of really what happens from a data
standpoint, but I am curious, you may have mentioned this but I
didn't pick up on it. Is there a point after which when you
rebuild a stock that the rebuilding slows down?
Given the fact that there is no fishing or limited fishing,
you rebuild the stock, and it is naturally regrowing, does it
begin to slow down at some point because of limitation of
habitat and access to food nutrition for the fish?
Dr. Hilborn. Yes, definitely. I mean, any population in the
absence of exploitation will generally increase and fluctuate
often wildly about some average level. They can't grow forever.
The empirical data shows very clearly that they grow much
faster with much higher probability as the population is
smaller and as the fishing pressure is lower, so----
Dr. Fleming. Right.
Dr. Hilborn [continuing]. The data really support some very
basic ecological theory about what is called density dependent
population growth rate.
Dr. Fleming. Right. So, obviously, if you are excessively
cautious or overly conservative, that you could actually see a
slowing of the rebuilding beyond a certain point, so it seems
to me, if your goal is maximum production over time, whether it
is for nutritional or economic purposes, I really like the idea
of a sweet point, that is where there is an equilibrium between
the fishing pressure and the exploitation where you get maximum
yield, and so in order to achieve that, it seems to me that you
need excellent survey data that stays current and you need
local flexibility because, obviously, that is going to vary
from one place to another. Would you agree with that, sir, or
have anything to add to it?
Dr. Hilborn. Well, they certainly vary from one ecosystem
to another and we have moved beyond thinking about this single
species one at a time to incorporating more of the ecosystem
interactions, although the single species theory definitely
gets you a long way there, and it depends on what you want.
There is an economic sweet spot that maximizes profits, and
that is different from what would be a biomass yield sweet
spot.
Dr. Fleming. Sure.
Dr. Hilborn. But those do exist, and to a great extent, the
targets that scientists, both at NOAA and elsewhere, they try
to estimate where those are. But I emphasize this, is that we--
what is the traditional target for yield that the fishing rate
maximizes long-term maximum yield has been interpreted as a
limit, that is, you shall never exceed that, and many of my
colleagues in the science community somehow believe that if you
just go a little bit above that level, which we often called
FMSY, that something terrible happens. In fact, the only thing
that happens is your long-term average yield is a little bit
lower, and in fact, the risks in terms of yield are very
symmetric, and underfishing a little bit poses the same yield
risks as overfishing a little bit.
Dr. Fleming. So it doesn't collapse the system if you
overshoot a little bit. In other words, there is no long-range
value to being overly conservative, that you always--once you
note that you have overfished a bit, you can always slow down
the pressure and let it revive itself, rebuild itself.
Dr. Hilborn. Well, the key is reducing the fishing
pressure, and make no mistake, 20 years ago, we had many stocks
that were fished three or four times too hard, and NOAA has
done excellent and the council has done an excellent job of
reducing that, but being 20 or 30 percent over that level
doesn't pose a long-term risk at all. We do want to get it down
there to that level and probably, on average, below it for a
bunch of other reasons.
Dr. Fleming. All right. Thank you. And again, I would just
comment before I go to my next question, the key to that
obviously is not to be excessively conservative and to make
sure we do plenty of good stock assessment surveys, which we
are not doing. That is a big problem. We need to fix that.
Mr. Moore, can you comment on the current mandatory role of
SSCs under Magnuson.
Mr. Moore. Thank you, Congressman. In our council, the
Pacific Council, the SSC provides the basic overfishing level
and they allow acceptable biological catch, and within those
parameters, the council then decides how much you are going to
be able to harvest, keeping in mind all the rebuilding
requirements, so forth and so on. The SSC at our council works
very well. They meet at the same time the council does, they
provide us with good information. The biggest problem we have,
quite frankly, is finding enough people to be able to serve on
the SSC and take the time to do the work that is necessary.
Dr. Fleming. All right. Thank you. My time is up. I yield
back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman and recognize the
Ranking Member, Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
I raised briefly in my opening remarks something I would
like people to reflect on, which is when we reach a critical
level, we impose a recovery plan, but obviously, there should
be some way to anticipate that we are on the way to that. I
mean, I realize there are annual fluctuations. We have the
decade of oscillation in the Pacific, things that might lead to
that, but are we doing a good job of avoidance? Because it
seems to me, I mean, we are having a discussion about what
could we put more flexibility in recovery plans, I think you
are hearing a lot that people want to do that, but can we avoid
having more recovery plans and are we doing a good enough
management job to make more subtle adjustments to avoid the
necessity of reaching those points? Anybody who can explain
that, yes. Yes, go right ahead.
Mr. Moore.
Well, OK, we go one right.
Dr. Hilborn. I mean, increasingly our councils are
accepting formalized harvest strategies that specify the
exploitation rate as a function of stock size, and as the stock
size starts to drop below the target, those exploitation rates
go down well below the level that would produce maximum
sustained yield and if we can actually effectively implement
those harvest strategies, then getting into the depleted state
would be unusual and would largely be caused by environmental
changes rather than fishing.
But, what you find, for instance in New England, the last
with 10 years, is the science has been so volatile, our
understanding that we thought was good, the next time a stock
assessment comes around, we are fishing too hard, and that is a
problem we face with the environmental change, and I don't
think we are going to ever be able to prevent some stocks from
getting depleted due to interaction between environmental
change and imprecise science.
The Chairman. OK. Mr. Moore?
Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio.
In the Pacific Council, we actually have control rules, we
have procedures in place if we see stocks declining or too much
fishing occurring on a particular stock, so forth and so on,
that we put those in place to try to prevent a stock being
declared over fished.
The biggest problem we have is that by the time we get the
data and can put it in place on a lot of these things, it is
too late.
I cited in my testimony, right now, the council is getting
ready for the 2016----
Mr. DeFazio. Five-year-old data essentially.
Mr. Moore. Yes.
Mr. DeFazio. I read that.
Mr. Moore. It is kind of hard to drive forward looking in
your rear view mirror.
Mr. DeFazio. Right. So go ahead. Pull that mike over closer
because I am really having a hard time----
Mr. Dorsett. Sorry. Just to reiterate one of my
recommendations about an ounce of prevention is worth a pound
of cure, the current system of annual catch limits and
accountability measures and requirements to end overfishing is
a significant safety net against this stock depletion and the
need for rebuilding plan, and the councils like the Pacific
have things like the 40-10 control rule that essentially is
predefined ways to stop the bleeding, but that is not why it is
spread across councils, and so that was my recommendation about
making that more widespread and also a recommendation of the
NAS report.
I would also mention, too, this issue of environmental
variability and swings in populations, this gets to, in my
view, Dr. Bruno's testimony about where we set our management
targets and thresholds because if you set them at low levels in
terms of population size relative to historic abundance, those
swings are going to be more significant in terms of dropping
below criteria for what we deem as overfished.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Then the other quick question, if anybody
has any ideas on how we are going to increase cooperative
research, how are we going to get the better data. I mean,
everybody has identified data as a problem. Yes? Go ahead if
you have a quick----
Dr. Hilborn. Yes, as it happens, I just attended a meeting
with environmental tent staff on that subject yesterday, and I
think there is no question that given how many fish stocks we
have and the limited resources that the only way we are going
to get better data for many, many stocks is by cooperative
research with the recreational and the commercial sectors, and
I don't have time to go into it, but there are a lot of
impediments to that right now, and----
Mr. DeFazio. Are those impediments we could deal with?
Dr. Hilborn. Yes, some of them are legislative.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. So if you would provide some
recommendations in those areas, that would be of interest.
Dr. Hilborn. OK. I can work with staff on that.
Mr. DeFazio. That would be great. OK, anybody else quick on
that? All right?
Dr. Bruno. In many areas of marine ecology, citizen science
has really stepped up to fill any kind of void. So in my--
especially coral reef scientists--a lot of this data comes from
surveys being done by sports enthusiasts rather than
scientists.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Thank you, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank the gentleman.
Mr. Costa from California.
Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I think I am going to confine my questions to Dr. Hilborn
and Mr. Moore because my familiarity and my issues deal mostly
with the West Coast.
The issue of sustainability, and I know under Magnuson-
Stevens, it has changed in what is optimal, and I think we have
spent a lot of discussion, at least I have heard, on whether or
not we have it right in terms of the allowance for both
commercial and sports fishing. I would like to explore to what
degree you think in terms of the population levels other
multiple stress factors come into play. I am talking about
specifically discharges of tertiary treatment facilities like
ammonia that impact areas where smolt and other native species
are trying to sustain themselves, predatory species, diversions
without fish screens. I mean, we talked a lot about wetlands
and other things that impact the ability to maintain the
propagation of these fish populations, but to what degree do
you think these other stress factors come into play on the
sustainability?
Mr. Moore. Congressman, I think there is a difference in
what sort of stress factors are out there that affect
anadromous species, such as salmon, versus ocean species. The
species in the Pacific Council area that have been designated
as overfished are all ocean species, and while there certainly
is a problem with fishing pressure that had occurred in the
past, which has now been pretty well taken care of, there are
significant problems just with environmental factors that are
out there, that are not human caused in regard to salmon.
Mr. Costa. Right. And how good is the science? Because
whether we are talking about anadromous fish or whether we are
talking about marine fisheries that aren't dependent upon the
other impacts, I mean, obviously the science gets better, but
we learn more, right?
Mr. Moore. Yes, sir. And if I could just answer the second
half of that question regarding anadromous fish, some of the
issues that you mentioned there.
Mr. Costa. Right.
Mr. Moore. I think things like fish screens in some of the
irrigation districts and around the dams, water flows
calculated at the right time of year, all of those sorts of
things certainly have a positive impact on anadromous species,
and to the extent that we don't do those things, it is
obviously going to have a negative impact.
Mr. Costa. Yes.
Dr. Hilborn. In general, the impact of anthropogenic
impacts on fish, other than exploitation, is the greatest in
freshwater, then estuaries, and as you get to the continental
shelves by far the least. Now, in the West Coast, we have
reasonably few species that are dependent upon near shore
habitats whereas in the gulf or the East Coast, those habitats
are really critical for far more species in their life history,
but estuaries have been and the freshwater systems have been
enormously transformed by diversions and all those things, and
I would----
Mr. Costa. Well, I mean, San Francisco Bay is an example.
Dr. Hilborn. It is a totally different place.
Mr. Costa. Right. A third of it has been infilled.
Dr. Hilborn. Yes. And the species composition, it is
basically completely exotic species. I grew up in the Bay Area,
so I am familiar with that, but I think the science is actually
quite good. We understand that.
Mr. Costa. But the ability to turn the clock back, I mean,
we are not going to return a third of the Bay back into
wetlands.
Dr. Hilborn. No, that is right, and we just have to accept
to some extent that we have made changes that are irreversible,
and we are going to have to accept that we are----
Mr. Costa. On that point, in terms of science, because my
time is running out, and I heard you all opine about the
impacts of climate change, I read a couple months ago where
Peter Moyle, who is fairly well known on the West Coast as a
biologist, thinks that, in 80 years, with snow packs moving
further north in the West Coast, changes in water temperature,
that the sustainability and the impacts to a lot of native
species may be irreversible or impossible to maintain. Do you
concur?
Dr. Hilborn. Yes, I think that is true for salmon, and I
know salmon pretty well, that places that are--a lot of
California----
Mr. Costa. So they will go farther north?
Dr. Hilborn. Yes.
Mr. Costa. So no matter what we try to do as the climate
continues to change, and we know it has been changing for
millions of years, how much we are impacting it I think is the
key question. Then it begs the question, what should our best
strategy be?
Dr. Hilborn. That is a difficult question.
The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The gentleman from Alaska, Mr. Young.
Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and this is a subject I
am quite interested in.
Mr. Moore, I am glad to see you, Mr. Rod Moore. He used to
sit right here on--he has gone on to bigger and better things,
I hope.
In your testimony, you briefly mentioned the sustainable
certification process from the Marine Stewardship Council. How
does this certification process work, and what costs are
involved?
Mr. Moore. Mr. Young, the decision by somebody to go with
Marine Stewardship Council certification, I will say MSC for
short, is really an economic one. For example, we find that to
be able to sell fish in Europe, you have to have MSC
certification. That is changing now, but for many years, that
was what had to be done. So it was sort of, in some ways, an
economic blackmail. You had to do it. Does it make for better
fisheries management? I don't know about that. Is it costly?
Yes, it is certainly costly.
Mr. Young. Who pays for that?
Mr. Moore. The industry pays for it, sir.
Mr. Young. OK. And it is based in Britain?
Mr. Moore. The MSC headquarters is in Great Britain. There
are offices in the United States I know.
Mr. Young. OK. Doctor--both of you--the reason for my
interest is Wal-Mart, the famous Wal-Mart, the Chinese company.
Mr. Moore. Oh, yes, sir. I would point to the Park Service,
too, sir.
Mr. Young. Oh, yes, the Park Service, that is a really
outstanding American group right now. They really like to take
care of people. But they are saying our salmon is
unsustainable. Now, that is B-elbows. Now, this blackmail, now
why don't we have our own accreditation group because I do
believe the council, our North Pacific Council can certify
whether it is sustainable or not?
Mr. Moore. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Young, there are some of us in
the industry who have been exploring with NMFS the concept of
defining sustainability in the Magnuson-Stevens Act and
stipulating that if you are a U.S. vessel and you catch fish
under the terms that are defined in the Act, whether it is
under Federal FMP or a State, a comparable State plan, then, by
definition, you are sustainable----
Mr. Young. What you are saying is we can in this Act, Mr.
Chairman, I want to--the idea that I have a bunch of Brits
making money off the industry telling me that my Alaskan salmon
are not sustainable and Wal-Mart doesn't sell it, is dead wrong
when it is sustainable and has been sustainable. Best fishery
in the whole country. And so I am suggesting, Mr. Chairman, if
the idea again, they can have their limey beans, I don't care,
but for God sakes let us define what is sustainable and not
sustainable. That should be the American way. And then Wal-Mart
can say, we are not going to use Alaskan salmon, but they can't
hang it on the fact that we are not going to sell
nonsustainable fish by an agency outside.
Doctor, have you any comments? You are from Washington.
Your outfit is affected by this.
Dr. Hilborn. I spend most of the summer in Bristol Bay, and
let me tell you, I have heard a lot about it this year.
Mr. Young. What is your suggestion?
Dr. Hilborn. Well, I think that--I mean, clearly, Alaska's
salmon are sustainably managed, but Marine Stewardship Council
certification is about more than sustainability. It has a whole
lot more.
Mr. Young. Like what?
Dr. Hilborn. Oh, impacts on the environment, compliance
with legal frameworks. It is much more than just
sustainability, and the alternatives sometimes have different
levels of standard, and the MSC standard has actually crept
higher and higher in the time I have been doing various work
for the MSC, and what is really happening is MSC has more or
less established a monopoly in the European markets, as Rod
said, and in fact through some NGO's in the U.S., and the
Alaska salmon industry is basically trying to break that
monopoly by getting other certification schemes accepted at the
same standard as MSC, and it is really a political battle, it
is not really a scientific or a sustainability battle.
Mr. Young. I thank you both. One of the things, again, Mr.
Chairman, this is an issue we have to address. It is dead wrong
what is happening here, and I am deeply offended by Wal-Mart,
the Chinese-owned company. Now Sam doesn't like that, but the
fact is you look at everything on their shelves, a lot of it
is, in fact, produced overseas, and to have them now not buy an
American product is about as un-American, Mr. Sam, as you can
get, and if you are in the audience, you better be listening to
me because this is dead wrong and un-American action by a
corporate structure that doesn't pay their workers the
appropriate salaries and, in fact, appeases to those that are
in a poorer class by saying we are not buying American, we are
going to buy Russian crab? Mr. Chairman, think about that a
moment. I know my time is up, but Mr. Wal-Mart, you better
start listening.
The Chairman. I have a feeling that this will get to Wal-
Mart somehow.
Mr. Young. And, by the way, they do contribute to my
campaign or used to.
The Chairman. The chair recognizes the gentlelady from
Guam, Mrs. Bordallo.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would
just like to make a statement first before my questions. The
MSA rebuilding requirements established in 1996 and 2006 have
been responsible for the recovery of 33 depleted stocks.
Science-based management and rebuilding timelines have helped
in overfishing in the U.S. and has made the U.S. a global
leader in fisheries management. So now is the time to build
upon it. The majority of stocks in the western Pacific have no
stock assessments, including Guam.
Now, my first question is for you, Dr. Hilborn. In your
testimony, you suggest that we focus on Federal management of
fish stocks that are important to the Nation's food, jobs, and
income, and not subject the hundreds of small stocks to the
same process. I am very concerned with your statement. I do not
agree on restricting resources and management to lucrative
fisheries. The ocean and the resources are important to the
people of Guam. Fishing is an important part of preserving our
history and our culture. As such, we need Federal resources
allocated to fisheries management, so my question is, if we
stop supporting and monitoring these small stocks, how will we
keep our subsistence fisheries healthy?
Dr. Hilborn. Well, I am not suggesting we don't monitor
them, and in fact, I think we do need to apply more science to
those stocks, but if we take the current Magnuson-Stevens
approach in mixed stock fisheries and include, say, on the West
Coast where we have literally a hundred species, what you would
find is we would end up the only way to not overfish anything
by Magnuson-Stevens definitions would be to close the fisheries
because you are going to always have one choke species or two
choke species. Now these may--even the current choke species
are not significant contributors to jobs or employment. These
are generally very, very small stocks. So if our objective was
to produce food or jobs, those stocks could remain overfished,
without any loss in jobs or food, and as we expand the breadth
of the number of species in the Act, and there are literally a
thousand species out there, you are going to find with the
current way we implement the Act that it would get more and
more restrictive, and we would have less and less ability to
harvest the large abundant stocks of the ocean. But we should
do more science, but I don't think Congress is going to pay for
a double or a triple or a quadruple of our science budget, and
we have to find other mechanisms, and I would suggest that
cooperative management--there is actually pretty--I am working
on some Guam stuff, there is some pretty good data out there.
It is just nobody has had the time to really go through it.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you.
Mr. Dorsett, in his testimony, Dr. Hilborn stated that the
regional councils have done a good job of solving the problem
of fisheries bycatch. However, many fisheries still discard
significant amounts of catch at sea and have trouble catching
target species without harming weaker stocks. So, in your
opinion, are our bycatch problems solved, and if so, then why
do so many fishermen complain about choke stock? If not, what
can we do to make fisheries more selective?
Mr. Dorsett. Thank you for your question. I would say that
the bycatch problem has not been solved in U.S. fisheries, and
indeed, the NAS report found that one of the problems still
contributing to the failure to end overfishing is incidental
catch of that particular species.
In terms of addressing the bycatch issue, I think we need
to look at the law and strengthen it in appropriate ways that
will essentially create clear objectives for what we want to
see in terms of the bycatch problem. I think from that, you
will find that fishermen will find ways to fish very
selectively and innovate. This past year with the Pew
Environment Group we published a report on the MSAs of the
success of the Magnuson-Stevens Act which looked at the history
of the law from 1976 until now, and in it, we profiled the
number of fishermen that have been real innovators in the field
in things like bycatch reduction. And in my experience, for
example, working on West Coast fisheries, there was a lot of
innovations in terms of decisionmaking tools, science, and by
fishermen to avoid those species, so I think we can do a lot
more, and with the ingenuity of fishermen a lot more can be
done.
Finally, I would say that even though there has been a
requirement for a standardized bycatch reporting methodology in
the law since 1996, in many regions, that system is severely
lacking, so we don't even have, I think, a real good handle on
the extent of the bycatch problem.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you. Thank you.
I have one further question, real quick question. Dr.
Bruno----
Mr. Young [presiding]. You just use all the time you want,
Sweetheart.
Ms. Bordallo. Well, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Young. That
is the nicest thing I have heard since I have been in Congress.
Mr. Young. Well, we will talk about that later.
Ms. Bordallo. Dr. Bruno, fishermen sometimes complain that
fish that could be legally caught but are not are wasted fish
or left on the table. In terms of long-run fisheries'
productivity, profitability, and stability, is this the right
way to think about things? Are there positive effects to
allowing some fish to grow larger or live longer than the
minimum allowable for harvest?
Dr. Bruno. Yes, Congresswoman, absolutely. I mean, they are
essentially the seed stock of the fish that are going to be
caught tomorrow, are they going to produce babies to get caught
in the next generation? So it is critical to keep them out
there, letting them get bigger and older is fundamental. So
fish, unlike people, become more reproductive, far more
reproductively successful the older they get and the fatter
they get, so the best thing for the fishery, it would stabilize
it, it would make it more economically profitable to have a lot
of big, big old fat fish out there.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, and I yield back my endless time
limit.
Mr. Young. Thank you, my dear.
Mr. Garcia.
Mr. Garcia. I wanted to ask a general question. Fishermen
sort of bring this up, which is the division of the councils,
right? I, as you can imagine, I am from Florida, and I
represent the Florida Keys, which sort of is that area where
you are divided between two councils, and I get a lot of
reaction from my fishermen about that, that is this division
the most efficient way to look at this? And so I know, at the
risk of losing all my time with that first question, I just
want to get your quick response on that from those of you who
care to have an opinion.
I will start with you, just volunteer, go right ahead.
Mr. Deem. All right, sir, I appreciate that. We have
liaisons to the different councils. I am on the Mid-Atlantic--
we have liaisons to the North Atlantic and to the South
Atlantic, and I think it works pretty well. There are species
that each of us manage, and we work together on some; we joint
manage some. I think your fishermen can relax that it is a
pretty well laid out situation.
Mr. Garcia. OK.
Mr. Dorsett. Having spent most of my time with councils in
the Gulf Council, I am aware of this particular issue, and it
really, the bottom line is there needs to be good cooperation
among the councils, and I would say, for example, on warming
ocean temperatures leading to differences in stock
distributions up and down the East Coast, this issue is
becoming more and more important, so we need to determine if we
have the right governance structure in place to accommodate
these shifts in stocks and ensure we have good coordination
between the regional fishery management councils.
Mr. Garcia. OK. Well, Mr. Dorsett, let me follow up with
that. So a recent national research council report identified
potential changes that could be made in fisheries management in
response to rebuilding requirements. I have heard from
fishermen in my district who have asked for additional
flexibility in rebuilding timelines and actual catch limits. In
your opinion, does the Magnuson-Stevens Act have that
flexibility necessary to help fishing communities, while also
ensuring timely rebuilding of stocks that we depend on?
Mr. Dorsett. Yes, I believe it does. If you look at the
report as well as the statistics that Sam provided in his
testimony from the National Marine Fisheries Service and the
analysis we have done, there is ample flexibility to consider
socioeconomic concerns. Over half of rebuilding plans are over
the 10-year limit because that has some limited exceptions to
it. One of the most contentious rebuilding programs in the
Southeast region is red snapper. That is a 32-year rebuilding
program that incorporates socioeconomic concerns. It has been
successful. It has been successful because of strong mandates
in terms of ending overfishing and rebuilding that population,
and so I think it does provide ample flexibility and include
action-forcing mechanisms to ensure we return fisheries to
healthy levels.
Mr. Garcia. All right. So, finally, and I will end with
this, you know, I don't have to say it, but maybe some of my
fishermen are watching. Obviously, Florida Keys commercial
fishing industry represents the largest commercial seaport in
the State of Florida. In order to protect our environment and
support our economy, I am interested in what more you think can
be done to ensure the regularized standardized stock
assessments nationwide. Are there any plans that you could
suggest that could make such assessments more thorough and
consistent, for example through the use of new technologies or
electronic monitoring, you know?
Last, before I got here, but I was running, there was the
yellowtail incorrect assessment, and fortunately, everyone
responded adequately, and government looked at it again, and
the assessment was remade, but how can we avoid this? Because
people's lives are sort of on the line here, too, or
livelihoods.
Mr. Dorsett. Sure. You know, monitoring program potential
to provide the information, to help assess the population
status of fisheries and inform management, I think this panel
here has recommended a number of ways we could look at,
including cooperative research, better use of technology to get
this information in the most cost-effective manner possible.
Then we have to address the issue we have in the Southeast
region, and we have one science center supporting three
regional fishery management councils with a lot of stocks, and
so we need to ensure there is also adequate resources in order
to assess those species. One of the things that is a
recommendation of ours in terms of how we invest oil spill
penalties money from the BP Deepwater Horizon oil disaster is
to look at ways we can make investments in our fisheries,
including fishery science monitoring programs to not only track
the impacts of the BP disaster but also inform management and
address these data deficiencies.
Mr. Garcia. Mr. Chairman, I know you are not going to be as
generous with the time as the gentlelady, but I just want to
thank all of you for what you are doing and the fact that we
are working together, and if there is probably any area where I
think that both the recreational, commercial, and sports
industry are working together, I think it is in this area, and
I appreciate that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Young. I thank the gentleman. I am going to thank the
witnesses.
I do appreciate the gentlemen, your work, you will be
addressing some of the issues in this legislation coming up. We
won't see any massive changes, I don't believe, but there will
be some adjustments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and glad to
have you aboard, and I want to say that the members of the
Committee may ask you additional questions for the record, and
if they do so, please respond in writing, and again thank you.
With that, no further questions, this Committee hearing is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
The NRDC report entitled ``Bringing Back the Fish: An
Evaluation of U.S. Fisheries Rebuilding Under the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act'' has been
retained in the Committee's official files. It can be found at:
http://www.nrdc.org/oceans/files/rebuilding-fisheries-
report.pdf.