[Senate Hearing 106-1085]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 106-1085
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE MAGNUSON-
STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND
MANAGEMENT ACT
=======================================================================
FIELD HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS AND FISHERIES
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
DECEMBER 14, 1999
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
77-584 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CONRAD BURNS, Montana DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
SLADE GORTON, Washington JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi Virginia
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana
JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri RICHARD H. BRYAN, Nevada
BILL FRIST, Tennessee BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
SPENCER ABRAHAM, Michigan RON WYDEN, Oregon
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas MAX CLELAND, Georgia
Mark Buse, Staff Director
Martha P. Allbright, General Counsel
Kevin D. Kayes, Democratic Staff Director
Moses Boyd, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS AND FISHERIES
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
SLADE GORTON, Washington DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held December 14, 1999................................... 1
Statement of Senator Breaux...................................... 5
Statement of Senator Snowe....................................... 1
Witnesses
Anderson, Wilma, Executive Director, Texas Shrimp Association.... 41
Prepared statement........................................... 44
Brown, Bob, Vice Chancellor, Governmental Affairs, Alumni and
Development, University of New Orleans......................... 1
Claverie, Maumus, Member, Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management
Council........................................................ 108
Cox, Felix, Commercial Fisherman................................. 115
Dalton, Penelope, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National
Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration; accompanied by William Hogarth, Ph.D.,
Southeast Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries
Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and
Joseph Powers, Ph.D., Southeast Science Center................. 7
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Dorsett, Chris, Gulf Restoration Network, New Orleans, Louisiana. 117
Emerson, Peter M., Senior Economist, Environmental Defense Fund.. 58
Prepared statement........................................... 59
Fischer, Myron, Offshore Charter Captain, Port Fourchon,
Louisiana...................................................... 48
Prepared statement........................................... 51
Loga, Steve, President, Tuna Fresh, Inc., Dulac, Louisiana....... 89
Prepared statement........................................... 92
Loup, Steve, Recreational Fisherman, Glenn, Louisiana............ 116
Lyons, R. Michael, Manager, Environmental Affairs, Louisiana Mid-
Continent Oil and Gas Association.............................. 76
Prepared statement........................................... 78
Miller, Frederic L., Chairman, Government Relations Committee,
Coastal Conservation Association............................... 94
Prepared statement........................................... 97
Perret, William S. ``Corky'', Director, Office of Marine
Fisheries, Mississippi Department of Marine Resources.......... 84
Prepared statement........................................... 86
Robin III, Charles, Commercial Fisherman, St. Bernard, Louisiana. 119
Roussel, John E., Assistant Secretary, Office of Fisheries,
Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries................. 16
Prepared statement........................................... 18
Shipp, Robert, Ph.D., Chairman, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management
Council........................................................ 25
Prepared statement........................................... 26
Simpson, Larry B., Executive Director, Gulf States Marine
Fisheries Commission........................................... 20
Prepared statement........................................... 22
Spaeth, Robert, Executive Director, Southern Offshore Fishing
Association, Inc............................................... 110
Prepared statement........................................... 112
Torrance, Tim, Commercial Fisherman, Larose, Louisiana........... 125
Varisich, George, President, United Commercial Fishermen's
Association, Chalmette, Louisiana.............................. 122
Waters, Donald, Pensacola, Florida............................... 118
Werner, Wayne, Commercial Fisherman, Galliano, Louisiana......... 53
Prepared statement........................................... 55
Wilson, Charles A., Ph.D., Professor, Chairman, Department of
Oceanography and Coastal Sciences, Louisiana State University.. 80
Prepared statement........................................... 82
Appendix
Jones, Bob, Executive Director, Southeastern Fisheries
Association, prepared statement................................ 141
Miller, Frederic L., letter dated February 13, 2001, in response
to questions submitted by Hon. Olympia J. Snowe, via Melissa
Murphy......................................................... 141
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. John B. Breaux
to:
Penelope Dalton.............................................. 136
Frederic L. Miller........................................... 137
John Roussel................................................. 138
Dr. Robert Shipp............................................. 139
Dr. Chuck Wilson............................................. 139
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Olympia J. Snowe
to:
Penelope Dalton.............................................. 129
Peter Emerson................................................ 133
Myron Fischer................................................ 132
R. Michael Lyons............................................. 134
William S. ``Corky'' Perret.................................. 134
John Roussel................................................. 130
Dr. Robert Shipp............................................. 131
Larry B. Simpson............................................. 135
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE MAGNUSON-
STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT
----------
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1999
U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
New Orleans, LA.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:03 a.m., in
room 101, Training Resources and Assistive Technology Center,
University of New Orleans, Hon. Olympia S. Snowe, Chairman of
the Subcommittee, presiding.
Staff members assigned to this hearing: Sloan Rappoport,
Republican Counsel; Rick Kenin, Republican Coast Guard Fellow;
and Margaret Spring, Democratic Senior Counsel.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. OLYMPIA S. SNOWE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MAINE
Senator Snowe. Good morning. The hearing will come to
order.
STATEMENT OF BOB BROWN, VICE CHANCELLOR, GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS,
ALUMNI AND DEVELOPMENT, UNIVERSITY OF NEW ORLEANS
Mr. Brown. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen and the
distinguished Senators Breaux and Snowe.
My name is Bob Brown, and I am the Vice Chancellor for
Governmental Affairs, Alumni and Development here at the
University. And it is an extraordinary pleasure for us to
welcome you to our university.
It is particularly a good feeling because you are going to
address, without question, some very powerful matters that have
much to do with the state of the economy in Louisiana and
Maine, and indeed, around the Nation and around the world. It
is important in Louisiana, of course, because, like Maine, the
industry is a very important and powerful one for us. And we
are just delighted that you are here.
My boss, Chancellor O'Bryan, is away on a very important
mission. I am the chief development officer, and he is actually
asking someone for money this morning, and we consider that to
be a very powerful thing.
I want to do just a couple of things before you get into
the hearing. First of all, I want to introduce and acknowledge
my colleague, Vice Chancellor Shirley Laskey. She is the senior
administrator who has primary responsibility for our Federal
relations, and works extremely hard with our delegation in
Washington, and particularly with Senator Breaux and with his
staff.
Ms. Naomi Moore, the lady in blue, is the woman who
handled, and will continue to handle, all of the logistics for
you as you go through your day. And she said to me that I
should make a very important announcement. The ladies' and
men's rooms are outside of this room and turn right and go down
the hall, and they will be the last two doors on your left.
So we hope you have a very productive day. We hope that it
leads to some very important work down the line as the two
Senators move these efforts through the Congress. And we hope,
finally, that you have very happy holidays.
Thank you very much.
Senator Snowe. Vice Chancellor Brown, I want to thank you
on behalf of the Subcommittee and Senator Breaux for allowing
us to be here today, and for lending us your beautiful
facilities. We thank you for your hospitality and your staff
who have helped to assist us in making this possible. I wish
you well for all that you do on behalf of the people of
Louisiana.
Senator Breaux. Thank you, Robert. We appreciate it very
much. Thank you, Vice Chancellor.
Mr. Brown. Thank you.
Senator Snowe. Good morning. First of all, I want to thank
Senator Breaux for inviting me and the subcommittee to this
beautiful city of New Orleans, and his State, to discuss the
future of our fisheries. Maine and Louisiana have a lot in
common. We both have many miles of beautiful coastline, proud
fishing traditions that date back for generations, and
crustaceans that we are very proud of.
But, be that as it may, we are very fortunate to have
someone of Senator Breaux's capabilities and in-depth
knowledge, leading back to his tenure as chair of the Fisheries
Subcommittee in the House of Representatives. Senator Breaux
has been a leader on fisheries issues for almost 30 years and
he has a remarkable ability to work across party lines.
It has been a privilege to work with John on many issues,
including the important issue of the health of our fisheries.
It is not a Democrat issue. It is not a Republican issue. We
work together on this, and many issues of concern to the people
of this country, and certainly to our respective States.
We must continue the tradition of bipartisanship on
fisheries issues. And I am going to be working with Senator
Breaux and other members of the Subcommittee on the
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. And I know that
John, over the years, has played an integral role in past
reauthorizations of the Act.
I want to welcome all of you here today, our witnesses in
particular, and everybody else who has taken the time to be
here. Let me note that many of you have travelled long
distances to offer your views and positions on this
reauthorization.
I do not have to tell you that Magnuson-Stevens is the
principal Federal law governing marine fisheries management.
This is the third hearing to be held by the Subcommittee as
part of an exhaustive review of the statute and its
implementation by the administration.
The enactment of the Fishery Conservation and Management
Act of 1976 began a new approach to Federal marine fisheries
management. The Act, as you know, is administered by the
National Marine Fisheries Service and eight regional fisheries
management councils. Their actions establish the rules under
which the fishing industry operates. They determine the harvest
quotas, season length, gear restrictions, and license
limitations, decisions which have serious implications for
those of you who fish and work in the Gulf.
That is why difficult management decisions cannot be made
in a vacuum. You are the ones whose livelihood is at stake.
Your voice must be heard in the decisionmaking process. As
such, it is critical that all sectors of the fishing community
receive fair and balanced representation, to ensure that you
play a strong role in the management of this process.
In July, in Washington, D.C., we met to examine a broad
array of issues concerning fisheries management. Mr. Wayne
Swingle, who is Executive Director of the Gulf of Mexico
Fishery Management Council, provided us with an overview of the
topics that we will have the opportunity to discuss in more
detail today.
In September, the subcommittee held a hearing in Maine. We
heard about how the implementation of the Act affected
fishermen in New England. And I will be holding additional
hearings next year, in Seattle, Alaska, and Massachusetts, to
help us obtain a consensus on what changes should be made to
help ensure a healthy future for our fisheries. After all,
there is no doubt that fisheries are very important for many
States and the Nation as a whole.
In 1998, commercial landings by U.S. fishermen were over
9.2 billion pounds of fish and shellfish, worth $3.1 billion.
Further, the recreational fishing catch was 195 million pounds.
In my own State of Maine, fishing is more than a job; it is a
way of life. Up and down the Maine coast, our communities have
long and rich fishing heritage. As a result of my work with
Senators Breaux, Hutchison, and Lott on the Commerce Committee,
I have learned that the same could be said of the Gulf Coast.
The Gulf produces a substantial amount of seafood. In 1998
alone, Gulf States landed over 1.5 billion pounds of fish,
worth over $700 million. Louisiana has four ports in the top
ten nationwide in terms of landings. And then, of course, you
have Mississippi, Alabama, Texas, and Florida, all of which
have fishing ports with substantial landings, worth millions
and millions of dollars.
While many regions are dependent on commercial and
recreational fisheries that are strong and robust, others have
not fared as well. Their fish stocks have declined, and
communities in those regions are feeling the economic impact.
And throughout the reauthorization process, we will examine
ways to bring about healthy fisheries and healthy fishing
communities.
As you all know, one of the goals of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act was to provide a mechanism to determine the appropriate
level of catch to maximize the benefit to the Nation, while
still protecting the long-term sustainability of the fisheries.
It is a balancing act among competing interests of commercial
and recreational fishermen. And we will also hear of the need
for participation of non-fishing interests when managing public
resources.
The Sustainable Fisheries Act was enacted in 1996. And the
goals and objectives of that Act reflected significant changes
to the original legislation. Proper implementation of these
provisions is of great concern to many different groups.
Accordingly, there is considerable interest in the activities
of the regional councils in the National Marine Fisheries
Service.
The most substantial change that occurred in the 1996 Act
was the mandate to stop overfishing and restore overfished
stocks. The councils were given a timetable to achieve this
goal. And today's witnesses will be able to give firsthand
reports about the level of success the Gulf Council has had in
meeting this requirement.
Finally, the councils and the National Marine Fisheries
Service were also told to increase the emphasis on the
socioeconomic impacts that regulations have on fishing
communities. Because of the high level of overfishing,
management measures will be required in a variety of fisheries.
It is essential, therefore, that we remember to preserve the
fishermen as well as the fish.
There have been numerous criticisms that the National
Marine Fisheries Service and councils have not taken adequate
measures to address the financial hardship that tough
management will inevitably cause. Today, we will hear the
impact that this has had on fishermen and fishing communities
here in the Gulf.
The Sustainable Fisheries Act also imposed a moratorium on
the creation of new individual fishing quota programs. Today's
witnesses will offer recommendations to address such programs
in the future.
The final paradigm shift that was incorporated in the 1996
Act included provisions to minimize bycatch and to restore and
protect fish habitat. Based on concerns that certain fish
stocks have declined due to loss of their surrounding habitat,
the Act established a national program to facilitate long-term
protection of essential fish habitats. Many have argued that
these provisions have not been properly implemented, and we
will be discussing this problem with our witnesses here today.
During my trips home to the State of Maine, and during the
recent hearing on the Magnuson-Stevens Act, many people
affected by this legislation have indicated to me time and
again that there is too little flexibility in the Act, that it
is not being properly implemented by the National Marine
Fisheries Service, and that contrary to its mandate, the best
science is not being used in management decisions. And I know
from reviewing the testimony that will be presented here today,
many of you share similar concerns.
As we move forward in this process, we must make sure that
sustainable fishing and good management becomes the norm and
not the exception. Clearly, this reauthorization will have
major implications for the future health and management of our
fisheries, in all of our communities throughout this country.
So I welcome all of you here today. I appreciate your
ability to be here to express your concerns. It will be an
evolving process throughout this next year. But we obviously
have a timetable to reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Act, so we
are going to embark on an ambitious program. We need to make
sure that we hear all of your concerns throughout the
reauthorization process.
With that, I would like to recognize my good friend and
colleague, Senator Breaux.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BREAUX, U.S. SENATOR
FROM LOUISIANA
Senator Breaux. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And
welcome to New Orleans and welcome to the Gulf. We are
delighted to have our Chairperson of the Subcommittee in the
Senate for a hearing in our area to hear firsthand of the
concerns, and all of the potential and actual problems that we
have experienced since the last time that Congress visited this
area.
I think we are fortunate to have Senator Snowe as Chair of
this important Subcommittee, because she also comes from a
maritime area, the State of Maine, with a great history of both
fishing and maritime industry. And while we are many miles
apart in geographic distance, we are very close together on
many of the concerns the people of our respective areas share.
I have got to tell the story, Madam Chair, of the two
Cajuns who won this ice fishing trip, all expenses paid, to the
State of Maine, to go ice fishing in Maine in the middle of the
winter. These two South Louisiana Cajuns had never been north
of Shreveport before, but they took the trip up to Maine in the
dead of winter. And they went to the local sporting goods store
to buy equipment so that they could go ice fishing, which they
had never done before.
So they go into the store and they buy gloves and they buy
hats and they buy boots. And they ask if the owner had any ice
picks. And he said, sure, and they said, we'll take a dozen. So
they went out and came back about three hours later, and they
said, we want another dozen ice picks. And the store owner
said, well, yes, I guess I can sell you another dozen. So he
sells them the second dozen ice picks.
And then, about two hours later, they come back in. They
want another dozen ice picks. The store owner just had to ask
them, he said, men, I do not understand you all. You come to
the store and you buy three dozen ice picks. You all must be
catching a lot of fish. And the two Cajuns said, catching a lot
of fish--heck, we ain't even got our boat in the water yet.
[Laughter.]
Senator Breaux. So while we have a lot in common, there are
some differences as well. And what we are trying to do is to
get the boats in the water and keep them fishing, from both a
commercial and a recreational standpoint. It is an absolute
challenge. I have been involved in these issues for such a long
time, and to try and properly manage the resources of this
Nation for all of the legitimate users is indeed an absolutely
complicated, and almost impossible, task.
I see some of these people in the room who have been
friends of mine for so long, representing all sides of the
issues. I know that fisheries management has always been a very
difficult thing to do. We created the regional fishery
management councils because we wanted the decisions to be made
on a local level, closest to the people, as opposed to having
them all made in Washington by bureaucrats who often do not
have firsthand knowledge of what is happening.
So it is a delicate balance to have a Federal role, a local
role, and a private sector role and to make it all work. No one
is ever going to be satisfied. Our job is to make sure that
everybody is treated fairly, knowing that the end results will
never be to the liking of any particular group, each of which
would of course like to have decisions more tilted toward their
particular interest. I know that our job is very difficult--and
that the Council's job is very difficult--in trying to
carefully balance all of these considerations.
Let me just conclude by saying, as Senator Snowe has
acknowledged, how important this Gulf fishery is to this
region. Larry Simpson, who has been around for a long time, had
some really interesting statistics attached to the end of his
testimony. And just for the benefit of everybody, the coastline
of the Gulf of Mexico is 1,630 miles. That is longer than the
Pacific coast. That is longer than the coastline from
California to the State of Washington. And it is equivalent to
the distance from Newport, Rhode Island, to Miami, Florida.
Nearly 40 percent of the total U.S. commercial fishing
landings come from the Gulf. For the whole United States of
America, 40 percent come right from the Gulf of Mexico. It is
really an absolutely amazing area that we have. At the same
time that we have one of the greatest fishing areas in the
world, we have also one of the most productive areas for
energy, which also creates conflicts between these groups.
So much of the oil and gas for this Nation is produced
right here in the Gulf of Mexico, and provides energy for
people all over the United States and all over the world.
Ninety-seven percent of all offshore gas production is right
here in the Gulf. And the shrimp industry is the second most
valuable fishery in terms of dollars, only next to Alaska
salmon--however, I prefer shrimp, of course.
[Laughter.]
Senator Breaux. But, anyway, those are the statistics.
Senator Snowe. Did you tell that to Senator Stevens?
Senator Breaux. Yes, quietly.
[Laughter.]
Senator Breaux. We are delighted our Chairperson is here,
and we welcome her knowledge of this issue. And we are
delighted for all of the people who are participating,
particularly our first panel, and we look forward to hearing
your testimony.
Thank you.
Senator Snowe. Thank you.
Before I welcome our first panel, I would like to introduce
to you our staff: Sloan Rappoport and Rick Kenin, from my
Subcommittee staff; Margaret Spring from the Subcommittee
minority staff. They have traveled from Washington to be here
today. Also John Flynn from Senator Breaux's D.C. staff, and
Steve Kozak, from Senator Kerry's office, is here as well.
So if you have any additional problems, they are sitting
right behind us.
Senator Breaux. With the real answers.
Senator Snowe. Right, with the real answers.
I would like to welcome the members of our first panel: Ms.
Penny Dalton, Assistant Administrator of the National Marine
Fisheries Service. She is accompanied by Bill Hogarth, National
Marine Fisheries Service Southeast Regional Administrator. We
also have John Roussel, Assistant Secretary of the Office of
Fisheries, at the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and
Fisheries.
The next witness will be Mr. Larry Simpson, Director of the
Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission. And our final witness
on panel one will be Dr. Shipp, who is Chairman of the Gulf of
Mexico Fishery Management Council.
We welcome all of you here today. Thank you. We have a
number of witnesses here today. We ask that you limit your oral
presentations to about five minutes so that we can proceed, and
we will place your full written statements in the record. Thank
you.
Ms. Dalton.
STATEMENT OF PENELOPE DALTON, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR
FISHERIES, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, NATIONAL OCEANIC
AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION; ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIAM HOGARTH,
PH.D., SOUTHEAST REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL MARINE
FISHERIES SERVICE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
ADMINISTRATION, AND JOSEPH POWERS, PH.D., SOUTHEAST SCIENCE
CENTER
Ms. Dalton. Good morning. Thank you for inviting me to New
Orleans to testify on the Magnuson-Stevens Act and on issues of
concern to fishermen in the southeastern United States. I am
Penny Dalton, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Accompanying
me is Dr. Bill Hogarth, our Southeast Regional Administrator.
Also with us is Dr. Joe Powers, from the Southeast Science
Center, in case there are technical questions.
As you know, marine fisheries make a significant
contribution to coastal economies of the Gulf and South
Atlantic. Senator Snowe has given the statistics on the
importance of commercial fisheries. And in addition, Southeast
recreational fisheries are the largest in the Nation. In 1998,
5.8 million saltwater anglers around the United States took 53
million trips and caught 284 million fish.
Sport fishermen in the Southeast accounted for more than 60
percent of those trips, and more than 44 percent of the fish
caught nationwide. While these figures are substantial, they
are less than they could be. Current harvest levels are about
18 percent lower than the long-term potential yield.
Today, over 334 species of fish, corals, crabs, and other
shellfish are managed under 19 fishery management plans
developed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic and Caribbean
Fishery Management Councils. Of these stocks, about 8 percent
are overfished or approaching overfished status; 7 percent are
not overfished; and there are another 85 percent whose status
is unknown.
Our 1994 report to Congress lists four species managed by
the Gulf Council, by the South Atlantic Council, one jointly
managed species, and three species managed by the Caribbean
Council as overfished. The councils have submitted amendments
to existing fishery management plans to rebuild these
overfished species and increase long-term yields of all
fisheries under their management.
Their efforts are starting to pay off, with signs of
recovery for some overfished stocks. For example, South
Atlantic king and Spanish mackerel recently were removed from
the list of overfished species. Gulf Spanish mackerel also have
been taken off the overfished list. These improvements are a
result of close coordination by the councils of State and
Federal efforts to reduce fishing mortality.
The Gulf of Mexico shrimp fisheries also have benefited
from cooperative management. Although the annual yield is
governed in part by environmental factors, two cooperative
closures--the Tortugas shrimp sanctuary in Southern Florida,
and the brown shrimp closure off Texas--have contributed to
increases in shrimp landings.
The Tortugas closure provides for a reserve for pink shrimp
adjacent to harvest grounds, thus ensuring availability of the
resource during the fishing season. The Texas closure enhances
total landings by delaying the opening of the season until
shrimp have attained a larger size. These closures were
developed by the Gulf Council, Florida and Texas, and
implemented by NOAA Fisheries in Federal waters.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides a national framework for
conserving and managing the wealth of fishery resources found
in U.S. Federal waters. In 1996, Congress revised the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, in the Sustainable Fisheries Act, to address such
issues as assessing the social and economic impacts of
management, rebuilding overfished stocks, minimizing bycatch,
and identifying and protecting fish habitat.
One of NOAA Fisheries' highest priorities is to improve our
social and economic analyses. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires
a fishery impact statement. And a new standard on fishing
communities makes clear our mandate to consider the social and
economic impacts of management programs.
In addition, analyses are required by other laws, such as
the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the National Environmental
Policy Act. This is an important part of the decisionmaking
process, and affects our choice of fisheries management
actions. For instance, the South Atlantic Council's snapper/
grouper plan reduced quotas for snowy grouper and golden tile
fish by 40 percent. But to lessen the impact on fishermen, the
plan phased in the reduction over a three-year period.
In the Gulf of Mexico, the red snapper fishery has become
the focal point for both overfishing and bycatch discussions.
The management of red snapper is complicated, because the
species is long lived and requires a very lengthy rebuilding
program. In addition, bycatch of juvenile fish in shrimp trawls
has reduced the capacity of the red snapper resource to
recover.
To stop overfishing in the red snapper fishery, we now have
limited entry in the commercial sector and closures when
commercial and recreational quotas are reached. This past
summer, we met with stakeholders to discuss options for
managing red snapper and reducing bycatch in the shrimp
fishery.
Based on the meetings, the Gulf Council now has proposed an
interim final rule that would allow the recreational season to
extend from mid-April to the end of October, with a four fish
bag limit. The commercial season would run for ten days
monthly, starting in February, until the quota is met. I just
got word this morning that the rule has gone to the Federal
Register.
Since 1998, shrimpers have used bycatch reduction devices,
or BRDs, to reduce their bycatch of red snapper by about 40
percent--a significant achievement. Over the next three years,
we would like to see reductions of 50 to 60 percent through
improvements in BRD technology.
NOAA Fisheries will work closely with the industry and the
Gulf and South Atlantic Fisheries Development Foundation to
develop new and more effective BRDs to minimize both bycatch
and shrimp loss. In addition, we are working with the councils
to revise the BRD certification process, so that a larger
variety of BRDs are available, allowing fishermen to select one
that fits their specific fishing conditions.
Yet, despite these continuing efforts, we still have a long
way to go to rebuild red snapper. A recent assessment indicates
that further harvest and bycatch reductions are likely to be
necessary because of poor recruitment and other factors. On the
positive side, in the past two years, fishermen have reported
red snapper catches along the west Florida coast, an area where
fish had not been caught for many years. This expansion of the
range of the fish could be a response to reductions in fishing
mortality.
Turning to highly migratory species, this past April, NOAA
Fisheries completed a fishery management plan for Atlantic
tunas, swordfish and sharks. Several groups have filed suit,
challenging the bycatch and rebuilding provisions of the HMS
plan. A stay of the suit has been negotiated if NOAA Fisheries
publishes a proposed rule by December 15th, to reduce bycatch
in these fisheries.
That rule has been filed and, over the next few months, we
will gather public comments, including extensive public
hearings so that a final rule can be published by May 1. The
time and area closures in the proposed rule are similar to
those in the legislation recently introduced by both of you,
Representative Saxton, and others.
Another issue is continuing constituent concerns about
Magnuson-Stevens Act provisions to conserve and enhance
essential fish habitat. Responding to those concerns, NOAA
Fisheries has worked to build on existing environmental review
processes to implement the provisions. NOAA Fisheries has
conducted close to 2,500 consultations to date with Federal
agencies on EFH. The majority of these consultations have been
in the Southeast, mostly in Florida and Louisiana.
In addition, we are working closely with marine industries,
such as oil and gas, to identify locations and construction
methods that minimize any habitat damage and mitigate impacts.
Our results so far have been to minimize the regulatory impacts
on both the agencies and the public.
The EFH program is complemented by our efforts to restore
and maintain healthy fisheries and coastal habitats under the
Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act.
CWPPRA has directed many millions of dollars to projects that
have improved habitats used by young shrimp.
With respect to reauthorizing the Magnuson-Stevens Act, we
are still working to understand and effectively implement the
changes to fishery management policies and procedures made in
1996. Consequently, we would propose no major changes to the
Act at this time. However, we have established an internal
agency task force that has identified some changes to the law
that may be useful to make the management process more
efficient and to resolve some relatively minor problems. These
revisions are discussed in my written statement.
In addition, we look forward to working with congressional
members on high-priority policy issues, such as observer
programs, individual fishing quotas, and funding and fee
authorities. We will continue to work closely with fishermen,
the councils, and our stakeholders to resolve problems
affecting our Nation's fisheries.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Dalton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Penelope Dalton, Assistant Administrator for
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration; accompanied by William Hogarth, Ph.D.,
Southeast Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and Joseph Powers,
Ph.D., Southeast Science Center
Madame Chair and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
inviting me to New Orleans to testify on the implementation and
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), and to speak on issues of
concern to fishermen in the Southeastern United States. I am Penny
Dalton, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries for the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration.
Building a Foundation for Sustainable Fisheries--Southeastern United
States
As you know, Southeastern commercial and recreational fisheries are
valuable national resources. In 1998, Southeastern commercial fishers
harvested close to 1.8 billion pounds of fish, shellfish, and
crustaceans, producing over $722 million in dockside revenue. The
Southeastern recreational fisheries are the largest in the Nation.
Nationally, in 1998, 5.8 million saltwater anglers took 53 million
trips and caught 284 million fish. Southeastern recreational fishermen
accounted for more than 60 percent of the number of trips and more than
44 percent of the number of fish caught nationwide. While the seafood
and marine recreational fishing industries make substantial
contributions to the Southeastern economy, current harvest levels are
less than what they potentially could be. Current production is about
18 percent less than the long-term potential yield.
From a regional perspective, consider that as of 1998, over 334
species of fish, corals, crabs, and other crustaceans are managed under
19 fishery management plans developed by the Gulf of Mexico, South
Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils. In the 1999 Report
to Congress, four finfish species managed by the Gulf Council, 15 by
the South Atlantic Council, one jointly managed by the Gulf and South
Atlantic Councils, and two finfish and one mollusk species managed by
the Caribbean Council were declared overfished. The Councils have
submitted amendments to their existing fishery management plans
governing these overfished species with the goal of rebuilding these
stocks and increasing long-term yields of all fisheries under their
management.
In the Southeast, state and federal fisheries management efforts
are starting to pay off, with initial signs of recovery for some
overfished stocks. For example, South Atlantic groups of king and
Spanish mackerel have recently been removed from the list of overfished
species in the Southeast region. This was possible through close
coordination by the Gulf and South Atlantic Councils of state and
federal efforts using traditional fisheries management to reduce
fishing mortality. Spanish mackerel in the Gulf of Mexico have
undergone a similar and favorable transition and Gulf group king
mackerel are in the process of recovery.
The Gulf of Mexico shrimp fisheries have also benefitted from
cooperative state and federal management actions. Although the annual
yield is somewhat governed by environmental factors, two cooperative
shrimp closures, the Tortugas shrimp sanctuary off southern Florida and
the brown shrimp closure off Texas, have contributed to increases in
shrimp landings. The Tortugas closure provides a safe haven for pink
shrimp adjacent to the harvest grounds and thus ensures availability of
the resource during the harvest season. The Texas closure controls
harvest by delaying the opening of shrimp season until shrimp have
attained a larger, more economically valuable size. Consequently, total
landings are enhanced. Shrimp landings in the Gulf of Mexico were
higher in 1998 by 12 percent over 1997. These closures were developed
by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, Florida, and Texas,
and implemented by NOAA Fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
In the Gulf of Mexico, red snapper is an important recreational and
commercial fishery. An overfished stock, the management of red snapper
is complex and controversial, and the completion of the rebuilding
process is not expected for many years. NOAA Fisheries has recognized
over the years that the bycatch of juvenile red snapper in shrimp
trawls has impacted the health, stability, and rebuilding of that
resource. Bycatch reduction devices (BRDs) required in the fishery
since 1998 have reduced bycatch by about 40 percent, which is a
significant achievement. Over the next three years, we hope to realize
greater reductions of up to 50 to 60 percent through improvements in
BRD technology. NOAA Fisheries is working closely with industry and the
Gulf and South Atlantic Fisheries Development Foundation to develop new
BRDs and to refine existing BRDs such as the Jones-Davis BRD, which can
achieve reductions of 60 percent. In addition, NOAA Fisheries is
working with the Councils to revise the BRD certification process so
that a larger variety of BRDs is available to industry, and fishermen
can select devices most appropriate to specific fishing conditions,
thus optimizing efficiency and cost effectiveness.
Yet, in spite of the fact that fishing mortality has been reduced
through state and federal management efforts using a combination of
BRDs, limited entry in the commercial fishery, and closures when
commercial and recreational quotas are reached, we still have a long
way to go. A recent assessment of the health of the stock reports that
further harvest reductions are likely to be necessary, given poor
recruitment classes and other factors. NOAA Fisheries scientists
estimate that without further reducing bycatch mortality of red snapper
in shrimp trawls, red snapper populations cannot be rebuilt to
sustainable levels. On the positive side, over the past two years,
fishers have reported red snapper catches along the west Florida
coast--an area where fish had not been caught for many years. This
expansion of the range of the fish could be a population response to
the reduction in fishing mortality, including bycatch reductions, in
both the commercial and recreational sectors.
In the waters off the Southeastern United States, installation of
BRDs in shrimp trawls also is being used to recover the overfished
Atlantic weakfish stock. This action, combined with restrictions on the
directed Atlantic weakfish fisheries, is producing early signs of
recovery for this species.
Recognizing that serious problems remain with some fishery
resources, we are cautiously optimistic about the future of
Southeastern fisheries. We must protect the gains certain fish stocks
have made, focus on improving yields over the long term, and identify
additional measures that would move depleted stocks toward recovery. It
is clear that fishery management can work. When we reduce mortality,
biomass increases; and at some point, when nature cooperates, good year
classes enter the fishery. However, we remain cautious as we face the
challenges before us. We must work with the Councils, States and
fishermen to maintain management plans that work, adjust our course
where plans are not effective, and minimize to the extent possible the
impacts on communities and the fishing industry as we make the
transition to sustainable fisheries. I appreciate the commitment of
members of the Southeast delegation and Southeastern fishing
communities to this transition. I look forward with you to restoring
fish stocks that support a vibrant fishing industry and healthy coastal
economies.
Implementation of the Sustainable Fisheries Act
As we approach the close of the 20th Century, we are at a crucial
point in fisheries management, with considerable work ahead of us. In
the 23 years since the enactment of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, we have
seen the complete Americanization of fisheries in federal waters, the
expansion of the U.S. fishing industry, declines in many fishery
resources, and the rise of public interest in fisheries issues. We have
seen some successes from our management actions, including rebuilding
of Spanish mackerel, the initial rebound of a few depleted stocks like
Gulf of Mexico red snapper and Georges Bank haddock, and the continued
strong production of fish stocks off Alaska. However, as of 1999, 11
percent of U.S. living marine resources are overfished or are
approaching overfished, 14 percent are not overfished, and there is
another 75 percent whose status is unknown. In the Southeast, about 8
percent of living marine resources are overfished or are approaching
the overfished status, 7 percent are not overfished, and there is
another 85 percent whose status is unknown. We at NOAA Fisheries are
working to rebuild fish stocks to levels that could sustain fisheries
of greater economic value. From a national perspective, scientists
estimate that we could increase U.S. fishery landings up to 6.8 billion
pounds by rebuilding all fisheries and maintaining harvests at optimal
yields.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the national framework for
conserving and managing the wealth of fishery resources found within
the 197-mile-wide zone of federal waters contiguous to the United
States (except for the coastal waters for Texas and the Gulf of Mexico
coast of Florida where state waters extend out to 9 nautical miles). In
1996, Congress ushered in a new era in fisheries management, making
significant revisions to the Magnuson-Stevens Act in the Sustainable
Fisheries Act (SFA). The SFA addresses a number of conservation issues.
First, to prevent overfishing and rebuild depleted fisheries, the SFA
caps fishery harvests at the maximum sustainable level and requires
fishery management plans to rebuild any overfished fishery. NOAA
Fisheries now reports annually on the health of marine fisheries and
identifies fisheries that are overfished or approaching an overfished
condition. Second, the SFA refocused fisheries management by
emphasizing the need to protect fisheries habitat. To enhance this
goal, the SFA requires that management plans identify habitat that is
necessary to fish for spawning, feeding, or growth. The new law also
clarifies our existing authority to comment on federal actions that
affect essential fish habitat. Third, to reduce bycatch and waste, the
SFA adds a new national standard requiring that conservation and
management measures minimize bycatch and the mortality of bycatch that
cannot be avoided. It also calls for management plans to assess bycatch
and to take steps to reduce it.
The new conservation requirements may have far-reaching effects on
recreational and commercial fishing and on fishermen, their families
and communities. To address this concern, the SFA establishes a new
national standard 8 that requires, consistent with conservation
objectives, that fishery management plans ensure sustained
participation of fishing communities and minimize adverse impacts. In
addition, a national standard has been added to promote the safety of
human life at sea. Finally, the SFA provides a number of new tools for
addressing problems relating to the transition to sustainable
fisheries, including amendments to provide for fisheries disaster
relief, fishing capacity reduction programs, vessel financing, and
grants and other financial assistance.
Implementation of the Sustainable Fisheries Act
NOAA Fisheries takes seriously its new mandates under the SFA. We
are continuing to work to ensure that SFA requirements are implemented,
and that conservation and management measures fully protect the
resource and provide for the needs of fishing communities and the
Nation. A great deal of work remains to be done. We are laying a better
foundation for future fisheries management, yet the benefits of the
changes made by Congress in 1996 will take years, perhaps decades, to
realize. In addition, the management decisions that we face are
becoming ever more complex and contentious, and good solutions are hard
to come by. We need to direct resources and effort to the scientific
and technical aspects of our work. We also must build consensus with
the public and among various stakeholders to facilitate progress in
developing management programs that will move us toward the goal of
healthy and sustainable marine resources.
The SFA imposed a deadline of October 11, 1998 for amendments to
each of the 39 existing fishery management plans to implement its
changes. Despite the Councils' best efforts, there were some proposed
amendments that did not satisfy the requirements, for which the
analyses were inadequate, or that did not minimize socioeconomic or
environmental impacts to the extent possible and achieve management
objectives. NOAA Fisheries disapproved or partially approved those
amendments and is working closely with the Councils to improve them,
particularly in the areas of assessing social and economic impacts,
rebuilding overfished stocks, minimizing bycatch, identifying and
protecting fish habitat, and improving the scientific basis for
management. I will outline some of the work we are doing in each of
these areas:
Social and economic analysis: One of NOAA Fisheries' highest
priorities is to improve our social and economic analyses. These
analyses are required by a number of laws in addition to the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, including the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the National
Environmental Policy Act, and Executive Order 12866. The requirement of
the Magnuson-Stevens Act to include a fishery impact statement, and the
new standard on fishing communities, also make clear our mandate to
consider the social and economic impacts of any management program.
This consistently has been an important part of the decision-making
process and has affected our choice of fisheries conservation and
management actions. For instance, in the South Atlantic Council's
Snapper Grouper FMP, Amendment 6 reduced the quotas for snowy grouper
and golden tilefish in the EEZ by 40 percent in each case. To lessen
the impacts on fishermen, the amendment phased in the reduction over a
3-year period (13.33 percent a year). In the South Atlantic and Gulf
king mackerel fishery, the use of varying trip limits is proving
effective in keeping the season open as long as possible and
stabilizing prices.
To strengthen our social and economic analysis capabilities, we
will issue revised Regulatory Flexibility Act guidelines to our
employees at the end of the year, hire more economists, sociologists,
and anthropologists, and work with other federal agencies and states to
improve our data collection. As a result, economic, social, and
biological considerations will be better integrated to assist fisheries
managers in making the best possible decisions to balance conservation,
the fishing industry, and community needs.
Rebuilding overfished stocks: NOAA Fisheries is committed to ending
overfishing and rebuilding stocks. This has proven to be a very
difficult task, in part because of the complex biological structure of
fisheries and complicated calculations of maximum sustainable yield,
and other fishery parameters. In the Southeast, 16 fishery management
plans are in effect with three more in the development stage. For each
of the species covered by these plans, NOAA Fisheries scientists are
working hard to determine measurable biological population parameters,
based on biomass, on which to base appropriate targets for managing
toward long-term sustainable population levels.
Also, NOAA Fisheries has taken the lead in preparing management
plans and rebuilding programs of wide-ranging fishes like tunas and
billfish. This past April, NOAA Fisheries completed a fisheries
management plan for Atlantic tunas, swordfish, and sharks (HMS Plan)
and an amendment to the billfish fishery management plan (Billfish
Amendment) that contained rebuilding programs. Numerous and substantial
changes were incorporated in the final rule to implement the HMS Plan
and Billfish Amendment, based on the thousands of public comments
received by the agency. Several groups have filed suit challenging the
bycatch and rebuilding provisions of the HMS FMP and Billfish
Amendment. A proposed rule designed to reduce bycatch in the HMS
fisheries is part of the requirements of the negotiated stay, and
should be published by mid-December. We will be making a considerable
effort to gather public comments on the proposals, including extensive
public hearings. The time and area closures in the proposed rule are
similar to those in the legislation recently introduced by Senators
Breaux and Snowe, Representative Saxton, and others.
Minimizing bycatch: Minimizing bycatch continues to be a very high
priority for NOAA Fisheries in the Southeast. The Gulf of Mexico, South
Atlantic and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils are in the process
of amending their respective fishery management plans accordingly. NOAA
Fisheries believes that outreach and education are a critical component
of reducing bycatch, and is working closely with industry to develop
new gear, and to promote clean fishing practices in all of the fishing
sectors. For instance, the Southeast Region conducted workshops this
year, through the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Fisheries
Development Foundation, to improve the dissemination of information on
the construction and use of BRDs in Atlantic and Gulf fisheries. These
workshops, designed to encourage dialogue among fishermen and with NOAA
Fisheries personnel on various aspects of BRD use (e.g., solving BRD
installation and use problems, BRD certification protocol, and
measuring methods for bycatch reduction), have included discussion of
NOAA Fisheries-sponsored observers to monitor and assess the progress
in reducing finfish bycatch in the shrimp fishery.
Essential Fish Habitat: I am well aware of your constituents'
concerns over the increased emphasis of the Magnuson-Stevens Act on
conserving and enhancing essential fish habitat (EFH). I wish to
emphasize the agency's intention to minimize impacts on fishermen and
non-fishing industries, while ensuring the long-term viability of the
fish stocks. In the Southeast, EFH was designated for over 400 marine
species, under 19 fishery management plans, managed by the Gulf of
Mexico, South Atlantic and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils. In
addition, EFH has been identified for species managed by the Mid-
Atlantic Council that range as far south as Florida. Additionally,
highly migratory species, whose range includes the Southeast, are
managed directly by NOAA Fisheries. Where data were available, EFH was
identified for each individual species and life stage using the best
available scientific information. Because of the great number of
managed species and the wide diversity of habitats utilized by the
various life stages of those species, habitats identified as EFH range
from low salinity marsh and estuarine habitats to the limits of the
EEZ.
Within the categories of EFH, subareas have been designated as
``habitat areas of particular concern'' or HAPCs. The Gulf of Mexico,
South Atlantic and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils did an
excellent job of using available scientific information to identify
areas that provide extremely important habitat for federally managed
fisheries or that represent resources that are unique or critical to
sustaining the production of important fisheries. Examples of HAPCs
include the Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve, Flower
Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary, the Florida Keys National
Marine Sanctuary, and habitats or regions of particular ecological
value, such as seagrass and coral reef habitats and the Oculina Bank
reef area. Such areas do not always require restrictions on fishing,
but we must carefully examine potential threats and, where appropriate,
take management actions to avoid adverse impacts.
The EFH provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act address impacts from
both fishing and non-fishing activities. In response to fishing gear
threats, each Council has considered measures to reduce the adverse
impacts of fishing activities to EFH. Past management measures have
included prohibitions in the use of certain or all gear types in areas
of sensitive marine habitats or restrictions to size and number of some
gear types in selected habitats. To address non-fishing activities,
NOAA Fisheries has conducted close to 2,500 consultations to date with
federal agencies whose actions may adversely affect EFH. The majority
of those consultations have been in the Southeastern states, mostly in
Florida and Louisiana. These reviews have been accomplished by
integrating EFH consultations into existing environmental review
processes as a way to minimize regulatory impacts on federal action
agencies and the public. We expect the number of consultations to
increase as outreach efforts with federal agencies continue to build
awareness of the EFH statutory requirements. In addition, we are
working closely with such industries as the oil and gas industry in
planning the least damaging locations, construction methods, and the
minimization and mitigation of impacts.
NOAA Fisheries is using all of its habitat mandates to protect and
restore EFH. The EFH consultation authority included in the SFA has
improved interagency coordination, with benefits to fish habitat. For
example, negotiations with the Minerals Management Service on oil and
gas exploration activities in the western Gulf of Mexico yielded an
agreement that is good for all Gulf species and that is more efficient
for both agencies.
Our restoration authorities are also important to rebuild and
maintain healthy fisheries and coastal habitats. The Coastal Wetlands,
Planning, Protection and Restoration Act (CWPPRA) has directed many
millions of dollars to projects that have improved estuarine and
coastal habitats used by young shrimps and red drum. The Big Island and
Atchafalaya Sediment Diversion Projects, sponsored by NOAA Fisheries,
have resulted in the creation of 1,200 acres of delta wetlands by
restoring freshwater and sediment delivery processes to the
northwestern portion of the Atchafalaya River delta. Designed to
promote natural delta expansion over time, the projects over the next
20 years should create an additional 3,000 acres of wetlands.
The newer Community Based Restoration Program (CBRP) offers us
opportunities to work with private partners to test restoration
techniques and to restore priority sites. In an effort to restore lost
wetland habitats in Florida, NOAA Fisheries formed a partnership with
the Tampa Bay Watch to fund the Tampa Bay High School Wetland Nursery
program. This innovative program recruits high school students to build
wetland nurseries on-campus to grow salt marsh grasses for Tampa Bay
restoration efforts. Offering students hands-on experience in habitat
restoration activities, the program also provides a free source of salt
marsh grasses, and a pool of enthusiastic volunteers. New funds in
fiscal year 2000 will enable the CBRP to evaluate options and to focus
on highest-priority community restoration opportunities as a major step
toward enhancing Gulf of Mexico habitats important to managed species.
Whether restoration is a large CWPPRA project or a community-based
effort, much of our work relates directly to species and habitats of
interest to Gulf fisheries and fishing communities.
Improving technical and scientific information and analyses: NOAA
Fisheries is committed to using the best possible science in the
decision-making process, and to incorporating biological, social, and
economic research findings into fisheries conservation and management
measures. Meeting our responsibilities under the Magnuson-Stevens Act
and other applicable laws requires collection of a considerable amount
of data. We will continue to support a precautionary approach in the
face of scientific uncertainty. At the same time, we are expanding our
own collection efforts and our partnerships with the states, interstate
commissions, industry and others to collect and analyze critical data.
Within the Southeast, NOAA Fisheries is active in two innovative state-
federal partnerships to improve the quality and quantity of information
for marine resource stewardship. One of these partnerships is the
Fisheries Information Network, a cooperative state and federal data
collection and management program for the Southeast region. The Gulf
States Marine Fisheries Commission coordinates this program within the
Southeastern United States. The second is the Atlantic Coastal
Cooperative Statistics Program (ACCSP), a cooperative effort among
federal and state fisheries managers, scientists, and commercial and
recreational fishermen to coordinate and improve data collection and
data management activities on the Atlantic coast. The Atlantic States
Marine Fisheries Commission coordinates this program within the
Atlantic coastal states. Such federal-state partnerships are an
important mechanism for providing reliable fisheries statistics while
sharing resources and reducing duplicative efforts. Reliable fisheries
statistics will allow the management process to work successfully,
increasing commercial and recreational fishing opportunities and
ensuring jobs for fishermen--not only for today, but for years to come.
Reauthorization Issues
We are still working to understand and effectively implement the
changes to fishery management policies and procedures made by the SFA.
Consequently, we would not propose major changes to the Magnuson-
Stevens Act at this time. However, we have established an internal
agency task force to evaluate SFA implementation, and the group has
identified some revisions of existing provisions that may be useful to
make the management process more efficient and to resolve some
relatively minor problems. We currently are reviewing various issues
raised by the task force, the Councils, and some of our stakeholders.
Among the issues identified are the following:
Review process for fishery management plans, amendments and
regulations: The SFA attempted to simplify and tighten the approval
process for management plans and regulations. However, one result of
that effort has been two distinct review and implementation processes--
one for plans and amendments and another for implementing regulations.
This essentially uncouples the review of plans and amendments from the
process for regulations, and as a result, the decision to approve or
disapprove a plan or amendment may be necessary before the end of the
public comment period on the implementing regulations. We are
considering amendments that would modify the process to address this
issue.
In addition, the Committee may wish to consider reinstating the
initial review of fishery management plans and amendments by the
Secretary. Considerable energy and staff resources are expended on
plans or amendments that are ultimately disapproved because of serious
omissions and other problems. At present, two to three months must
elapse before the Secretary makes his determination, and if the
amendment is then disapproved, it can be months or longer before the
Council can modify and resubmit the plan or amendment. While the
initial review was eliminated by the SFA to shorten the review process,
reinstating Secretarial review may actually provide a mechanism to
shorten the time it takes to get a plan or amendment approved and
implemented.
Restrictions on data collection and confidentiality: The Magnuson-
Stevens Act currently restricts the collection of economic data from
processors. Removal of this restriction could improve the quantity and
quality of information available to meet the requirements of the laws
requiring social and economic analysis. In addition, the SFA changed
the term ``statistics'' to ``information'' in the provisions dealing
with data confidentiality. The change has raised questions about the
intended application of those provisions, particularly with respect to
observer information, and Congressional clarification would be useful.
Coral reef protection: Special management areas, including those
designated to protect coral reefs, hard bottoms, and precious corals,
are important commercial resources and valuable habitats for many
species. Currently, we have the authority to regulate anchoring and
other activities of fishing vessels that affect fish habitat. Threats
to those resources from non-fishing vessels remain outside agency
authority except when associated with a Federal action that would
trigger EFH consultation or where addressed in regulations associated
with a national marine sanctuary. We suggest amending the Act to
clarify, consolidate, and strengthen NOAA Fisheries' authority to
regulate the actions of any recreational or commercial vessel that is
directly impacting resources being managed under the Magnuson-Stevens
Act.
Caribbean Council jurisdiction: The current description of the
Caribbean Council limits its jurisdiction to Federal waters off Puerto
Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. As a result, the Council cannot
develop fishery management plans governing fishing in Federal waters
around Navassa Island or any other U.S. possession in the Caribbean.
Jurisdiction of the Caribbean Council could be expanded to cover
Navassa Island, by including ``commonwealths, territories, and
possessions of the United States'' within the description of that
Council's authority.
Council meeting notification: To meet the notification requirements
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, Councils spend tens of thousands of
dollars a year to publish meeting notices in local newspapers in major
and/or affected fishing ports in the region. By contrast, fax networks,
mailings, public service announcements, and notices included with
marine weather forecasts are much less expensive and could be more
effective in reaching fishery participants and stakeholders. The
Committee may wish to consider modifying notification requirements to
allow Council use of any means that will result in wide publicity.
We look forward to working with Congressional members on high-
priority policy issues such as observer programs, individual fishing
quotas, and funding and fee authorities, although, at this time, we
have no specific recommendations for changes in the Magnuson-Stevens
Act to address these issues. We will continue to work closely with the
Southeast delegation; Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean
Fishery Management Councils; and our stakeholders to resolve problems
affecting Southeastern United States fisheries.
Madame Chair, this concludes my testimony. Thank you for the
opportunity to discuss the implementation and reauthorization of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. I am prepared to respond to any questions you and
members of the audience may have.
Senator Snowe. Thank you.
Mr. Roussel.
STATEMENT OF JOHN E. ROUSSEL, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, OFFICE OF
FISHERIES, LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES
Mr. Roussel. Chairman Snowe, welcome to Louisiana. And
Senator Breaux, welcome home.
My name is John Roussel. I am the Assistant Secretary of
the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Office of
Fisheries. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today.
My testimony addresses six issues, the first of which I
feel is the biggest fisheries management challenge facing the
councils, the States, and the Nation; that is the need for
sound science. The foundation of sound science is long-term,
reliable data generated from well-designed data collection
programs.
Although we have improved our data collection efforts over
the years through State and Federal cooperative efforts, we are
far from where we should be. Virtually every discussion
regarding the status of fish stocks at all levels of the
council process include much debate about the assumptions that
must be made in the absence of scientific information.
The five Gulf States, in concert with their Federal
partners and the Gulf Council Marine Fisheries Commission, have
developed a comprehensive data collection program for the Gulf
of Mexico region called GulfFIN, which has been partially
funded for the past two years. If this program were fully
operational, it would provide a solid foundation for sound
science in the Gulf and we strongly support full funding for
this program.
We all know that compliance with regulations is an
essential component for the success of any fishery management
program. We feel that the most efficient way to achieve a
sufficient level of compliance with Federal fishery programs is
through enhancement of State enforcement programs, working
cooperatively with the National Marine Fisheries Service, law
enforcement, and the United States Coast Guard.
Currently, the States in the Gulf receive no Federal
funding for enforcing regulations associated with the Magnuson-
Stevens Act. Yet, State enforcement agencies produce more than
70 percent of all the cases initiated for violations of the
Act. All of the Gulf States support very large commercial and
recreational fisheries within their waters, and have clearly
demonstrated their expertise and effectiveness at enforcing
State-managed fisheries.
The existing State enforcement programs are best postured
to provide increased officer presence, which we think is a key
factor in ensuring regulation compliance. The reauthorized Act
should include language establishing a mechanism for joint
State enforcement agreements in the Gulf region and authorized
funding for such agreements.
Currently, there is continuing confusion regarding the
definitions of overfishing, overfished, and the application of
maximum sustainable yield, or MSY, as used in the Act. Both
overfishing and overfished are defined the same in the Act. And
MSY is not defined in the Act. It is essential that the
reauthorized Act make a clear distinction between overfishing
and overfished if Congress intended there to be a difference.
MSY must also be consistently defined and applied. We recommend
that a national panel of fisheries experts should be convened
to develop definitions that clearly express Congress' intent
regarding the use of these terms.
Red snapper is one of the high-profile species in the Gulf,
and reauthorization of the Act must include measures that will
stabilize regulation of this fishery. The recent history of red
snapper management has provided anything but a setting in which
a reasonable person could understand what the current
regulations are and what the near-future regulations will be.
One major problem caused by the Act is the required use of
the recreational allocation as a quota, and the automatic
closure of recreational fishing when that quota is reached.
This portion of the Act should be rescinded until the Federal
Government funds an appropriate recreational quota monitoring
program.
The reauthorized Act should not contain a prohibition on
the Gulf Council's consideration of individual fishing quota
programs for red snapper. This tool, and any others that may be
helpful in the management of this fishery, must be allowed full
study and debate.
Recent stock assessments indicate that recovery of red
snapper will be difficult without further significant reduction
of red snapper bycatch by the shrimp industry. This will be the
struggle of the next decade in the Gulf. Adequate funding must
be made available to, first, further examine the bycatch
impact; and, second, to continue technology development for
bycatch exclusion and shrimp retention.
The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries is
supportive of the concepts contained in the 1996 EFH provisions
of the Act, which highlight the importance of preserving fish
habitat when balancing developmental needs with environmental
needs. We support and encourage the use of existing procedures
for review and consultation, whenever possible, to implement
these provisions. We think that it is important to use the
existing procedures.
The 1996 amendments to Section 306 added language that
addresses a State's authority to regulate fishing vessels
outside the boundaries of the State. However, there is still an
impediment to a State regulating vessels operating in Federal
waters off its shores in the absence of a Federal management
plan. Language similar to that in Section 306(a)(3)(c) should
be considered to address this situation.
This concludes my testimony, and I thank you again for the
opportunity to share these views regarding reauthorization of
the Act.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Roussel follows:]
Prepared Statement of John E. Roussel, Assistant Secretary, Office of
Fisheries, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries
My name is John Roussel. I am the Assistant Secretary of the
Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Office of Fisheries.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and welcome to
Louisiana.
My testimony today will address five issues: Sound Science, Law
Enforcement, Definitions of Overfishing/Overfished/MSY, Red Snapper/
Shrimp Management, Essential Fish Habitat and State Jurisdiction.
SOUND SCIENCE
The Act recognizes that collection of reliable data is essential to
the effective conservation, management and scientific understanding of
the fishery resources of the United States, however, this is the
biggest challenge facing the councils and the states. Developing
measures to eliminate overfishing is relatively easy. Determining
whether a fish stock is overfished or if overfishing is occurring is
not so easy. Many years of data are required to adequately determine
the status of a fish stock and to evaluate the effects of management
measures. Although we have improved our data collection efforts over
the years through state and federal cooperation and coordination we are
far from where we should be.
The Act specifies that conservation and management measures shall
be based on ``the best scientific information available.'' Although
this may appear to be a high standard, in practice it is high only if
well-designed and fully funded data and information collection programs
are in place. Sections 401-407 provide for data collection and there
has been recent partial funding of the GulfFIN initiative. However, all
of our fishery management plans identify the need for improved data
collection. Virtually all discussions of the status of fish stocks at
all levels of the Council process include much debate about the
assumptions that must be made in the absence of scientific information.
There must be a full commitment to adequately funding well designed
data collection programs, otherwise we will not be able to fulfill our
obligation to the nation to realize the full potential of the nation's
fishery resources. Full funding of the GulfFIN initiative, at $7
million annually, would go a long way towards addressing our data and
information needs in the Gulf.
STATE BASED LAW ENFORCEMENT
Compliance with regulations is essential for the success of natural
resource management programs. The only efficient way to achieve a
sufficient level of success and compliance with federal management
programs is through an enhancement of state enforcement programs,
working cooperatively with National Marine Fisheries Service law
enforcement and the United States Coast Guard.
Currently the States in the Gulf receive no federal funding for
enforcing regulations associated with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, yet
state enforcement agencies produce more than seventy percent of all the
cases initiated for violations of the Act. By comparison, the United
States Coast Guard receives upwards of $25 million annually for
Magnuson-Stevens Act enforcement for only a portion of the Gulf, while
initiating only thirty percent of the cases. This funding discrepancy
threatens the existence and effectiveness of the Act. The National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) enforcement is severely understaffed
with 10 to 12 federal agents and therefore is capable of providing only
minimal impact in the Gulf of Mexico. The United States Coast Guard
(USCG) serves as a multiple mission agency whose priorities often
preclude them from emphasizing fishery enforcement.
All of the Gulf states support very large commercial and
recreational fisheries within their waters and have clearly
demonstrated their expertise and effectiveness in enforcing state-
managed fisheries. The enforcement efforts of the states should be
sufficiently federally funded on a long-term basis to increase
compliance with this important Act. The failure to supply adequate
enforcement funding sets the stage for management failure.
Enforcement officer presence is the key factor in ensuring
regulation compliance. The level of officer presence must be adequate
to detect a sufficient number of violations to deter any purposeful
violations of the law so that the effects of undetected violations are
insignificant. Additional officer presence will increase compliance by
fishery participants, increase monitoring of landings, increase
effectiveness of dockside inspections, and provide increased ability to
respond to complaints of illegal activities. The existing state
enforcement organization and infrastructure is best postured to provide
increased officer presence. Providing long-term enforcement funding to
the states represents the greatest value in spending the federal tax
dollar.
Language calling for joint enforcement project agreements tailored
specifically to the Gulf of Mexico region, but similar to that
contained in Section 403 of S. 1420 should be implemented. Funding for
the Gulf of Mexico region joint project law enforcement agreement
should be authorized to be appropriated for $18 million for each of
fiscal years 2000 through 2004.
DEFINITIONS OF OVERFISHING/OVERFISHED/MSY
Currently there is confusion regarding the definitions of
overfishing, overfished and MSY. Both overfishing and overfished are
defined the same in the Act and Maximum Sustainable Yield is not
defined in the Act.
It is essential that the reauthorized Act make clear the
distinction between the definitions of overfishing and overfished.
Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) must also be consistently defined. A
national panel of fisheries science experts should address these key
definitions.
RED SNAPPER/SHRIMP MANAGEMENT
Red snapper has been one of the high profile species managed in the
Gulf. Reauthorization of the Act must include measures that will
stabilize regulation of the red snapper fisheries and allow the species
to recover from its overfished status.
Fisheries management is best accomplished with long-term,
consistent regulations that the public can learn, plan for and comply
with. The recent history of red snapper management has provided
anything but a setting in which a reasonable person could understand
what the current regulations are and what the near future regulations
will be. Much of the instability has been the result of the 1996
amendments to the Act. The Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission
is empowered to set seasons and size limits for this species and has
attempted to maintain a high degree of consistency with federal
regulations. Our Commission has considered red snapper action items on
its monthly agenda more than a dozen times in the three years since the
passage of the Sustainable Fisheries Act - more than any other single
species of fish or wildlife. Most of these actions have been size limit
changes, bag changes and season changes. The public relies on the
Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries' annual commercial and
recreational fishing pamphlets to guide its lawful fishing behavior.
These have become out of date for red snapper almost as soon as they
become available. For a state with only a 3-mile territorial sea and
minimal red snapper catch in state jurisdiction, this instability has
become excessively burdensome.
One major problem caused by the Act is the required use of the
recreational allocation as a quota and automatic closure of
recreational fishing when that quota is reached. This portion of the
Act should be rescinded until the federal government funds an
appropriate recreational quota-monitoring program.
The reauthorized Act should not contain a prohibition on the Gulf
Council's consideration of individual fishing quota programs for red
snapper. This tool and any others that may be helpful in the management
of this fishery must be allowed full study and debate.
The management of red snapper under the provisions of the Act
includes the management of the shrimp fishery of the Gulf. The recent
stock assessments indicate that the recovery of red snapper to healthy
levels will be difficult without further significant reduction of red
snapper bycatch by the shrimp industry. This will be the struggle of
the next decade. Louisiana stands to bear some of the largest impacts
of management decisions as we account for forty percent of the Gulf
shrimp landings and sixty five percent of the Gulf commercial red
snapper landings. Adequate funding must be made available to further
examine the bycatch impact and to continue technology development for
bycatch exclusion and shrimp retention.
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT
The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries is supportive of
the concepts contained in the 1996 EFH provisions. Proposed habitat
modifications that may significantly impact essential fish habitat are
being scrutinized with the value of these habitats in mind. It has been
our experience within the last year that existing procedures of review
and consultation have generally been used to satisfy these guidelines.
It seems that the EFH amendment has helped to make the importance of
preserving fish habitat one of the issues to be taken into account in
the larger picture of balancing developmental needs with environmental
needs.
STATE JURISDICTION
The 1996 amendments to Section 306 added language to address a
state's authority to regulate a fishing vessel outside the boundaries
of the state. However, there is still an impediment to a state
regulating vessels operating in federal waters off its shores in the
absence of a federal management plan.
An example of the problem occurs in an area off the central coast
of Louisiana, beyond our state territorial waters, which from time to
time is a productive oyster area. This area is generally productive
when our more traditional inshore and near-shore oyster producing areas
are experiencing reduced productivity. Louisiana has successfully
regulated vessels registered and licensed by our state, but continues
to be unable to regulate vessels not registered or licensed by our
state. Because of the relatively limited occurrence of oysters in the
federal waters of the Gulf there is little incentive for federal
management plan development. Similar situations with other species,
which predominantly occur in state waters and for which there is no
federal management plan, may occur. Language similar to that in Section
306(a)(3)(c) should be considered to address this situation.
This concludes my testimony and I thank you again for the
opportunity to offer these views regarding the reauthorization of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Senator Snowe. Thank you very much, Mr. Roussel.
Mr. Simpson.
STATEMENT OF LARRY B. SIMPSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GULF STATES
MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and
Senator Breaux. My name is Larry Simpson. I am Executive
Director of the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak again with you today
regarding the need for a regionally based, State-Federal
cooperative programs for the collection and management of data
for marine and estuarine fisheries resources. This issue has
really been the top priority of the Commission for the last 10
years. And it is evident by the Fisheries Information Network,
the so-called FIN, which has been established during that time.
Most recently, Congress has been supportive of our efforts,
by providing partial funding to implement this regional
program. And while we have currently demonstrated improvements
to data collection efforts in the Gulf recreational data
collection programs, if we are able to strengthen the
appropriation to the full amount required, we could provide the
data tools necessary to address the many complex technical,
infrastructural, and administrative issues associated with
collecting and managing fisheries data that face us now and
into the future, which both of you mentioned in your opening
comments.
The Commission predates the Magnuson-Stevens Act of 1976,
having been created in 1949 by Public Law 81-66 and State
legislation. I have personally served on the Gulf Council as a
nonvoting member since 1978. This is the longest continuous
service in the Nation by a council member. Only Wayne Swingle,
who you mentioned, of the Gulf Council staff, has been around
the system longer than I have, and only by one year. Now, I
only say that just to indicate that I have been around and have
seen and worked with State agencies, NMFS, and the council with
regard to marine resources and their management needs.
In 1996, the Sustainable Fisheries Act provided for the
establishment of a national program for fisheries data by
requiring the development of vessel registration systems, VRS,
and fishery information systems, FIS. And I would like to
comment on the report that Congress submitted in 1998, entitled
Proposed Implementation of the Fishing Vessel Registration and
Information System.
It is important to remember that in the Gulf of Mexico
region, the Commission began development of such a program well
in advance of that SFA language. And, to a great extent, the
FIN forms a backbone of what I consider the proposed actions
contained in the report. I would also like to point out that we
largely agree with the content of the report. We commend
Congress for the foresight in passing these measures.
I want to inform you where we are taking action on items
contained in that report and the current status of those
actions, and highlight areas where we have resolved issues
identified in the report, or disagree with items. The
Commission feels that FIN should serve as a vehicle through
which VRS and FIS is implemented. And, pretty much, NMFS is
recommending the same implementation strategy.
Regarding confidentiality, there was a concern in the
report. The Commission developed a memorandum of agreement on
data confidentiality which came into force in 1993. And we
think that addresses the concerns raised.
We strongly endorse the development and management of a
vessel registration system. However, we are on record as not
necessarily endorsing the mechanism of using the U.S. Coast
Guard as a data base management entity for that system. We have
concerns that fisheries needs would maybe, not quite adequately
be addressed with the Coast Guard handling that system, since
their mission is a little bit different.
Regarding commercial data improvements, FIN has determined
that trip level resolution should be the basis for commercial
data collection. Florida and Louisiana have implemented a trip
ticket program, and efforts are underway in Texas and
Mississippi and Alabama, in preparation for implementation of
those kinds of programs.
I think it is important to mention that no efforts to
fundamentally change any program for data collection are free.
And we support, obviously, increases for data collection and
management--mainly emphasis, as well as money. We think that
the biological sampling component is a very important part of
the overall data collection program. And you get primarily age
data and you get hard parts, otoliths (ear bones), scales,
length and weight measurements. Those play into what is needed
in the management arena.
The Commission and the member States have begun an
initiative to establish standardized protocols for this. And
let me hasten to say that in a fully State-Federal cooperative
program, State and interstate species both should be
prioritized highly.
It indicates in the report that the data base design and
architecture has not quite yet been developed. At the time of
the report, that was partially true, but we are working closely
with our counterparts in ACCSP, the Atlantic Coast, and we are
currently working with Mr. Roussell's office, in Louisiana, for
commercial trip ticket integration of their data into this
system.
Of significant importance is that the Commission should
serve as the centralized data management center for the Gulf of
Mexico. Enhanced enforcement, as Mr. Roussell said, is very
important. And I will wind it up by saying that the Commission
is committed. That is evidenced by the actions we have taken
over the last several years. And we continue to conduct
activities that will lead us to full implementation.
We ask you to support the issues of sound and timely data
for the future difficult decisions. And it is safe to say that
all of the easy stuff has been done. The hard questions are
before us. And that is going to require a wealth and depth of
data that we have not seen heretofore.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Simpson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Larry B. Simpson, Executive Director, Gulf States
Marine Fisheries Commission
My name is Larry B. Simpson and I am the Executive Director of the
Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission. Thank you for the opportunity
to speak with you today regarding the need for regionally based, state-
federal cooperative programs for the collection and management of data
for marine and estuarine fisheries resources. This issue has been a top
priority of the Commission for the last 10 years and is evident in the
Fisheries Information Network structure that has been established
during that time. Most recently, the Congress has been supportive of
our efforts by providing partial funding to implement this
comprehensive regional program. While we have currently demonstrated
improvements to data collection efforts in the Gulf, if we are able to
increase the appropriation to the full amount required, we could
provide the data tools necessary to address the many complex technical,
infrastructural, and administrative issues associated with collecting
and managing fisheries data that face us all now and into the future.
The 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA) provided for the
establishment of a national program for fisheries data by requiring the
development of a Vessel Registration System (VRS) and a Fisheries
Information System (FIS). I would like to comment on the Report to
Congress, submitted in 1998, entitled ``Proposed Implementation of a
Fishing Vessel Registration and Fisheries Information System.'' It is
important to remember that, in the Gulf of Mexico region, we began the
development of such a program well in advance of the SFA language, and
to a great extent the Fisheries Information Network forms the backbone
of the proposed actions contained in the VRS/FIS report.
It should be pointed out that we largely agree with the content of
the VRS/FIS report. I want to inform you where we are taking action on
items contained in the report, the current status of those actions, and
highlight areas where we have resolved issues identified in the report
or disagree with items contained therein.
With the establishment of the FIN several years ago,
the GSMFC passed a formal resolution to the effect that the FIN
should serve as the vehicle through which the VRS/FIS is
implemented. As you will note in the report, NMFS is
recommending that same implementation strategy.
The GSMFC developed a Memorandum of Agreement on data
confidentiality, which came into full force in 1993, including
as signatories the States of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Alabama, and Florida; the GSMFC, and the Southeast Regional
Office of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). This
agreement largely addresses confidentiality concerns raised in
the report.
We strongly endorse the development and management of
a vessel registration system; however, we are on record as not
endorsing the mechanism of using the U.S. Coast Guard as the
data base management entity for the system. While we are on
record as objecting, we are not raising this issue again for
resolution. I just felt that you should be aware of our
concerns and position.
Through the FIN, the partners determined earlier that
trip-level resolution should be the basis for commercial data
collection. That means that we agree to establish trip ticket
programs in each state. Florida and Louisiana have implemented
trip ticket programs, and efforts are underway in Texas,
Mississippi, and Alabama in preparation for implementation of
trip ticket programs.
As a general comment, we agree that substantial
increases in funding will be required to fully implement a
national program. Having said this, I am not totally sure that
the funding levels used in the report accurately reflect
reality. I know that the funding made available to the GSMFC
and states in the Gulf region has an effect on the funding
levels in the report, but I am unsure what that effect is.
Suffice it to say, the funding issue probably needs to be
revisited on an annual basis, as things evolve. Let me also say
that we support substantial increases for data collection and
management.
We agree that the biological sampling component of
our data program needs to be supported. Additional funding and
resources are required to adequately address the required level
of biological sampling, primarily age data. Regarding
techniques used to analyze otoliths for age data, the GSMFC,
its member states, and the NMFS have begun an initiative in the
Gulf region to establish standardized protocols for collecting
otoliths and preparation and interpretation of otolith samples.
Completion of that task should adequately address aging issues
for stock assessment purposes. Additionally, we are moving
toward the development of a statistically based biological
sampling procedure; however, the three species listed, king and
Spanish mackerel and red snapper, are all federally managed
species. In a fully state-federal cooperative program, state
and interstate species should also be prioritized highly.
The report states that the Gulf region has not yet
begun to consider data base design and architecture. At the
time of the report, that was partially true; however, we have
since established that the FIN will work cooperatively with our
Atlantic coast counterpart (ACCSP) to use largely the same data
management system. We have recently implemented a project to
establish the data management system in the GSMFC office and
will be integrating Louisiana's trip ticket data into the
system. Assuming success of this initial effort, the other
state trip ticket programs will be added as soon as they are
implemented.
Of significant importance is the decision on the part
of the GSMFC and its member states that the GSMFC will serve as
the centralized data management center for the Gulf of Mexico.
This decision was based largely on the model provided by the
Pacific Fisheries Information Network (PacFIN) and the Pacific
Recreational Fisheries Information Network (RecFIN). We have
already begun to pursue this approach with computer hardware
and software purchases and technical staff to manage the
system.
I would also like to comment on several sections of S. 1420 as they
are relevant to fisheries management. Section 402. Information
Management System is of extreme importance to the Commission and its
member states, and directly relates to the development and
implementation of the FIN. As stated early, the GSMFC has been
intimately involved in coordinating the collection and management of
both recreational and commercial fisheries to improve management,
providing to the public better stewardship of the nation's valuable
marine resources. As you know, cultural and economic impacts emanate
from fishery management actions. It is our goal to provide sound data,
through the FIN, for not only federal management actions but state
management as well. Fisheries are shared with respect to jurisdiction
and authority, and it is most important that these revenues are
directed to commonly held programs and issues.
In addition, the GSMFC, through the endorsement of our Law
Enforcement Committee which is made up of the Chief Officers in each
state and our federal partners, supports Section 403 of the bill,
calling for enhanced enforcement and prosecution of state and federal
regulations in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). This additional
presence and manpower will have positive effects on nationally held
marine resources, thereby increasing the contribution back to U.S.
citizens who hold ultimate ownership of these resources that are held
in the public trust by state and federal fisheries agencies.
In closing, the GSMFC and its member states have exhibited
significant leadership in establishing a state-federal cooperative
program for the collection and management of fisheries data for the
Gulf of Mexico. Our commitment is evident in the actions taken over the
last several years, and we continue to conduct activities that will
lead us to full implementation. As mentioned earlier, additional
funding will be necessary to realize our full potential. Thank you
again for the opportunity to speak with you today, and I look forward
to working with you in the future to improve fisheries management in
our Nation's coastal waters.
Gulf of Mexico--Important Facts
The Gulf of Mexico receives drainage from two-thirds
of the continental United States, largely through the
Mississippi River.
It boasts almost half of the nation's coastal
wetlands and five of the top ten U.S. fishing ports.
Gulf shrimp are the nation's second most valuable
fishery, trailing only Alaska salmon.
Seventy-two percent of the country's offshore oil and
97 percent of our offshore gas production comes from rigs in
the Gulf.
Over half of the Gulf Coast shellfish growing areas
have been closed.
Marine debris on Gulf Coast beaches has averaged
better than one ton per mile--and almost two tons per mile
along some stretches of the Texas coastline.
With a coastline of approximately 1,630 miles, the
U.S. Gulf Coast is longer than the U.S. Pacific Coast from
California to Washington, and is equivalent to the distance
from Newport, Rhode Island, to Miami, Florida.
The coastal wetlands of the northern Gulf provide
habitat for four to seven million migratory waterfowl every
winter.
Nearly 50 species of fishes or shellfish are
harvested for commercial and recreational consumption in Gulf
waters including oysters, shrimp, crabs, snapper, flounder,
mackerel, tuna, and swordfish. Over 200 different species have
been captured in sampling trawls.
Nearly 40 percent of total U.S. commercial fisheries
landings are from Gulf fisheries.
The marshes and estuaries along the Gulf Coast serve
as nurseries or spawning grounds for 98 percent of the fishes
caught in the Gulf of Mexico.
Nearly half of all U.S. import/export tonnage passes
through Gulf waters.
Four of the country's ten busiest ports are in the
Gulf of Mexico--New Orleans, Houston, Corpus Christi, and
Tampa--and six Gulf ports are among the top ten U.S. ports
handling crude oil.
Some 33 major river systems drain into the Gulf,
carrying pesticides, fertilizers, garbage, and other effluent
from half of the country.
Louisiana's wetlands are disappearing at the rate of
over 30 square miles a year.
Four of the top five states in the country in total
surface water discharge of toxic chemicals are Gulf States -
Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas.
The human population of the Gulf Coast is growing; it
is estimated that between 1960 and 2010 the population of
Florida and Texas will have grown by 226 percent and 121
percent, respectively.
Per capita consumption has increased to 15 pounds in
1993 with an ever-increasing population.
The Gulf of Mexico, with a total area of about
600,000 square miles, is surrounded almost completely by the
United States, Mexico, and Cuba.
The 21 major estuaries along the Gulf Coast account
for 24 percent of all estuarine area in the 48 contiguous
states, and 55 percent of the marshes.
Over 50 million people visit the state of Florida
each year and spend upwards of $25 billion.
Over one million people a year visit Gulf Islands
National Seashore which is located in Alabama and Mississippi.
In the Gulf region of the state of Louisiana, tourism
expenditures amount to over $3 billion annually.
About $5 billion in tourism-related expenditures are
made in the Texas Gulf region each year.
Of 346 million pounds of shrimp landed in the United
States in 1990, over 70 percent was landed in the Gulf.
Of 201.8 million pounds of crabs landed in the United
States in 1990, 45.5 million pounds were landed in the Gulf.
The Gulf States contributed approximately 10.6 of the
29.2 million pounds of oysters landed in 1990, and Louisiana
accounted for approximately 75 percent of this.
Off the Gulf Coast of Florida, 11.4 million pounds of
grouper worth $19.3 million were landed in 1989. Florida
landings also included 4.0 million pounds of snapper worth $7.9
million. Louisiana landings of snapper were 2.1 million pounds
worth $4.4 million.
Louisiana fishers caught 8.6 million pounds of
yellowfin tuna worth $16.3 million; in Texas, 3.1 million
pounds of yellowfin tuna were landed worth $6.2 million.
In 1989, total Gulf landings of shark were 11.5
million pounds, for which fishers were paid $5.5 million.
In 1985, 4 million residents of the Gulf States
fished the Gulf of Mexico for sport. Texas led all other states
with nearly 1.7 million residents fishing the Gulf, followed by
Florida with more than 1.5 million, Louisiana with 550,000,
Alabama with 130,000, and Mississippi with 80,000. Residents
and non-residents took more than 24 million fishing trips in
the Gulf. More than 80 percent of the recreational catch was in
inland waters or within offshore state waters.
On November 11, 1947, the Kerr-McGee Oil Company
completed the first commercial well drilled completely beyond
the sight of land. Today, the Gulf of Mexico is the most active
area in the world for offshore oil and gas activities, and the
industry has placed more than 3,600 platforms on the Gulf of
Mexico Outer Continental Shelf.
In the next two decades, the population in almost
one-third of Gulf Coastal counties will increase by more than
30 percent.
Senator Snowe. Thank you, Mr. Simpson.
Dr. Shipp.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT SHIPP, PH.D., CHAIRMAN, GULF OF MEXICO
FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL
Dr. Shipp. Thank you, Senator Snowe and Senator Breaux. It
is a genuine honor to speak to you this morning.
I have been in fisheries biology for nearly 30 years now. I
have been on the Council for eight and a half years, twice as
the chair. But in addition to that, I do have another job. I
also chair the Department of Marine Sciences at the University
of South Alabama, which is a graduate program heavily oriented
toward fisheries statistics and marine ecology and systems
ecology. I also am a science advisor for the Coastal
Conservation Association of Alabama, which is a recreational
group.
And I heard some of you talking about eating at Emeril's
last night. I want to point out that when Emeril comes to
Mobile, he eats at Justine's, which is my son's restaurant. My
son owns the restaurant. I own the debt. And the restaurant is
heavily dependent on a source of fresh Gulf seafood. So I have
a perspective from academia, from recreational fisheries, as
well as commercial fisheries.
This morning I want to focus, because time is limited, on
but a single issue regarding reauthorization of SFA. And that
issue is the relationship between the intent of Congress and
the guidelines as developed by the National Marine Fisheries
Service, and the resultant actions and burdens put on the
councils.
During the last reauthorization, Congress did pass a number
of laudable changes, which were designed to prevent stock
collapse. And I do not think anyone argues with the intent of
those. However, the implementation of those changes, through
the guidelines developed by NMFS, have proven totally
unrealistic and practically impossible to achieve in many
instances.
I believe the guidelines do not reflect the intent of
Congress, but rather a theoretical exercise in fisheries
management to test the validity of various simulation models.
This, combined with a strict, literal legal interpretation of
these guidelines, has forced the councils to enact management
measures that have imposed severe hardship on practically every
user group and stakeholder, at least in the Gulf of Mexico.
I will cite but a couple of examples, but I am prepared to
cite many, many more if necessary. The first example is the
requirement that stocks be rebuilt in 10 years if biologically
possible. And admittedly, in NMFS's defense, that language is
pretty clear in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, that if these stocks
can be built within 10 years, the guidelines state that all
actions, including a total moratorium on harvest of that stock,
must occur. And yet, if the biology necessitates more than 10
years, then there is a great deal of flexibility that can be
put into place.
I do not think Congress meant that you needed to close an
entire fishery if it could be built in nine years, but if you
were given three more years to do it, there would be very
minimal impact on the various user groups and the associated
economies. This is one of those examples where we are really in
a box because of the strict legal interpretation.
The second example, though, is one that is really close to
home, and you have already heard it alluded to by the previous
members of the panel. And that is the rebuilding of the red
snapper stocks. This is a difficult and a complex issue. But
let me reduce it to the problem of the projected MSY, maximum
sustainable yield, as defined by the guidelines.
Depending on which model one employs, the biomass needed to
support this MSY is from two billion to four billion pounds,
and an annual maximum sustainable yield of well over 100
million pounds. But never in the history of that fishery has
the yield approached even one-fifth of that number, even in the
19th century, when it was virtually a virgin stock.
Nevertheless, the draconian measures necessary to attain this
theoretical goal in about the year 2033 would cut the current
yield by more than half and virtually eliminate the fishery,
both commercial and recreational as we know it, and in the
process cost the associated coastal tourist industry well over
$100 million annually.
To the credit of the Council's stock assessment panel and
the Council itself, the lack of the appropriate stock recruit
relationships for red snapper has been recognized, and
projections based on better studied stocks have been used as
proxies, giving a somewhat more realistic scenario. But even
this will be invalid when the more stringent NMFS
interpretation for MSY under guidelines is put in place.
Incidentally, red snapper stocks have been improving for almost
a decade with the less stringent measures that are currently in
place.
For this most fundamental problem, I think the solution is
simple. The councils and Congressional staffers, as well as
NMFS, all need to be involved in interpretation of the
congressional intent. The guidelines should be a product of
these groups to avoid placing the councils in the untenable
role of implementing impossible management measures.
Thank you, both.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Shipp follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert Shipp, Ph.D., Chairman, Gulf of Mexico
Fishery Management Council
Mr. (Madame) Chairman and committee members:
My name is Bob Shipp, and I chair the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management
Council.
It's an honor to speak to you. I offer a brief background on
myself, so you'll know where I'm coming from. I hold a Ph.D. in fish
biology, and have been a fishery scientist for more than 30 years. I
chair the Department of Marine Sciences at the University of South
Alabama, serve as a science consultant for the Alabama Coastal
Conservation Association, and have been on the Gulf Council (twice it's
chair) for eight and a half years. I fancy myself a great seafood chef,
and my son, who really is a great professional chef, owns a fine dining
restaurant in Mobile, serving primarily fresh seafood. I don't own the
restaurant, only all the debt. Thus I have an academic, recreational,
and commercial perspective on marine fishery resources.
I want to focus on but a single issue regarding reauthorization of
SFA, and that is the relationship between the ``intent of Congress,''
the ``interpretation'' of that intent by the National Marine Fisheries
Service, and the resultant role and actions of the Councils.
During the last reauthorization phase, Congress passed some truly
laudable changes in the SFA, aimed at preventing collapse of severely
over fished stocks as well as continuing the rebuilding of those stocks
that had bottomed out and were on the road to recovery. The goal, of
course, was to ultimately reach a level of optimal productivity and
sustainability, for which the principle of MSY (maximum sustainable
yield) was adopted.
However, put briefly, the implementation of those changes, through
the ``Guidelines'' developed by the NMFS have proven totally
unrealistic and practically impossible to achieve. I believe the
``Guidelines'' did not reflect the intent of Congress, but rather a
theoretical exercise in fisheries management to test the validity of
various simulation models. This, combined with a strict literal legal
interpretation of these guidelines, has forced the Councils to enact
management measures that have imposed severe hardship on practically
every user group and stakeholder, at least in the Gulf region.
I will cite but a couple of examples to demonstrate, but am
prepared to offer many more if requested.
First, if the biology of a stock is such that rebuilding can occur
within ten years, then, according to NMFS Guidelines, all means
necessary must be taken to accomplish this. All means necessary
includes a total moratorium on harvest of any type. Did Congress intend
that a stock that can be rebuilt in, say, eight years, must be rebuilt
in eight years, with total cessation of all harvest, even if an entire
economy, recreational, commercial, and associated industries be
destroyed? I don't think so. If rebuilding in, say, twelve years would
accomplish the same rebuilding objectives but with minimal economic
impact, would that not be Congress' intent?
Second, (an issue close to home), the rebuilding of red snapper
stocks. This is a difficult and complex issue, but let me reduce it to
the problem of the projected MSY. Depending on which model one employs,
the Bmsy (biomass needed to support maximum MSY) is from 2 to 4 billion
pounds, and the annual MSY well over 100,000,000 pounds. But never in
the history of that fishery has the yield approached even one fifth of
that number, even in the nineteenth century when it was virtually a
virgin stock. Nevertheless, the draconian measures necessary to attain
this theoretical goal (in about the year 2033) would cut the current
yield by more than half, and virtually eliminate the fishery, both
commercial and recreational, as we know it, and in the process cost the
associated coastal tourist industry well over a $100,000,000 annually.
To the credit of the Council's Stock Assessment Panel and the Council
itself, the lack of the appropriate stock/recruit relationship for red
snapper has been recognized, and projections based on better studied
stocks have been used as proxies, giving a somewhat more realistic
scenario. But even this will be invalid when the more stringent NMFS
interpretation for MSY under the ``Guidelines'' is put in place.
Incidentally, red snapper stocks have been improving for almost a
decade with the less stringent measures that are currently in place.
For this most fundamental problem, I think the solution is simple.
The Councils and Congressional staffers, as well as NMFS, all need to
be involved in interpretation of Congressional intent. The
``Guidelines'' should be a product of these groups to avoid placing the
Councils in the untenable role of implementing impossible management
measures.
My time is up, but I would be pleased to elaborate or answer any
questions you may have.
Senator Snowe. Thank you, Dr. Shipp.
Let us start right there. Ms. Dalton, I would like to have
you respond to Dr. Shipp's statements. The underlying issue
here, of course, is the fact that there is a lack of good
science. We are talking about science that will be the
foundation for all of these decisions. There is a lack of data
collection.
I noticed in your statement that you did mention the fact
that this was going to be one of your priorities. But the
question is, is it a priority for the National Marine Fisheries
Service to provide the strong support for good data collection
to make sure that we have a sound decision? Now on red snapper
stock assessment, in reviewing everybody's testimony, it is
clear that there is a very strong difference of opinion as to
what drives the goal under the MSY. And we recognize that.
But, again, it goes back to credibility. My fishermen say
that all the time. We need to have the very best science to
make these very difficult decisions. So what is the agency
doing? I would like to have you respond to Dr. Shipp's
question. I think it is a very important one, and one that is
fundamental to what I think is going to drive this process.
That means having the agency behind the process, not driven by
lawsuits, but rather by the best science available to make the
best decisions possible for the fisheries and the fishing
community.
Ms. Dalton. I think if it was possible to do a moratorium
on lawsuits, no one would be happier about it than I would be.
Unfortunately, that is part of the reality of the world that we
are living in.
It is interesting with red snapper, because we probably
have more data on red snapper than we do on many other stocks
in the Southeast Atlantic. About 85 percent of the stocks that
we manage in the Southeast Atlantic actually are in the unknown
status.
The issue of the guidelines and MSY is a really difficult
one for me. I spent many years on the other side of the table.
And as a lot of the staffers know, I had some disagreements
with those guidelines when they were developed. When I came to
the agency, I had a choice. I could either struggle to try to
deal with the guidelines or treat them as exactly what they
are--guidelines.
In most instances when we are dealing with or establishing
the overfishing definitions in the various different fishery
management plans, we have tried to agree to things like the use
of SPR as a proxy for fishing mortality and to go back to the
council and tell them that we also need to have a biomass
estimate. We do not have the information for all the stocks to
be able to do that, but we recognize the need to go ahead and
manage fisheries.
So I guess that has been part of the way we have dealt with
it. In recent months, with red snapper, we have a particular
problem because, as Dr. Shipp has indicated, while the current
harvest levels do not jeopardize the stock, they are not
providing for adequate recovery. At the same time, we know that
the stock is recovering.
Bill and I have talked about this a lot. We probably need
to sit down with both the council and with the States that are
involved and pull in technical staff and see how to deal with
this pragmatically. The important thing is that the stocks are
coming back and we continue to see progress.
Senator Snowe. As I mentioned earlier, Senator Breaux and I
have initiated a GAO investigation into the two standards,
National Standard 2 and National Standard 8, one in science and
one on the socioeconomic impacts. We have reached this point
because of the level of frustration among all of our
constituencies with respect to these two particular issues and
the agency's failure to enforce those two standards.
I do believe that the agency plays a very key role in
advancing this issue and making sure that we do not put the
cart before the horse when it comes to making these decisions
without having the sound science to support the decisions. It
is very important to the credibility of the issue, to the Act,
and to everything that it represents.
I would like to hear from Mr. Roussel, Mr. Simpson and Dr.
Shipp. What do you think we ought to do in this Act to ensure
that the agencies get the best science possible for these
decisions?
Mr. Roussel. Madam Chair, I might make a comment. And it is
going to get a little bit philosophical, but I think it may
provide a framework to go forward in a positive fashion. One of
the things that I think has happened recently with fisheries is
we have relied on what is the true weakness of science and not
actually focused our attention on what are the strengths of
science. The strengths of science are understanding what has
happened. The weakness of science is trying to predict the
future. When you deal with complex systems, it is very
difficult to predict the future.
I think the management structure that exists now, which is
shooting for biomass targets and things that require prediction
from models, which we cannot verify, has really focused all of
our energy in the wrong direction. I think what we should do is
take a step back and go to an adaptive management program,
where you rely on observations of what has happened to drive
your decisions for the next step.
Senator Snowe. Do you think we should be funding observer
programs?
Mr. Roussel. I think data collection from the fisheries is
a very vital component. When I talked about GulfFIN, it has a
fishery dependent component. In fact, that is basically what it
is, by and large. Observer coverage is really a small aspect, I
guess, of the point I am trying to make.
I think if we learn by making observations and make
incremental decisions based on what we know happened, that is a
more prudent approach than what we seem to be taking now, which
is predicting a projected target and trying to get there.
Senator Snowe. Has it been your experience that the
information that is used to make these decisions has not been
up to date? I hear that a lot from my fishermen--that the
information is not up to date. Generally, it is a year old or
two years old. That is why observer programs, for example, are
one good way to get the most up to date information available.
Mr. Roussel. Well, one thing that is hard sometimes for lay
people to understand is that the rigors of scientific study
require that there be some constraints on how those data are
collected. And that automatically interjects a lag in the
information available. I am not sure there is a reasonable way
to address that. But I do think, with technology advances that
are made now, that process should be accelerated.
You may have situations where data collected on board a
vessel can be transmitted almost instantly back to shore to be
used. So there are some opportunities to do that. But we must
recognize that, at least from the scientific perspective, there
are some rigors and some standards that you have to meet for it
to qualify, basically, as scientific information. And that does
create some lag.
Senator Snowe. Mr. Simpson.
Mr. Simpson. Basically, going back to your broader
question, Madam Chairman, I think the framework is basically
there. I think the outline to get what you want exists within
programs and laws and so forth. I think what has been lacking
to some degree is involving the States a little bit more
intimately in that cooperative data collection. And I think we
are making some good strides toward that.
Going back to your comment about the timeliness and old
data and so forth, I am not sure that the best interests of
society, fisheries, and fishermen are served by having a
complete census, real time, of all data. Weyerhauser does not
go in and count every tree when they buy a tract of land, but
they have some sophisticated sampling techniques that let them
know how much money is going to come out of that general area.
So it is not necessary to burden, I think, everybody with a
complete census. It is just a matter of emphasis and common
sense, and some of the things that Mr. Roussell was mentioning,
that needs to be addressed.
Senator Snowe. And also confidence in the techniques that
are used, whatever they may be?
Mr. Simpson. True. I am not going to get into the
modelling. I will leave that to Dr. Shipp. That is specialized.
I do not think it is a science but somewhat of an art, but that
is a little beyond me.
Senator Snowe. Dr. Shipp.
Dr. Shipp. Thank you, Senator Snowe.
I agree totally with John on the adaptive management
approach and what has happened in the past. I also want to
suggest that we should set our goals more short term rather
than long term. Bill Hogarth and I have talked about this.
I would like to make an analogy. Down here on the coast, as
Senator Breaux knows, we live through a horrendous hurricane
season every year. And when those tropical depressions form off
the coast of Africa, you can get a model to tell you where it
might hit in 14 days. And their data are really a lot better
than the fisheries data. But you do not respond 14 days ahead.
You wait till it is two or three or four days ahead to start
making your plans. And I think that analogy holds with
fisheries. It is ridiculous and absurd to look to the year 2033
and try to make projections out there.
The last point is that the dynamics of this snapper
fishery, as well as many others, are changing radically. I
brought with me the 1885 report to the Commissioner of
Fisheries. And in that report, a year and a half was spent in
the Western Gulf, looking for red snapper stocks. There were
none there.
What has happened is the habitat change has been immense,
due to the rigs to reefs program. The structure that has been
put down, and now half the fishery is in the Western Gulf. And
those sorts of information sources are really not being
utilized to the full extent. So I really agree with John that
adaptive management is the way to go.
Senator Snowe. How do industry sponsored stock assessments
work into the council process? I know one was done with respect
to the red snapper, which contravened the assessment of the
National Marine Fisheries Service. So how does that work? Can
it fit into the process, or is it suspect and viewed as biased?
Dr. Shipp. Well, it is a little bit suspect, but a number
of years ago there was some independent analysis done on the
stock assessment process. And, in general, people agreed with
the theories behind it. And even, I think, the industry stock
assessments do not disagree with the theories. It is really the
lack of baseline data.
I mentioned the stock recruit relationship. And, put
simply, that produces a graph that goes straight up. No one
knows where that graph starts to bend over, where the stocks
reach a maximum biomass--there are just no data for that. And
the industry models as well as the NMFS models are pretty much
in agreement--an agreement that they do not know where they go.
They do not know, into the future, what is going to happen.
Senator Snowe. Senator Breaux.
Senator Breaux. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I thank the
panel for their testimony. And I appreciate you all being here.
Ms. Dalton, I was extremely, deeply disappointed in the
National Marine Fisheries Service's announcement yesterday of
the proposed rulemaking to close areas of the Atlantic and Gulf
to longlining. Not because of what you announced, but because
it is right in the middle of an effort by Senator Snowe, myself
and a significant bipartisan majority of our committee to have
legislation, which has already been introduced, to close
180,000 square miles of these areas through a balanced buyback
program with the longline industry, and in cooperation with
many of the recreational industries. This legislative proposal
attempts to achieve a result which I think would be extremely
effective, much more effective than the NMFS rulemaking. And
your agency issued its proposal without letting us know about
this, and that is just unacceptable. I mean that is just not
the way we do business, and I am deeply disappointed.
Number one, I do not think that your proposed regulations
included any economic assessment of the industry, judging from
this one-page announcement. Your closed areas will have a very
severe economic impact on small businessmen. I do not think
that you are going to be able to come anywhere close to
achieving this type of a closure with your regulatory proposal
once you consider, eventually, the economic impact. It is going
to be dramatically reduced. It is going to be much less
effective than our legislation.
So, having said all those nice things about it, why the
heck did you all do it?
Ms. Dalton. Basically, again, litigation is driving it. I
apologize for the communication.
Senator Breaux. No, the lack of communication.
Ms. Dalton. The lack of communication on this. There
certainly was no intent to keep the court order secret.
Senator Breaux. Well, how did that happen? Let us be
perfectly clear.
Ms. Dalton. I honestly do not know.
Senator Breaux. You are the agency, you are right there in
the same city I am. Senator Snowe is Chairman of this
Subcommittee. We were working with your people on legislation,
and I thought in good faith. We brought in recreational
fishermen, sat down with longliners, discussed a buyback
program, wrote the bill, introduced it. You all know that. And
then, last night, we get a fax, saying you all pulled the rug
out from everybody. What happened?
Ms. Dalton. Well, we have done briefings on the Hill.
Senator Breaux. You did briefings on this announcement on
the Hill?
Ms. Dalton. Yes.
Senator Breaux. With whom?
Ms. Dalton. Last week, with most of the folks in back of
you.
Senator Snowe. May I just interrupt here?
These groups that John was referring to were working in a
good faith effort--the agency included. Nobody was informed. It
is after the fact. You proposed the rule yesterday, did you
not, or last night?
Senator Breaux. Last night.
Ms. Dalton. Well, the rule has been under development.
Senator Snowe. But the point is your agency was working in
consultation and concurrently with those groups.
Ms. Dalton. Well, we were not involved in drafting the
legislation. We provided analyses early on to support some of
those proposed areas initially.
And again, this HMS community is not a very large
community. Certainly everyone in the community knew about the
lawsuit. I quite honestly thought that most of the industry
members knew about the court order. I was clearly wrong. And we
clearly should have communicated it to you. And for that, I
apologize.
Senator Snowe. Let me just add one more thing. My staff was
just telling me that the briefing occurred two months after the
agency entered into the agreement, one week before the rule was
published.
Ms. Dalton. When I realized that the folks on the Hill did
not know that we had to do it, I scheduled a briefing for the
next day. I know that this has been a problem, and we will try
not to let it happen again.
At this point, I do not disagree with you on the economic
impact assessment. The other thing is, when you look at the
proposal, it is really interesting--closing a huge area doesn't
necessarily get you the reductions that you want in bycatches
of billfish. In particular, if you close some areas, the
proposal that we came up with will do a good job at reducing
the bycatch of small swordfish and bluefin tuna. It does not do
a very good job of reducing the bycatch of billfish. You do get
some reductions in sailfish, but not in blue and white marlin.
So it is out there now as a beginning because, you are
right, we have no way to deal with the fishermen who fish in
those areas. If they go to other places, which we have to
assume that they will, then their bycatch of those species
increases.
So we need to work over the comment period to try to refine
these analyses. When we reduce the closed area, we actually
reduced bycatch in some of the species. We had to look at other
factors like the turtle bycatch, which also is affected
whenever you displace this fleet, and marine mammals, which
probably is not as much of a problem.
We did do economic analysis on it. We prepared an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis. We will continue to refine
that in the public comment period. So this was not intended to
fly in the face of your legislative proposal. It was an
agreement that we reached in order to stay the suit from moving
forward. We were sued by environmental groups to implement
bycatch reduction measures that we had already announced were
necessary. And with our attorneys we determined this to be the
best way to move forward with this. Again, I apologize for
catching you off guard.
Senator Breaux. There are two things here. Number one, I
did not like the way it was handled. And we have discussed
that. Number two, I do not like the substance of what you have
done, because it is not going to stand up. When you said an
economic study, have you done an economic study on the impact
on the tuna industry? And what is the extent of it?
Ms. Dalton. Our initial economic analysis suggests that
there will be significant economic impacts on the industry.
Senator Breaux. And how do you balance that with Section 8
of the Act?
Ms. Dalton. This is a proposed rule, and we have to do
public hearings. We will hear from the public.
Senator Breaux. Were the rule and your preliminary analysis
not totally inconsistent? I mean can you not tell me it is
going to have major economic impacts on an industry? That is
one of the things you have to balance in making a proposal.
Your proposal does not do that. Does it have a buyback proposal
in it?
Ms. Dalton. No.
Senator Breaux. Does it reflect discussions with the tuna
industry on this issue?
Ms. Dalton. Most of the discussions that we have had have
been in recent days.
Senator Breaux. I am sorry?
Ms. Dalton. Most of the discussions we have had have been
recently.
Senator Breaux. Were you in discussions with them before
the proposal?
Ms. Dalton. They were in discussions. There was a lot of
analysis done out of the Southeast region to provide some of
the information.
Senator Breaux. Who did you meet with in discussions before
the proposed rule was made in the industry?
Ms. Dalton. Who were the discussions with? Some of the data
analysis was done by the center.
Senator Breaux. There were no discussions with the
industry, right?
Ms. Dalton. On this proposed rule? No. We discussed the
legislation.
Senator Breaux. Were there discussions with the people who
filed suit against you?
Ms. Dalton. Outside of the settlement discussions with the
attorneys, no.
Senator Breaux. Outside of the settlement discussions, no.
But how about in keeping with the settlement discussions, did
the lawyers for them, or the people who filed suit, discuss the
proposed regulations?
Ms. Dalton. Not the content of it. The only discussions we
had were in the context of reaching a stay on the suit.
Senator Breaux. Well, what you were doing then, you were
negotiating with the people who filed suit against you, and
left out the people who are mostly affected by the decision to
close the industry.
Ms. Dalton. But in the context of the proposed rule, the
only discussions with them were on the timing of when we would
come up with a proposed rule and when we would finalize that
rule. We had already announced we would do a rulemaking. The
content of the proposed rule was not discussed with them. The
only part of it that was discussed was from the standpoint that
it would address bycatch issues. That was the only thing.
Senator Breaux. Well, I just think this is unacceptable. I
think it is a bad procedure. I do not like the proposal because
it is not going to work. It is not going to stand up to
National Standard 8 of the Act, when it talks about the
economic impact on the industry. What Senator Snowe and I tried
to do was to reach an agreement legislatively that had an
effective closure of 180,000 square miles of area, from
longlining, but also address the needs of the industry for a
buyback provision. That is by far a better and more sound way
of handling this problem.
And I hope that Senator Snowe and others who have sponsored
the legislation agree that that type of an approach is a far
better approach than what you have initially suggested.
Ms. Dalton. I do not think that we disagree with you that
the approach is a good one. And I think we tried, in the
Federal Register notice, to acknowledge that approach and to
say that we support those objectives. The bill also does some
things, particularly in the Gulf area, that deal with gear
conflicts that were outside of our ability to address. The
analysis was based on bycatch and it did not deal with some of
the gear conflict issues.
So the area in the Gulf is more different than the area in
the South Atlantic in terms of the area that is closed. That is
partly because you have more flexibility in what you took into
consideration.
Senator Breaux. Well, I predict that you will hear more on
this issue legislatively.
Dr. Hogarth. Senator, may I add just one thing? Back in I
think it was January, this rule was handled by the highly
migratory species division, which is done at headquarters. The
regions do not have any authority over highly migratory
species. It is handled by the Secretary through a division in
Silver Spring, MD.
Back in I think it was January, when they put out the
highly migratory species rule, it was a comprehensive rule. I
think that was abandoned by the highly migratory group, because
the comments suggested that the closed area was too small and
did not do much good. Industry does have a part in the highly
migratory rulemaking process; they did have an advisory panel,
which they did discuss closures with, but I am not sure if it
covered this detail.
We got involved, at Penny's request, to look at some of the
science, looking at a more refined area, and we looked at the
data and tried to help with that process. But I just wanted to
be clear to you that this is not a regional issue, but there
are two different mechanisms for domestic fisheries and highly
migratory species.
Senator Breaux. What I hear you saying is you did not do
it.
[Laughter.]
Senator Breaux. I got that in your first sentence.
Dr. Hogarth. But it was a process that the highly migratory
division went through to get comments. It was over different
types of proposals. It was not, I do not think, something out
of the clear blue or something that had been going on. But then
the lawsuit put it in a timeframe that it had to be in the
Federal Register by December 15th.
Senator Breaux. Dr. Shipp, let me turn to another subject
which is equally as important. Bad science or no science
produces bad results. I think that is what we all can agree on.
If we do not have good scientific information on what stock
conditions are, you are going to end up with bad rules and bad
regulations. In a lot of these areas, we have almost no science
or some of the science is not good science. And the red snapper
issue seems to be one that you mentioned and others have
mentioned--the Texas Shrimp Association Executive Director,
Wilma Anderson, talks about it extensively.
I was really interested in your concise testimony. You say,
depending on which model one employs, the biomass needed to
support the maximum sustainable yield is from 2 billion to 4
billion pounds, and the annual maximum sustainable yield on red
snapper is well over 100 million pounds. But never in history
have we ever approached even one-fifth of that amount.
It seems to me that anybody just reading that, it does not
seem like it makes a lot of sense. We are looking at a maximum
sustainable yield that is one-fifth of the amount we have ever
produced. How can we make management decisions based on that?
Dr. Shipp. Well, that is the box that the council has been
put in by the projection models. The simulation models that are
used are really probably only good for 2 or 3 years. And even
the modelers will tell you that. But you can run them out as
far into the future as you want, and the law requires that we
do that.
And going back to your original statement about science,
using this term ``best available science'' is a trap. I think
inadequate science is worse than no science at all, because it
forces you to make decisions that are bad decisions, just as
you said. And this is a perfect example. Common sense tells you
that if a virgin stock could not support one-fifth of this
projected maximum sustainable yield, something is wrong with
the science.
Senator Breaux. Are you telling me that the decisions on
the utilization of bycatch reduction devices, the BRDs, and the
quota allocations on red snapper are, in your opinion, based on
science that produces an MSY of well over 100 million pounds,
and which is less than one-fifth of what we have ever caught in
any one period?
Dr. Shipp. I am not sure I totally understood your
question. But if you are asking me, do I think the bycatch
reduction devices are necessary----
Senator Breaux. No, I am not asking that. Assuming that in
order to reduce bycatch, we use these devices, and in order to
save red snapper or produce more, we use those devices, and we
also use quota allocations.
Dr. Shipp. Right.
Senator Breaux. Those are the two things we are doing. We
say to fishermen, do not catch any more than 6 million pounds
or 9 million pounds, and tell them to use BRDs on shrimp boats
at the same time to reduce bycatch. But we make decisions to
use those two mechanisms based on a number from a model that
looks like it is out of whack.
Dr. Shipp. That is correct. That is exactly correct. Not
only that, but the council has defied the recommendations
coming from those models because if the council had done what
those models insisted needed to be done in 1990, we would have
essentially closed the fishery back then. In 1990, they said
that if we did not get the 60 percent reduction in bycatch and
did not cut the quota to 2 million pounds, the stocks were
going to collapse in five years. And the council, more or less,
defied that, used a little wiggle room, a little common sense.
Now, instead of that 2 million pound quota, we have a 10
million pound, the bycatch reduction, along with the TED
reductions that have accounted for far less bycatch reduction
than was required in those models, and still the stocks
continue to improve.
Senator Breaux. You are right, there is a breakdown here.
Is it because of the Act, the way it is structured? Is it
because of the National Marine Fisheries Service guidelines?
What is the problem?
Dr. Shipp. It goes back to your original comment about
inadequate science, good science, bad science. The science is
inadequate. It is not necessarily bad. It is the only thing we
have. When the Act requires that we project 30 years into the
future--and that is basically what the Act says--and we do not
have the science to do that, and we have only these models
which defy all common sense and reason, but that is the only
thing we have and that is what the lawyers tell us we have to
use.
Senator Breaux. Well, what can Senator Snowe and I do? If
you were here where we are and you wanted to do something
legislatively that would help address this problem of junk in
and junk out, and concerns that bad science or no science
produces bad results? What, if anything, could you do with your
pen if you were in our place?
Dr. Shipp. What I would do is set shorter-term goals, which
is a euphemism for adaptive science. Let us implement these
reasonable rules for three to five years. And then do a stock
assessment and see where we are going. Rather than be
constrained by a 30-year projection. That is what we should do.
Senator Breaux. We operate under these 30-year timetables
in the Federal Government. I tell you, it is a joke to project
what the deficit or the surplus is going to be 30 years from
now, or what Medicare is going to look like in the year 2035.
Everybody who makes these sorts of estimates says that these
are just taken from out of the blue, you know, pick a number.
Dr. Shipp. But the estimates in this case impose
regulations and impose limits on what we can do. That is the
problem with it. We are bound by them.
Senator Breaux. I think that is a very helpful suggestion.
I thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Snowe. I think it is an important issue that we
have to figure out how to address. It seems to be a universal
opinion, if there is anything universal in the fishing
industry, that we need to do something on the science question
to give it credibility. Where do you base it on the 30-year
projections?
Dr. Shipp. The way the legislation is written, it has to do
with how long the maturity age of the species is, or generation
times. Unfortunately, red snapper lives 52 years at least. And
therefore the generation time is a long, long time.
Senator Snowe. Ms. Dalton, let's go back to the original
issue--which goes to the heart of a number of the problems that
we are facing, not only in the implementation of the Act, but
also the intent--of building trust and credibility between an
agency, Congress, and more importantly, the people who have to
live by the rules, regulations, and legislation.
For example, the fact that the agency failed to notify an
important segment, on an issue that has been an unprecedented
agreement between commercial and recreational fishermen to
accept closures in an area, is really remarkable. To not
consult, or even inform, the relevant industries is a betrayal
of trust between an agency and the people who it affects most
directly.
To be honest with you, I think the agency is driven by
lawsuits. I know the agency has more than 100 lawsuits, and I
am beginning to think the agency needs new lawyers. I will not
get into all of the other issues and areas that we have had to
deal with because of lawsuits.
There is no justification for not informing groups who were
equally, if not more, affected by the decision and the
agreement that you entered into. You keep saying there is a
proposed rule, but you also entered into an agreement to
publish a final rule by May 1st. So I do not want any
rationalization here. And I think it is really unfortunate,
because we are facing this time and time again with the agency.
And it is all driven by these lawsuits.
The people who file lawsuits almost immediately supersede
any other interest, which is what has happened here. It is not
right and it is not fair.
Senator Breaux mentioned a very important issue--the
buyout. This rule has the ability to undercut this legislation.
That is the problem we are facing now. A buyout is important,
we had to do that for the New England groundfish fishery. We
had to make that commitment. There will be a significant
economic impact on those fishermen who fish in the areas that
are now going to be closed to the fisheries, without question.
So even though you cannot provide a buy-out in the
rulemaking process, what you have done by entering this legal
agreement is obviate the need for the buy-out. We are going to
face the question of is the legislation necessary now. It is
going to make our job extremely difficult. But it is the
credibility and trust that concerns me more.
It is similar to disparate assessments. I realize people do
not agree on the facts, but the fact is that the agency has not
been behind its mission to get the facts and the best science.
That is why we have had to order a GAO investigation into
National Standards 2 and 8, on the science and the
socioeconomic impacts. You say you are going to make those a
high priority, but they simply have not been a priority for
this agency. That is the problem we are facing.
Our job is to restore credibility. We have problems with
this Act and we have to deal with them. But if you have got an
agency that just keeps making decisions based on how to best
defend lawsuits, then we have got some serious problems on our
hands.
I have just one other area that I would like to explore,
and then I have a number of other questions which I will
submit. Some non-fishing entities have referred to the
essential fish habitat consultation process as bureaucratic
blackmail.
Now, I would like to know how the process works. I know
that NMFS does consult with other agencies. But what has
ultimately occurred, from what I understand, is that there have
been complaints of potential delays in the permitting process
as a result of this consultation requirement.
How do you think that NMFS should work to improve this
process, so we do not have unnecessary delays, and so we have
the appropriate consultation? Are you monitoring the time it
takes to approve applications during the process of these
procedures?
Ms. Dalton. We have other requirements under other laws,
again, to assess the impacts on the environment. So we are
trying to piggyback the EFH consultations on those existing
requirements, for things like the Clean Water Act, and other
statutes.
To date, we have done 2,500 consultations. Most of them
have gone without noticeable complaints, at least not ones that
have gotten back to my office. And we think that the process is
going fairly well. One of the things that we are going to be
trying to do is ``one-stop shopping''--we have done a pilot
program in California.
One-stop shopping would entail combining all of the
permitting processes for activities that are going on in things
like the marine sanctuaries with EFH consultations to try to
bring them together so that it is not a painful process for the
Federal agencies that are required to consult with us.
Senator Snowe. Dr. Shipp, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Roussel, do you
care to comment on this process, what could be done to improve
it?
Dr. Shipp. Your concerns are speed. And I think giving
voice to the fish may necessitate giving a little more
consideration. I appreciate the expedited views and so forth,
but in the past the fish had not had a voice.
Senator Snowe. And the fish are what this Act is all about.
But the question is about balance. Do you think it is balanced
now?
Dr. Shipp. EFH?
Senator Snowe. Yes.
Dr. Shipp. Pretty much.
Mr. Simpson. I would agree.
Mr. Roussel. I would agree. I am not aware of any specific
delays. I have heard some people express concerns about delays,
but actually seeing specific delays, I am not aware of them.
Now, that does not mean that it does not exist. My agency is
not actively involved in that process, and that is why, in my
testimony, I suggested that we try as much as possible to use
existing review procedures and consultation procedures and not
duplicate those procedures.
Senator Snowe. And one other area I would like to discuss
is habitat information. Now, I understand that in 26 of the 40
species that went before the Gulf Council, information was
available but the NMFS was still in the process of getting more
information on the remainder of the species. Is that correct?
Dr. Shipp. I would have to defer to Dr. Hogarth, because I
do not know.
Dr. Hogarth. I am not sure I understood the question.
Senator Snowe. As I understand it, when the Gulf Council
submitted their amendment to NMFS, habitat information from
NMFS was only available for 26 of the 40 species, so it was
partially approved.
Dr. Hogarth. Right.
Senator Snowe. I understand that NMFS is now in the process
of doing more research on the remaining species. Is that
correct?
Dr. Hogarth. That is correct. We are trying to get enough
information.
Senator Snowe. So what is the time line for that?
Dr. Hogarth. Senator, I do not know. I can get that to you.
But I am not aware, because we are working on several issues
for the council.
Senator Snowe. I see. Do you folks put a time line on
getting that information?
Dr. Hogarth. We usually try to give the council a deadline
so that they can actually have a council meeting to work down
the MSY and biomass. I am not sure of the timeframe, but we can
submit that to you.
[The witness did not provide the information.]
Senator Snowe. OK. Senator Breaux.
Senator Breaux. I just have one other question for Mr.
Roussel, our witness from Louisiana. I mentioned this issue to
Senator Snowe. You said that the States in the Gulf receive no
Federal funding for enforcement operations of the Federal Act.
You also mentioned the Coast Guard receives up to $25 million
for enforcement and only do about 30 percent of the cases. I am
not knocking the Coast Guard, because their priorities are in a
lot of other things, search and rescue, and they do a terrific,
wonderful job in pollution control and everything else.
We only have about 10 to 12 Federal agents that are having
an impact on the Gulf. We do a lot of work out there. How many
people do we have from just our one State in the Gulf
participating in enforcement activities and enforcing the
Federal Act?
Mr. Roussel. Senator Breaux, I could not quote you exact
numbers. I can just tell you that it is dozens and dozens of
people in strictly the coastal area that engage in those
activities. I can mention this, that in Louisiana, our
enforcement agents make 30,000 contacts with commercial
fishermen per year, and 32,000 contacts, that is face-to-face
contacts, with recreational fishermen.
Senator Breaux. Is that dealing with the Magnuson-Stevens
Act?
Mr. Roussel. That is dealing with fisheries types of
situations.
Senator Breaux. And we get no compensation, the States do
not get any compensation for the law enforcement activities
under the Magnuson-Stevens Act?
Mr. Roussel. No compensation whatsoever. There is no reason
for a separation or division between Magnuson and State
fisheries management and enforcement, because fishermen
participate in both of those fisheries basically
simultaneously. We feel like the State enforcement programs'
presence in the field, their infrastructure and their
organization, creates a tremendous springboard to get some
efficient enforcement of Federal regulations.
Senator Breaux. Do your agents do anything outside the 3
mile state waters boundary or do you wait until they come in?
Mr. Roussel. Most of the enforcement activities are within
the 3 miles. We do occasionally venture outside of the 3 miles.
But recognize that a lot of the enforcement activities can be
done dockside and can be done when those participants are
returning back to dock.
Senator Breaux. Well, there may be something we can look at
in that area.
Thank you very much.
Senator Snowe. Thank you.
One further question I want to explore, because it is one
of the issues in this reauthorization, is the moratorium on
ITQs which expires next October. Dr. Shipp.
Dr. Shipp. I have very strong feelings that the ITQ is the
way to go, certainly with the red snapper, the grouper, and the
mackerel fishery in the Gulf. And I will just comment that I
was on the council when we developed the ITQ system. The
process began, and I would say probably 70 to 80 percent of the
commercial fishermen were opposed to it. By the time the
hearings process was over, they were almost all in favor of it,
once they learned about it. In fact, for health and safety, it
is almost a dire necessity that we do that.
Senator Snowe: Mr. Roussel.
Mr. Roussel. My only comment, Senator, is I do not support
the prohibition on considering ITQs. I may not share Dr.
Shipp's views that that is the way to go, but I think it should
have full study and debate. The situation now is just that the
Gulf Council is basically prohibited from even considering it.
Senator Snowe. So it should be an option available to the
councils?
Mr. Roussel. Correct.
Dr. Shipp. Yes.
Mr. Roussel. I am a believer in preserving all of your
options.
[Laughter.]
Senator Snowe. Thank you. Yes, I think we could identify
with that.
Thank you all very much, I appreciate it.
We will now proceed with our second panel of distinguished
witnesses. Our first will be Ms. Wilma Anderson. Ms. Anderson
is the Executive Director of the Texas Shrimp Association. Mr.
Myron Fischer operates a charter boat and is a Louisiana member
of the Gulf Council. We will hear from Mr. Wayne Werner, who is
a commercial fishermen and also serves on the council's
advisory panel. And Mr. Pete Emerson, of the Environmental
Defense Fund, who will be the final witness of the panel.
May we have some order, please.
We would like to limit your testimony to five minutes so
that we can ask you questions. We will start with Ms. Anderson.
STATEMENT OF WILMA ANDERSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TEXAS SHRIMP
ASSOCIATION
Ms. Anderson. Thank you, Senator.
I am Wilma Anderson, Executive Director of the Texas Shrimp
Association. And we are based out of Aransas, Texas. We have
approximately 963 offshore trawlers, that is the big vessels,
that is our membership, and about 38 of the shore-side
facilities. Our membership does consist of boats throughout the
Gulf of Mexico, mainly Texas-based boats though.
I think it is great that you all are here to let us all
tell you what we think about what is going on with fisheries.
There are going to be pros and cons. Generally speaking, for
shrimp, shrimp is in a very healthy state. And that is
generally a result of the management practices that have been
implemented to manage it. Unlike other fisheries, because
shrimps have productivity, there is no great threat to
overfishing. And the greatest threat to shrimp reproduction is
loss of habitat in development, pollution and subsidence.
TSA has long been an advocate for protecting the essential
fish habitat for shrimp in Texas bays and the estuaries where
our shrimp live. Despite the loss of approximately 9,800 square
kilometers of the offshore shrimp fishery of trawlable bottom
to a large dead zone, oil and gas platforms, bottom
obstructions, natural and artificial reefs, sanctuaries and
closed areas, the industry has viewed these adverse effects on
our fishery, per se, as protected habitat and refuge areas from
the various trawl fisheries for a large fraction of juvenile
red snapper and other valuable species.
TSA has advocated enhancement programs for these areas of
lost trawlable bottom as a more practical alternative to BRDs.
We believe that the loss of these areas has and will continue
to be a significant mitigation to bycatch reduction, a measure
which the Gulf Council and NMFS have refused to recognize.
Economic Data: NMFS and the Gulf Council are really in the
dark age of economics and have no concept of the economic value
or how regulatory impacts affect the fisheries they manage. As
an example, over the debate of the BRDs, researchers for the
Gulf Council and NMFS stated that the profit margin of shrimp
vessels was 51 percent, and therefore the industry could absorb
the 7 to 10 percent shrimp loss caused by BRDs without
difficulty.
First of all, we could not conceive that any business in
the United States was operating on a 51 percent profit margin.
When we filed data during the rulemaking process to correct
this erroneous conclusion, NMFS refused to consider it because
it was not presented to the council first. This response was
ridiculous because the council had already approved the
amendment on the 51 percent profit margin and had forwarded it
to the NMFS for rulemaking.
Cumulative regulatory effects must be a part of the
rulemaking process. This has become a high priority for all of
the fisheries. For the shrimp industry, cumulative impact is a
major concern of the shrimp fishery because shrimp have but
one-year life cycles. If not harvested within that timeframe,
the resource and revenue is nonrecoverable, creating a loss to
the fishery and the Nation.
Cumulative regulatory impacts on the shrimp fishery, from
turtle excluder devices and bycatch reduction devices, have
reduced the profit margin of the typical shrimp vessel to about
3 to 5 percent of its gross income. Under cumulative
regulations, the shrimp industry incurs yearly approximately 33
percent of a non-recoverable benefit of a consumable resource
in revenue.
Peer-reviewed science or political science? We are kind of
lost on that subject. Congress mandated that bycatch in marine
fisheries be minimized to the extent practicable. In the early
1990's, it was stated that the red snapper population was
severely overfished, and the primary cause for the decline was
the directed fishery. It was then determined that the
inadvertently caught red snapper in shrimp trawls must reduce
bycatch mortality of age 0 and age 1 juvenile red snapper by 60
percent to assist in the recovery program and to avoid a
shutdown of the directed fishery. Bycatch reduction devices
became the focus and the shrimp fishery became the scapegoat.
To what extent do shrimp vessels inadvertently catch
juvenile red snapper in areas of the Gulf? Shrimp trawl bycatch
characterization studies revealed that red snapper represented
.005 percent of the bycatch, a hairline crack on a graph.
Bycatch studies revealed croaker and long spine porgy still
dominate the shrimp trawl bycatch following two decades of
fishing.
Our consultant prepared and submitted the following
analysis and peer-reviewed reports to the Gulf Council and NMFS
for consideration when the bycatch issue was coming down and
debated. Our analysis revealed significant flaws in the manner
in which NMFS estimated the impact and size of shrimp trawl
bycatch. It was overestimated.
The calculation of the effectiveness of BRDs was over-
exaggerated. The reduction in mortality by BRDs would be
approximately 25 to 28 percent. The red snapper stock
calculation, a biological estimate of the resiliency of the
fishery, was wrong.
Overfishing objectives for the red snapper management plan,
expressed either as OY or MSY, requires that the stocks should
grow from the current level of about 30 million pounds to
between 3 billion to 4 billion pounds.
There is no biological evidence that the red snapper
fishery was ever this large. And we doubt, as we issued this
statement to NMFS, that any credible scientist would be willing
to stake his or her reputation that it could grow to this size
or that the ecology of the Gulf could sustain such a stock
biomass. Nonetheless, this stock objective, expressed as 20 to
26 percent SPR, is the legal mandate for this fishery.
In the early 1990's, when BRDs were being examined in
laboratory conditions, NMFS decided that the red snapper
population was growing, even without bycatch reduction. The
council and NMFS continued to increase the TAC, from 4 to 9.12
million pounds, to meet the needs of the ever-increasing
directed red snapper fishery.
Recently, the Gulf Council recommended, and it appears NMFS
will support, a 9.12 million pound TAC for the year 2000, even
though the stock assessment panel of scientists that serve the
council recently advised that the annual quota should be set at
no more than 6 million pounds and, under one scenario, at zero
quota, for the next 30 years, in order to allow the stocks to
achieve the specified MSY/OY.
If the 9.12 million pound TAC recommended for the year 2000
is not reduced to 6 million pounds, we, as an industry that is
highly affected by this, plan to file suit challenging this
conservation failure. It is wrong for the Gulf Council and NMFS
to decide if the red snapper population is so depleted that the
ineffective BRDs must remain a mandate at great expense to the
shrimp fishery, but the directed red snapper fishery should not
be curtailed to lessen their economic impact.
A mandate for ineffective BRDs has made the shrimp fishery
a strong advocate for bringing the red snapper population to
the point that it is no longer overfished. And we demand that
responsible parties for the overfished state, the directed red
snapper fishery, must be curtailed and equally share in the
recovery program.
At this point, we have completely lost confidence in the
ability of the Federal fishery management process to operate in
a manner consistent with sound science and accurate information
on a fair and equitable basis. The shrimp fishery is going to
be subject to more bycatch restrictions and further mandatory
actions, because BRDs are not meeting the mandate of what they
have required. NMFS now advises the council that they must
aggressively consider other means to achieve bycatch reduction
in addition to BRDs, extending BRD coverage, bycatch quotas,
closing areas and seasons.
For many years, the shrimp fishery has voluntarily carried
observers and cooperated in data collection programs,
economics, shrimp fishing effort, bycatch data, and gear
technology. Now the council and NMFS are discussing making all
of this mandatory, and the shrimp industry probably has the
greatest data base of any fishery in the United States today.
We view what the council and NMFS are discussing as
mandatory observers, logbooks for more data collection, vessel
permits, operator permits, and a vessel monitoring system to
enable tougher enforcement action against the shrimp fleet
simply to be used in a sanctioning manner. This we highly
disagree with.
We have had some bad experiences by being big cooperators,
taking observers on board, but we now are facing an observer
who has filed suit against one of our boats for a $950,000
settlement. Under essential fish habitat, because shrimp are
highly dependent on the quality of our coastal environment, we
supported changes to the Magnuson-Stevens Act that would
improve protection of essential fish habitat. Unfortunately,
the essential fish habitat program has been spun totally out of
control.
Again, the major focus in the Gulf of Mexico is shrimp
trawl damage to essential fish habitat. We have totally lost in
this concept the loss of 9,800 square kilometers of trawlable
bottom, and the fact that shrimp trawlers do not trawl beyond
the 40 fathom contour voids the myth of such clear cutting of
the Gulf floor.
Thank you for allowing me to testify. I would be happy to
answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Anderson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Wilma Anderson, Executive Director,
Texas Shrimp Association
Madam Chairman and Members of the Committee:
My name is Wilma Anderson and I am the Executive Director of the
Texas Shrimp Association (``TSA''). The membership of TSA is comprised
of owners of approximately 963 offshore shrimp trawling vessels which
operate throughout the Gulf of Mexico, and 38 associate member
shoreside facilities, i.e., unloading plants, fuel and ice docks,
processing plants, suppliers, repair and maintenance services,
shipyard, propulsion equipment sales and service, lenders, grocery
chains, etc. Consequently, the shrimp vessels and shoreside facilities
in the Gulf of Mexico qualifies as small businesses subject to the
protection afforded such businesses under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (``RFA''), as amended in 1996 by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement and Fairness Act.
The most recent report available about the fishery is a 1989 report
by Kearney/Centaur, under contract with the National Fisheries
Education and Research Foundation, a report estimating that the Gulf
shrimp industry generated direct annual impacts amounting to $2.95
billion in sales, resulting in $1.41 billion in income and supported
162,520 jobs. When both direct and indirect effects are taken into
account, economic activities were estimated to be $5.21 billion in
sales, $2.05 billion in income, and 189,653 jobs. The industry is
especially important to small coastal communities as a source of
employment, a generator of dependent support and supply business
activity, and as a major contributor to the economic base of fishing
port municipalities.
I wish to thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify
today on the implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act. Perhaps no other segment of the
American commercial fishing industry has felt the changes brought about
by the 1996 Amendments to that Act as the Gulf of Mexico shrimp fleet.
Based on our experience, we believe that we are in a unique position to
offer meaningful criticism of just how well the marine fishery
management process is working or is not working.
In summary, we have completely lost confidence in the ability of
the federal fishery management process to operate fairly and in a
manner consistent with sound science and accurate information. Based on
our experience in the debate over whether bycatch reduction devices
(``BRDs'') are ``practicable'' for the protection of juvenile red
snapper, TSA has found that the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management
Council (``GMFMC'') and the National Marine Fisheries Service
(``NMFS'') (1) are unwilling to listen to any honest argument as to the
need for BRDs, (2) are not committed to using the best scientific
information available if it interferes with a pre-ordained conclusion,
(3) apply a double-standard to the management of fisheries in the Gulf
of Mexico, and (4) have adopted overfishing goals that seek to increase
fish stocks to levels never known in history, ignoring the
environmental changes in the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem. Moreover, the
Department of Commerce has allowed the fishery management process to be
skewed such that the eastern Gulf now controls fishery management
decisions in the Exclusive Economic Zone (``EEZ'') to the disadvantage
of other states, in particular the State of Texas. The decisions by the
Gulf Council and NMFS have injured not only the shrimp fleet but also
the recreational for-hire sector of the Texas recreational fleet.
Shrimp and Shrimp Fishing in the Gulf of Mexico
Before discussing the facts behind these experiences, let me first
describe the current condition of the shrimp fisheries in the Gulf of
Mexico. Shrimp are an annual crop, dependent on the environmental
conditions in the bays and estuaries of the Gulf for their sustained
growth. TSA has long been an advocate for protecting the essential fish
habitat of shrimp in Texas. Each year, as the shrimp grow in size, they
move out from the internal waters to the Gulf of Mexico. To prevent
growth overfishing, waters in Texas and the EEZ (beach out to 200
miles) are closed to shrimping from May 15th--July 15th. This allows
the shrimp to grow to a greater size and are thus more valuable when
harvested. The shrimp are then harvested as long they can be caught.
Unlike other fisheries, shrimp have no great threat of recruitment
overfishing i.e., the overharvest of reproductive capacity.
Reproduction is dependent on environmental conditions in estuarine
waters. Pollution and loss of nursery ground due to development is the
greatest threat to shrimp reproduction.
Generally, as a result of current management practices, the stocks
of shrimp are in relatively good health. And we also note that the
condition of the marine environment in general, including birds, marine
mammals, sharks, and other wildlife, appears to be quite sound at
present, although we have lost considerable estaurine habitat due to
developments, pollution and subsidence. Further, we have lost offshore
habitat due to the very large dead zone (1800 sq kilometers) at the
mouth of the Mississippi River.
The 3800 some-odd oil platforms, other bottom obstructions, natural
and artificial reefs, sanctuaries and closed areas in the Gulf have
rendered large areas (over 8,000 sq kilometers) of the Gulf bottom
untrawlable. Despite the loss of trawlable bottom and its adverse
effects on our industry, per se, we believe that these habitats are
critical to maintaining healthy reef fish stocks. We further believe
that these habitats have also been responsible for attracting and
giving protection from the various trawl fisheries to a large fraction
of the juvenile red snapper and other valuable species. TSA has
advocated enhancement of these lost trawlable areas so that a larger
fraction of the valuable species are afforded habitat and refuge, as a
more practical alternative to BRDs. TSA also feels that the loss of
trawlable areas is a significant mitigation measure by the shrimp
fishery--a measure which the Gulf Council and NMFS have refused to
recognize as a contribution to bycatch reduction.
It is now apparent that in the Gulf of Mexico, the Kemp's ridley
sea turtle population, now listed as endangered, is on the road to
recovery following a turnaround in 1985. The improvement of this sea
turtle's status is a clear indication that progress has been made
through substantial funding for the protection of the primary nesting
beach at Rancho Nuevo, Mexico.
But in contrast, the Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishing industry, still
one of the largest in the nation, has fallen on hard times. Competition
from imports, cost increases, and pervasive government regulations have
reduced the size and composition of the shrimp industry over the last
ten years. We estimate that the offshore shrimp fishing effort today
has been substantially reduced as compared to what it was in the 1980s.
Furthermore, the cumulative regulatory effects have reduced the profit
margin of the typical shrimp vessel to about 3-5 percent of its gross
income. These numbers are based on a study of our industry being
conducted by researchers at Texas A&M, using actual accounting data
from our vessel owners. A few years ago during the debate over BRDs,
researchers for the Gulf Council stated that the profit margin of
shrimp vessels was 51 percent and therefore the industry could absorb
the 7-10 percent shrimp loss caused by BRDs without difficulty. When we
filed data seeking to correct this erroneous conclusion during the
rulemaking process, NMFS refused to consider it because it was not
presented to the Council first. It seems the agency just doesn't care.
In short, the membership of TSA feels it is under siege, a
particular target of today's notion of political correctness, the
desire of environmental and recreational interests to exclude
commercial fishers from the nation's marine resources, and an
indifferent NMFS which lacks the courage to insist upon good science
and accurate information if it creates political problems. We
constantly ask ourselves if this nation truly wants diversity in its
economic activities or encourages many ways of life. We now see
ourselves as a minority, subject to the increasing tyranny of the
majority. Is the Magnuson-Stevens Act the vehicle for our industry's
destruction? Is this what Congress intended in the Sustainable
Fisheries Act?
Hard Science or Political Science?
Congress mandated that bycatch in marine fisheries be minimized
``to the extent practicable.'' The first major fishery to test this
issue is the red snapper fishery. Shrimp vessels inadvertently catch
juvenile red snapper. To reduce this bycatch, the Gulf Council and NMFS
determined that BRDs would be ``practicable'' if the devices could
reduce age 0 and age 1 juvenile red snapper mortality by 44 percent
when compared to the mortality during 1984-1989. At the time the Gulf
Council and NMFS began considering BRDs in the early 1990's, it was
said that the red snapper population was severely overfished. The
shrimp fishery became suspicious of the data that was beginning to
appear on shrimp fishing effort and shrimp trawl bycatch. At a
substantial cost that was funded by the shrimp fishery, consultants
were hired to review NMFS' data base.
During the debate over the status of the red snapper stocks, the
actual impact of shrimp trawl bycatch, and the practicability of BRDs,
we submitted scientific arguments based on the scientific work of Dr.
Benny Gallaway of LGL Ecological Associates, Inc. All of Dr. Gallaway's
presentations were then submitted to referreed scientific journals,
were peer-reviewed and then published. Many of his analyses found
significant flaws in the manner in which NMFS estimated the impact and
size of shrimp trawl bycatch (it was overestimated), in the calculation
of the effectiveness of BRDs (NMFS has exaggerated their
effectiveness), and the red snapper stock calculations (NMFS'
biological estimate of the resiliency of the fishery was wrong).
Moreover, Dr. Gallaway pointed out that the overfishing objectives for
the red snapper management plan, expressed either as Optimum Yield
(``OY'') or Maximum Sustainable Yield (``MSY''), requires that the
stocks grow from the current level of about 30 million pounds to
between 3 and 4 billion pounds. Under NMFS' biological assessment, such
growth is required before the red snapper stock will no longer be
considered overfished.
The Subcommittee should note that there is no biological evidence
that the red snapper population in the Gulf of Mexico was ever this
large. We doubt that any credible scientist would be willing to stake
his or her reputation that it could grow to this size or that the
ecology of the Gulf of Mexico could sustain such a stock biomass.
Nonetheless, this stock objective, expressed as 20 to 26 percent
spawning potential ration (``SPR''), is the legal mandate for this
fishery.
Despite our best efforts to contribute to this debate by improving
the scientific basis for decision, the Gulf Council and NMFS have
totally ignored Dr. Gallaway's peer-reviewed science. As of this date,
NMFS has refused to recalibrate its computer program, which is the
guiding force in the management of this fishery, to reflect Dr.
Gallaway's corrections. We stand on the sideline, dumbfounded at the
agency's stubborn behavior. NMFS employees have ``circled the wagons''
to protect a pre-ordained decision, and a promise to develop useful
BRDs (with $14 million in expenditures) so that more fish could be made
available for the directed fisheries.
Ironically, during the time during which BRDs were being examined
in laboratory conditions, NMFS decided that the red snapper population
was indeed growing, even without bycatch reduction. The agency then
increased the total allowable catch of red snapper from 4 to 9.12
million pounds. The Gulf Council, dominated by recreational fishing
interests, was jubilant. Then, in 1998, after mandating BRDs, NMFS
conducted a study that demonstrated that BRDs are not as effective as
predicted. In fact, the mortality reduction attributable to the shrimp
fleet, which will suffer at least $100 million in cost to use BRDs, was
only about 25-28 percent, a number that coincided almost exactly with
Dr. Gallaway's prediction.
Where are we today? Today shrimp vessels must use BRDs, which are
difficult to operate, cause considerable loss of shrimp ranging from 9
to 24 percent and increased fishing gear cost. NMFS has concluded that
BRDs do not currently meet the required mortality reduction of 44
percent, and therefore, given this history, one would expect NMFS to be
willing to abandon the BRD policy, and look for more realistic bycatch-
reduction approaches. Not so. Their most recent recommendations to the
Council included extending the BRD mandate to cover federal waters east
of Cape San Blas, Florida. They also recommended that other actions be
aggressively taken. These included things like imposing bycatch quotas
and closing areas and seasons in addition to BRDs. The need to
recommend these additional actions speaks to the ineffectiveness of
BRDs and the fact that BRDs are a failed policy. Furthermore, it
appears to be the general conclusion of the agency that BRDs, given the
costs and expected benefits to the directed fisheries, do not create a
net economic benefit to the Nation, but an economic loss. So much for
the practicability of BRDs.
The Management Double Standard
A close investigation of the condition of the red snapper
population will show that recreational fishing on the resource has been
burgeoning in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. While the shrimp fleet has
been declining and the commercial red snapper fleet held in check,
recreational charter for-hire and private recreational fishing has
expanded considerably. Between 1981 and 1998 just the charter boat
sector that fishes in Federal waters has expanded from 516 to 1286
vessels. The number of charter boats only fishing state waters is
unknown, but are no doubt growing in number as well.
The red snapper is a prize catch for recreational interests. Sadly,
however, the resource concern that has led to BRDs and tight controls
over the commercial fleet has not applied to recreational fishing.
During the last ten years, the actual harvest of red snapper by the
recreational fleet has regularly exceeded the quota for the fleet,
sometimes by double. Congress finally mandated that recreational
fishing on red snapper cease when the quota is reached. However, in
1997, the quota was exceeded by at least 17 percent according to NMFS
calculations.
The Gulf Council and NMFS do not plan to reduce directed fishing on
the red snapper, despite the heavily overfished status and the fact
that BRDs which they said would assist in the recovery stage do not
work. The Gulf Council and NMFS also did not subtract the 1997 quota
overrun from the 1998 TAC nor did they subtract the 1998 overrun from
the 1999 TAC. The Gulf Council has recommended and it appears NMFS will
support the Council recommendation for a 9.12 million pound TAC and
that the TAC be set for a two year time frame (Year 2000-2001) rather
then reviewed on an annual basis. The stock assessment panel of
scientists that serve the Gulf Council recently advised that the annual
quota should be set at no more than 6 million pounds and, under one
scenario, at zero quota for the next thirty years, in order to allow
the stock to achieve the specified MSY/OY. Despite telling a federal
judge that the total allowable catch of red snapper could be safely set
at 9.12 million pounds because BRDs would reduce juvenile mortality by
60 percent, NMFS has indicated support for continuing the annual catch
level at 9.12 million pounds, despite the recommendations of the
scientific panel. And the agency has now admitted that BRDs, even under
the best of conditions (which haven't been seen yet), might only
achieve about 40 percent reduction in mortality. Furthermore, NMFS has
yet to approve the new, likely more stringent definition of MSY/OY for
this fishery required by the Sustainable Fisheries Act.
What is wrong here? What is wrong that the Gulf Council and NMFS
have decided that the red snapper population is so depleted that
ineffective BRDs, that cost over $100 million, must be mandated for the
shrimp fleet, but that the directed fishing should not be curtailed.
The mandate for BRDs has made TSA a strong advocate for bringing the
red snapper population to the point that it is no longer overfished,
and we demand that the responsible party for the overfished state, the
directed red snapper fishery must be curtailed and equally share in the
recovery program. If the fishery is in bad enough shape that BRDs are
necessary, then the excessive directed harvests must be stopped. That
is simple conservation logic. But it is logic that the Gulf Council and
NMFS, who seem to have a different political agenda, have refused to
embrace by reducing the annual quota. Needless to say, we are outraged
by this double standard and see no authority in the Magnuson-Stevens
Act for such inequitable treatment.
I am sure that the Subcommittee will hear more about this sad state
of events when NMFS announces its determination with respect to the
annual quota for 2000. If it is not reduced from 9.12 million pounds to
6 million pounds, we plan to file suit challenging this conservation
failure. We are totally bewildered that the environmental groups that
advocate conservation are mute when it comes to the annual quota, but
are strong advocates for BRDs.
Mandatory Observers: More Police Action
For many years, TSA has helped organize voluntary data collection
programs for acquiring data on the shrimp fisheries and on the
perceived bycatch problem. Now, however, the Gulf Council and NMFS have
been discussing mandatory observers, logbooks for more data collection,
vessel permits, operator permits and a Vessel Monitoring System (VMS)
to enable tougher enforcement actions against the shrimp fleet. Here
again, no comparable action is being considered for the recreational
fishing fleet.
We believe that the system works best when we can play a role in
data collection. Because we can share in the method and results, we
feel confident that the agency will not use the data in order to
support its own political objectives. However, observers create very
difficult liability problems for our small vessels; a lawsuit by a NMFS
observer is now pending against one of our vessels that seeks a
$950,000 settlement.
Although we are probably the most heavily regulated fisheries in
the world, our government has told us that more regulations are coming.
We are going to be not much different than the peaceful demonstrators
at the WTO meeting in Seattle when the riot police went to work in the
streets. We do not see a comparable effort on the fast-expanding
recreational fleet. Their bycatch, and it is significant because over
50 percent of the red snapper that must be discarded by the
recreational fleet because of size limits, dies after release. This
bycatch is not included in the quota. While NMFS and the Coast Guard
are putting the shrimp fleet under a regulatory microscope, other
sectors of the fishery are left alone. Did Congress intend that fishery
management was to be conducted this way?
Essential Fish Habitat
Because shrimp are highly dependent on the quality of our coastal
environment, we supported changes to the Magnuson-Stevens Act that
would improve the protection of essential fish habitat. Unfortunately,
the essential fish habitat program has spun out of control. In the
first instance, everything has been defined as Essential Fish Habitat.
Second, very little credible data is available to understand the impact
of fishing activities on Essential Fish Habitat, or other activities.
Nonetheless, environmental activists have sued NMFS seeking to impose
new fishing restrictions that they claim are necessary to protect
Essential Fish Habitat. These groups are using what can only be
described as ``activist'' or junk science--science that has not been
peer-reviewed, and is primarily prepared to obtain contributions by
claiming the most outlandish problems. We do not believe that Congress
intended this kind of program when it embraced the Essential Fish
Habitat provisions in the Sustainable Fisheries Act.
To give you some idea about what is happening on this subject, the
Earth Justice Legal Defense Fund, on behalf of several environmental
groups, sued NMFS claiming that nearly every Council's actions on
Essential Fish Habitat has been deficient in their view. These groups
then proposed a settlement of the case on the basis that NMFS would
agree to new regulatory actions that address certain pet complaints of
the groups. In effect, NMFS and the Justice Department have been asked
to agree to a bypassing of the normal rulemaking process to give a
small minority control of Essential Fish Habitat policy. We are
participating in that suit and have advised the Justice Department that
any such settlement is deeply offensive and denies to those who would
be regulated the fundamental benefits of due process. We hope that this
Subcommittee will not allow regulations to be implemented by judicial
settlements agreed to only by the Justice Department and NMFS.
Magnuson-Stevens Act: Incidental Harvest Research
NMFS, in its 1995 Gulf Bycatch Report to Congress, shows the same
species that dominated the bycatch in the shrimp fishery in the 1970s
still dominate the catch following two decades of fishing. The Atlantic
croaker dominates the bycatch in the nearshore white shrimp grounds,
while the longspine porgy dominates offshore.
Over 99 percent of this shrimp trawl bycatch consists of organisms
which, like the target shrimp, have a 1 or 2 year life cycle and are
characterized by high rates of reproduction and annual mortality rates
of 90 percent or more. These are the same life history attributes that
enable the target shrimps to withstand high levels of take without loss
of overall productivity.
Red snapper represents only .005 percent of the shrimp trawl
bycatch. It is not but a hairline crack on the graph. It becomes
impressive in numbers only when the low catch rates of red snapper are
multiplied by NMFS' over estimate of 6 million hours of shrimp fishing
effort. Not only are the effort estimates flawed but a majority of
total fishing effort occurs in habitat where red snapper do not occur.
The imposed gear technology is a failure. BRD reduction in fish and
shrimp catch generally occurs within minutes of when the shrimp and
bycatch would otherwise be deposited on the deck. A majority of the
catch loss occurs at the end of the tow when the vessel slows to haul
in the net, and again at the surface when the codend is lifted. Thus,
red snapper and most other organisms are expelled from the net at the
end of the tow and at the surface. At this time, the expelled red
snapper and other organisms show signs of stress and disorientation.
The BRD functions simply as a hole in the net and an enticement for
predators to aggregate and feed extensively on the catch as it is
expelled. This chumming effect attracts large predators such as sharks
that rip large holes in the net, sometimes tearing the entire codend
from the net resulting in a complete loss of tow. Our crews are unable
to observe when a BRD twists or flips closing off the codend resulting
in a complete loss of tow. However, NMFS plays or ignores these
problems.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide our views to you. I
apologize for the fact that we do not have a lot of good news to give
you. Instead, I can only offer the views of a group of people who feel
under regulatory assault, and that no one in the fishery management
process is willing to listen to them, even when we come equipped with
better science and information than that used by the regulators. We
only hope that our comments will lead to meaningful changes in the way
the Councils and NMFS operate. However, at the moment, we are very
pessimistic.
Senator Snowe. Thank you, Ms. Anderson.
Mr. Fischer.
STATEMENT OF MYRON FISCHER, OFFSHORE CHARTER CAPTAIN, PORT
FOURCHON, LOUISIANA
Mr. Fischer. Thank you, Madam Chair, Senator Breaux. I
would like to thank you all for giving me the opportunity to
speak on issues pertaining to the Magnuson-Stevens Act. I
appreciate this Subcommittee coming forward to listen to the
views of those of us who are making a living on water, to
witness our fisheries firsthand.
My name is Myron Fischer. I am a full-time charter captain,
operating out of Port Fourchon, Louisiana. I have been licensed
by the U.S. Coast Guard since 1976. I am a graduate marine
biologist, and I presently sit on the Gulf of Mexico Fishery
Management Council.
I am going to address specific portions of the Act that I
feel need attention. The first item, in Section 301, states:
Conservation and management measures shall be based upon the
best scientific information available--National Standard 2.
What is the best available science? Ms. Penny Dalton spoke
a second ago, and said, ``We do not know the status of roughly
75 percent of the species we manage.'' If we do not even know
if they are overfished, much less have sufficient knowledge
needed to plug into the intricate modelling necessary to make
educated fishery decisions, what do we do?
If we do not have enough data to come to logical
conclusions, and when the calculated conclusion appears
illogical, what are fishery managers to do? The phrase echoed
is: We have to use the best available science.
If the best available science is so incomplete it would
result in management decisions that would be ludicrous, then
should the science be omitted? I request your Committee
elaborate on the phrase ``best available science,'' and that it
be used as a guideline in the absence of genuine data, rather
than a rigid principle.
Section 403, on observers: Observers are an essential part
in the gathering of solid data. I think last night or the night
before, I was reading a draft on HMS. It stated that--and these
people have to turn in a logbook, and it is required to be
submitted and filled out within so many hours of the set--that
when observers are on board the boat, the bycatch and various
catches is substantially different than what they turn in, in
normal instances. So observers are necessary.
But protocol is also necessary to guarantee that these
observers carry themselves in proper conduct while aboard a
vessel. Involved in the structure of the guidelines must be
language assuring vessel owners that they bear no liability for
injuries sustained by Federal employees. With the repressed
profits in today's fisheries, many fishing vessels just simply
sail without liability insurance. In the charter industry,
insurance carriers specify a maximum amount of persons aboard a
vessel. The addition of the observer may void your coverage.
I recommend to this Committee, in order for fishermen to
better receive observers, that language be installed in this
section, either removing the liability from vessel owners,
which we cannot do, or that NMFS provide liability coverage for
observers.
On bycatch: In the definition of bycatch, I think this is
very important: We have a phrase under the definition, brief
mention is made to the phrase ``recreational catch and release
fishery management program.'' To avoid confusion in the
interpretation of this phrase, the Act should spell out the
definition of a recreational catch and release program as
intended, and not let various managers inject their own
ideology into what Congress intended.
I pray that the intent of Congress was to allow
recreational anglers to target various species and practice
conservation by releasing that portion of their catch that they
choose not to keep without the effects of bycatch and the
ramifications of such dangling over them.
Quota versus allocation: I would request the Committee use
caution in making changes to future amendments. Changing the
word ``allocation'' to ``quota'' has impaled serious injury to
the charter and recreational industry. If the intent of
Congress was to manage the recreational sector under a quota
system, then the mechanism to install such a system must first
be in place. The use of the outdated MRFSS data collection
methods fall very short of the goal involved in quota
management.
As opposed to the commercial real count method, MRFSS data
does not even surface until 6 months after collection. Using
this data in real time projections is impossible. The present
red snapper model uses a 4-year average to calculate fishery
closure, and does not incorporate weather or other social
changes. It is disgraceful to mandate quota closures without
first installing accurate methods of calculating harvest.
On precautionary approach: For a term that does not even
reside inside the Act, but possibly created by NMFS, we find
ourselves burdened by this phrase. Sure, we all want to be
precautionary, but to what degree? The commercial fishermen,
the recreational fishermen, the conservationists and fishery
managers may all have different ideas on the correctness.
If Congress intends for fishery managers to live by the
phrase ``precautionary approach,'' then define it and identify
it. Otherwise let us remove it from the decisionmaking theory.
We all want to be precautionary, but its usage precludes the
social and economic needs along our coast. We all want to err
on the side of caution, but Congress did not install this
statement. And if you feel it should be a guideline for
managers, then define its limits and illustrate its usage.
Otherwise instruct NMFS not to create their own phraseology.
I have one last issue I would like to bring up. It is not a
portion of the Act; it is a spinoff of the system. We hold
hearings on an issue. People come forward and they testify.
Science and socioeconomic panels insert their conclusions.
Advisory panels add their perspective. The public makes its
comments. Commercial and recreational recommendation, along
with conservation groups, give their testimony.
After considerable deliberation, the council votes. The
measure goes forward. And even if it is very timely, like this
last framework on red snapper, it stalls. The public complains.
Commercial and recreational fishermen lose faith in the
process. And no one wins.
We have to have something a little more expedient on
getting these measures out. A delay can just kill an issue that
everyone works so hard on. All the sides came together, and it
was killed by a delay in an office.
I have a few other items I was going to mention, but my
time is coming up. So, Senator Snowe, Senator Breaux, I thank
you all again for giving me the opportunity to address the
Committee. I hope any guidance you may have received from my
testimony will direct you all into producing a better Act,
which will allow harvest, while rebuilding the country's
fisheries, without being detrimental to both the fish and
fishermen.
Thank you all.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fischer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Myron Fischer, Offshore Charter Captain,
Port Fourchon, Louisiana
Madam Chair and members of the Committee, I would like to thank you
for granting me this opportunity to speak on issues involving the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. My name is
Myron Fischer. I am a full time charter captain operating out of Port
Fourchon, Louisiana and have been licensed by the United States Coast
Guard since 1976. At forty-eight years of age, I have been on water my
entire life. I am a graduate Marine Biologist and I presently sit on
the Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council.
I appreciate this committee coming forward to listen to the views
of those and myself that makes a living on water and witnesses our
fisheries firsthand. My testimony will highlight present portions of
the Magnuson-Stevens Act that need attention from your Committee.
Sec. 301 (a) 98-623 (2) Conservation and management measures shall be
based upon the best scientific information available. National Standard
2.
What is the best available science? Ms. Penny Dalton spoke to this
Committee in July and testified that we don't know the status of 64
percent of the species we manage. We do not even know if they are
overfished, much less have sufficient knowledge necessary to plug into
the intricate modeling necessary to make educated fishery decisions.
When we don't have enough data to come to a logical conclusion, and
when the calculated conclusion appears illogical, what are fishery
managers to do? The phrase echoed is ``we have to use the best
available science''. If the best available science is so incomplete
that it would result in managing decisions that would be ludicrous,
then should the science be omitted? I request your committee elaborate
on the phrase ``best available science'' and that it be used as a
guideline in the absence of genuine data rather then a rigid principle.
SEC 302 97-453, 99-659, 101-627, 102-582, 104-297 (b) VOTING MEMBERS
(1)(B) The Regional Director of NMFS. . .shall be the voting member.
97-453, 101-627, 104-297 Emergency actions and Interim Measures.
(2) (A) the Secretary shall promulgate emergency or interim measures. .
.by unanimous vote.
(2) (B) the secretary may promulgate emergency or interim measures. .
.less then unanimous vote.
As long as the Regional Director votes on issues, this portion of
the Act is useless. The Regional Director ALWAYS votes against
emergency or interim measures to preserve the Secretary's ability to
not be mandated into carrying out the measure. I am sure the original
authors did not anticipate such a ploy by ranking officials of National
Marine Fisheries Services and the Commerce Department. The Regional
Director takes an active role in the approval or disapproval of
practically all items voted on by the various councils. The
participation of these directors in the deliberation of issues and
policy is essential. However, I feel that either the director's vote
should be totally removed from council process or at the least, their
vote on issues involving Emergency or Interim Measures withdrawn.
104-297 SEC. 403 Observers
Observers are an essential part in the gathering of solid data.
Protocol is necessary to guarantee that observers carry themselves in
proper conduct while aboard a vessel owned by a citizen of this
country. Involved in the structure of these guidelines must be language
assuring vessel owners that they bear no liability for injuries
sustained by such a federal employee. With the repressed profits in
today's fisheries, many fishing vessels simply sail without liability
insurance. In the charter industry, some insurance carriers specify a
maximum amount of persons aboard a vessel. To maximize profits,
typically every seat is sold to paying clients. The addition of an
observer may violate insurance requirements and void insurance for the
entire trip. Even with proper insurance, a boat owner or captain may
spend much of his earned income litigating an injury case with someone
he did not even want aboard his vessel. Without liability guarantees,
vessel owners will always shun away from observers aboard their vessel.
I recommend to this committee, in order for fishermen to better receive
observers, that language be installed in this section removing
liability from vessel owners and operators in regards to observers or
that NMFS provide liability coverage observers.
SEC. 301 (a) 104-297 Conservation and management measures shall, to the
extent practicable, (A) minimize bycatch and (B) to the extent bycatch
cannot be avoided, minimize the mortality of such bycatch. National
Standard 9.
SEC 304 104-297 (g) Atlantic Highly Migratory Species_(2) Certain fish
excluded from ``Bycatch'' definition. Fish harvested in a commercial
fishery. . . that are not regulatory discards and that are tagged and
released alive . . .shall not be considered bycatch for the purpose of
this act.
Was this language instituted by the tuna lobby to insure that any
billfish tagged and released are not counted as bycatch? When a
recreational angler releases a billfish, it is usually done so with
utmost care. These anglers are proud of both their catch and their
release tactics. Stories of towing and supporting a billfish until
sufficient oxygen is back in the fish's system are common among
recreational circles. The survival rate of recreationally caught
billfish is stated to be high. On the other hand, data illustrates very
high mortality on longline caught fish due to the methods involved with
the fishery. The catch rate realized in one set aboard one longline
vessel could surpass the entire annual catch of the recreational
industry. Ironic, language in the initial Billfish Amendment had these
recreationally released fish listed as bycatch. The authors chose to
define ``recreational catch and release program'' (104-297) in a manner
that would count all recreationally released fish, even those tagged in
research programs as bycatch. Fortunately, after considerable public
input, the final language cleared up this matter. To avoid confusion in
the interpretation of this phrase in the future, the act should spell
out the definition of a ``recreational catch and release program'' as
intended and not let various managers inject their own ideology into
what Congress intended. I pray that the intent of Congress was to allow
recreational anglers to target various species and practice
conservation by releasing that portion of their catch that they do not
choose to keep without the effects of bycatch and the ramifications of
such dangling over them. Conversely, allowing billfish captured in the
longline industry relief from inclusion in bycatch is total
mismanagement. In addition to defining ``catch and release program'', I
highly recommend removal of the portion of this act that permits the
labeling of commercially caught billfish to not be considered bycatch.
Quota vs. Allocation
I would request the committee to use caution in making changes to
future amendments. Changing the word ``allocation'' to ``quota'' has
impaled serious injury to the charter and recreational industry. If the
intent of Congress was to manage the recreational sector under a quota
system, then the mechanism to install such a system must first be in
place. The use of the outdated MRFSS data collection methods fall very
short of the goal involved in quota management. As opposed to the
commercial ``real count'' method, MRFSS data doesn't even surface until
six months after collection. Using this data in real time projections
is impossible. The present red snapper model uses a four-year average
to calculate the fishery closure and does not incorporate weather or
other social changes. It is disgraceful to mandate quota closures
without first installing accurate methods of calculating harvest.
Precautionary approach
For a term that does not even reside in the Act, we certainly find
ourselves burdened by this phrase. This is a phrase created by National
Marine Fisheries Service in regards to their interpretation of National
Standard 1. Of course managers should be precautionary, but how
precautionary should their approach be? Precautionary enough to insure
that a fishery will not be devastated? Precautionary as to allow
participants to harvest fish and still have the fishery populations
increase? Or precautionary to the point where we simply restrict all
harvest until the population has reached some un-measurable arbitrary
number? All these are precautionary, but at different levels. The
commercial fishermen, recreational fishermen, conservationist, and
fishery managers may all have different ideas of the correct approach.
If Congress intends for fishery managers to live by the phrase
``precautionary approach'', then identify and define it; otherwise
let's remove it from decision-making ideals. We all want to be
precautionary, but its usage precludes the social and economic needs
along our coast. We all want to err on the side of caution, but
Congress did not install this statement and if you feel it should be
the guideline of managers, then define its limits and illustrate its
usage.
Section 303, 104-297 Individual Fishing Quotas
Congress choose very wisely to place a moratorium on the issuance
of Individual Fishing Quotas. While it may be very unfair to have
portions of the commercial sector engaged in a derby fishery, I hope
the councils can seek other remedies other then IFQ's for this
situation. The fishery in question on the Gulf Coast is the Red Snapper
industry. Many state that this is one of the most mis-managed species
under council jurisdiction. After sixteen amendments to the initial
plan, one could speculate that analogy. To differ, the Red Snapper TAC
has risen 400 percent, size limits have increased five times,
commercial and recreational sectors are catching their respective
quotas quicker, recruitment is up and the fishery is a true success
story. The apparent problem is that those on water see this success
quicker then the biologist and statisticians. The best available
science is holding the reins back on fishermen by creating the
commercial derby and recreational closures. I feel optimistic that
science will catch up with the real world and the need for Individual
Fishing Quotas will fade. Presently, I support the ban on IFQs as I
feel there are many unanswered questions on this subject. As answers
come forth, I may feel a need to change my perspective. Enforcement of
IFQs is one hurdle we have to overcome. Another, in the light of
possible limited entry into the charter industry, is involving IFQs
into that sector. Unlike the commercial industry, a charter captain has
to market himself and wait for the telephone to ring before he can make
a trip. Open season, calm seas, and the fish biting don't guarantee
charters. Conversely, the phone ringing during closed season doesn't
help either. I am a charter captain. Could I expect you to delegate me
an automatic ``piece of the pie.''
Senator Snowe and Senator Breaux, I thank you again for giving me
the opportunity to address this committee. I hope any guidance you may
have received from my testimony will direct you into producing a better
act which will allow harvest while rebuilding this country's fisheries
without being detrimental to both the fish or fishermen.
Thank you.
Senator Snowe. Thank you, Mr. Fischer.
Mr. Werner.
STATEMENT OF WAYNE WERNER, COMMERCIAL FISHERMAN, GALLIANO,
LOUISIANA
Mr. Werner. Madam Chair, Senator Breaux, I would like to
first thank you. I am the only commercial fisherman on any of
these panels. So I really would like to thank you for that.
My name is Wayne Werner, from Galliano, Louisiana. I am an
owner-operator of the fishing vessel Wayne's Pain. I would like
to thank the U.S. Senate for the chance to speak on the
Magnuson-Stevens Act.
When the red snapper season opens for the new millennium,
the historical dependents in our fishery will be entering their
10th year of derby fishing. This means one more year of high
mortality, dangerous fishing habits, low market prices, and
profit margins being devoted to fuel supplies, ice plants and
grocery outlets. These are atrocious conditions in which to
make a living for our crews and families.
If weather is inclement, fishermen feel forced to fish
their way through it. Just last September, the entire snapper
fleet went fishing with a tropical wave in the Gulf of Mexico.
NOAA Weather Service was reporting the conditions were
favorable for tropical development in the next 24 hours. I was
there, trying to get my share of red snapper, telling myself,
this is a disaster waiting to happen. Fortunately, development
did not occur that day. Believe me, it is just a matter of
time.
The commercial red snapper industry needs a license
limitation ITQ designed to protect the existing fishermen in
our fishery. Financially depleted by regulations and derbies,
our industry needs an ITQ system with the same eligibility
requirements as our license limitation system today. The
qualifiers should remain in place for the first 5 years before
becoming an open access ITQ. This would ensure financial
stability throughout the system before going public.
With the average age of our captains being over 50 years, I
cannot emphasize enough how unappealing a race for fish looks.
The snapper industry should be allowed to develop their own ITQ
system. ITQs are a financial decision for fishermen, and
deserve proper input from the industry.
The protection necessary in a red snapper ITQ system is for
one main reason: the recreational fishery wants our snappers.
The red snapper referendum mandates that when the recreational
share of the quota has been filled, the fishery should be
closed. The Gulf Council does not seem to think this is the
proper way to run the fishery.
This was best illustrated recently at the November Gulf of
Mexico Fisheries Management Council meeting. The Gulf Council
felt that instead of closing the recreational sector, they
could take 33 percent of the commercial allocation, giving the
recreational fishery 75 percent of the total allowable catch.
Studies have been put into motion to reallocate our red
snappers.
A question each Senator should ask is: Should less than 1
percent of the population of the United States have access to
75 percent of the American-caught red snappers? This is a
fairness issue for the American consumer.
Two years ago, the Gulf Council voted to reallocate 3
percent of the commercial king mackerel quota to the
recreational sector. This issue should be addressed by the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. Another issue being addressed in
Magnuson-Stevens is tracking the recreational catch. The
commercial sector feels that mandatory reporting for charter
boat landings is necessary in the for-hire section. A snapper
stamp should be used to better track the purely recreational
catch rate. The National Marine Fisheries Service needs to do a
better job in this area.
Spawning potential ratio levels are being set to establish
maximum sustainable yield. How are fishermen supposed to have
confidence in a system where high SPR levels result in low
catch per unit efforts, inability to fill quotas, and only
small fish available to win fishing tournaments? In contrast,
you have fisheries with low SPRs, where CPUEs are considered at
maximum levels. Quotas are filled rapidly, and tournaments are
won by large fish.
In the red snapper model, when a red snapper is two years
old, it has the same chance of survival as a 10-year-old. In a
computer model, this is assumed, whereas in real world
experience, impossible. Natural mortality rates in a zero to
two-year old fish is 47 percent, the lowest in the United
States fisheries. I question bycatch rates also. Shrimpers only
cover 15 percent of the bottom, yet kill 88 percent of all
juvenile snappers, according to the National Marine Fisheries
Service.
With no tracking system in place, many fish sales were on a
cash basis. The National Marine Fisheries Service had no idea
how many fish were actually being harvested. When permits
became required, many fishermen could not qualify due to tax
and recordkeeping problems. This incomplete and inaccurate data
is the basis for SPR.
Even with all the problems in the data, I would not support
a quota increase under derby conditions, including a 15-inch
size limit. Due to the recruitment in the red snapper fishery,
the commercial sector likely harvests the 4.65 million pounds
allotted, and discards another 2.5 million pounds of 13- to 15-
inch snappers. Fish do not discriminate against user groups.
The Gulf Council is raising the recreational size limit to 16
inches to help extend the season. With such a large increase in
recruitment, the release mortality in the recreational sector
will rise dramatically.
In summary, I would like to see the following addressed in
the Magnuson-Stevens Act:
One, a license limitation ITQ, with input from commercial
fishermen. Two, the makeup of the Gulf Council includes no
commercial fishermen representation at this time. Three, to
better track the recreational catch in the reef-fish fishery.
Four, reallocation and discrimination in the council system.
This includes discrimination against the 200 million people,
consumers, that do not and cannot fish, represented by
commercial fishermen. Five, SPR and MSY, the National Marine
Fisheries Service expects the population of red snapper to be
five billion, and I would like to say that Mike Seripa, who
does the computer model, had told me five billion recently.
Is there enough ecology to support MSY? I hope Congress
will look into some of these problems and take the appropriate
actions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Werner follows:]
Prepared Statement of Wayne Werner, Commercial Fisherman,
Galliano, Louisiana
My name is Wayne Werner of Galliano, Lousiana. I am the owner/
operator of the fishing vessel ``Wayne's Pain''. I would like to thank
the U.S. Senate for the chance to speak on the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
When the Red Snapper season opens for the new millennium, the
historical dependents in our fishery will be entering their tenth year
of ``derby'' fishing. This means one more year of high fishing
mortality, dangerous fishing habits, low market prices, and profit
margins being diverted to fuel suppliers, ice plants, and grocery
outlets. These are atrocious conditions in which to make a living for
our crews and families.
If the weather is inclement, fishermen feel forced to fish their
way through it. Just last September, the entire snapper fleet went
fishing with a tropical wave in the Gulf of Mexico. NOAA Weather
Service was reporting that conditions were favorable for tropical
development in the next 24 hours. I was there, trying to get my share
of the Red Snapper quota, telling myself that this is a disaster
waiting to happen. Fortunately, development did not occur that day;
believe me, its just a matter of time.
The commercial Red Snapper industry needs a License Limitation ITQ
system designed to protect the existing fishermen in our fishery.
Financially depleted by regulations and derbies, our industry needs an
ITQ system with the same eligibility requirements as our license
limitation system today. The qualifiers should remain in place for the
first five years, before becoming an open access ITQ; this would ensure
financial stability throughout the system before going public. With the
average age of our captains being over 50 years, I cannot emphasize
enough how unappealing a race for fish looks. The snapper industry
should be allowed to develop their own ITQ system. ITQs are a financial
decision for fishermen, and deserve proper input from our industry.
The protection necessary in a Red Snapper ITQ system is for one
main reason: the recreational fishery wants our snapper. The Red
Snapper Referendum mandates that when the recreational share of the
quota has been filled, that fishery should be closed. The Gulf Council
does not seem to think that this is the proper way to run the fishery.
This was best illustrated recently at the November Gulf of Mexico
Fisheries Management Council meeting. The Gulf Council felt that
instead of closing the recreational sector, they could take 33 percent
of the commercial allocation, giving the recreational fishery 75
percent of the Total Allowable Catch. Studies have been put into motion
to reallocate Red Snapper.
A question each Senator should ask themselves is: Should less than
1 percent of the population of the United States have access to 75
percent of American-caught Red Snapper? This is a fairness issue for
the American consumer.
Two years ago, the Gulf Council voted to reallocate 3 percent of
the commercial King Mackerel quota to the recreational sector. This
issue should be addressed by the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Another issue
that should be addressed in Magnuson-Stevens is mandatory reporting for
charter boats landings that is necessary in the for-hire section. A
Snapper Stamp should be used to better track the purely recreational
catch rate. National Marine Fisheries Service needs to do a better job
in this area.
Spawning Potential Ratio levels are being set to establish Maximum
Sustainable Yield. How are fishermen supposed to have confidence in a
system where high SPR levels result in low Catch Per Unit Effort,
inability to fill quotas, and only small fish available to win fishing
tournaments? In contrast, you have fisheries with low SPRs, where CPUEs
are considered at maximum levels. Quotas are filled rapidly, and
tournaments are won by large fish.
In the Red Snapper model, when a snapper is 2 years old, he has the
same chance of survival as a fish that is 10 years old. In the computer
model, this is assumed, whereas in real world experience, impossible.
Natural mortality rates in 0 to 2 year old fish is 47 percent, the
lowest in the United States fisheries. I question bycatch rates also.
Shrimpers only cover 15 percent of the bottom, yet kill 88 percent of
all juvenile snapper, according to NMFS.
Overwhelming public testimony about science on Red Snapper has been
negative. The most common complaint heard is ``something is wrong'' and
``garbage in, garbage out''. The science just doesn't correspond to the
amount of snapper available.
Time does not allow for me to continue to address this issue with
you today. Please take the time to look over the attached comments
which further discuss the subject of Red Snapper and the way it is
regulated.
I would like to thank the U.S. Senators here today for holding
these hearings on the Gulf Coast in order to address the problems and
issues that affect so many people's lives.
______
The following is additional information on the subjects that I will
be discussing at the Senate-Committee hearings on Magnuson-Stevens.
Most of this information is based on my involvement on Advisory Panels
and attendance at 37 Gulf Council meetings, as well as personal
experience in the Red Snapper fishery.
Four years ago I testified before this committee against the ITQ
system as proposed by the Gulf Council.
The commercial industry felt this system was designed as a Buy-out
project. The Gulf Council developed this ITQ without accepting any
input from commercial fishermen. Overwhelming public testimony against
this ITQ meant nothing to the Gulf Council, as nothing has changed in
the four years since Amendment 8, I would still stand against that
particular ITQ system.
Remaining in the Red Snapper ``derby'' is a situation that
historical dependents in the fishery have a hard time dealing with. One
of the problems created by derbies is discard mortality. For instance,
I may need a couple of hundred pounds of snapper to finish my trip
limit. Do I ride an hour or two farther from the dock...or do I kill
200 to 300 pounds of undersized snapper and stay competitive with the
fleet? I am certainly not the only fisherman that faces this dilemma.
Profit margins are another major concern. Derbies have reduced my
prices for snapper by an average of 85 cent per pound. Compounded with
a 2000 lb. trip limit, some trips involve running for 8-10 hours. Your
trip limit is caught in 45 minutes to an hour, and you drive back
another 8-10 hours. This creates much more wear and tear than normal
operation, and consumes more fuel as well. Back at the dock, one hour
to unload and head back offshore. Which, in turn, creates another
problem: Sleep Deprivation. Crewmen have fallen overboard, asleep at
the rail. I have had crewmen break down--they just couldn't go on--worn
out. These are just a few examples of the conditions that I refer to as
``atrocious'' in my oral testimony.
It doesn't surprise me that the commercial fishermen do not get a
fair shake from the Gulf Council. The make-up of this Council, in the
12 years that I have attended their meetings, has been a majority of
recreational representation. The so-called ``commercial''
representatives on this Council have been fish dealers, importers and
one of two state representatives. There has never been a hook-and-line
commercial fisherman on this Council. Every Red Snapper fisherman I
speak to is of the same opinion; we have no representation on this
Council.
In order to get a proper ITQ system in place, it would take
Congressional assistance in forcing the Gulf Council to allow fishermen
to develop this system.
In September, the Gulf Council requested that Congress lift the Red
Snapper Referendum. This shows just how much they care about the
commercial fisherman's opinion.
The commercial red snapper fishermen deserve an ITQ that is
representative of our fishery, including the 51 percent-49 percent
split, allocated by the Gulf Council ten years ago.
When the Red Snapper Referendum mandated a recreational closure,
the Gulf Council found it necessary to raise the quota from 6 million
to 9 million pounds. In contrast, during the years prior to 1996, the
commercial fishing seasons were getting shorter and shorter, but this
did not seem to be a problem worthy of being addressed by the Gulf
Council.
Being managed by a lower standard sometimes makes you feel like a
second-class citizen in the eyes of the Council system. Now, with MSY
restraints, the Gulf Council is left with only one option in order to
keep the recreational sector open with a 4 fish bag limit:
Reallocation, or as commercial fishermen refer to it, Steal the fish.
This is purely an economic decision, and is in direct violation of the
5th National Standard.
Conservation is necessary to all fisheries. Fishermen cannot make a
living without fish. Prior to mandatory logbook reporting, the catch
histories are questionable to say the least. The best example of just
how questionable NMFS' catch history records are, look at the June 1999
Red Grouper Stock Assessment. On page 18, it shows the 1950-1976
Estimated Cuban Landings from the Florida West Coast. I would like to
quote from page 20: ``None of the Cuban fleet's catch of grouper were
exported, but rather remained in that country for domestic
consumption''. Considering the United States' relationship with the
Cuban government during those years, this data is preposterous.
While framing Amendment 1 to the Reef Fish Management Plan, the
Gulf Council wanted to prohibit the use of longlines inshore of 50
fathoms in the western zone of the Gulf of Mexico. At the request of
Red Snapper fishermen, this restriction later included buoy fishing.
NMFS was unaware that this fishing method even existed.
To track some of the historical reef fish catch, NMFS used a TIP
(trip interview program) reporting system between 1982 and 1991. I was
surveyed only one time during this time period.
In the mid to late 1980's two factors influenced the catch history
in the commercial fishery, but were never accounted for. The captains
and crews on oil supply boats and oilfield crew boats sold large
amounts of Red Snapper. At the fish house where I sold my Red Snapper,
I observed eight to ten people (who were not commercial fishermen) per
week selling 200-400 pounds of snapper at a time.
With no tracking system in place, many fish sales were on a cash
basis. NMFS had no idea how many fish were actually being harvested.
When permits became required, many fishermen could not qualify or
establish a catch history because of tax and record keeping problems.
This incomplete and inaccurate data is the basis for SPR.
Even with all the problems with the data, I would not support a
quota increase under derby conditions, including a 15 inch size limit.
Due to the recruitment in the Red Snapper fishery, the commercial
section likely harvests the 4.65 million pounds allotted, and discards
another 2.5 million pounds of 13 to 15 inch snapper. Fish do not
discriminate against user groups. The Gulf Council is raising the
recreational size limit to 16 inches to help extend the season. With a
large increase in recruitment, the release mortality in the
recreational sector will rise dramatically.
In summary, I would like to see the following addressed in
Magnuson-Stevens:
1. LA license-limitation ITQ system with input from commercial
fishermen.
2. LThe makeup of the Gulf Council: Recreational and Commercial,
including no commercial fishermen representation.
3. LTo better track the recreational catch in the Reef Fish
fishery.
4. LReallocation and discrimination in the Council system. This
includes discrimination against the 200 million people (consumers) that
do not/cannot fish, represented by commercial fishermen.
5. LSPR and MSY: NMFS expects the population of Red Snapper to be 5
billion; is there enough ecology to support MSY?
I hope Congress will look into some of these problems and take
appropriate action.
Thank you.
Senator Snowe. Thank you very much, Mr. Werner.
Mr. Emerson.
STATEMENT OF PETER M. EMERSON, SENIOR ECONOMIST, ENVIRONMENTAL
DEFENSE FUND
Mr. Emerson. Madam Chair, Senator Breaux, my name is Pete
Emerson. I work for the Environmental Defense Fund in Austin,
Texas.
The Environmental Defense Fund is a member of the Marine
Fish Conservation Network. The Network's agenda and
conservation goals are attached to my testimony. I appreciate
this opportunity to offer my perspective on fishery policy
issues in the Gulf of Mexico.
The fisheries and marine ecosystems of the Gulf are truly
unique and valuable public resources. Your important work in
reauthorizing the Magnuson-Stevens Act can help people in this
region solve resource problems that are important to all
Americans.
In my written testimony I ask Congress to help our managers
by providing a full range of fishery management tools,
encouraging the evaluation and use of marine protected areas,
and reducing external threats to Gulf fisheries and ecosystems.
Among all of the concerns, EDF's highest priority is the reef
fish fishery, helping to put an end to the derby fishing,
rebuilding stocks, resolving allocation problems between
sectors, and reducing environmental damage.
We believe that these negative outcomes--derbies,
overfished stocks, conflicts among fishermen, quota overruns,
and bycatch waste--feed on each other, and that they must be
dealt with jointly before much progress can be made on ocean
conservation and resource stewardship goals. We also realize
there is a huge amount of work to be done, and there are
probably no shortcuts.
But Congress can help. Congress can help by removing
prohibitions on individual fishing quotas, and giving the Gulf
Council the flexibility to design an appropriate management
program for the reef fish fishery. The Council might get
started by reviving the ITQ program for red snapper that was
shelved in 1996, and then extending it to other important reef
fish, and to the for-hire recreational sector.
In my view, it would be desirable to take advantage of work
expended in developing the initial ITQ program. A lot of effort
went into structuring a program based on information obtained
before the commercial fishery was distorted by extreme derby
conditions. Capitalizing on this experience might help jump
start a new program.
Whatever happens next, we need to help the Council gain
broader stakeholder participation, and our Council will need
flexibility in several areas to avoid making mistakes in
redirecting fishing effort between species or creating new
derbies; to concurrently manage the commercial and recreational
sector and allow transferability of quota shares between those
sectors; to recover the government's cost of running the
program; to assess the socioeconomic impacts of the program;
and, if necessary, to find ways to compensate those individuals
who are harmed as a direct result of management reform.
In addition, the comprehensive ITQ program should be
scrutinized to demonstrate that it will save fish and help
protect the marine ecosystem. Conservation benefits would be
expected from reduced bycatch, since it will no longer be
necessary to discard fish subject to a long closed season while
fishing continues for other species and from the elimination of
minimum size limits. Conservation will also gain as a result of
better monitoring and enforcement to keep the catch within
quota limits, less effort in the fishery, and a stronger
``stewardship ethic'' as fishermen share in the productivity of
future stocks.
If we can get to ``yes'' on a carefully designed ITQ
program in the reef fish fishery, then we have a real chance to
step forward for conservation and long-term use of the fishery
that will benefit all Americans. Such an outcome would be a big
improvement over current management.
Madam Chair, Senator Breaux, to realize this improvement,
we need, as you know, support from Congress, as I have outlined
in my talk here today and in my written testimony. With that
support, I feel confident that people here in the Gulf region
will be able to work together and to make decisions that will
move us closer to meeting the objectives of the Act.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the
Environmental Defense Fund.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Emerson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Peter M. Emerson, Senior Economist,
Environmental Defense Fund
Madam Chair and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today on reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act. My name is Pete Emerson. I work for the Environmental Defense Fund
in Austin, Texas. We are a public interest group dedicated to
protecting the environmental rights of all people to clean air and
water, healthy food and flourishing ecosystems. We have more than
300,000 members worldwide, including 38,000 members living in states
bordering the Gulf of Mexico.
The Environmental Defense Fund is privileged to serve on the
Executive Committee of the Marine Fish Conservation Network. As you
know, the Network is a coalition of more than 80 environmental groups,
sport and commercial fishermen, and marine scientists working to
improve our nation's fisheries laws. The Network's agenda and goals are
attached to my testimony. I urge the members of this Subcommittee to
consider them thoroughly.
I will use today's opportunity to provide my perspective on key
fishery policy issues in the Gulf of Mexico that reauthorization might
address.
The Gulf of Mexico--A Special Place
The fisheries and marine ecosystems of the Gulf of Mexico--or,
``America's Sea''--are truly unique and valuable public resources. They
are important to all Americans.
Gulf of Mexico mangrove forests, sea grass beds, salt marshes, and
offshore reefs are home to a diverse array of marine life. Here in the
United States and abroad, seafood consumers enjoy the region's abundant
harvest of shrimp, crabs, oysters, and finfish. The commercial fishery
in the Gulf--our second largest by volume and dockside value--lands
more than 1.5 billion pounds of product annually, worth about $700
million. And, Gulf shrimp make up our nation's single most valuable
stock. The commercial fishing industry employs more than 55,000 people
as fishermen, processors, and wholesalers.
Recreational activities are enjoyed by millions of people year-
round, and recreational demand in the region is growing. Three million
sport fishermen catch at least 100 million fish from the Gulf each
year, accounting for more than one-third of all marine recreational
fishing in the U.S. Tourists from near and far spend billions of
dollars on the Gulf coast to vacation, fish, and enjoy unique coral
reefs, endangered sea turtles, and a wide variety of bird life.
Resource Management Problems Persist
Amidst these positive factors there are, however, significant
resource problems that trouble the Gulf of Mexico. These problems make
life difficult for federal and state resource managers and stakeholders
alike. They may be of particular interest to the Subcommittee because
they prevent our nation from realizing the greatest long-term benefit
from the use and preservation of the Gulf's fisheries and other natural
resources.
Six Gulf fish species--red snapper, vermilion snapper, Nassau
grouper, gag grouper, jewfish, and king mackerel--are currently
classified as ``overfished'' or ``approaching an overfished
condition.'' Five of these are members of the region's valuable multi-
species reef fish fishery, including the very popular red snapper.
Preventing overfishing and successfully rebuilding this fishery is a
difficult challenge.
Current fishery management regulations hurt fishermen and coastal
communities economically and even increase the hazards of fishing.
Bycatch waste is too high in some fisheries. A huge ``dead zone'' off
the Louisiana and Texas coast threatens vast areas of essential fish
habitat. Managers often do not have adequate fisheries and economic
data to do their jobs, and there is a need for broader public
participation in government planning and decision-making.
In reauthorizing the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Congress can help
the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, the National Marine
Fisheries Service, and concerned citizens solve some of these problems.
In particular, we need statutes that provide a full range of fishery
management tools and help responsible managers develop strategies to
introduce new conservation measures and reduce external threats to Gulf
fisheries and ecosystems.
Putting an End to Derby Fishing
At a recent meeting of red snapper stakeholders, sponsored by the
Southeast Region Administrator, commercial fishermen were nearly
unanimous in calling for an end to destructive ``derby'' fishing;
businessmen in the for-hire recreational sector and sportsmen deplored
early season closings; and everyone was troubled by increased bycatch
waste due to regulatory discards resulting from minimum size limits and
long closed seasons. Today, the Gulf Council finds it very difficult to
address these problems, and to allocate a limited catch among competing
fishermen, because it is prohibited from using an important fishery
management tool.
To help managers better address these problems, the Congress may
remove the prohibitions on individual fishing quotas and give the Gulf
Council the flexibility needed to design a comprehensive individual
transferable quota (ITQ) program for the reef fish fishery. An ITQ
program would end the economically destructive red snapper derby,
significantly reduce bycatch by eliminating long season closures, help
prevent overfishing of healthy stocks, and speed rebuilding of
overfished stocks. Carefully designed, such a program will meet the
Network's conservation principles concerning the use of individual
fishing quotas.
The Council will need flexibility and time to design an ITQ program
that might ultimately include all reef fish species and allow for
transferability of quota shares between commercial and recreational
sectors.
A comprehensive ITQ program may be accompanied by fees levied on
ITQ holders to cover the program's administrative, management and
enforcement costs. Additional fees and Congressional appropriations may
be required to provide funds for other needs in the fishery. Such needs
might include retiring excess vessel capacity to ensure that it does
not enter adjacent fisheries, and compensating individuals who are
economically injured as a direct result of management reform. The
Council will need to work closely with fishermen and other stakeholders
to avoid mistakes like re-directing fishing effort and, if possible, to
identify and find appropriate ways to compensate real economic damage.
The ITQ program--like all other management programs--ought to be
reviewed regularly to document its conservation benefits and economic
performance. Furthermore, while ITQ permit-holders may take legal
action against private parties who unlawfully damage the fishery, they
would not be able to claim that ITQ shares are a compensable property
right and seek payment from the government if management rules change.
Adopting a comprehensive ITQ program and getting rid of derby
fishing will allow fishermen to solve certain issues themselves, like
deciding when to fish and reallocation of the catch between sectors.
Returning control of these decisions to fishermen will lighten the
burden on government regulators. With better working conditions, I
believe fishermen will find it easier to work cooperatively with
government regulators on planning and enforcement and with
environmentalists on resource stewardship goals.
Winning Support for New Conservation Tools
Confronted with rising demands on marine resources and the reef
fish fishery, new conservation tools may be necessary.
The Gulf Council is required to minimize bycatch and bycatch
mortality, but rates of regulatory discards as a result of minimum size
limits are high, and they are increasing. Also, mortality rates of
discarded reef fish are high, estimated to be 20 to 33 percent or even
higher. In recent years, in the recreational gag grouper fishery, the
number of undersized gag killed as bycatch exceeds the number of gag
landed by sportsmen. And, more than 50 percent of the red snapper
caught by recreational fishermen are discarded because they are
undersized. This problem is exacerbated because the Gulf Council has
recently adopted high red snapper minimum size limits to lengthen the
recreational season, causing fishermen to catch and discard many fish
in pursuit of a four-fish bag limit. In addition, juvenile red snapper
are killed in shrimp trawls even though shrimpers have adopted bycatch
reduction devices throughout most of the Gulf and reduced their bycatch
mortality.
To help managers better address these problems, the Congress may
strengthen national policies to put priority on implementing new
conservation tools, such as marine reserves. A system of marine
reserves--created to satisfy particular conservation objectives--would
allow fishermen to avoid bycatch waste, help prevent overfishing, and
enhance rebuilding of stocks. More money should be spent on developing
the science needed to design effective marine reserves that boost fish
production and achieve other conservation goals. NMFS and the Council
should be encouraged to establish marine reserves for multi-species
fisheries associated with reefs and rocky structures. Marine reserves
should serve as the preferred option to manage those fisheries for
which traditional management measures are not working. The Council will
also need a sufficient level of funding to design, implement and
enforce marine reserves.
With marine reserves in-place, minimum size limits in the reef fish
fishery may be reduced or eliminated because the natural community
structure of the population would be maintained inside the protected
area, ensuring an ample source of recruits. In addition, shrimp trawl
bycatch could be reduced by setting aside areas where large numbers of
juvenile red snapper and shrimp are found together.
Marine reserves can also help managers solve other problems that
are difficult to address using traditional management tools. The Gulf
Council recently proposed using marine reserves (``closed fishing
areas'') to prevent overfishing of gag grouper. After a year of
deliberation, the Council concluded that marine reserves held the best
chance of preserving the dwindling number of gag males and the
remaining spawning aggregations. Also, marine reserves would provide
the Gulf Council with an opportunity to be more precautionary in its
management of fisheries. Marine reserves provide insurance against
scientific uncertainty, management errors and extreme ecosystem
fluctuations that could devastate troubled fishery populations.
The Council and NMFS should have flexibility to design and
implement marine reserves that protect the reef fish complex and its
natural habitat. Design and implementation options should be evaluated
to ensure they are not unnecessarily biased against commercial or
recreational fishing, or other uses. To help marine reserves work, it
may be necessary to establish a vessel monitoring program and introduce
prohibitive penalties for poaching such as suspension or loss of a
fishing permit. Marine reserves, and all new fishery management tools,
should be reviewed regularly and monitored to document their
performance in meeting their conservation goals.
As new and innovative conservation tools become increasingly
necessary to manage Gulf fisheries, the Congress may wish to urge that
Council membership become more representative of the broad range of
interests in the region--including fishermen, consumers, biologists,
environmentalists and academics.
Reducing External Threats to the Gulf
Gulf of Mexico fisheries are also being adversely affected by non-
fishing related impacts. Essential fish habitat is degraded as a result
of excessive levels of nutrients entering the Gulf from farm and urban
run-off into the Mississippi River. Nutrients foster algae blooms that
result in depletion of oxygen in Gulf waters. Over the past several
years, a ``dead zone'' measuring more than 6,000 square miles has been
documented each summer at the mouth of the Mississippi River off the
coasts of Louisiana and Texas. The dead zone damages benthic
communities--an important part of the Gulf food web--and kills all
marine life unable to leave the oxygen-depleted zone.
To address this problem, Congress may support federal programs to
reduce nutrient run-off upstream. One such program, the USDA's
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, helps the federal government
join forces with states to pay farmers to turn marginal farmland into
buffers of trees and grasses to trap and filter sediment and other farm
run-off before it pollutes nearby rivers and streams. Congress may also
enhance the EFH consultation requirement, currently in the Act, by
providing that federal agencies must ensure that their actions are not
likely to adversely impact essential fish habitat.
Summary
Reauthorizing the Magnuson-Stevens Act provides an opportunity to
address problems in the Gulf. The Congress may act to provide a full
range of fishery management tools and encourage government managers to
introduce new conservation measures and reduce external threats to the
Gulf. Well-designed programs based on this authority would help us move
closer to achieving the objectives of the Act.
Attachment
The Marine Fish Conservation Network
The Marine Fish Conservation Network (Network) is a coalition of
national and regional environmental organizations, commercial and
recreational fishing groups, and marine science groups dedicated to
conserving marine fish and promoting their long-term sustainability.
The Network's primary objective is to make conservation the number
one priority of fisheries management. In furtherance of this objective,
the Network has analyzed existing federal fisheries management policies
to determine whether changes are needed to ensure that such policies
adequately promote marine fish conservation. The Magnuson-Stevens Act
is the principal mechanism for conserving and managing living marine
resources off our coasts, and for the reasons discussed below, the
Network has determined that significant changes are necessary to
improve the law's effectiveness.
The Network has prepared ``A National Agenda to Protect, Restore,
and Conserve Marine Fisheries,'' which explains the problems with
current federal policies and what changes are needed to protect,
restore, and conserve marine fish.
Introduction to the Issues
Marine fish are a precious natural resource of enormous ecological,
economic, and social value. They are major components of ocean
ecosystems, as well as an important source of food, employment, and
recreation. Healthy marine fish populations contribute significantly to
the national economy and enhance our quality of life, but only if used
and managed wisely.
In 1976, Congress passed the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and
Management Act, empowering eight regional fishery management councils
and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to serve as stewards
of our living marine resources. Nearly a quarter century later, many of
this country's fisheries are depleted or in decline. In response to
rampant overfishing, bycatch (the incidental capture of non-target fish
and other marine animals), loss of habitat, and other threats to our
fisheries, Congress passed the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA) in 1996.
This landmark legislation amended the newly renamed Magnuson-Stevens
Act with strict new mandates to stop overfishing, rebuild all
overfished stocks, minimize bycatch, and protect essential fish
habitat.
Even with the SFA in place, overfishing continues because of, among
other reasons, prolonged rebuilding periods for overfished populations.
Uniformly, fishery managers have failed to effectively reduce bycatch,
or to reduce the harmful effects of fishing on marine habitats. NMFS
reports that approximately one out of three U.S. fisheries, where the
status is known, are overfished, many of these severely. The status of
approximately two-thirds of the remaining managed marine fish is
unknown. These dismal statistics highlight the critical need in fishery
management to get serious about rebuilding the nation's fisheries to
sustainable levels. These problems should be considered in the upcoming
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Amendments are necessary
to make conservation the number one priority of fisheries management.
Essential for Sustainable Fisheries
The Marine Fish Conservation Network believes, for the reasons
discussed below, that substantial changes in the Magnuson-Stevens Act
are essential to protect, restore, and conserve the nation's marine
fish.
The goals of the Network are to:
Conserve Marine Ecosystems
Eliminate Overfishing of All Species
Avoid Bycatch
Protect Essential Fish Habitat
Ensure Adequate Observer Coverage and Data Collection
in All Fisheries
Ensure Broad Public Representation on Regional
Fishery Management Councils
Improve U.S. Management of Highly Migratory Species
Ensure New Conservation Principles for Implementing
Individual Fishing Quotas are Adopted Before Lifting the
Moratorium
Network Goals
CONSERVE MARINE ECOSYSTEMS
Fishery managers and scientists recognize the need to expand
traditional single-species fishery management planning to include
ecosystem considerations. This includes, but is not limited to,
interactions between key predator and prey species within an ecosystem,
as well as the habitat needs of living marine resources and other
limiting factors in the environment.
Commonly referred to as ecosystem-based management, this concept
supports the precautionary approach to fishery conservation, especially
when the ecosystem effects of fishing are uncertain. The precautionary
approach requires managers to act to avoid likely harm before causes
and effects are clearly established. We strongly believe that the key
to an effective ecosystem approach is to manage fish more
conservatively.
It is widely believed that some fishery declines and difficulties
in restoring overfished populations are due, at least in part, to
fishing caused disruptions of ecosystems. Under existing law, fishery
managers do have limited authority to consider ecosystem interactions,
including predator-prey relationships, in management plans. The
principal reason ecosystem relationships are not being adequately
considered is a lack of guidance regarding the information that is
needed, clear direction regarding the principles and policies that
should be applied, and most importantly, how such principles and
policies should be integrated into fishery management decisions.
To address these concerns, the Magnuson-Stevens Act should be
amended to: require councils to develop a Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP)
for each major ecosystem within their jurisdiction; require all fishery
management plans or amendments to be consistent with the appropriate
FEP; require consideration of ecosystem impacts, including predator-
prey interactions when setting catch levels; and appropriate sufficient
new funds to assist the councils and NMFS in applying ecosystem
principles to fisheries research and management under the Magnuson-
Stevens Act.
Eliminate Overfishing of All Species
The Magnuson-Stevens Act mandates that conservation and management
measures must prevent overfishing. But in too many cases, managers
still react to overfishing after it occurs and continue to interpret
the law and regulations to allow overfishing. Managers are extending
periods allowed for rebuilding to the maximum allowable time, 10 years,
under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and, in some cases, beyond those limits.
This ``risk-prone'' management increases the likelihood that stocks
will not be rebuilt in even 10 years.
NMFS continues to interpret the prohibition on overfishing to allow
overfishing of fish caught in association with other populations of
fish that are not themselves overfished. Only when a fish species is
threatened with extinction does NMFS require protection for these
``mixed stock'' fisheries.
Contrary to Congressional intent, NMFS continues to define
``conservation and management'' in a way that places at least equal
emphasis on preserving present profits as on conserving fish resources
for the future. Some managers also use scientific uncertainty as an
excuse to allow overfishing to continue in order to minimize short-term
economic impacts. Consequently, the long-term sustainability and
economic productivity of U.S. fish populations continues to be
jeopardized.
Fishing for some species, during particularly vulnerable life
stages has placed those fish at risk. Grouper and snapper, for example,
have been known by fishermen for years to spawn in the same locations
and at the same times. Historically, the difficulty for even the best
fishermen to return each year to the same location provided some
limited protection for the fish, but improved navigation technology has
removed that protection. Removal of this safeguard contributes to
overfishing and delays or prevents timely rebuilding of fish
populations. These vulnerable fish populations need to be identified
and protected.
To address these concerns, the Magnuson-Stevens Act should be
amended to: prohibit overfishing of all stocks in a mixed stock
fishery; require councils to emphasize biological and ecological
factors over economic factors in decision making and drafting of
fishery management plans (FMPs); require that each council provide
added protection for stocks during spawning and other particularly
vulnerable life stages; and mandate the application of the
precautionary approach to fisheries management by requiring that
management measures include a safety margin to buffer against
scientific uncertainty.
Avoid Bycatch
Bycatch is the indiscriminate catching of fish and marine life
other than those a fishing vessel intends to capture. This includes
fish that are not the target species, sex, size, or quality. It also
includes many other fish and marine life that have no economic value
but are ecologically important, such as starfish, sponges and skates.
Primarily, bycatch results from fishing practices and gear that are not
selective. In addition to visible mortality, fish and other sea life
are sometimes killed or injured when passing through or escaping
fishing gear, and through ``ghost fishing'' from abandoned or lost
gear.
Environmental problems caused by bycatch include overfishing,
increased scientific uncertainty regarding total fishing mortality, and
potentially serious changes in the functioning of ecological
communities. Economically, bycatch equates to lost future fishing
opportunities as a result of mortality of commercially valuable fish.
In the SFA, Congress required action to address bycatch problems
for the first time. However, the councils and NMFS have uniformly
failed to take sufficient action to avoid bycatch. They have relied
upon past actions to satisfy the new legal obligation, recommended
insufficient action, or have not bothered to address the issue at all.
To address these concerns, the Magnuson-Stevens Act should be
amended to:
strengthen national policies to put priority on
avoiding bycatch in marine fisheries;
refine the definition of bycatch to more specifically
address the root cause of this problem: non-selective fishing
gear; and
develop a more specific set of requirements to hold
fishery managers accountable for implementing national bycatch
avoidance standards.
Protect Essential Fish Habitat
Essential fish habitats (EFH) are those waters and substrates on
which fish are dependent to reach maturity and reproduce. The SFA
requires action to describe, identify, conserve, and enhance EFH. The
law and regulations require councils ``to prevent, mitigate, or
minimize'' identified adverse effects from fishing unless it is not
practicable to do so. Most councils say that the fisheries under their
jurisdiction do not adversely impact EFH or that they did not have
enough information to take action. Unfortunately, NMFS accepted these
excuses. The ``to the extent practicable'' language in the law's EFH
requirement is clearly being used as a loophole to avoid action, as is
the familiar ``lack of information'' refrain.
The SFA requires NMFS to provide federal agencies with
recommendations on how to minimize, mitigate, or avoid adverse impacts
from federally permitted activities on EFH. Compliance with these
recommendations is voluntary. This consultation requirement needs to be
strengthened to more fully protect EFH.
To address these concerns, the Magnuson-Stevens Act should be
amended to:
require regional fishery management councils to
prohibit fishing activities that may adversely affect EFH
unless a council determines that the closure is not necessary
to protect EFH;
adopt the precautionary approach to habitat
protection by prohibiting the introduction of new fishing gear
or the opening of closed areas unless EFH damage is assessed
and minimized; and
enhance the EFH consultation requirement by providing
that federal agencies must ensure that their actions are not
likely to adversely impact EFH.
Establish and Fund Mandatory Fishery Observer and Enforcement Programs
Objective observation and data collection are vital to effectively
manage marine fish and fisheries. Managers' ability to address the
problems of overfishing, bycatch, and degradation of EFH can be limited
by lack of accurate and reliable information on a fishing vessel's
catch, including bycatch. This information is important to meet the
objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act by promoting sustainable
fishing.
Currently, most regulations must be enforced at sea. With a small
force of agents burdened with a mounting number of rules to enforce and
fishers to enforce them upon, violators know the chances of being
caught are slim. As a result, compliance with fishery laws is often
poor.
To address these concerns, legislative changes are needed to:
establish a mandatory fishery observer program for
all federally managed fisheries;
fund observer programs with a user fee based on value
and applied to all fish landed and sold in the United States;
and
increase funding for monitoring and enforcement
activities.
Reform Regional Fishery Management Councils
Although regional fishery management councils are charged with
managing the nation's marine fish for all Americans, representatives of
fishing interests dominate the councils. Interests of the general
public, as well as non-consumptive users of marine fish, such as
divers, are not adequately represented on the councils.
Marine fish are public resources. Decisions regarding their
management should be made in the public interest, not simply the
economic interest of the fishing industry. Accordingly, representatives
of the public interest must sit on regional fishery management
councils.
To address these concerns, the Magnuson-Stevens Act should be
amended to:
ensure that councils are more broadly representative
of the public interest as they make decisions regarding the
conservation and management of public resources; and
require governors to consult with conservation groups
before nominating individuals to a council.
CONSERVE ATLANTIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES
NMFS is responsible for conserving Atlantic highly migratory
species like tunas, swordfish, marlins, sailfish, and coastal and
pelagic sharks. All of these species with the exception of sharks, are
also managed under multilateral agreements through the International
Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT).
In 1990, the Magnuson-Stevens Act and Atlantic Tunas Convention Act
(ATCA) were amended to preclude U.S. fishery managers from issuing
regulations, which have the effect of ``decreasing a quota, allocation
or fishing mortality level,'' recommended by ICCAT. Since then, NMFS
has done little more than implement ICCAT quotas and allocate them
among domestic user groups. Moreover, where no ICCAT recommendations
exist, no precautionary measures have been taken.
Although ICATT sets quotas, measures to implement the quotas and
minimize bycatch mortality, such as area closures and gear
modifications, must be implemented through domestic regulations. NMFS,
however, interprets the law to prevent the U.S. from unilaterally
reducing bycatch if it would affect the ability to fill the U.S. quota.
To address these concerns, the Magnuson-Stevens Act should be
amended to:
give the U.S. greater discretion and flexibility in
the management of highly migratory species; and
repeal language that prevents or hinders the U.S.
from implementing management measures that are more
conservative than those recommended under international
agreements.
Similarly, the ATCA should be amended to:
remove language limiting U.S. authority to conserve
highly migratory species.
Individual Fishing Quotas
Individual fishing quotas (IFQs) grant the privilege to harvest
certain amounts of fish to individuals. The SFA placed a moratorium on
the submission, approval, or implementation of any FMP that creates an
IFQ program until October 1, 2000.
The Marine Fish Conservation Network supports extending the
moratorium on IFQs until and unless Congress addresses all of the
Network's conservation principles. Standards must be adopted that,
among other things, clarify that IFQ programs:
do not create a compensable property right;
demonstrably provide additional and substantial
conservation benefits to the fishery;
are reviewed periodically by an independent body to
determine whether the programs are meeting their conservation
goals; and
are of a set duration, not to exceed 5 years, subject
to possible renewal if a program is meeting its conservation
goals, provided that in any reallocation of quota shares upon a
renewal, preference shall be given to those quota shareholders
that are meeting or exceeding IFQ program requirements,
including all conservation goals.
Provide Adequate Funding for Fisheries Research & Conservation
The status of nearly two-thirds of the species managed under the
Magnuson-Stevens Act is unknown due in large part to lack of funding
for basic research. Even where general population trends are known, the
data are often imprecise, which can undermine the ability of managers
to respond to overfishing in a timely and effective manner. There are
critical gaps in fishery catch statistics, both in terms of the amount
of information collected and the adequacy of the collection systems.
These gaps deny managers essential information on the current levels of
commercial and recreational harvest, as well as, fish discarded and
landed. These research and information shortfalls are largely the
result of chronic underfunding, as is the poor state of habitat and
ecosystem-based studies.
To address these problems, legislative changes are needed to:
increase funding for management-related scientific
research and data collection; and
if new appropriations are not available, re-
prioritize existing funds and develop new, innovative sources
of funding.
Senator Snowe. Thank you, Mr. Emerson.
Let us talk about the ITQ for a moment. What do you think
are the inherent advantages of an ITQ system over the current
derby fishing and the license limitations systems?
Mr. Emerson. From my point of view, one of the most
important advantages of an ITQ program would be that it gets
the incentives right. There is no longer a need to race for
fish. There is every reason on the part of a fishermen, like
Captain Werner, to fish in a low-cost, careful way. There is
every reason for him to be a good steward of his favorite
places that he goes to fish. There is not going to be a long
closed season, or minimum size limits. Captain Werner talked
about wasting 2.65 million pounds.
Senator Snowe. In discard, yes.
Mr. Emerson. Well, what about the fish that are wasted--now
our season is closed maybe 300 days a year. Other people are
fishing for vermilion snapper. What about all of those fish
that are wasted? What is the estimate? Is it another 3 million
pounds of red snapper that are wasted? I do not know what the
number is, but it has got to be huge, based on what I have
learned from fishermen.
Senator Snowe. So you think there is an inherent benefit to
having the ITQ system over the current system, or any other
system?
Mr. Emerson. Absolutely, with respect to the reef fish
fishery, there are tremendous conservation benefits associated
with a comprehensive ITQ program.
Senator Snowe. Mr. Fischer, I know you do not agree with
lifting the moratorium on the ITQ.
Mr. Fischer. I do not agree, but my reasons can be swayed.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Fischer. I am being honest.
Senator Snowe. You are keeping an open mind. We like that.
Mr. Fischer. I did not get to verbally state this portion.
I presently support the ban on ITQs, because I feel there are a
lot of unanswered questions. But I also state that, as the
answers come forth, I may feel a need to change my perspective.
Enforcement and how we are going to make certain that if we are
allowing 4.5 million pounds, is 4.5 million pounds caught, not
4.5 million pounds of fish we registered, but 10 million pounds
caught? That is just one of the many hurdles.
User conflicts: Presently the commercial season is closed
during the summer months, and this year, through September. The
recreational fishery off our coast peaks during the summer
months, so we do not see this user conflict. Actually, the two
boats, I mean in the commercial and the recreational boat, come
in contact very little.
The other issue is it has to be allocated fairly. I have
heard every possible scenario of why someone feels they will
either be cut out or left out or why this one person got too
much of a share. So it has to be allocated fairly.
And I guess my last point, if it enters into the
recreational for-hire sector, how is that going to be
allocated? I understand they have some areas of the coast, some
States, one or two States, which are now reporting their
charter boat catches, in anticipation of a for-hire ITQ. Well,
I think they are getting an unfair jump, because we are not
reporting ours.
The State of Louisiana does not require it. The Federal
Government does not require it. So, we do not have the
background log of what we have been catching. And I think when
it has to be allocated, it has to be done fairly, not because
someone had the foresight, in their State, to look into it in
advance, anticipating this happening.
Senator Snowe. Well, does the recreational sector generally
have concerns about the ITQ system?
Mr. Fischer. As far as it occurring to the recreational
fishermen?
Senator Snowe: Yes.
Mr. Fischer. No, I do not think they would have any clue it
is even being thought about.
Senator Snowe. So you could see some advantages of ITQ, if
it addressed the issues that you raised?
Mr. Fischer. Yes. Actually, as far as the commercial
industry now, I think it is the way to go. They get to choose
when they want to fish, when the market price is highest, when
they want to fish, when the seas are the calmest. There are
quite a few advantages. And it lets them target other species
during their peak, where there are overlaps. There are overlaps
in the fishery, where red snapper may be open while another
fishery is open. So they get to schedule what they want to do.
I just have concerns at this time--you know, just like I
said, just a minimal amount of concern--about enforcement and
fairness in the allocation.
Now, in the recreational fishery, I would not even know
where--you have got people who might only want to fish a couple
of days a year. Where in the world do they fit into this
puzzle?
The comment I do hear made often, and which was somewhat
brought out today, is if the housewife in Nebraska wants to eat
snapper, it has to come off a commercial boat. I agree with
that. But if her husband wants to go fishing, he has to go on a
charter boat.
Senator Snowe. Thank you.
Mr. Werner, do you want to comment?
Mr. Werner. Oh, yes.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Werner. Today what we are dealing with is not just the
derby in this one fishery. We are a multi-diversified fishery.
We target five or six different species. Two of these are under
quota systems, and now under trip limits. So we target one fish
at a time, one fish at a time, one fish at a time, all the way
throughout the year. We go from this fish to this fish to this
fish to this fish.
We are not just driving down our prices on the one fish, we
are driving down the prices on all of our fish all year long.
This has created a disaster in our price factors. I am getting
85 cents a pound less than I did prior to this management
scheme for my snappers. I am having a hard time. I am one of
the people who is in this from beginning to end. I am having a
hard time keeping my catch up.
And the council system, with the way that they framed up
this license limitation system, with such a low qualifier, lets
people into the fishery for 5,000 pounds, and now they are
fishing 50,000 pounds. And what has happened is, basically,
slowly but surely, it is taking away from me.
One of the highliners in our fishery is just taking it and
taking it and taking it, until, before I know it, I will
probably be at the back of the pack and no longer--this is just
a terrible situation. I do not even know how to--I could go on
for hours, it is so terrible.
Senator Snowe. But obviously the current system has not
worked for you?
Mr. Werner. Oh, it does not work.
Senator Snowe. That is an understatement?
Mr. Werner. That is an understatement, yes, ma'am.
Senator Snowe. Mr. Emerson, did you want to address the
issue Mr. Fischer was raising about some of the hurdles that
could potentially develop with an ITQ system and how they could
be overcome?
Mr. Emerson. Well, I think we need the flexibility here to
address those concerns, and we need a process, with our
Council, that is broad with respect to the participants. But my
concept, or my vision, would be to expand the ITQ program from
the commercial sector to the for-hire recreational sector, and
then manage the purely recreational sector, either through a
stamp program, as Captain Werner suggested, or continue with
bag limits and minimum size limits the way we do now.
But we need to compile necessary data in all the sectors
where you are going to use an ITQ program. And so we have to
start building that for the for-hire recreational sector. The
Council is now looking at Federal permits for that sector.
Logbook requirements are going to be needed so we can obtain
the data. You are going to have to buildup to this. You cannot
start it next week or really quickly. But we do need to get
this process started and get some decision made about control
dates and things like that, and then put the program together.
Senator Snowe. Thank you.
Ms. Anderson, you mentioned several things in your
testimony that I wanted to explore. You have said, in your
testimony, that the essential fish habitat program has spun out
of control. Can you tell the committee where you think we
should make some changes under the Magnuson-Stevens Act?
Ms. Anderson. When I said it has spun out of control is----
Senator Snowe. The way it is defined?
Ms. Anderson. Pardon?
Senator Snowe. The way it is defined?
Ms. Anderson. No. What you wrote was not wrong. It is how
it has been perceived and how it has been expanded on, that
everything has become essential fish habitat. There is no place
in the Gulf that is not essential fish habitat. And I think we
have to look back at what I think Congress intended to do,
which was to watch the estuaries and bays to see that we had
our species coming back and that we were not going to go in
there and, I will just use an example, decimate the shrimp
industry because of our trawls. And that is where we are seeing
we have got lawsuits now filed against NMFS, that they are
demanding something be done about our shrimp trawls and bycatch
again.
But there are no data out there that show anything has
really occurred from our shrimp trawls. We have been there for
40 years, and really nothing has changed. But it is a new--I
will just maybe put it bluntly--it is a new fundraiser for
other people, a new avenue to jump on. And actually I think
that is what has spun it out of control. I am not trying to be
bold, but I have gone through the turtle process. I have gone
through every process. And I am the biggest fundraiser I have
found there to be in the Gulf of Mexico.
[Laughter.]
Senator Snowe. Senator Breaux.
Senator Breaux. Thank you very much. And I thank the panel
for their comments and their input, which are very, very
important to this process.
Mr. Fischer, being a fisherman, you fit right into our
panel. But I was wondering, do you consider yourself a
recreational fisherman or a commercial fisherman?
Mr. Fischer. Well, legally we are considered recreational
fishermen. We have to abide by the recreational guidelines. We
are just taking the fishermen out for hire.
Senator Breaux. It is sort of a combination.
Mr. Fischer. It sure is.
Senator Breaux. You have a commercial business that takes
recreational fishermen out fishing.
Mr. Fischer. In some instances, I wonder if the Magnuson-
Stevens Act did not--even though they mentioned the phrase
``charter head boat'' quite a few times--did not have the
foresight to possibly look into it as a third category.
Senator Breaux. That is why I asked the question. Because
we are always talking about commercial fishermen and
recreational fishermen, but you fit into a new category.
Mr. Fischer. There may be benefits. There may be detriments
to having a third category.
Senator Breaux. It is just sort of a different
classification. You are a commercial operation that takes
recreational fishermen out. So it is kind of a combination of
recreational and commercial operations. It seems that the
charter boat industry has really increased substantially. I was
looking at the numbers of charter vessels and head boats which
have essentially doubled between 1989 and 1996, increasing a
little over 70 percent.
What about considering a moratorium or a limited entry for
charter boats and head boats? I have argued for limited entry
as a means of fisheries conservation all over this country. I
always thought that for those who were already in the business,
hearing that we are going to limit others' ability to enter a
fishery would be welcome news. If I were a car salesman in a
little town and they said no more car salesmen would be allowed
in the town, I would be very happy with that.
Is that an option as far as a management tool?
Mr. Fischer. It is presently on the table for the Gulf
Council. It has advantages. It has disadvantages. What is the
goal? If the goal is to decrease or to control effort by the
charter boat industry, by the for-hire industry, it would
accomplish that. Or would it accomplish it, though?
Senator Breaux. You have got all of these options for
maintaining a certain amount of catch that is allowable, given
the status of the species that are out there. If you allow
anybody to come in at any time they want, you will have a
smaller and smaller quota. Or you can choose limited entry and
have fewer people in the business, but with a higher available
catch quota.
If you keep doubling like your industry is, and you are
going to have a huge take by the charter boat industry on red
snapper, the amount of quota available to each of your boats is
going to come down and down and down. Or you can say, all
right, we have got enough boats out there. Let us keep vessel
capacity level for a while and limit the entry into the fishery
and have more quota available to the fleet.
Mr. Fischer. I think one of the problems is that the for-
hire boats are coupled with the purely recreational boats. I
have seen where recreational boats double every seven years
their population. Well, if you cap the for-hire and let the
pure recreational continue to grow, and yet you are under a
quota, they will be getting the increasing part of the pie,
while the charter boats are capped.
I think if you are going to do that, you have to
incorporate the two together. Or else the recreational will
just start taking away those fish.
Senator Breaux. I take it, Mr. Werner, you are really
knowledgeable. And I always have a great deal of respect for
those of you who are out there every day fishing. It is a very
tough business. And then to have to come in and talk about all
this stuff. It is like alphabet soup--ITQs and all this stuff.
This is my job, and I find it horribly confusing. To find a
fishing boat captain out there who can also understand this
stuff is truly amazing to me. I am impressed.
I guess what we have got for the allocation of snapper is
51 percent to commercial operations and 49 percent to
recreational. I understand 70 percent of that 49 percent
recreational share is to the charter boat industry. That is
something the council has devised, I take it? Is that the
council split?
Mr. Werner. Yes.
Mr. Fischer. The 70 percent is just the way it ends up, of
the 51/49.
Senator Breaux. OK.
Mr. Werner. That was based on historical catch.
Senator Breaux. I take it, Mr. Werner, you do not feel like
commercial operations have fair representation on the council.
I have been through this a number of times since we wrote this
Act, trying to get a proper balance, and to try to not have
people with conflicts on the council. On the other hand, if you
get people who have absolutely no potential conflicts, you may
get people who do not know anything about fish.
[Laughter.]
Senator Breaux. You could have a bunch of bankers and
lawyers on the council who have never been fishing in their
lives. They would not have any conflicts, but they would not
know what they are talking about.
Senator Snowe. They just eat them.
Senator Breaux. Yes, they just eat them.
[Laughter.]
Senator Breaux. So you have got to have fishermen on the
council to provide expertise. You have got to have some
recreational representation and commercial industry
representation on the council. But I take it the bottom line is
that you feel the council is not balanced, and I want you to
elaborate on that. We try very hard to encourage the
appointment of people to ensure the council is balanced. I feel
like Dr. Hogarth, who said, look, we do not have anything to do
with that.
[Laughter.]
Senator Breaux. I used to wish we did have input, but I am
sort of glad that Members of Congress do not make these
appointments. It is the recommendation of the Governor, through
the Secretary of Commerce, that determines council membership.
We do not make the appointments. I want to make that clear.
[Laughter.]
Senator Breaux. But tell me about your concerns.
Mr. Werner. I have been going to these council meetings for
12 years. I have attended 37 full council meetings, at an
average cost of $1,000 a meeting. So I have spent $37,000 going
to these meetings.
My representation has consisted of--and I am not going to
put anybody down--but there are people like Mr. Corky Perret,
who is a State representative, who does well and has always
represented the commercial sector well. And then the rest of my
representation are fish dealers and importers of fish. That is
like having a fox guarding the chicken house. There is no other
way to put it. Because there are two different agendas; the
fish dealer's agenda and the fisherman's are two different
things.
And I have watched the votes on this council for 12 years.
And I can pretty much tell you when a subject comes up, arises,
and there is a vote on it, I can pretty much tell you who is
going to vote for what before, based on whether it is a
recreational or commercial issue. And we just really, the
fishermen, and you can ask--there are several of them here
today--to speak. You can ask every one of them if they think
they have representation on that council. And I will guarantee
you, you will not get one commercial fisherman to say that they
do.
Senator Breaux. Well, there is a continuing concern, to
make sure that everybody who has an interest in the resource is
represented on the council. Fisheries resources belong to the
people of this country and everybody has an opportunity to
utilize them. But the councils can only, I think, do a good job
if they are in fact adequately balanced. I do not know how much
more we can do to tighten up the law to ensure balance. We have
got the word ``balance'' in this Act all over the place.
Mr. Werner. I would like to make one comment on that.
Whenever you set up this thing, now you have five State
representatives, one from each State. And whatever the
political agenda is in each State just determines how it goes.
Well, over the last 12 years that I have been attending, we
have Governor Foster and the State of Louisiana, and he is big
on the GCCA and CCA, and the representation that is put up for
that council is going to be the recreational standard.
And all but two years that I have attended council
meetings, the representation of that council has been a
majority of recreational, all but two years.
Senator Breaux. I appreciate the comments.
Ms. Anderson, you have been in this business almost as long
as I have, I guess. We have been doing this for a long, long
time.
Ms. Anderson. Yes, we have kind of faced each other quite a
few times.
Senator Breaux. We have been around on this for a long,
long time, and I am glad to have you back before the Committee.
But you have a statement in here that is really pretty strong,
and maybe you could elaborate on it again. In summary: We have
completely lost confidence in the ability of the Federal
fishery management process to operate fairly and in a manner
consistent with sound science and accurate information.
And then you go on, because I really read your testimony
and underlined it and all that kind of stuff, in yellow and
everything else, and you are saying, in particular, that the
bycatch reduction devices are not really working, that the red
snapper estimates are too high, and also that you have concerns
over the quotas that will be set on red snapper. I was really
interested in that. You talked about the science: The stock
assessment panel of scientists that serve the Gulf Council
recently advised that the annual quota should be set at no more
than 6 million pounds. NMFS has indicated support for
continuing the annual catch level at 9 million pounds.
From the shrimp industry's standpoint, the higher the
allowable catch, the more they are leaning on the BRDs--bycatch
reduction devices--to keep down the total catch. You think they
are not doing a good job of that.
Ms. Anderson. We think that is exactly what is happening.
When they go higher with the TAC, then they work backward to
see how much bycatch reduction they want from us to be able to
justify that TAC. And it simply is we cannot get to the figure
that they think we are going to get to. It is always a
potential. We are never going to get past 25 to 28 percent
mortality reduction in shrimp trawls with BRDs.
Senator Breaux. What does the National Marine Fisheries
Service estimate, a 44 percent reduction in mortality?
Ms. Anderson. They have not even got that. I heard Ms.
Dalton talk about 60 percent, 80 percent. But as I said in my
statement, they cannot get it from BRDs, so now they want to
address the other areas--the seasonal closures, area closures.
Senator Breaux. What about that? Is there a potential, to
look at mortality controls other than the BRDs?
Ms. Anderson. That is, in addition to the BRDs, what is
being discussed, because the BRDs will not achieve the
reduction they are looking for. But what we are saying is if
you are going to mandate those BRDs that are not reaching the
objective that they were put out there to do, and your stock
assessment says you cannot have more than a 6 million pound
TAC, then if we have to stay in line, they must stay in line,
and both have to share to rebuild this fishery. We are not
seeing those same standards being applied out there.
Senator Breaux. What would you have Senator Snowe and I do?
What do you think, in reauthorizing the new Act, would be
helpful in ensuring a better balance from the shrimp industry
perspective?
Ms. Anderson. I have always had a problem with the
incidental harvest area, because it seemed like once the shrimp
trawl bycatch surfaced, I do not think anybody really
understands what the large percentage of that bycatch really
is. It is not snapper. It is low value, non-edible species
which have the same life cycle as shrimp. They are going to be
an annual crop. They are going to come back. If they are not in
our nets, they are going to die naturally anyway.
But it just seems like we have gone totally out of control
on the theory of bycatch, and not just the shrimp trawl
industry, but the other trawl industries are really taking a
beating. Because it seems like it is all focusing on the trawl
area. We have argued that the bycatch mortality in regulatory
discard has to be addressed.
And then finally some just woke up the other day. Well,
that is bycatch and it is going to have to be reduced. They
thought it was catch and release, but it is not. And they have
it listed at 20 percent. But when they went to the size 18-inch
fish last year, that mortality factor was horrendous. It was
more like anywhere from 60 to 80 percent off of Texas of dead
fish floating, to try to attain an 18-inch. The boys could not
do it. They just had to pull off.
So what we have done is we continue to increase that size
limit. That is increasing the discard mortality on the directed
fishery side. And as they keep going up and up with the size
limit, then I have got to keep trying to come up with more
bycatch reduction, with .05 percent of ours, as our species
composition, it just is not there to get from the shrimp
industry. So something is wrong.
But I will have to agree with Dr. Shipp's statement: it is
all in the science and it is all in the model. In my personal
opinion, I think red snapper is healthy. It is not in an
overfished state. And I do not believe the shrimp trawl bycatch
is affecting that species. It is the computer model that has
put us all at odds against each other.
Until it is corrected, I, protecting the shrimp industry,
have no option but to have to fight about it. That is what I
see.
Senator Breaux. Mr. Werner, what is your comment on what
Ms. Anderson just said about Dr. Shipp's evaluation of the
science on red snapper?
Mr. Werner. Well, the science on red snapper, you made the
comment: junk in, junk out. That is the favorite statement of
people who come to council meetings in the beginning. If there
was any faith in the data, that would be one thing. But I do
not see where--there has been thousands of people who have come
forward to testify over time--I have not seen one person go up
there and say: I agree with this. If we are all wrong and the
one man that runs the computer model is right, so be it. But
after thousands and thousands of people going up there, I have
never seen anybody go up there and say: This computer model is
correct. This is the way that this fishery should be run.
Senator Breaux. Assuming we come up with pretty good data,
which, I sure hope we can, is an ITQ system an option? Instead
of having the derby all the time where everybody just catches
as much as they can as soon as they can, it would seem like an
ITQ system would be an advantage to someone like you.
Mr. Werner. Oh, an ITQ, I am for an ITQ. I am against the
ITQ--and Dr. Shipp made a comment that most of the people were
in favor of the ITQ--that the Gulf of Mexico Fisheries
Management Council developed. I was at that meeting. Eleven
people testified against that ITQ and eight testified for it.
Senator Breaux. That particular one?
Mr. Werner. That particular type of ITQ system. I would
just like to make that comment.
Senator Breaux. You think the concept could work if it is
done properly, but this particular one was not the right one?
Mr. Werner. Absolutely.
Senator Breaux. OK. I appreciate you all coming.
Thank you, Mr. Emerson.
Senator Snowe. Just one final question, Mr. Emerson. You
mentioned that you thought the Magnuson-Stevens Act required
substantial changes. That is in your testimony.
Mr. Emerson. With respect to my interest in removing the
prohibitions on IFQ's, which is the highest priority, I am not
sure that the changes are substantial. I did not mean to give
that impression. I think the changes are straight forward.
Senator Breaux was looking for a place to put his pencil down
and do something; I think that can be done right at Sections
303(d) and 407(b). With those deletions, we could adopt a
really sensible management program here in the reef fish
fishery.
I was interested in the discussion of good science, which
is very important. Getting the best science is obviously a goal
that we are all working toward. But getting the incentives
right for people in the fishery and in the management process
is just as important. In some respects, perhaps more important!
You heard Captain Fischer respond when we had a little back-
and-forth here about some things that I said. Captain Fischer
said, ``Well, I am flexible.''
Let's create a situation in the fishery where we can make
some deals between the commercial sector and the recreational
sector and maybe even with the shrimp fishermen. I cannot see
why we cannot do this, other than the incentives are not right.
Senator Snowe. Well, I think it is unfortunate that the
entire industry, which Wilma represents here today, feels that
the process is not serving them.
Mr. Emerson. Absolutely.
Senator Snowe. Neither the science nor, in this case, the
technology. And that is unfortunate. And we have got to bridge
those gaps.
Mr. Emerson. Yes.
Senator Snowe. The question is going to be whether or not
we should be fine tuning this legislation or making wholesale
changes, and whether we should try to clarify what we have
already done in the 1996 Act?
Mr. Emerson. I did not intend to argue in my oral or
written testimony for wholesale changes. I am talking about
pretty specific deletions.
Senator Snowe. Yes, very precise, limited changes in that
respect.
Ms. Anderson.
Ms. Anderson. Well, of course, with the shrimp industry
being an annual crop, we are not really looking at the ITQ
system. But one thing I would certainly look at is what type of
user fee anybody is going to look at. Because that could be
horrendous and put that industry under. That is the only reason
I would be scared of an ITQ system; unless Congress nails that
down, you cannot exorbitantly hit this fishery to pay for the
services. That is what is going to be the drawback, if you do
not curb what they can charge or make it no fee at all. And I
think the people will support it.
Senator Snowe. We thank you all very much for your
testimony. We appreciate it.
We will now have our third panel. Mr. Michael Lyons is the
Manager for Environmental Affairs, Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil
and Gas Association; Dr. Charles Wilson is the Chair of the
Department of Oceanography and Coastal Sciences at Louisiana
State University; Corky Perret is the Director of Marine
Fisheries at the Mississippi Department of Marine Resources;
Mr. Steve Loga is a Commercial Longline Fisherman; and Mr. Fred
Miller is from the Coastal Conservation Association.
We welcome all of you. Please sit at the table.
I would like to have you all limit your oral statements to
five minutes. And we will place your full written testimony in
the record.
Mr. Lyons, why don't you begin.
STATEMENT OF R. MICHAEL LYONS, MANAGER, ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS,
LOUISIANA MID-CONTINENT OIL AND GAS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Lyons. Madam Chair, Senator Breaux, my name is Michael
Lyons. I am the Manager of Environmental Affairs for the
Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association.
Mid-Continent is the trade association which has, for 75
years, represented the oil and gas industry in Louisiana. We
represent producers, transporters, refiners, and marketers of
approximately 90 percent of Louisiana's oil and gas. My
testimony this morning is also being endorsed by the American
Petroleum Institute.
Before I begin my remarks, I want to make two statements.
One, I am honored to be here. I appreciate the invitation. It
is my first time testifying before a congressional committee. I
have testified before a number of local and state legislative
committees. I appreciate the invitation.
Second, I understand the pressure agencies work under in
trying to meet legislative mandates. I respect their decisions,
even if at times I disagree with those decisions. I know what
they go through. I work with state agencies every day. And I
know how difficult it is for them to meet legislative mandates.
But sometimes they make mistakes. And that is what I would like
to address today.
We have closely followed the development of the essential
fish habitat, or EFH, regulations over the past 2 years.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of Louisiana's oil and gas
activity is conducted in areas now classified as EFH under the
generic amendment adopted by the Secretary of Commerce. In
fact, the entire Gulf of Mexico and much, if not most, of
Louisiana has been so classified.
We have commented on the developing program at every
opportunity, and will comment again pursuant to the recent call
for comments by the Department of Commerce and noticed in the
Federal Register.
Our concerns can be summed up very simply. There is no need
to subject the oil and gas industry to further regulation in
Louisiana and the Gulf of Mexico. Our industry is among the
most regulated industries in the world. And I make that
statement after hearing several people testify this morning. I
understand there are other industries out there that are highly
regulated, too.
I have never been to a Fishery Council meeting. I was never
exposed to the Magnuson-Stevens Act until the provisions on
essential fish habitat were added to the Act. The fact is that
there are numerous programs in place today to protect habitat
from adverse impacts associated with our activities. Habitat
programs are administered by the EPA, the Corps of Engineers,
the Coast Guard, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and individual States.
Oftentimes those agencies disagree in the implementation of
these programs, and we sit on the sidelines waiting for a
permit.
In most cases, each of these agencies is authorized to
participate in permit review under these various programs. So
they not only have individual programs, but they participate in
each other's programs and consultations, much as is done under
the essential fish habitat provisions.
I have witnessed, over the years, the development of two
habitat protection programs specifically addressing oil and gas
activity: the Corps of Engineers 404, Section 10 program, and
the Louisiana Coastal Zone Management Program. I have witnessed
long delays in permitting associated with the implementation of
each of these programs.
Along with these delays, and the costs associated
therewith, has come ever-increasing mitigation costs. What has
resulted in Louisiana is a no net loss of wetlands policy,
approved by the Department of Commerce and others, which
provides that we, the oil and gas industry, or any other
developer, replace wetlands values which are adversely impacted
by projects in areas subject to program jurisdiction. These are
minimal impacts, realized only after we have avoided and
minimized impacts to the maximum extent possible.
In Louisiana, virtually every parcel of EFH is currently
covered under one or both of these habitat protection
regulatory programs. In other words, the EFH program is, for
Louisiana, a completely duplicatory program. And
``duplicatory'' is not the word. This is effectively the third
layer of review that we go through.
Indeed, the Department of Commerce currently participates
in both the Coastal Zone Management Program and the Corps of
Engineers 404 program. As a result, we suggest that all
activities in these jurisdictional areas be exempted from the
requirements of EFH review.
Unfortunately, having experienced the growth of programs
like these in the past, we fully expect delays and additional
costs to result to permitees subject to the provisions of the
generic EFH amendment. We have in fact already experienced
these additional delays and costs.
We have objected to the imposition of yet another habitat
protection program in these areas, predicting just these types
of unnecessary impacts. And our fears are being borne out
today. Oil and gas companies are now subject to EFH review,
which results in delays in permitting and additional costs
above and beyond the 404 and CZM permit and mitigation costs.
The Corps of Engineers has indicated to us that EFH has
resulted in permit delays of approximately 2 weeks, on average.
One permit reviewed for EFH impacts 182 miles up the
Mississippi River from the coast; another, for a home site
north of Baton Rouge, where I am from. Oil and gas platforms in
the Gulf are now subject to EFH review. These platforms are
widely recognized as improving habitat in the Gulf. I think
several persons testified to that effect today.
I was once told that if everything is made a priority, the
net effect is that nothing is a priority. The Department of
Commerce has, in effect, made everything a priority. One of our
main objections to the generic amendment adopted by the
Secretary of Commerce is that it identifies all of the Gulf of
Mexico and vast areas of Louisiana--indeed, most of Louisiana--
as EFH. This is certainly not ``essential'' fish habitat, which
should be prioritized and subjected to additional review and
regulations. It places virtually all oil and gas activity in
and off Louisiana within its purview. The Department has lost
sight of the legislative intent to protect ``essential'' fish
habitat as opposed to every fish habitat.
Finally, when the generic amendment was proposed in 1998,
we cited numerous areas of concern with language contained in
the proposal. It was obvious that the drafters of the document
were not familiar with oil and gas activities. Virtually all of
these comments were rejected. As a result, and by the way of
example, the document now states, in part, and I quote:
Exploration and production activities should be located away
from wetlands. Closed quote.
Most of Louisiana's oil and gas activity is in fact located
in wetlands. That is where the oil and gas is located. And if
we are to produce it, we must do it in wetlands. I think I
overheard a comment that the location of this hearing is in a
wetland. This college was developed on a wetland. The city of
New Orleans was developed in a wetland. Language such as this
in the guidelines is appropriate.
There are many other examples I could cite, where similar
comments were rejected by the Fisheries Council, the National
Marine Fisheries Service, and the Secretary.
To summarize: (1) The interim final rule, designating vast
areas of the U.S. as EFH, is inappropriate. We strongly
recommend that the guidelines be narrowed in scope to that
which is not adequately covered by other Federal and State
programs, and which is truly unique or essential. (2) We
recommend the Congress revisit the law, if the guidelines are
not revised accordingly, to narrow the scope of the essential
fish habitat program. (3) We recommend that the inappropriate
rules or guidelines be removed. (4) We recommend that areas
covered by existing Federal and State programs be specifically
exempted from additional review.
In closing, the EFH program will adversely affect not only
oil and gas production projects, but coastal restoration
projects, hurricane protection projects, and all types of
development projects located within the jurisdiction of the EFH
program. A significant percentage of Louisiana's economy, as
well as that of other areas of the United States, will be
impacted.
In most instances, the effect will be duplicative and
unnecessary. We have in place two successful, albeit largely
duplicative, programs protecting habitat in Louisiana now;
programs which the Department of Commerce participates in. We
do not need yet another.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lyons follows:]
Prepared Statement of R. Michael Lyons, Manager, Environmental Affairs,
Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association
Good morning. My name is R. Michael Lyons and I am the Manager of
Environmental Affairs for the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas
Association. Mid-Continent is a trade association which has, for 75
years, represented the oil and gas industry in Louisiana. We represent
producers, transporters, refiners, and marketers of approximately 90
percent of Louisiana's oil and gas.
We have closely followed the development of essential fish habitat
(EFH) regulations over the past two years. Unfortunately, the vast
majority of Louisiana's oil and gas activity is conducted in areas now
classified as EFH under the generic amendment adopted by the Secretary
of Commerce. In fact, the entire Gulf of Mexico and much, if not most,
of Louisiana has been so classified. We have commented on the
developing program at every opportunity and will comment again pursuant
to the recent call for comments by the department and noticed in the
Federal Register.
Our concerns can be summed up very simply: There is no need to
subject the oil and gas industry to further regulation in Louisiana and
the Gulf of Mexico. Our industry is among the most regulated industries
in the world. There are numerous programs in place today to protect
habitat from adverse impacts associated with our activities. These
programs are administered by the EPA, COE, Coast Guard, NMFS, USFWS,
and individual states. In most cases, each of these agencies
participates in permit review under these programs.
I have witnessed over the years the development of two habitat
protection programs specifically addressing oil and gas activity: the
Corps of Engineers 404/Section 10 Program and the Louisiana Coastal
Zone Management Program. I have witnessed long delays in permitting
associated with the implementation of each of these programs. Along
with these delays, and the costs associated therewith, has come ever-
increasing mitigation costs. The end result in Louisiana is a no net
loss of wetlands policy, approved by the Department of Commerce and
others, which provides that we replace any wetland values which are
adversely impacted by a project in areas subject to program
jurisdiction. These are minimal impacts realized after we have avoided
and minimized impacts to the maximum extent possible. In Louisiana,
virtually every parcel of EFH is currently covered under one or both of
these regulatory programs. In other words, the EFH program is, for
Louisiana, completely duplicatory. Indeed, the Department of Commerce
currently participates in both these programs. As a result, we suggest
that all activities in these areas be exempted from the requirements of
EFH review.
Unfortunately, having experienced the growth of programs like this
in the past, we fully expect delays and additional costs to result to
permittees subject to the provisions of the generic EFH amendment. We
have, in fact, already experienced these additional delays and costs.
We objected to the imposition of yet another habitat protection program
in these areas, predicting just these types of unnecessary impacts, and
our fears are being borne out today.
Several examples (which I shall detail in written comments):
1. Oil and gas companies are now subject to EFH review which
results in delays in permitting and additional costs above and
beyond the 404 and CZM permit costs.
2. The COE has indicated to us that EFH has resulted in permit
delays of approximately 2 weeks on average.
3. One permit was reviewed for EFH impacts 182 miles up the
Mississippi River from the coast.
4. Oil and gas platforms in the Gulf are now subject to EFH
review.
We fully expect significant costs to result from these reviews in
the form of delayed permitting and mitigation costs. These are, once
again, totally duplicative of existing programs in which the Department
of Commerce participates.
I was once told that if everything is made a priority the net
effect is that nothing is a priority. The Department of Commerce has,
in effect, made everything a priority. One of our main objections to
the generic amendment adopted by the Secretary of Commerce is that it
identifies all of the Gulf of Mexico and vast areas of Louisiana as
EFH. This is certainly not essential fish habitat which should be
prioritized and subjected to additional review and regulation. It
places virtually all oil and gas activity in and off Louisiana within
its purview. Significant governmental costs will undoubtedly result
simply from reviewing all activities potentially impacting EFH in the
U.S. The additional paperwork will add significant costs, even if all
the permits are approved without another condition. And we all know
that won't happen. Conditions have already been attached to permits.
As if normal delays aren't enough, there have already been threats
of forwarding the permits to Washington, D.C. for advanced review. We
have experienced this before in the COE 404 program. These delays,
while rare, can be years in duration.
When the generic amendment was proposed in 1998 we cited numerous
areas of concern with language contained in the proposal. It was
obvious that the drafters of the document were not familiar with oil
and gas activities. Virtually all of these comments were rejected. So,
the document now states in part: ``Exploration and production
activities should be located away from...wetlands...'' Most of
Louisiana's oil and gas activity is in fact located in wetlands. That's
where the oil and gas is and if we are to produce it, we must do it in
wetlands. There are many other examples I could cite where comments
were rejected by the Fishery Council, the NMFS, and the Secretary.
To Summarize: (1) The draft generic amendment designating vast
areas of the U.S. as EFH is inappropriate. We strongly recommend that
the guidelines be narrowed in scope to that which is not adequately
covered by other programs and which is truly unique or ``essential''.
(2) We recommend that Congress revisit the law to narrow the scope of
the EFH program. (3) We recommend that inappropriate rules or
guidelines be removed. (4) We recommend that areas covered by existing
Federal and State programs be specifically exempted from additional
review.
In closing, the EFH program will adversely affect, not only oil and
gas production projects, but coastal restoration projects, hurricane
protection projects, all types of development projects located within
jurisdictional EFH areas, and a significant percentage of Louisiana's
economy--as well as that of other areas of the U.S. In most instances,
the effect will be duplicative and unnecessary. We have in place two
largely duplicative programs protecting habitat in Louisiana, programs
in which the DOC fully participates. We don't need another.
Senator Snowe. Thank you.
Dr. Wilson.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES A. WILSON, PH.D., PROFESSOR, CHAIRMAN,
DEPARTMENT OF OCEANOGRAPHY AND COASTAL SCIENCES, LOUISIANA
STATE UNIVERSITY
Dr. Wilson. Madam Chair and Senator Breaux, ladies and
gentlemen, my name is Charles Wilson. I am Professor and
Chairman of the Department of Oceanography and Coastal Sciences
at Louisiana State University. I also am honored to have this
opportunity to provide both written and oral testimony for this
review of the Magnuson-Stevens Sustainable Fisheries Act as it
concerns essential fish habitat.
My experience with essential fish habitat activities in the
Gulf of Mexico stem from various reading of published reports,
my activities on a scientific and statistical committee for the
Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council, and most important
is my personal research activities on life history and biology
of a number of Gulf of Mexico fish species. I have reviewed the
generic amendment produced by the Gulf of Mexico Fisheries
Management Council regarding essential fish habitat, and I
recently taught a graduate level class on sustainable
fisheries, of which essential fish habitat was a primary topic.
There are several levels of activity among fishery
management councils concerning essential fish habitat, and I
believe there has been reasonable progress toward implementing
this new concept. I think the Alaska region is probably the
most proactive, due to habitat activities under development
prior to the implementation of the EFH language. All the
management council regions are assembling essential fish
habitat data bases through the use of geographic information
systems. I will call this GIS.
In the Gulf of Mexico region, GIS mapping activities have
been undertaken by the Galveston Lab of the National Marine
Fisheries Service. I strongly support this activity, and
believe it will serve as a powerful tool to document and
archive the various data bases related to fisheries monitoring
and research. This will help fishery scientists to identify
both essential fish habitat and future research needs.
Pursuant to the implementation of the Act, the Gulf States
Marine Fisheries Commission, in conjunction with the Gulf of
Mexico Fisheries Management Council, produced their generic
amendment for essential fish habitat that addresses, species by
species, EFH issues. I think the authors did a thorough job of
addressing species specific EFH issues and other criteria, such
as threats and conservation, which were identified by the Act.
But most disturbing, the amendment, which contains the
current state of knowledge of essential fish habitat for
species of concern in our region, raised my awareness of the
glaring lack of information concerning habitat requirements for
many species. As Mr. Roussel pointed out, good science is
critical for all aspects of the Act, but most important is the
essential fish habitat component.
I have several suggestions regarding how we might improve
the effectiveness of EFH activities. My first concern is the
concept of essential versus nonessential. I think this is a
very simple statement, but very difficult in principle to
recognize. We now realize the difference between essential and
nonessential is not a yes or no issue, but a continuum.
Therefore, I think it is important that we define EFH using
criteria that can be quantified. These tools need to be
repeatable measures of habitat variables that we can use to
establish a habitat value along this continuum.
For example, there are a number of new digital techniques
that lend themselves to habitat quantification and mapping--
side-scan sonar, other forms of acoustics, satellite, and
airborne based remote sensing.
The scientific literature contains reference to general
essential fish habitat, habitat areas of particular concern,
and critical fish habitat. These terms are useful but perhaps
not sufficient for effective regulation. Critical fish habitat
is derived from the Environmental Protection Agency, and has
specific legal interpretation.
Given the diverse life history of fishes, particularly
those in the Gulf region, and the spatial and temporal variety
of habitats used during their different life history stages, it
is important we understand which habitat variables are most
important at each life history stage and which are of lesser
importance. Again, I reflect back on the value of good science.
Effective, accurate criteria that place a given habitat
along a continuum will be very important in developing future
regulation. An example comes to mind, Senator Breaux, when you
came to Louisiana in 1986 to help us launch our rigs to reef
program, which has been very successfully run by the Department
of Wildlife and Fisheries. We have since brought many oil and
gas platforms into the artificial reef realm under the National
Fishing Enhancement Act. Our research at LSU and at Wildlife
and Fisheries indicates that these platforms harbor more fish
than many of the regions of the Flower Garden Bank, which has
been named a national marine sanctuary. So we do not have an
effective way to index this difference. We need an index for
this continuum.
My second comment is that I think it is very important that
essential fish habitat be multi-species based. Although we can
establish essential fish habitat for species such as red
snapper, in today's political environment we cannot discuss red
snapper without discussing the term ``bycatch.'' EFH models
being developed in the future must have methods for
incorporating a multi-species philosophy.
My third comment relates to archiving. The National Marine
Fisheries Service and others should seek to establish a common
GIS-based data archiving method. GIS has been used in many
areas of the country. And these data bases may be in very
different formats, and thus incompatibility becomes a concern.
All data should be in a universal format that can be easily
shared. This will allow users to converse in a common language
when they are reviewing EFH, as well as other issues.
My fourth comment concerns modeling. I think effective
modeling is paramount to making essential fish habitat
successful. We all recognize that modeling has become an
important concept and a refined science in the 1990's. As
modelers adapt new computer tools to the analysis of new EFH
data, it is important that the government encourage and support
that effort.
My fifth comment concerns the threat of overregulation. The
intent of EFH is very sincere. However, if not properly guided
and guarded in its implementation, it could result in over-
management. It may lead us to impose unnecessary burdens on the
dwindling fishing communities of the U.S., as well as
unnecessary regulation for coastal communities. We must proceed
with logical conservation efforts, based on good science, and
not promulgate overregulation.
My sixth comment concerns funding. As Mr. Perret said, in
1996, current and future regulations must be developed with
State, regional and Federal cooperation. Many of the species
that are and will be managed are estuarine dependent and
therefore, in many times, considered State resources. For EFH
to become effective, it must have the cooperation of all
regulatory and enforcement bodies, and the funding to go along
with that effort.
So, in closing, I make the observation that the Gulf of
Mexico region is off to a good start in implementation of the
EFH component of the Act. The background work is done. We need
sound science for effective monitoring and research in the
future.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Wilson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Charles A. Wilson, Ph.D., Professor, Chairman,
Department of Oceanography and Coastal Sciences, Louisiana State
University
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, Ladies and Gentlemen:
My name is Charles A. Wilson. I am Professor and Chairman of the
Department of Oceanography and Coastal Sciences and Professor in the
Coastal Fisheries Institute, CCEER, Louisiana State University. I am
pleased to have this opportunity to provide both written and oral
testimony for this review of the Sustainable Fisheries Act (Act) as it
concerns Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). My experience with EFH
activities in the Gulf of Mexico stem from reading various published
reports, my activities on the Scientific and Statistical Committee for
the Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council (GMFMC), and my
research on the life histories of several GOM fish species. I have
reviewed the generic amendment produced by the GMFMC this past year,
and I recently taught a graduate level class called Sustainable
Fisheries in which EFH was a primary topic.
There are a variety of activities at fishery management councils
concerning EFH and I believe there has been reasonable progress toward
implementing this new concept. The Alaska region is the most proactive
due to their habitat related activities under development prior to
implementation of EFH language. All of the management council regions
have EFH data bases being archived using the Geographic Information
system (GIS). Locally (Gulf of Mexico), mapping activities (GIS) are
underway by the Galveston Lab of the National Marine Fisheries Service.
I support this activity and believe it will serve as a powerful tool to
document, and archive in a GIS compatible format, the various data
bases that exist related to fisheries monitoring and research. This
will help us to identify areas for future research activities and
clarify EFH.
Pursuant to the implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, The
Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, working with the Gulf of
Mexico Fisheries Management Council, produced a Generic Amendment for
Addressing EFH that dealt, species by species, with EFH issues. The
authors did a good job of addressing species specific EFH issues and
other criteria called for in the Act (Threats, Conservation, etc.). The
report contains current knowledge of EFH for species of concern of the
Gulf of Mexico. The report raised my awareness of the poor scientific
knowledge that exists concerning habitat requirements for many regional
fish species.
Below are some suggestions for improving the effectiveness of EFH
activities.
1. Essential versus Non-Essential: This is a very simple
statement, but a very difficult concept. We now realize that
the difference between essential and non-essential is not a yes
or no issue, but is a continuum; therefore, it is important
that we define EFH using criteria that can be quantified. These
tools need to be repeatable measures of habitat variables that
we can use to establish a habitat values along this continuum.
For example, there are a number of new digital techniques that
lend themselves to habitat quantification and mapping (side
scan sonar, hydroacoustics, satellite and airborne based remote
sensing). The scientific literature contains reference to
general EFH, Habitat Areas of Particular Concern, and Critical
Fish Habitat. These terms are useful, but perhaps not
sufficient for effective regulation. Critical Fish Habitat is
derived from the Endangered Species Act and has a critical
legal interpretation. Given the life history of many fish
species, particularly in the Gulf of Mexico, and the spacial
and temporal variety of life history stages, it is important
that we understand what (habitat) is most important at life
history stages and what is of lesser importance. Effective,
accurate criteria that place a habitat along a continuum will
be very important in developing future federal regulations. We
need an index for this continuum.
2. It is important that EFH be multi-species based. Although we
can establish EFH for fish such as red snapper, in today's
political environment we do not discuss red snapper without
discussing shrimp bycatch. So EFH models being developed must
have methods for incorporating multi-species.
3. NMFS and others should seek to establish a common GIS data
based archiving method. GIS is being used in many areas of the
country; these data bases can be in different formats and
incompatible; they should be in a format that can be easily
shared. This will allow users to converse in a common language
when reviewing EFH issues.
4. Effective modeling is paramount to making EFH successful.
Modeling has become a critical concept and science in the
1990's; as modelers adapt new computer tools to EFH data, it is
important that the government encourage and support this
effort.
5. I am concerned about the pending threat of over-regulation
associated with EFH. The intention of EFH is sincere; however,
if not properly guided and guarded in its implementation, it
could result in over-management. It may lead to unnecessary
burdens on the dwindling fishing communities of the U.S. as
well as unnecessary regulation for coastal communities. I am
not certain how to bring this about other than to bring it to
the attention of our regulating bodies; we must proceed with
logical conservation and not over-regulation.
6. Current and future regulation must be developed with state,
regional, and federal cooperation. Many of the species that are
and will be managed are estuarine dependent and therefore are
at times state resources. For EFH to be effective it must have
cooperation of all regulatory and enforcement bodies.
In closing, I make the observation that the GOM region is off to a
good start in implementation of the EFH component of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act. The background work is done and I encourage the regulatory
bodies which you represent to provide adequate and long term funding
(for research, regulation, and enforcement) to make the Act work.
Senator Snowe: Thank you.
Mr. Perret.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM S. ``CORKY'' PERRET, DIRECTOR,
OFFICE OF MARINE FISHERIES, MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT
OF MARINE RESOURCES
Mr. Perret. Thank you very much, Senator Snowe. We
certainly appreciate you being down here. And welcome to the
Gulf Coast. I wish we had more time, so that we could show you
a little bit more of all these natural resources we have.
Senator Breaux, it is always a pleasure to be with you
again, sir. Thank you for your efforts here, as well as your
past efforts in fish and wildlife conservation.
As an aside, one conservation measure that has been so good
is steel shot and ducks. I was eating one the other night. I
broke a tooth. So I am not feeling too well.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Perret. But, be that as it may, people are giving you
background. I will do a little bit of the same, simply to show
that I have had some experience in this area. I, too, have a
couple of degrees, a Master's in fisheries. I have served as
director of fisheries in two States. I have no interest in
being in a third or a fourth.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Perret. I cast my first vote on the Gulf Council in
either 1978 or 1979. And I think I have probably cast more
votes than any living or dead member. So I guess I am as much
to blame as anyone for all the council activities that may
have, in some people's mind, not been beneficial to them or
their interests.
Today, I will only speak on essential fish habitat issues.
The Congress has defined EFH in a pretty broad sense. And I
quote: ``Those waters and substrate necessary to fish for
spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth, to maturity.'' Again,
very general terms. And heretofore the Act, for the most part,
was strictly related to Federal waters, the EEZ, basically 3
miles out to 200, although off Texas and the West Coast of
Florida they have basically a 9-mile territorial sea. So now,
with the essential fish habitat issue, it comes into State
territorial as well as inland waters.
And while this may be appropriate, habitat and fish know no
political boundaries. I, as a States' rightist, have a little
bit of concern about that. And that is, if it in any way is
giving the Federal agencies any more authority in State waters.
Mr. Lyons has commented very well on that, I think, from the
habitat issue. There are a number of Federal programs and
agencies and oversight involved with habitat, and this is one
additional one.
I am going to give you five comments and suggestions
relative to essential fish habitat, but before I do that, I
would like to comment very briefly on habitat in general and,
more specifically, on that habitat basically from the
Pascagoula River area to the Galveston Bay area, for a couple
of reasons. One, I am more familiar with it and, two, that is
indeed a productive fisheries area.
Now, I am not taking anything away from those geographic
areas in the other parts of the Gulf, but this is the coastal
marshes and the areas that are so, so productive to fish and
wildlife. In fact, one renowned Gulf scientist many, many years
ago named that area the fertile fisheries crescent.
Why is it so productive? It is so productive, again,
because of the vast and extensive coastal vegetative wetlands.
And when I testified before a Senate committee, I guess it was
four years ago, on reauthorization, and I pointed out,
mistakenly so, to Senator Stevens that Louisiana had the
largest wetlands area in the United States, he quickly pointed
out that Alaska was a little bit larger.
But, nevertheless, these are the areas that are of extreme
importance to most of our fishery resources of the Gulf of
Mexico, because most of our fishery resources in the Gulf of
Mexico are, at some time, dependent upon the estuarine areas in
the States' areas of jurisdiction.
The Mississippi River was a major player in contributing to
the establishment of these coastal areas. The tremendous
volumes of fresh water and silt that comes down the river were
the building blocks for these vegetative wetlands.
Problems are taking place in that these vegetative wetlands
are disappearing. And depending on which expert you want to
talk to, you can get various reasons. But in an
oversimplification, the Mississippi River is levied basically
all the way down, and sediment load is now going out into the
Continental Shelf. We have the levies, and we no longer get the
annual overflows that we once had.
Local governments, State government and the Federal
Government have recognized the problem with this, and there are
things underway to try and alleviate some of the problems. That
is, by the introduction of fresh water and silt.
The five specific areas I would like to address relative to
EFH, essential fish habitat, are, No. 1, man has created
essential fish habitat with the artificial reef program.
Senator Breaux and others, as Dr. Wilson mentioned, authored
the National Fisheries Enhancement Act. Each Gulf State has an
artificial reef plan. Yet, there is a Federal requirement that
when the abandonment of these structures takes place, they must
be removed. We should encourage them being put in specific
artificial reef zones, because they are good habitat for fish
and preferred areas to fish by many of our fishermen.
Second, the Gulf Council amended its fishery management
plans to include essential fish habitat. We, like NMFS, took
everything from 200 miles on in, very generic. We submitted our
amendment, and it contained information on the 26 major species
that we manage. The amendment was disallowed in court, because
we did not include minor species. We did not include the minor
species because we did not have the information, we did not
have the good science. Even if we had, we could not take
anything else in. From 200 miles out, all the way in, is all
inclusive.
The broad definition has led to some problems in the
permitting area. And I will just cite two examples. Mr. Lyons
may have hit on the same one. One application was for a home
site in Baker, Louisiana, which is around Baton Rouge, quite a
ways from the Gulf of Mexico. In the public notice, it stated,
and I quote, that EFH utilized by various life stages of red
drum and penaeid shrimp would be affected. That is 100 or so
miles from the coast.
The second one was for a barge unloading terminal at
Geismar, Louisiana, just south of Baton Rouge, so that they
could do some unloading of crane barges on the levee of the
Mississippi River, 184.5 miles from above head of passes at the
mouth of the river. Again, this, and I quote, would be utilized
by various life stages of red drum and penaeid shrimp.
I submit that the only red drum and penaeid shrimp you
might find in those areas would be in a fine restaurant or on a
plate in someone's home.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Perret. It went a little bit too far.
The identification of essential fish habitat in the
estuarine areas has got to involve the States. It is the
States' area of jurisdiction. The States have people that work
in these areas on a daily basis. And any addressing of habitat
areas must include the States, and needs to be included. It
needs to include the States.
I will close by saying that we are only in the beginning of
the EFH regulatory process. It is probably too early to draw
any definition conclusions. But because of the current broad
definition, it is and has created some problems. And I think
probably, in the generic approach, that it takes away from some
of the critical areas that probably need to be a little bit
better addressed.
And, again, I thank you very much, both of you, and the
staff, for taking your time to be down here.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Perret follows:]
Prepared Statement of William S. ``Corky'' Perret, Director, Office of
Marine Fisheries, Mississippi Department of Marine Resources
Senator Snowe and members of the Senate Subcommittee on Oceans and
Fisheries; my name is William S. ``Corky'' Perret. I am Director of the
Office of Marine Fisheries, Mississippi Department of Marine Resources,
and a voting member of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. I
sincerely appreciate the opportunity to appear before you and to
provide my input for your deliberations in reauthorization of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), and
more specifically to the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) provisions of
this Act.
Congress has defined EFH as ``those waters and substrate necessary
to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding or growth to maturity''. The
Act defines EFH in broad terms that take into account not only the
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) generally from 3 to 200 miles seaward,
but also includes state territorial waters (0-3 miles for Louisiana,
Mississippi and Alabama, and 0-9 miles for Florida's west coast and
Texas) as well as inland (estuaries) waters of these states. Thus,
while the Act generally deals only with the management of fishery
resources in the EEZ of the United States, EFH now includes state
waters. I suppose this is appropriate, (EFH is not constrained by
political boundaries, and the states and federal government share
jurisdiction) but I am 100 percent for state rights and am concerned
whenever federal activity impacts state jurisdiction, especially in
coastal areas, much of which is privately owned.
First, I would like to briefly comment on the habitat and fisheries
that we (states and Council) manage, and will further restrict my
comments to the north central Gulf area. The Gulf Coast, with its vast
complex of estuaries, has been recognized as one of the most productive
fishery habitats in the world. Additionally, the Mississippi River, its
distributaries, and lesser riparian systems with their freshwater
introduction and accompanying nutrient-laden silts expand this fertile
and productive fisheries area into the near offshore waters of the
adjacent Gulf of Mexico. This is definitely essential fish habitat, and
it is in the states' area of jurisdiction. Most Gulf fisheries consist
of species that are estuarine dependent during some phase of their life
cycle. These include as examples, penaeid shrimp (the United States
most valuable fishery), menhaden (one our country's largest volume
fisheries), oysters, blue crabs, red drum and spotted seatrout. The
estuarine habitat that is crucial to our Gulf fisheries is located in
the states' area of jurisdiction. As I stated in 1995, when I testified
on the reauthorization of this Act, ``Habitat is the key to maintaining
fisheries''. This statement is also true today. In reality, the
controlling factor of a fish or animal population is governed by what
man does to a species' habitat, and then what is done to that species.
My definition of habitat also includes water quality and quantity. Why
is fisheries production in the Gulf of Mexico so high? This
productivity is high because of the vegetated coastal wetlands created
by the Mississippi River system and its tremendous discharges of
sediment laden waters, but these coastal areas are undergoing great
change. The most notable of these environmental changes that affect the
estuarine dependent species is the deterioration of the coastal
vegetative wetlands. This deterioration provides a superior nursery
environment that could account for recent increases in fishery
production. However, this increase in fisheries production, at the
expense of losses in wetland habitat, will, if continued, result in a
decline of future fisheries yield. Some indicators suggest that we may
now be at the peak of fisheries production, and a decline will begin in
the next decade. Activities have been initiated to help combat these
losses with projects designed to introduce fresh water and sediments
into certain areas of the coast, to aid in sediment buildup and
creation of vegetated wetlands. Activities of this type have been and
are continuing to be supported and funded by local, state and federal
governments.
Following are my concerns and suggestions for your consideration:
(1) Section 305 (b)(1)(A and B) of MSA requires that each
Regional Fishery Management Council submit amendments to the
fishery management plans (FMP's) that identify and describe EFH
for species under management. The Act requires further that
adverse impacts on EFH be identified as well as the actions
that should be considered to ensure the conservation and
enhancement of EFH as contained in the Act. ``National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), in consultation with participants in
the fishery, must provide each Council with recommendations and
information regarding each fishery under that Council's
authority to assist it in the identification of EFH, the
adverse impacts on that habitat, and the actions that should be
considered to ensure the conservation and enhancement of that
habitat''.
The Gulf Council developed a generic amendment that identified
and described EFH for the estuarine and marine life stages of
the stocks in its FMP's. The amendment also described threats
to EFH and management measures for enhancing EFH's. NMFS
partially disapproved the amendment, largely because the
Council only addressed EFH for those 26 dominant species for
which data were available. Minor stocks were not included
because data were not available. NMFS action places us in quite
a quandary. The Act clearly states that it is NMFS's
responsibility to provide EFH information to the Council, so
that the Council can do its job, not the other way around. In
preparation of the EFH Amendment the Gulf Council utilized the
best available information that could be obtained. Our
amendment recognized that certain data for some species were
not available; but even if this data had been available, it
would not include any additional habitat that is not currently
described in EFH for the 26 selected species, because EFH has
already been defined as all estuarine and marine habitat in the
Gulf of Mexico. (Figure 1.)
(2) The definition of EFH in broad terms and NMFS' (Council's)
generic acceptance of EFH being the entire Gulf of Mexico (out
to 200 miles), the states' territorial and inland estuaries,
and watershed areas has imposed a tremendous regulatory burden
on fishery managers, fishermen, landowners, and anyone else
whose activities might take place in these areas. This generic
approach also dilutes attention that should be drawn to more
crucial areas that need protection. Better science (as
referenced in 3) to identify and reduce the scope of EFH would
benefit all users.
(3) EFH identification, conservation and enhancement must
involve states. Activities of the states for assessing EFH in
their waters--whether by describing areas by vegetative or
substrate type and quantifying them by measurements, or
monitoring changing parameters such as salinity and temperature
that together form a set of conditions favorable for a
particular animal's success--should be encouraged, funded and
conducted in a coordinated effort. The description and
identification of EFH needs to be based on the best scientific
information available. A cooperative effort on the part of the
states and federal agencies needs to be undertaken to provide
this type of current information. A coordinated program similar
to the Gulf of Mexico Estuarine Inventory (GEMI) of the late
1960's could shed light on the status of nearshore habitat now
and in some ways compare it to what was found years ago.
Sustained productivity in a fishery, or decline, perhaps could
be linked to scientifically documented changes in coastal
habitats over 35 years. The GMEI data that resides in each of
the Gulf states provide a unique baseline to which current
conditions can be compared. Research of this type would greatly
improve our scientific understanding of EFH of managed species
thereby refining habitat requirements and the geographic scope
of EFH.
(4) EFH consultations by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The
existing interagency consultation process requires extensive
coordination among NMFS, the Councils, and federal action
agencies. I would also hope that in those areas of state
jurisdiction, that the process includes state resource agencies
as well as private landowners, who own the majority of coastal
land along the Gulf coast. The current process can result in
project delays, cost escalation and an additional layer of
bureaucracy. Rather than create a new consultation mechanism,
EFH consultation should focus more strongly on existing
procedures, interagency cooperation (state and federal) and
cooperative EFH creation and enhancement opportunities.
The concerns by some that the EFH definition is too broad and
would lead to unnecessary project delays and costs appear to
have some validity. I cite the following two examples to show
how far the EFH process has reached.
(a) Permit application No. ET-19-990-1622. Applicant proposed
to clear approximately 0.23 acres of private property to
prepare a home site. This property is located in East Baton
Rouge Parish, Louisiana, some 100-odd miles from the Gulf of
Mexico. Quoted in the public notice is, ``The applicant's
proposal would result in the destruction or alteration of NA
acre(s) of EFH utilized by various life stages of red drum and
penaeid shrimp''.
(b) Permit Application No. 19-990-3891. Applicant proposes to
install and maintain a permanently moored crane barge and
Mississippi levee crossing, for a barge unloading and transfer
facility. This work would be done on the descending bank of the
Mississippi River some 184.5 miles above head of passes near
Geismar, Louisiana. Quoted in the public notice is, ``The
applicant's proposal would result in the destruction or
alteration of two acre(s) of EFH utilized by various life
stages of red drum and penaeid shrimp''.
For these two examples, I submit that the finding of red drum
and penaeid shrimp in these areas would only occur if found on
a plate in a person's home or in one of the fine restaurants in
the area.
(5) EFH has been created by man. Each Gulf state has a state
approved artificial reef plan and Gulf wide funds are being
utilized to create artificial reefs. These reefs provide
additional habitat for many species, and are preferred fishing
locations for a majority of offshore fishermen. Platforms put
in place for mineral operations have been beneficial as
artificial reefs. Current federal regulations, however, require
their removal after abandonment, unless permitted for
artificial reef deposition. The deposition of these structures
as artificial reefs should be encouraged provided it does not
negatively impact other fisheries.
We are in the beginning stages of the EFH regulatory process. It is
too early to draw definite conclusions, but the current generic nature
of EFH designation lends itself to conflicts between NMFS, other
federal agencies, states, private landowners, and the public. Conflicts
among these groups could cause delays and increase costs for many
needed activities in our coastal and marine environments.
Again, I sincerely thank you for the opportunity to provide input
to your Subcommittee on this issue that is so vital not only to our
U.S. fisheries resources and their participants, but also to the
overall well-being of our nation.
Figure 1. Map depicting the extent of Essential Fish Habitat in the
Gulf of Mexico.
Source: N.M.F.S. Southeast Regional Office
Senator Snowe. Thank you. We appreciate it.
Mr. Loga.
STATEMENT OF STEVE LOGA, PRESIDENT, TUNA FRESH, INC., DULAC,
LOUISIANA
Mr. Loga. Good afternoon. I am Steve Loga, President of
Tuna Fresh, Incorporated, a company based in Dulac and Venice,
Louisiana. I am also State and Regional Director of the Blue
Water Fishing Association, representing U.S. commercial pelagic
longline vessels from Maine to Texas.
I would like to thank Senator Breaux and Senator Snowe, and
all of the Senate cosponsors for introducing Senate Bill 1911,
the Highly Migratory Species Conservation Act of 1999. I am
grateful for the opportunity to present my views on what is an
incredibly important bill to our industry.
I would like to thank Senator Breaux in particular for his
recognition that there still are some commercial fisheries left
in Louisiana, and very important ones at that. For as long as
my family and I can remember, you have been a strong, reliable
voice for Louisiana commercial fishing interests. And we
appreciate your continued fair and balanced approach to what
are often politically difficult issues in the Gulf region.
The pelagic longline fishery may be one of the least known,
but it is one of the most important to fishery dependent
communities throughout the Gulf region. This year alone, my
company purchased over $20 million worth of fish, with much of
that being landed in Louisiana, from 40 to 60 longline vessels,
the bulk of which was yellowfin tuna.
My company has a continuous payroll in excess of $120,000
per month and, additionally, employs as many as 150 workers
throughout various times of the year. We ship yellowfin tuna
and other longline caught products to over 30 major cities
nationwide. When you order tuna steak in any restaurant in
America, it is almost certainly yellowfin tuna. And Venice and
Dulac, Louisiana have become the No. 1 ports for yellowfin tuna
in the Nation.
I would also like to thank Senator Snowe especially for her
championing the cause of commercial fishery dependent
communities and for ensuring that the social and economic
realities of such communities are not forgotten in the fishery
management process. By championing the addition of National
Standard 8 during the last reauthorization of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, you reminded everyone that fisheries management is
as much about managing fishermen, their families and
communities as it is about managing fish.
And what we appreciate most of all, Senator Snowe, is your
persistent oversight, to ensure that these principles are not
just on paper, but are put into practice every day by Federal
fishery managers. In many ways, Senate Bill 1911 reflects your
philosophy that healthy fish and a healthy fishing industry are
not mutually exclusive goals.
I know Senator Breaux shares this view, because it was his
vision and leadership that brought the commercial and
recreational industries together into a constructive dialog,
with the recognition that we shared many of the same basic
goals and concerns for the future of highly migratory species.
This process culminated in an unprecedented memorandum of
understanding, which I do have a copy that I submitted for the
record, among some of the most important mainstream
organizations in the sports fishing community and the pelagic
longline industry, as represented by the Blue Water Fishing
Association.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The information referred to was not available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the parties to this memorandum of understanding are
to be congratulated, we deeply appreciate your willingness to
recognize the inherent value of our memorandum of understanding
by introducing legislation that reflects both its substance and
spirit. Senate Bill 1911 is not just a good bill, it is the
best possible solution that could be achieved under any
process. And we sincerely hope that it will remain so as you
progress through the legislative process.
To this point, we want to stress that the content of Senate
Bill 1911 could never have been achieved through the current
National Marine Fisheries Service regulatory process--a process
that has effectively relinquished the responsibility for
fishery management to Federal judges. I understand that NMFS is
now the defendant in nearly 100 Federal lawsuits. And if they
try to do what your legislation does, they will undoubtedly add
a few more.
We hope that you will strongly discourage any efforts by
NMFS to preempt and ruin this extraordinary opportunity by
moving forward with their own separate rulemaking process--
which they have done already. While our memorandum of
understanding had many specific objectives, the overall goal
was to strike the optimum balance between the conservation need
to reduce the bycatch of billfish and small swordfish in
pelagic longline fisheries with the need to minimize social and
economic disruptions to U.S. fishermen, their families and
their communities.
In other words, this was an exercise in finding the
appropriate balance among the bycatch conservation goals of
National Standard 9 and the social and economic goals of
National Standard 8 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. We believe
that this optimum balance was achieved, and it is reflected in
Senate Bill 1911.
On the conservation side, the expected benefits of this
bill are extraordinary. Over 52 percent of the small swordfish
bycatch and 31 percent of the billfish bycatch in the U.S. EEZ
occur in the time-area closure set forth in Senate Bill 1911.
In order to achieve this extraordinary conservation
benefit, however, the science indicated that a permanent year-
round closure of 80,000 square nautical miles of ocean to
pelagic longline was necessary along the Southeast Atlantic
coast. But the consequences of this action would be to
completely destroy the fishing operations of about 68 longline
vessels.
In our view, Senate Bill 1911 provides the only fair and
equitable means to address this problem. Consistent with the
spirit and intent of National Standard 8, Senate Bill 1911
provides compensation to those fishermen that would be forced
to sacrifice their livelihoods in the name of swordfish and
billfish conservation. The bill logically requires all three
stakeholders, the commercial industry, the recreational
industry, and the government on behalf of the public's
interest, to share in the cost.
In the Gulf of Mexico, the data indicated that billfish
bycatch reductions could be achieved by moving the longline
fishery farther offshore during the summer months, away from
the areas with the highest concentrations of billfish. By
carefully balancing the times and areas of these conservation
closures with the need to provide enough room for the pelagic
longline industry to prosecute a viable yellowfin tuna fishery
further offshore, I think Senate Bill 1911 has again achieved
that goal of National Standard 8 to both minimize the adverse
economic impacts and to provide for the sustained participation
of our Gulf fishing communities in this very important fishery.
With that said, however, let me also share with you some of
the perspectives down at the docks in the Gulf longline
fishery. No commercial fishermen will ever be thrilled with the
idea of having to draw circles around gigantic areas of the
ocean and declare that guys fishing with hooks attached to
commercial longline gear cannot fish in that circle, but the
guys fishing with the same exact hooks attached to sport
fishing gear can fish inside that circle.
Of course, I think it is safe to say that they would be
even less thrilled with the prospect of a longline ban. But
that approach is completely irresponsible and without
scientific merit.
Despite these instinctive concerns, our Gulf yellowfin tuna
longline industry is willing to do at least its share for
swordfish and billfish conservation, by giving this approach a
sincere try, while recognizing that it remains as yet untested
and unproven.
You have our commitment. But until the results of the
experiment are in, our fishermen will remain necessarily
cautious. The unanswered question for our fishermen is whether
we will in fact achieve the fundamental objectives of our
memorandum of understanding to reduce billfish and small
swordfish bycatch mortality while preserving our ability to
prosecute a healthy yellowfin tuna longline fishery outside the
closed areas.
That is why the research component of this legislation is
so important to our industry. We feel that there is a great
potential to achieve even greater billfish bycatch reductions
than through vast time-area closures by making improvements to
longline gear technology and fishing methods. We understand
that is why the Gulf time-area closure set forth in Senate Bill
1911 is temporary, and is linked to the results of this
research. We appreciate this research being a major emphasis of
your legislation and a priority of our coalition partners.
Finally, I ask for your indulgence to say something nice
about our industry that does not get said very much these days.
Contrary to negative hype and rhetoric you may hear, U.S.
pelagic longliners are among the most conservation minded
people in the fishery management process today. They know that
it is their own and their children's future that is at stake.
They know it is in their best interest more than anyone else's
to strive for the most effective conservation measures that can
be sustained by their industry.
That is why they initiated the process that led to this
legislation. And that is why, time and time again, they are at
the forefront of international conservation advocacy at ICCAT.
Last month at ICCAT, it was again the U.S. pelagic longline
industry that led the charge, and almost unilaterally made the
conservation sacrifices necessary to achieve an international
10-year rebuilding plan for North Atlantic swordfish. For one,
I am proud to be a part of this industry.
Again, I thank you for introducing this important
legislation and for this opportunity to testify. I would also
like to recognize and thank your Louisiana colleague,
Congressman Billy Tauzin, for joining Congressman Porter Goss
in introducing a companion bill to your bill in the House of
Representatives.
We look forward to continuing our work with you and your
excellent staff to get this legislation enacted as soon as
possible.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Loga follows:]
Prepared Statement of Steve Loga, President, Tuna Fresh, Inc.,
Dulac, Louisiana
Good afternoon, I am Steve Loga, President of Tuna Fresh, Inc., a
company based in Dulac and Venice, Louisiana. I am also Secretary and
regional director of the Blue Water Fishermen's Association,
representing U.S. commercial pelagic longline vessels from Maine to
Texas.
I would like to thank Senator Breaux and Senator Snowe, and all of
the Senate cosponsors for introducing S. 1911, the Highly Migratory
Species Conservation Act of 1999. I am grateful for the opportunity to
present my views on what is an incredibly important bill to our
industry.
I would like to thank Senator Breaux in particular for his
recognition that there still are some commercial fisheries left in
Louisiana and very important ones at that. For as long as my father and
I can remember, you have been a strong and reliable voice for Louisiana
commercial fishing interests, and we appreciate your continued fair and
balanced approach to what are often politically difficult issues in the
Gulf region.
The pelagic longline fishery may be one of the least known, but it
is one of the most important to fishery-dependent communities
throughout the Gulf region. This year alone, my company purchased over
$20 million dollars worth of fish, with much of that being landed in
Louisiana from 40 to 60 longline vessels, the bulk of which was
yellowfin tuna. My company has a continuous payroll in excess of
$120,000 per month and additionally employs as many as 150 workers
throughout various times of the year. We ship yellowfin tuna and other
longline-caught fish to over 30 major cities nationwide. When you order
tuna steak in any restaurant in America it is almost certainly
yellowfin tuna, and Venice and Dulac, Louisiana have become the number
one ports for yellowfin tuna in the nation.
I would also like to thank Senator Snowe, especially for her
championing the cause of commercial fishery-dependent communities and
for ensuring that the social and economic realities of such communities
are not forgotten in the fishery management process. By championing the
addition of National Standard 8 during the last reauthorization of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, you reminded everyone that fisheries management
is just as much about managing fishermen--their families and
communities--as it is about managing fish. And, what we appreciate most
of all, Senator Snowe, is your persistent oversight to ensure that
these principles are not just on paper, but are put into practice every
day by federal fishery managers.
In many ways, S. 1911 reflects your philosophy--that healthy fish
and a healthy fishing industry are not mutually exclusive goals. I know
Senator Breaux shares this view because it was his vision and
leadership that brought the commercial and recreational industries
together into a constructive dialogue with a recognition that we shared
many of the same basic goals and concerns for the future of highly
migratory species. This process culminated in an unprecedented
Memorandum Of Understanding among some of the most important,
mainstream organizations in the sportfishing community, and the pelagic
longline industry as represented by the Blue Water Fishermen's
Association.
While the parties to this MOU are to be congratulated, we deeply
appreciate your willingness to recognize the inherent value of our MOU
by introducing legislation that reflects both its substance and spirit.
S. 1911 is not just a good bill, it is the best possible solution that
can be achieved under any process, and we sincerely hope it will remain
so as you progress through the legislative process. To this point we
want to stress that the content of S. 1911 could never have been
achieved through the current NMFS regulatory process--a process that
has effectively relinquished the responsibility for fishery management
to federal judges. I understand that NMFS is now the defendant in
nearly 100 federal lawsuits and if they try to do what your legislation
does, they will undoubtedly add a few more. We hope that you will
strongly discourage any efforts by NMFS to preempt and ruin this
extraordinary opportunity by moving forward with their own separate
rule-making process.
While our MOU had many specific objectives, the overall goal was to
strike the optimum balance between the conservation need to reduce the
bycatch of billfish and small swordfish in pelagic longline fisheries
with the need to minimize social and economic disruptions to US
fishermen, their families and their communities. In other words, this
was an exercise in finding the appropriate balance among the bycatch
conservation goals of National Standard 9 and the social and economic
goals of National Standard 8 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. We believe
this optimum balance was achieved and is reflected in S. 1911.
On the conservation side, the expected benefits of this bill are
extraordinary. Over 52 percent of the small swordfish bycatch and 31
percent of the billfish bycatch in the US EEZ occur in the time-area
closures set forth in S. 1911.
In order to achieve this extraordinary conservation benefit,
however, the science indicated that a permanent, year-round closure of
80,000 square nautical miles of ocean to pelagic longlining was
necessary along the southeast Atlantic coast. But, the consequence of
this action would be to completely destroy the fishing operations of
about 68 pelagic longline vessels.
In our view, S. 1911 provides the only fair and equitable means to
address this problem. Consistent with the spirit and intent of National
Standard 8, S. 1911 provides compensation to those fishermen that would
be forced to sacrifice their livelihoods in the name of swordfish and
billfish conservation. The bill logically requires all three
stakeholders--the commercial industry, the recreational industry, and
the government on behalf of the public's interest--to share in the
cost.
In the Gulf of Mexico, the data indicated that billfish bycatch
reductions could be achieved by moving the longline fishery farther
offshore during the summer months, away from areas with the highest
concentrations of billfish. By carefully balancing the times and areas
of these conservation closures with the need to provide enough room for
the pelagic longline industry to prosecute a viable yellowfin tuna
fishery further offshore, I think S. 1911 has again achieved the goals
of National Standard 8 to both minimize adverse economic impacts and
provide for the sustained participation of our Gulf fishing communities
in this very important fishery.
With that said, however, let me also share with you some of the
perspective down at the docks in the Gulf longline fishery. No
commercial fisherman will ever be thrilled with the idea of having to
draw circles around gigantic areas of the ocean and declare that guys
fishing with hooks attached to commercial longline gear cannot fish
inside that circle, but guys fishing with the exact same hooks attached
to sportfishing gear can fish inside the circle. Of course, I think it
is safe to say they would be even less thrilled with the alternative of
a longline ban--but that approach is completely irresponsible and
without scientific merit.
Despite these instinctive concerns, our Gulf yellowfin tuna
longline industry is willing to do at least its share for swordfish and
billfish conservation by giving this approach a sincere try while
recognizing that it remains as yet untested and unproven. You have our
commitment but, until the results of this experiment are in, our
fishermen will remain necessarily cautious. The unanswered question for
our fishermen is whether we will, in fact, achieve the fundamental
objective of our MOU to reduce billfish and small swordfish bycatch
mortality while preserving our ability to prosecute a healthy yellowfin
tuna longline fishery outside of the closed areas.
That is why the research component of this legislation is so
important to our industry. We feel that there is great potential to
achieve even greater billfish bycatch reductions than through vast
time-area closures by making improvements to longline gear technology
and fishing methods. We understand that is why the Gulf time-area
closure set forth in S. 1911 is temporary and linked to the results of
this research. We appreciate this research being a major emphasis of
your legislation and a priority of our coalition partners.
Finally, I ask for your indulgence to say something nice about our
industry that doesn't get said very much these days. Contrary to the
negative hype and rhetoric you may hear, U.S. pelagic longliners are
among the most conservation minded people in the fishery management
process today. They know that it is their own and their children's
future that is at stake. They know it is in their best interests--more
than anyone's--to strive for the most effective conservation measures
that can be sustained by their industry. That is why they initiated the
process that led to this legislation, and that is why time and time
again they are at the forefront of international conservation advocacy
at ICCAT. Last month at ICCAT it was again the US pelagic longline
industry that led the charge and, almost unilaterally, made the
conservation sacrifices necessary to achieve an international 10-year
rebuilding plan for north Atlantic swordfish. For one, I am proud to be
part of this industry.
Again, I thank you again for introducing this important legislation
and for this opportunity to testify. I would also like to recognize and
thank your Louisiana colleague Congressman Billy Tauzin for joining
Congressman Porter Goss in introducing a companion bill to your bill in
the House of Representatives. We look forward to continuing our work
with you and your excellent staff to get this legislation enacted as
soon as possible.
Senator Snowe. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Loga.
Mr. Miller.
STATEMENT OF FREDERIC L. MILLER, CHAIRMAN, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS
COMMITTEE, COASTAL CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
My name is Fred Miller. I am an attorney from Shreveport.
Like Senator Snowe, when I am down here, I am considered from
being way up north.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Miller. I currently serve as Chairman of the Government
Relations Committee for the Coastal Conservation Association,
better known as CCA. This morning I would like to focus my
testimony on three areas. First, I would like to tell you a
little about CCA and how it operates. Second, I will address
some of the issues we are concerned about in the upcoming
Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization. And third is S. 1911,
which Mr. Loga just spoke about, the legislation of which you
and Senator Breaux are cosponsors.
The Coastal Conservation Association is a leading marine
recreational fishing group in the United States. Formed by a
small group of sports fishermen in Houston in 1978, CCA has
grown to a 15-State operation, with over 70,000 members. CCA
learned long ago that Federal and International fisheries
management were just as important to the local marine
recreational fishermen as the conservation of the most local
fish population.
CCA pursues its conservation policies that are set by our
State and National boards of directors. These boards consist of
active volunteers concerned about the health of the Nation's
fisheries. Our members in the Gulf are very interested in both
red snapper and billfish.
Recently, members of our Maine chapter met with you,
Senator Snowe, and asked that you cosponsor S. 1911, and to
include recreational fishing issues in your efforts to
reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Act. I would like to thank you
personally, on behalf of all of our members, for the attention
you and your staff have shown about our concerns. And I would
also like to thank my friend, Senator Breaux, for all the help
he has been to all of the sportsmen in the State of Louisiana
over the years, and particularly your help with S. 1911.
CCA does not yet have a comprehensive position on the
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Our board will
meet in February, and we will formulate our position at that
time, and look forward to visiting with both of your staffs on
those issues. However, we do have several issues that we can
discuss today that need no further discussion among our
membership before we can form a position.
The first two issues that I would like to discuss involve
the future of red snapper management. Red snapper management is
one of the most complicated and controversial conservation
issues in the country, as well evidenced by all of the
testimony that you have heard here today. It involves the
management of the directed fishery that at the moment has 51
percent of a mere 9 million pound quota being caught by 132
commercial vessels in a limited entry system. The remaining 49
percent is caught by thousands of recreational anglers, using
private and for-hire vessels.
The Sustainable Fisheries Act includes two provisions that
have become obstacles to the orderly management of the fishery.
The first is the moratorium on the implementation of the ITQ
system for vessel owners in the snapper fishery. CCA supports
the furtherance of ITQs, and would recommend that the ITQ
system be brought back into discussion as a viable management
alternative of the snapper fishery in the Gulf.
The moratorium, we think, makes no sense in the Gulf. If it
makes sense some place else in the country, we do not believe
that it makes any sense in the Gulf and the South Atlantic or
the Southeast region, and should be allowed to expire for all
fisheries in those two regions. In addition, we ask that the
authority to authorize ITQs be clarified so that any interest
may be eligible to purchase them on a willing buyer/willing
seller basis. Entities outside the commercial sector should be
allowed to retire the quota or transfer it to another sector.
The second red snapper issue deals with the provision which
requires a directed recreational fishery to be managed through
a quota management system, similar to the kind used in most
commercial fisheries. This is the most blatant anti-
recreational measure in the entire Act. It requires the red
snapper recreational fishery to be over-managed and closed
unnecessarily.
No state fishery manager believes that recreational fishery
management should be accomplished through the strict
application of a quota, which, when reached, automatically
closes the fishery. States do not use this system because
recreational fisheries, unlike commercial ones, need to be
managed differently to achieve stability, while maintaining
conservation goals.
Three fundamentals have to be understood to appreciate this
difference. Recreational fisheries include thousands of
participants. Some participants fish a lot. But most are part-
time and even occasional participants. They are used to
seasons, minimum sizes and bag limits. They are not a highly
regulated nor easily regulated group. As a result, they do not
respond well to uncertainty in fishing regulations.
The second fundamental flows from the first. Recreational
catches are very difficult and expensive to count accurately.
We have heard about the data and junk in and junk out. With
respect to managing recreational fisheries on the data that is
available, there is no real-time data. It is impossible to
manage this fishery quota on the data, the MRFSS, that is
available. NMFS cannot do this. They close this fishery on a
guess. That is the best that they could ever hope to do.
Last, the structure of the recreational sector is
different. Recreational fishermen plan their year around their
hobby. They gather friends, relatives and equipment to plan a
fishing trip. If they charter a boat, they do it months in
advance. This kind of activity is not compatible with reading
the Federal Register to determine if the fishery has been
closed, nor is it conducive to a long-term commitment on a
charter when you do not know when the season will be opened or
closed. It is detrimental to the recreational fishermen. It is
likewise detrimental to the charter boat industry.
CCA supports buying out excess capacity in the commercial
industry. However, we do believe the commercial industry and
the snapper fishery needs to be right-sized. We also support
increased funding for the States for enforcement. I think we
will find that increased funding for State enforcement will
enable the Magnuson-Stevens Act to be better enforced rather
than relying totally on the Coast Guard.
With respect to S. 1911, I appreciate my friend Mr. Loga's
comments. CCA got involved in the longline issue through the
Blue Water Fishermen's Association. BWFA wanted to explore
reducing the bycatch of billfish through closed areas if there
was support for a buyout of the smaller vessels in the fleet.
CCA was very interested in the concept. Our national board met
three times on this issue, with very lively discussion going on
in each one. And it was concluded in the final analysis that
the approach taken in your bill was not only the right approach
for the resource, but it was the only way that we could
accomplish our basic conservation goals.
The areas chosen for closure are a result of research done
by the Billfish Foundation, which identified hot spots for
billfish bycatch, and by the swordfish industry, which
indicated areas where small swordfish catches are found. The
data used to identify these areas shows that the closures will
have a number of positive impacts on bycatch. The preliminary
estimates are that it will reduce U.S. longline bycatch in the
EEZ by 50 percent for sailfish, 45 percent for blue marlin, and
20 percent for white marlin.
In addition, it will have a positive impact on the bycatch
of sharks, tunas, small swordfish, dolphin--or mahi-mahi--,
wahoo, and other species. It will reduce the U.S. swordfish
fleet by about one-third. Since these vessels also fish in
other domestic fisheries from which they will be precluded, the
buyout will have some positive impact on the snapper, shark,
grouper, and mahi-mahi fisheries.
Internationally, it will set a precedent, allowing the
United States to negotiate the international closing of open
ocean spawning and small swordfish areas. These closures will
further assist in reducing the international fleet exploitation
of billfish.
CCA has always looked at resource issues to determine what
gains can be made and how those gains will improve recreational
fishing. We are not willing to stand back and avoid achieving
improvements because someone else is responsible for the
damage. We are willing to pay a share in the buyout of these
displaced longline boats, because we are getting a benefit.
I want to thank you again for allowing me to testify, and I
appreciate your time. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:]
Prepared Statement of Frederic L. Miller, Chairman, Government
Relations Committee, Coastal Conservation Association
Good morning Madam Chairman:
My name is Fred Miller and I am the Chairman of the Government
Relations Committee for the Coastal Conservation Association (``CCA'').
This morning I'd like to focus my testimony on three areas. First, I'd
like to tell you a little about CCA and how it operates. Second, I'll
address some of the issues we are concerned about in the upcoming
Magnuson-Stevens Act reathorization, and third is S. 1911, legislation
that you and Senator Breaux both cosponsored.
The Coastal Conservation Association is the leading marine
recreational fishing group in the United States. Formed by a small
group of sportfishermen in Houston in 1978, CCA has grown to a fifteen-
state operation with over 70,000 members. Each of our states operates
somewhat independently focusing on issues in the state that are
important to marine recreational fishermen. However, like so much in
fisheries management, conservation issues encompass a regional and
national perspective, therefore, CCA learned long ago that federal and
international fisheries management were just as important to the local
marine recreational fishermen as the conservation of the most local
fish population.
CCA pursues conservation policies set by our state and national
Boards of Directors. These boards are made up of active volunteers
concerned about the health of the nations fisheries. CCA has been
active in a number of conservation issues in the last twenty years,
including: all of the east and gulf coast net bans; gamefish status for
redfish, speckled trout, tarpon, striped bass, river shad, marlins
spearfish and sailfish; and, the reduction of bycatch through the use
of closed areas and technology. In the Gulf we are most interested in
red snapper. We have also pushed for the improvement of the management
system through the restructuring of state and federal management
systems; the elimination of conflicts of interests by decision-makers,
and the active involvement of our membership in the management process.
Recently members of our Maine chapter met with you and asked you to
cosponsor S. 1911 and to include recreational fishing issues in your
efforts to reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Act. I'd like to thank you
personally on behalf of all of our members for the attention you and
your staff has shown to our concerns. I would also like to thank the
senior Senator from Louisiana, Senator Breaux, for all of his help in
recreational issues and particularly for his leadership in S. 1911.
MAGNUSON-STEVENS ACT
CCA does not yet have a comprehensive position on the
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act but it will have one early
next winter. We would like to brief you and your staff then. However,
we do have some issues to raise with you now that need no further
discussion among our membership before we can form a position.
The first two issues I'd like to discuss involve the future of red
snapper management. Red snapper management is one of the most
complicated and controversial conservation issues in the country. It
involves the management of a directed fishery that at the moment has 51
percent of a mere 9 million pound quota being caught by 132 commercial
vessels in a limited entry system. The remianing 49 percent is caught
by thousands of recreational anglers using private and for-hire
vessels. In addition, substantial mortality of juvenile snapper still
exists in the bycatch of the shrimp fishery. Shrimp vessels are now
required by federal law to carry bycatch reduction devices (BRDs)
throughout most of the Gulf. In state waters, most of the Gulf States
now have or are proposing measures to require their use. In addition,
the Gulf Council is considering extending the use of BRDs to the
eastern Gulf. These measures, along with a possible bycatch quota for
the shrimp industry, offer substantial promise for the rebuilding of
the red snapper stock.
These measures have all been taken as a result of the Hutchison
amendment to the Sustainable Fisheries Act (``SFA'') in 1996. That
amendment allowed the Gulf Council to treat bycatch from the shrimp
industry just like the bycatch of every other fishing fleet in the
country. It allowed what Senator Breaux endorsed in principle in his
floor statement the night before final passage--namely, allowing the
councils, not Congress, to deal with complex fishery management
problems. The SFA, however, included two provisions that have become
obstacles to the orderly management of the fishery.
The first is the moratorium on the implementation of an individual
transferable quota (ITQ) system for vessel owners in the fishery. At
the time the Act passed, the Gulf Council had adopted and the
Department of Commerce had sent to the Federal Register a system to
rationalize the harvest sector in this fishery. The continuation of the
ITQ moratorium will only frustrate the full rationalization of this
fishery. If the moratorium makes sense someplace else in this country,
it doesn't make any sense here and we would ask that it be allowed to
expire for all fisheries under the Gulf and South Atlantic Council's
jurisdiction. In addition, we ask that the authority to authorize ITQs
be clarified so that any interest may be eligible to purchase them on a
willing buyer/willing seller basis. Entities outside the commercial
sector should be allowed to retire the quota or transfer it to another
sector.
The second red snapper issue deals with section 407 (d), which
requires the directed recreational fishery to be managed through a
quota management system, similar to the kind used in most commercial
fisheries. This is the most blatant anti-recreational measure in the
entire Act. It requires the red snapper recreational fishery to be
over-managed and closed unnecessarily. No state fishery manager
believes that recreational fishery management should be accomplished
through the strict application of a quota which, when reached,
automatically closes the fishery. They don't use this system in the
states because recreational fisheries, unlike commercial ones, need to
be managed differently to achieve stability while maintaining
conservation goals.
Three fundamentals have to be understood to appreciate this
difference. Recreational fisheries include thousands of participants.
Some participants fish a lot, but most are part time and even
occasional participants. They are used to seasons, minimum sizes and
bag limits. They are not a highly regulated or easily regulated group.
As a result, they do not respond well to uncertainty in fishing
regulations. The second fundamental flows from the first. Recreational
catches are very difficult and expensive to count accurately. Ask the
National Marine Fisheries Service (``NMFS'') about the accuracy and the
value of the MRFFS data as an in-season management tool. It is, at
best, an estimate and not a very accurate one, unlike log data and
landing statistics used in the commercial sector. Lastly, the structure
of the recreational sector is different. Recreational fishermen plan
their year around their hobby. They gather friends, relatives and
equipment to plan a fishing trip. If they charter a boat, they do it
well in advance. This kind of activity isn't very compatible with
reading the Federal Register to determine if the fishery has been
closed.
The flexibility to manage recreational fishing is available in
every fishery managed at the federal level except this one. Let's do
what Senator Breaux suggested should be done in 1996. Let's leave to
the councils the job of developing the right management measures for
each of the region's fisheries and stop restricting them from doing
their job.
No management is successful without a strong enforcement program.
CCA would like to endorse the concepts in the testimony from the State
of Louisiana. Integrated enforcement by all of the federal and state
arms is necessary to achieve sound conservation. Congress needs to
support the state component of this network to allow them to be a
functioning part of the system. In the Gulf it is absolutely necessary
to have dockside enforcement if our conservation laws will be
effective. To do that we need the cooperation and active support of
state enforcement.
Lastly, CCA supports buying out excess capacity in the commercial
industry. On the whole we have not approved of the NMFS approach of
reverse auctions which seemed to be disconnected with necessary
conservation objectives. However, we do believe that the commercial
industry does need to be right-sized. There are too many commercial
vessels and in many places these vessels have a disproportionate share
of the resource. Right sizing is necessary to achieve many of the
conservation objectives and harvest reallocations necessary to benefit
our marine resources in the next century. At a minimum, we need to
authorize parties other than commercial fishermen to participate in
buyouts. We need to consider mechanisms that would allow for the free
market transfer of quota and the reallocation of quota based on
something other than the present traditional economic factors. We
intend to work with the Committee to fashion such an amendment.
S. 1911 ATLANTIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES ACT OF 1999
Let me take this opportunity to thank both of you on behalf of our
membership for your help and leadership in this issue.
CCA got involved in this issue through the Blue Water Fishermen
Association. BWFA wants to explore reducing the bycatch of billfish
through closed areas if there was support for a buyout of the smaller
vessels in the fleet. CCA was very interested in this concept. Our
national Board met three times on this issue and concluded that the
approach taken in your bill was not only the right approach for the
resource it was the only way we could accomplish our basic conservation
goals. As a result, we instructed our General Counsel to enter into
negotiations with Blue Water and to build a coalition of other like-
minded conservation groups. These negotiations led to a Memorandum of
Understanding among CCA, BWFA, the American Sportsfishing Association
and The Billfish Foundation, which was signed in August. The MOU
contained many of the principles found in your legislation and formed
the basis for the working relationship the participating groups have
today.
The bill you introduced does the following:
1. Permanently closes an area from the North Carolina/South
Carolina border to Key West, Florida to all pelagic longlining.
2. Permanently closes an area off the Gulf coast from Panama
City, Florida to Mobile, Alabama to longlining from January
through Labor Day.
3. For five years after enactment, it closes an area in the
Gulf from Cape San Blas, Florida to Brownsville, Texas from
Memorial Day to Labor Day from the beach out to at least 500
fathoms.
4. Provides for a three-year research program with the longline
fleet to determine ways to further reduce bycatch by
longliners. This research will provide the basis for a
permanent solution for longline bycatch, which can be
implemented at any time by either the agency or the Congress.
5. Offers to buy all fishing permits from 68 eligible vessels
on a willing buyer/willing seller basis. In order to be
eligible, a vessel must receive at least 35 percent of its
income from a permanently closed area.
6. Vessels will be prevented from reflagging or fishing in any
other commercial fishery including state water fisheries.
7. Vessel owners will be compensated by payment for all fishing
licenses (federal and state) and for forfeiture by the vessel
of its fisheries endorsement. Vessels not documented will be
prevented from being sold into any other commercial fishery.
8. Total cost could approach $25,000,000. Funding will be
through the National Marine Fisheries Service--$15,000,000 if
appropriated funds and $10,000,000 provided by the Federal
Financing Bank. Funds will be provided only to vessel owners
who can document landings and their value. Owners will be paid
$125,000 for their permit packages and an additional payment
equal to one year's gross landings value not to exceed a total
of $450,000.
9. The Federal Financing Bank will be repaid with $10,000,000
split 50/50 between the recreational community and the longline
industry.
10. The longline industry will repay its obligation through a
surcharge collected at the dealer level. The recreational
community will repay its obligation through the issuance of a
federal license to vessels fishing for highly migratory species
in the closed areas. The bill establishes a system for states
to voluntarily elect to pay the debt for their fishermen.
11. The bill will provide that the permits can be obtained at
any post office, retail outlet, on the Internet or through a 1-
800 number system. The permits will issue to the boat and will
not be transferable.
12. The bill includes requirements for vessel monitoring
devices and enhanced observer coverage.
13. The research program will include a special emphasis off
the mid-Atlantic in the event of displacement there of existing
vessels as a result of the closed area.
The areas chosen for closure are a result of research done by The
Billfish Foundation, which identified hot spots for bycatch, and by the
swordfish industry which identified areas where small swordfish catches
are found. The data used to identify these areas shows that the
closures will have a number of positive impacts on bycatch. The
preliminary estimates are that it will reduce U.S. longline bycatch in
the EEZ by 50 percent for sailfish, 45 percent for blue marlin and 20
percent for whites. In addition, it will have a positive impact on the
bycatch of sharks, tunas, small swordfish, mahi mahi, wahoo and other
species. It will reduce the U.S. swordfish fleet by about one-third.
Since these vessels also fish in other domestic fisheries from which
they will be precluded, the buyout will have some positive impact on
the red snapper, shark, grouper and mahi mahi fisheries.
Internationally, it will set a precedent allowing the U.S. to
negotiate the international closing of open ocean spawning and small
swordfish areas. These closures will further assist in reducing the
international fleet exploitation of billfishes.
CCA and its partners have been praised and maligned for their
efforts. Most of the criticism has been from groups that do not
understand the legislation or are looking for solutions that are not
attainable. I'd like to address some of those criticisms.
``Why are recreational fishermen buying out longliners who
destroyed the fishery?'' One of the earliest votes taken by CCA on the
negotiation was whether we as recreational fishermen were willing to
pay for some of the buyout of the longline fleet. The vote was
unanimous. CCA has always operated on a principle that we were willing
to put our money where our conservation mouth is. We have had any
number of instances in which CCA has directly participated in the buy-
out of gear and licenses through the contribution of funds by our
members or as an organization. As an example here in Louisiana, we
supported legislation that placed a surcharge on recreational fishing
licenses to provide funds for commercial fishermen impacted by the net
ban. In Texas, we made direct contributions to the state to buy-out bay
shrimp licenses.
CCA looks at resource issues to determine what gains can be made
and how those gains will improve recreational fishing. We are not
willing to stand back and avoid achieving improvements because someone
else is responsible for damage. We are willing to pay because we are
getting a benefit.
``There is no conservation benefit.'' Approximately 52 percent of
the total small swordfish bycatch reported by US pelagic longline
fishermen in the US EEZ occurs in the three proposed closed areas.
Similarly, approximately 31 percent of the total billfish bycatch
reported by US pelagic longline fishermen in the US EEZ occurs in these
three areas combined. In addition, these closed areas will reduce the
longline catch of other species including mahi mahi.
``The vessels have already left the areas being closed.'' Prior to
entering into the MOU, The Billfish Foundation commissioned a study by
Dr. Phil Goodyear to look at the biological effects of time and area
closures on the reduction of bycatch in the tuna and swordfish longline
fleets. Dr. Goodyear looked at thousands of data sets from longline
vessels in the south Atlantic and the Gulf to determine where and when
the greatest reductions could be achieved if areas were closed. That
data was used to determine which areas should be closed. In addition,
in the Gulf the objective was to address the area of the greatest
billfish bycatch and the recreational and longline fleet interaction
without displacing the longline fleet to new areas of the Gulf or the
Caribbean.
``There will be displacement of the fleet to the mid-Atlantic
bight.'' There are two issues here. The first is the impact of the
vessels being bought out and the second is the potential for more
effort in the mid-Atlantic as a result of the closed areas.
A substantial portion of the negotiation over the MOU was spent
discussing how to avoid the displacement of the eligible vessels to any
fishery. The provisions in the bill, which restrict the vessels
accepting the buyout from participating in any commercial fishery, were
a result of those discussions. Vessels will be required to forfeit all
of their state and federal fishery permits. In addition, the vessels
will be required to permanently forfeit their fisheries endorsement,
which will restrict any subsequent owner from placing the vessel in a
commercial fishery. The vessels are also prevented from reflagging.
Since these vessels are in limited entry systems this will reduce the
number of licenses in the swordfish, tuna, shark and red snapper
fisheries. None of these vessels will ever again carry a longline.
``This won't help get a rebuilding plan for swordfish.'' This bill
is not intended as the exclusive measure to achieve a rebuilding plan
for swordfish. The bill's aim is to reduce the harvest of small
swordfish and billfish. However, it will greatly assist in the
achievement of an Atlantic-wide recovery that was just negotiated at
the recent ICCAT meeting in Rio. ICCAT agreed with the United States
that it would adopt a ten-year rebuilding program for swordfish. That
agreement came at some substantial cost to the domestic swordfish
industry. In addition to taking a quota reduction, the domestic
industry agreed to phase down its allowable discard of small swordfish.
Without this concession by the industry, no deal approaching a ten-year
rebuilding plan was possible.
Taken as a whole, the U.S. industry will take a quota reduction
approaching 20 percent over the next three years, while other fishing
fleets from the EU and Japan will take considerably less of a cut. I
believe that the existence and the potential for eventual passage of
this legislation gave the industry the support to make this sacrifice.
``Why not let NMFS close areas?'' Earlier in my testimony I spoke
of red snapper and the need to allow the Councils and not the Congress
to manage fisheries. CCA strongly endorses this principle and has
conducted its activities to ensure the minimum amount of federal
interference in fisheries management. Given that, you might ask why we
are supporting a legislative approach to the address longline bycatch
when the National Marine Fisheries Service is in the process of
proposing rules that will do just that. The reason is that NMFS does
not have the authority under the Magnuson-Stevens Act to accomplish
what can be accomplished through your bill. As Penny Dalton will tell
you, the bill you have introduced goes well beyond what NMFS can
accomplish through rulemaking.
NMFS can clearly close areas to longlining, however, in doing so
they must take several factors into consideration, including the
economic impact on the longline fishery and the biological impact on
other fisheries if the closed areas result in the displacement of
vessels. They have no authority to buyout displaced vessels and
therefore have to adjust the area they are proposing to mitigate the
impact on the industry and other fisheries. This mix of considerations
is best described by comparing the NMFS proposal for the Gulf of Mexico
presented to the HMS AP in June and the S. 1911 Gulf closure. What NMFS
proposed was to close an area in the Western Gulf from about Port Eads
westward to the Mexican boarder for the months of June, July and
August. This will have a significant biological benefit for billfish in
the western Gulf and could have a positive impact on the spawning
populations of bluefin tuna. It will, however, displace the entire
western Gulf longline fleet to the eastern Gulf during that period. CCA
members in Texas will enjoy substantially improved recreational
billfishing and will be effectively free of any longline interaction.
However, our members in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida
will get to enjoy an even greater interaction with the longline fleet
as they shift their effort to the east. Your bill is designed to
prevent the lateral displacement of the fleet in the Gulf and by
pushing the longline effort further offshore it creates separation of
the two activities and produces a positive conservation effect.
On the East Coast this is even more dramatic. Your bill proposes a
permanent closure on the East Coast from Key West to North Carolina. It
assumes that there will be a number of vessels displaced as a result
and offers to buy them out of all commercial fishing rather than allow
them to shift their effort. NMFS can close the same area or even one
larger, but when they do, they will simply send the effort elsewhere
either to the Gulf or the mid-Atlantic. The alternative would be to
reduce the size of the closure thereby reducing the potential for
displacement, but also reducing the conservation benefit. Neither of
these two results is going to make recreational fishermen happy.
The answer is absolutely clear to us. If we can get the kind of
meaningful conservation that is in your bill then we wanted to be part
of passing it. Thank you again for your leadership and allowing us to
testify.
Senator Snowe. Thank you all very much for your outstanding
testimony.
I will start with you, Mr. Miller and Mr. Loga, and we will
work this way. Let us talk about the legislation, S. 1911, and
where to go from here based on what has happened with the
agency, the proposed rule that was issued yesterday, and a May
2000 deadline for a finalized rule.
Mr. Miller. I just put a copy of the proposed rule between
Mr. Loga and me. I got it on the fax late, late yesterday
afternoon.
Senator Snowe. I think Senator Breaux and I both agree that
it is really remarkable, or regrettable, that organizations
like yours were not informed, since you had participated in
developing this legislation and were not informed about this
legally binding court order that was reached between the agency
and the environmental groups that has now resulted in an
ironclad rule by May of next year.
Mr. Miller. That would appear to be what their constrained
agreement is.
Senator Snowe. Exactly. Mr. Loga, how many in your
organization would have utilized the buyout option?
Mr. Loga. I think there are about 68 vessels. I am not sure
if all of them are in the organization, but they are longline
vessels that are eligible for a buyout.
Senator Snowe. Do you think this agreement is possible
without a buyout?
Mr. Loga. I do not think so. I do not know where you can
displace some of these vessels that are only 40 to 45 feet.
When you are closing down that much area of an ocean, I think
it would be difficult for some of these vessels just to go
outside the areas. Possibly some of the boats in the Gulf can
move to other areas, but the East Coast boats, I see it
impossible for those guys to be able to move 200 or 300 miles
to fish.
Senator Snowe. So you were very surprised about the result?
Mr. Loga. I think that is probably an understatement.
Having worked with the National Marine Fisheries Service
working through this legislation, I was totally disappointed
with what happened. I took a lot of flack at the docks with the
boats, just simply by telling them we were working with
National Marine Fisheries Service on this. And every one of
them said the same thing: You cannot trust NMFS. You cannot
trust NMFS.
And the whole time I was sitting there telling them: No
problem, guys. We have got this worked out. They are on our
side this time.
And last Monday, when I found out that they had I guess
come to an agreement with another environmental group, I was
shocked. I was totally surprised that this came up. I could not
believe that it happened. I guess I probably could believe that
I was not told, but I was even more surprised when I found out
that you guys were not told. It is almost a slap in the face to
all of us. We worked real hard.
If you can imagine pulling the longline industry into one
room with the Billfish Foundation, the CCA, the American Sports
Fishing Association, and Blue Water, and having all of us not
kill each other, but agree to something, it was amazing that we
came up with this. I am really proud of everybody, how hard
they worked on this whole thing.
Senator Snowe. Well, you should be. We all are. It is
extraordinary to bring such disparate groups together, who were
willing to take these steps to preserve valuable highly
migratory species and reach an agreement that ultimately
affects the livelihoods of many. At the same time, I thought
the legislation was a very fair and balanced approach, given
what was at stake.
Mr. Loga. I do not actually know where to go from here,
with the National Marine Fisheries Service doing this. Is my
next step to get an attorney, just to watch these guys and see
what they are doing? Is that the way we are going to run the
fishery management process today?
I would hope that this legislation would go through. I
would hope that National Marine Fisheries Service would back
off of the proposed rule. A seven-month closure to our industry
will devastate it. Just giving the western Gulf of Mexico as an
example, they closed, basically, from Grand Isle, Louisiana,
west to Brownsville, Texas in the Gulf of Mexico, in an effort
to save billfish bycatch.
Well, what they did was basically, the reported bycatch
that was caught in that area was seven-tenths of 1 percent that
the U.S. actually reported to ICCAT of billfish bycatch. What
they also did by saving that seven-tenths of 1 percent is
eliminate 72 percent of the yellowfin tuna fishery in the Gulf
of Mexico.
And not only did they eliminate that fishery, what they did
was effectively move the boats from the western Gulf and put
them in the eastern Gulf, where the problem of undersized
swordfish was in the first place. I see no science at all
behind this. And I cannot even believe that they would be that
bold to do that. They effectively made the problem worse.
Senator Snowe. Ms. Dalton was saying earlier that these
areas were very similar to those legislation identified. What
is your response to that?
Mr. Loga. That is not correct. I do not have the exact
coordinates on me, but basically it covers the entire EEZ, from
90 degrees west, all the way down to 26. So it is a significant
difference.
Mr. Miller. Senator Snowe, the biggest problem that I see
with the proposal is just as Mr. Loga says, it closes from the
90 degree meridian west, which leaves everything else in the
eastern Gulf open. Which will push the participants in the
longline fishery to the east, which will create additional
problems.
The fundamental difference and the fundamental thing, and
Senator Breaux pointed it out, is that NMFS cannot do anything
about the displaced fishermen. All NMFS can do is push them
around. They will push them to the east in the Gulf and they
will push them to the north in the Atlantic.
Your bill is going to give those folks an opportunity to,
if they choose--it is not mandatory--if they choose, to opt
out, to cash out and get out of the fishery, since they cannot
fish in the closed areas. It will address the socioeconomic
problems. NMFS has not addressed those. NMFS, if they got sued
over not closing this area, they are going to get sued over
this rule, because they did not address the socioeconomic
issues.
It is a faulty plan. It certainly flies in the face--it
took--and I do not mean to say it took--nine months of work
went into this memorandum of understanding that Mr. Loga has
put in the record, nine months of work, unprecedented work,
between very disparate organizations. One of the first times
that the recreational community and the commercial fishing
community have been able to sit down and agree on anything
other than let us fight. It is unprecedented.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The information referred to was not available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your legislation is monumental. I am absolutely appalled at
this rule that NMFS has pushed in at this 11th hour.
Senator Snowe. We share your deep frustration.
Mr. Lyons and Mr. Perret, may I ask you a question that you
both mentioned. I also raised EFH issues earlier with Ms.
Dalton. There did not seem to be any recognition that EFH was a
problem, with regard to permitting delays or other
implementation issues. You cited, Mr. Perret, in your testimony
two examples of the types of permit applications that were
delayed.
What happened? What was the outcome of those two
applications?
Mr. Perret. I used two extreme examples to make my point.
NMFS did not identify that as essential fish habitat. However,
in the Corps' public notice process, the statements there, the
detrimental impact to penaeid shrimp and red drum, that is just
another agency who is commenting. If it is in the coastal area,
they are going to comment anyway. But this is well above the
coastal area. But those permits were not held up or were not
denied because of the essential fish habitat on the Mississippi
River levee and the home site in East Baton Rouge Parish.
But, again, Mr. Lyons pointed out hurricane protection,
coastal erosion type projects, some of them are being impacted
by this essential fish habitat designation.
Senator Snowe. So where are the delays, Mr. Lyons? I know
there is duplication and there are consultation requirements.
So is it the time required to consult among agencies? Are you
having to go back over the same old ground, so to speak?
Mr. Lyons. It is the additional review time required under
these new essential fish habitat guidelines that concern us. I
know of no permits that have been denied.
Senator Snowe. They are delayed?
Mr. Lyons. The problem that we have, and have had in past
years, with Corps of Engineers permits and coastal zone permits
is delay. And delay is money. For our industry, money is
extremely important at this juncture in our history.
If I might say, we need a domestic oil and gas industry.
And we are losing that domestic oil and gas industry. And it is
because, at least in part, of regulatory constraints. And I
have seen, having been a second-generation oil person--my
parents are from Crowley, my father was a geologist--the boom
here and I see what is happening here now. And it does not have
to happen.
The Gulf of Mexico holds the most promise in the United
States, reasonable promise, for energy development. We need to
be able to develop the Gulf. But delays resulting from programs
like this make companies look outside the United States. This
is just one straw. I will admit, it is not the only straw. It
is just one straw in a truckload of straw that makes people
look elsewhere for development opportunities.
So hopefully we will not see denial of permits. It is
simply going to result in additional delays. And those delays
are very, very important. There is no reason, for example, to
look at a permit in Baton Rouge as affecting essential fish
habitat, 182 miles north of the coast of Louisiana.
When we heard the term ``essential fish habitat,'' we
thought we were talking about discrete areas that were
essential and critical to fish development. These other areas
are already covered by the Corps of Engineers program and the
coastal zone program. They are adequately covered, and NMFS
participates in those discussions. They fully participate in
every coastal zone permit that is issued in the State of
Louisiana, every Corps of Engineers permit that I know of. So
there is no need to have an additional opportunity for delay.
Senator Snowe. Thank you.
Dr. Wilson, you mentioned defining essential and
nonessential fish habitat, if it can be quantified. The
question is, can it be?
Dr. Wilson. I think so.
Senator Snowe. We have heard this recommendation in some of
our other previous hearings. How would we go about that?
Dr. Wilson. Well, as I had mentioned, there are a number of
new techniques coming online using acoustics, side-scan sonar,
dual-beam hydro acoustics, and satellite remote sensing. And I
think that that can establish an index to qualify the habitat,
and then we can look at fish life history stages and fish
abundances associated with those various areas, and develop
indexes along this continuum.
But just to say that the entire Gulf of Mexico is essential
fish habitat has pretty significant ramifications for the
future.
Senator Snowe. Do you think that the EFH provisions should
be changed in the Act?
Dr. Wilson. I think it would be helpful, yes.
Senator Snowe. A distinction between essential and
nonessential?
Dr. Wilson. Well, a distinction along some continuum. But I
do not know whether you want four, five, six, eight, ten,
different levels.
Senator Snowe. Is the definition in the Act too broad, or
is the implementation the problem?
Dr. Wilson. I think it is a little bit of both actually. I
know the National Marine Fisheries Service, during some
preliminary rulemaking, was trying to develop some index
continuum. But I think a lot more work needs to be done in that
area.
Senator Snowe. Can you explain how the habitat areas of
particular concern are treated? Is focusing on HAPCs a better
way of approaching it?
Dr. Wilson. Well, that at least gives it a priority. I saw
that was used in the New England Council's definition of some
groundfish habitat. And they identified some areas where
reproduction of cod was taking place and maybe scallop beds
occurred. That certainly helps to say, well, this is real
important habitat as opposed to the fact that fish occur here.
It does not make it as important. But I think certainly a lot
of work needs to be done. And we go back to good science for
that, of course.
Senator Snowe. Senator Breaux.
Senator Breaux. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am going to be
checking some essential duck habitat tomorrow.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Perret. Watch that steel shot when you eat that duck.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Perret. Or do you use lead?
[Laughter.]
Senator Breaux. Let me just follow up on the same line of
thought here. I think you all make a good point. We should be
required to determine what essential fish habitat is. Just to
say the entire Gulf is essential means there is nothing that is
not essential. I think you are right, it was an effort to try
and get special attention to areas of special importance, but
not just to say the entire Gulf is EFH. It loses its
effectiveness if it is just a blanket statement that everything
that is wet is an essential fish habitat.
Mr. Lyons' comment is that on every permit for activities
in the Gulf of Mexico for instance, the National Marine
Fisheries Service already has had the opportunity to comment
under other laws. And NMFS can say no, they do not want you to
build a platform here because this is essential fish habitat.
It is interesting that most of the rigs themselves eventually
become essential fish habitats, as shelter for smaller fish in
the food chain that live near the rigs, and food for larger
fish that then come to feed there.
So I think it is worth us looking at trying to make this
work better. Dr. Wilson, what is the good thing about having an
essential fish habitat designated?
Dr. Wilson. I think that for the first time we are actually
focusing on--my original interpretation, when I was first
looking into the Act, and we were talking about it in our
class--for the first time, we are actually identifying those
areas that are very critical to different life history stages
of the fish that we depend on. Where is the red snapper habitat
that is most critical for their survival?
Unfortunately, it appears to be areas that shrimpers may or
may not have an impact on. But that is a critical life history
stage that we need to know more about, the rubbled, low relief
bottom where the juvenile seem to occupy.
Senator Breaux. Sometimes I think, looking out into the
future, the designation of an essential fish habitat is a means
of trying to use management tools other than excluder devices
or quotas, by just closing up areas of essential fish habitat.
Such EFH designations would pevent interference by people who
are fishing in those areas. If you have an area that is more
sensitive to a particular species that is threatened, for
instance, you could keep your shrimpers away from there, but
not require them to pull TED's.
If you know an essential fish habitat for turtles, as a
matter of fact, do not go shrimp over here, but you can shrimp
everywhere else and you do not have to carry all kind of nets
behind you with excluder devices on them. So I think that there
is some potential in this method of designation.
Now, I understand that Mr. Lyons's concern is that they
already have to go through the permitting process. They can
look at this. You go through it under one Act. You go through
it under another Act. Do you have to do the same thing under a
third act? It may not be necessary. So I think Senator Snowe
and I certainly will be looking at ways to make it work, but
without the unnecessary bureaucratic rules that are there.
Mr. Loga and Mr. Miller, I am just glad to see you all at
the same table. Normally, we have to put you guys at this end
of the table and the other one on this end of the table, and
about three or four witnesses in between you to keep the
recreational and commercial fishermen from battling each other.
But what you all have done is truly amazing. And that is the
way it should be done. That is the way to solve these problems
between recreational interests and legitimate commercial
interests. Both of you have a legitimate interest in the Gulf
of Mexico.
And to come up with a plan that would allow your people to
actually go out of business, to be compensated for it, but to
get out of a business that may be a family tradition in order
to help preserve and protect recreational fishing is an amazing
achievement. Maybe that agreement made the--let me see who the
plaintiffs were who sued NMFS--maybe it made the Earth Justice
Legal Defense Fund happy.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Loga. Whoever they are.
Senator Breaux. Whoever they are.
But it did not make the people who sat at the table happy,
who negotiated this bill, who are actually involved with the
issues on a day-to-day basis, your recreational fishermen and
people who actually are catching the tuna. So we are going to
continue to push this.
Mr. Miller. I would note for the record, Senator, that this
joint motion for stay in this lawsuit is dated October 5, 1997,
which was shortly after this memorandum of understanding went
public.
Senator Breaux. Your memorandum?
Mr. Miller. Yes, Your Honor.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Miller. Yes, Senator.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Miller. Excuse me. I am an old lawyer. I call everybody
that sits higher than me Your Honor.
[Laughter.]
Senator Breaux. We have been called a lot worse, I will
tell you. We thank you for the compliment.
[Laughter.]
Senator Breaux. We accept it completely. We do not get
called that a lot.
We congratulate you and want you to continue. Do not get
too disappointed. I think our proposal is ultimately going to
happen, the way it should happen.
Corky, do you want to come back to Louisiana, or are you
all right over there?
Mr. Perret. Everything is good in Mississippi.
[Laughter.]
Senator Breaux. Thank you for your continued long-time
help. If anybody can be on the Council as long as you have,
have voted as many times as you have, and still be liked by the
industry, they have got to be doing something right. And I
thank you for it.
Mr. Perret. Thank you.
Senator Breaux. I thank the whole panel.
Senator Snowe. Yes, thank you all. Thank you very, very
much.
Senator Breaux. The chairman has said that she would be
willing, and I would also, to hear other comments on the
reauthorization and on the bill. I think we have had some great
presentations and everybody, I think, has had a chance to be
heard on this. But if there are some additional comments that
can be summarized maybe by a comment or two, I think the
chairman has indicated that she would be willing to take those.
If anybody would like to come up to that microphone right
there, we would be happy to hear from you.
Just identify yourself for the record. I want to make sure
the record has your name.
STATEMENT OF MAUMUS CLAVERIE, MEMBER, GULF OF MEXICO FISHERIES
MANAGEMENT COUNCIL
Dr. Claverie. Madam Chair, Senator Breaux, thank you for
the opportunity to speak. I am Maumus Claverie. I am interested
in this process.
I am on the Gulf Council for the second go. The first go
was in the early 1980's, when 90 percent of the effort was a
turf battle between agency and civilians. Things have improved
a bit.
I wanted to comment on a few things. First is your longline
bill, Senate Bill 1911. I just saw the map that NMFS has in
their regulation. And in the Gulf of Mexico, their line is much
worse than your line. So I do not think you will have much
competition there. But on that bill, the last iteration I saw
allowed the vessels that are bought out to participate in the
charter fisheries in the Gulf or elsewhere, but not in any
other commercial fishery.
And I would urge that you not let them participate in the
charter fishery in the Gulf. You have heard testimony today
about how crowded that is already. And the Gulf Council was
concerned about additional participation in that fishery
through those vessels, which were described as possible charter
boat candidates.
On essential fish habitat, I think the degree of harm needs
to be considered in all instances, such that a very important--
whatever you want to call it--habitat, something that is going
to hurt that just a little bit may not be anywhere near as bad
as something that hurts nonessential fish habit very much, or
less essential, whatever you want to call it. So there has to
be the ability to balance how much the net problem is going to
be, not just what the category of habitat is.
And one of the features of the council system is that
people with an interest in what is going to be regulated can
participate in the process. And you all, in the Act, have a
procedure for doing that. If a council member lists a conflict
of interest situation for fisheries management, then that
council member, unlike in ordinary Federal law, but under a
specific exemption in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, is allowed to
participate in the discussions and the voting on the
regulations that are going to impact the fact that I own a
shrimp boat, for instance, if I am a shrimper on the council.
That is one of the good features of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act council system, because it gets the people who are going to
be regulated involved in developing the regulations. And the
theory is that there will be more cooperation and more
acceptance of those regulations in an area of the world where
it is very hard to enforce things at sea.
The essential fish habitat has introduced a new problem.
And that is if one of us voting members of the council has an
interest in something that is essential fish habitat, i.e.,
owns stock in an oil company that is drilling in essential fish
habitat or owns a piece of land or even owns something in a
gambling boat, any number of ways, or own General Motors,
because General Motors produces engines that drive oil wells or
something, then that precludes that member, under Federal law,
from participating in the discussions or voting.
And my request is that you amend the Magnuson-Stevens Act
so that an interest in essential fish habitat by a council
member would be treated the same for conflict of interest
purposes as an interest in fisheries operations would be. That
would be a specific amendment you have to make somewhere in
that Act. And I would encourage that.
The other thing that I wanted to talk about is management
of highly migratory species. Right now, since 1990, that is
done by the National Marine Fisheries Service, not by the
councils. Whereas, Senator Breaux, you pointed out earlier that
the system of councils is localized development, so to speak,
it is more than just that. It is done open to the public.
Whereas, management by the agency, decisions are made actually
behind closed doors. And that is a big, big difference. And the
fishermen are not used to that.
And so I would encourage that the management of the highly
migratory species--my preference would be that they be turned
back to the five councils. The problem was that if one council
vetoed, nothing happened. That can be solved by saying that if
not all the councils agree to a specific provision, that the
total vote of the voting members at the next of each of the
council meetings be added up and the majority rules, so that
you do not get a veto situation.
There is resistance to returning to the councils, because
the councils feel, No. 1, they are already overloaded and, No.
2, participants in highly migratory on an international level
would like a one-stop-shopping situation, which would be a
super-council. My suggestion would be, if that is considered,
that that council be made of 11 voting members, one from NMFS
and two members from each of the five councils.
This would have the advantage of people that everybody is
used to, and also the five councils then could use their public
input systems, which all the official participants are familiar
with, to get into the input part of that management, too. For
instance, the council AP's and the SA's, the science and social
and whatnot input situations. And those are the specifics that
have not yet been covered here today that I would like to
mention.
But there is one question, Senator Snowe, that you raised.
And that is about limiting participation in fisheries. I can
tell you, from personal conversations, that at least two voting
members of the Gulf Council are very concerned that if ITQs or
limited entry is started in any fishery, i.e., a commercial
fishery, that the worst thing would be for it to spread into a
recreational private boat fishery. That that would be a
compelling reason to not let it start.
And I think you asked that question earlier. And I can tell
you that that is a concern. Because at the present time, that
is not seen to be the right way to manage a recreational
fishery or to get as many participants as possible. And the
traditional way to cause conservation to happen there is to say
each participant can catch fewer and fewer and fewer fish, but
you have the opportunity to catch at least one, rather than
limiting the number of people who can participate. That would
be my comments.
Senator Snowe. Thank you very much.
Next, please identify yourself for the record.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT SPAETH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SOUTHERN
OFFSHORE FISHING ASSOCIATION, INC.
Mr. Spaeth. Thank you, Senator Snowe, Senator Breaux. My
name is Bob Spaeth. I am with the Southern Offshore Fishing
Association, out of Madeira Beach, Florida, west-central
Florida.
I have an interest in a fish house. I also have an interest
in boats. And I also represent about 100 vessels, 30 to 50
feet. In Madeira Beach, we have 250 jobs, $8 million to $10
million a year it brings into our small community, to give you
a little oversight.
This is an overview of what we see going on in the Gulf of
Mexico. We have cumulative regulations that are affecting us
that NMFS does not seem to be addressing. An example of a
regulation is that they take sharks and they close sharks off,
thus forcing the industry into another fishery. And then that
impacts other fishermen in that fishery. And then maybe nobody
can make any money. That is just one example.
Another example is that one agency does not realize what
the agency is doing. The Coast Guard came out with regulations
that cost about $10,000 to $12,000 for safety, and some of
these vessels only cost $30,000. So you are talking about a
substantial investment into some of these small fleets, without
any impact studies, et cetera, from those other agencies.
The paperwork burden we see out there, we know it has to be
done, but it is getting impossible. You have got size limits.
You have got this. You have got that. You have got to have a
Ph.D. to become a fisherman anymore. Or for me to go hire
somebody with the fine system the way it is set, I would lose
my boat because of a captain that broke the law, which I would
not want him to do, but I really do not have any control over
it.
I heard somebody earlier mention insurance. I have heard
70-80 percent of the vessels in the Gulf of Mexico do not have
insurance and cannot afford insurance, some of it due to the
impacts of these 10 years of regulations. Legally, the cost of
litigation is expensive. It takes a lot of time. And there
needs to be other alternatives put in that will give us a
committee or something that maybe will let us go around all
this litigation. The costs are expensive. I am sure NMFS would
like that.
Banking, you talk about how you want to have a viable
commercial fishery, but there is no bankability. How can a bank
or anybody in that business go lend a fisherman money on a boat
or to improve his equipment when that banker does not know
whether the guy is going to be in business tomorrow? And if you
cannot capitalize an industry, you are going out of business.
And that is what we have done. We have made it impossible to
capitalize anything in this business.
Vessel values, I have a vessel that was worth $200,000. I
would be lucky if I could get $80,000 for it. And nobody wants
it. And it happens to be a longline swordfish vessel.
People, public hearings, this has gotten to be out of hand.
The public has no respect for the process. When they do, they
ignore it. You see public hearings on grouper, almost everybody
testified that the stocks were getting better, recreational,
commercial, the whole nine yards. But when you get done with
all this, it is a preconceived notion of what they are going to
do. And they are only holding these public hearings to abide by
the law. And that is the impression that we have, that the
public hearings are not of any substance anymore.
Unfortunately, I do not know what we can do about it. I
have been to several meetings where there are more government
people than there is public testimony. And that can be found
out if you want to investigate that.
SFA, we have already talked enough about it today. I concur
that it is a mess. The big question is: Do you want a
commercial sector or not? If you truly want the non-fishing
citizens to have a chance to eat our Nation's fresh fish, you
need to step in now and help save this sector. You need to help
us find a way out of this mess.
The Department of Commerce has been mismanaging fisheries
management plans in numerous areas. While their job is to
manage stocks of fish, they have endeavored to take over and
regulate how Americans run their business--when to fish, how to
fish, where to fish, how many fish you can carry. The
regulations are impossible to live with, and the commercial
fishing industry is in much worse shape than many fish stocks
as a result of the NMFS.
The Southern Offshore Fishing Association feels that unless
our elected representatives step in and straighten out this
problem, thousands of jobs will be lost because many tax paying
businesses will fail. Many already have. The food fish
harvesting capabilities of America will be lost. Consumers will
pay more for less quality of fish, and the balance of trade
will further slip.
One of the big problems is you cannot find a commercial
fisherman and train them in a day. It takes years to become
effective.
A potential solution is you need to match the resource
availability to the economics of the fishery. We understand
that many vessels and thousands of jobs will be lost to
accomplish this action. Individual and financial misery can be
avoided with the government's proper help. Job training for
those captains and crews is needed for those who will lose
their jobs. Vessel and/or permit buyout programs are needed to
reduce the fleet to optimum size.
The other thing I heard today was ITQs mentioned. And the
ITQ, I could support it. But I do not support it at the present
time because I do not know what it is. We have a special
instance in the Gulf with reef fish. I heard that mentioned.
Shark fishing has been cut by 50 percent, 50 percent, after the
Governor enticed us that were in the reef fishery to go into
the sharks, to take pressure off reef fish. Now, those people
do not have a history or a fishery they can fish in. How do we
take care of those people?
Those are the kind of questions I have before I could
support an ITQ system. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Spaeth follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert Spaeth, Executive Director,
Southern Offshore Fishing Association, Inc.
Testimony to the members of the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee
meeting in New Orleans, Louisiana, December 14, 1999 concerning the re-
authorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act.
My name is Robert Spaeth. I am the Executive Director of Southern
Offshore Fishing Association, a non-profit commercial fishing industry
corporation. Our headquarters are in Madeira Beach, Florida, which is
the center of the US grouper fishing industry. Our members fish
throughout the Gulf of Mexico, the South Atlantic and in international
waters off Caribbean and South American countries. We are the non-
boating citizens access to offshore fishery products.
In a few words, it is past time for Congress to halt the cumulative
destruction of the US commercial fishing industry by actions and
policies of the National Marine Fisheries Service.
When Congress enacted the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA) it did so
to establish a rational manner of maintaining not only the fisheries of
the nation but maintaining those who harvest the fisheries of and for
the nation. Congress did not pass SFA to give the Sustainable Fisheries
Division of NMFS a license to close down as many fisheries as they
possibly could in the shortest possible time frame. But close down
fisheries is exactly what Dr. Gary C. Matlock seems to be all about.
Bob Jones, Executive Director of Southeastern Fisheries Association
since 1964 and who supports this statement has long maintained, and I
quote him, ``Dr. Matlock has never seen a commercial fishery he didn't
want to close, beginning with his early work in Texas on redfish &
trout and continuing to this day in federal waters.''
We hope and pray the information contained in the ongoing General
Accounting Office (GAO) investigation will finally convince Congress to
rein in an agency that has run amok. The Sustainable Fisheries section
of NMFS is the epitome of what is wrong with the federal government in
the eyes of the citizens who live under the NMFS regulatory process. We
strongly recommend the Senate Commerce Committee hold Oversight
Hearings on the SFA activities in NMFS as soon as the GAO Report is
received. Create a proper forum where we can voice our concerns and
present quantifiable information for the Senate Committee to study.
Congress is our only hope for fairness in the management of fisheries
as long as the Sustainable Fisheries division is constituted as it is
at present.
In this regard, we want the Committee to know this is not a
criticism of Penny Dalton who has recently been brought in to run NMFS.
She is a breath of fresh air in a stale house.
Ms. Dalton probably doesn't have the authority to remove someone as
entrenched as Dr. Matlock under civil service rules and he certainly is
not without a political power base of his own. But members of the
Committee, we shouldn't have to live under a system where the
individual bias of one government employee can have such negative
economic and social impacts on a particular group of fishermen. That
kind of system is not democracy. It is a dictatorship and cannot be
tolerated in the United States of America.
Please keep in mind when you read this statement that NMFS has
about 60 lawsuits going on at present. What a waste of taxpayer's money
and how critical it speaks of the agency and their lack of ability to
work for the benefit of all. We recommend someone create a chart on
litigation before Dr. Matlock and litigation during his tenure. I think
the Committee will be shocked by what they see.
Let me list 12 statements for your consideration.
Fishery regulations are so pervasive it almost requires
legal counsel to know when to fish, what kind of gear can be
used and where you can fish. NMFS is forcing the Management
Councils to make more and more regulations each time they meet.
Never does NMFS take a break from enacting rules or repeal
rules. NMFS law enforcement leaders are pushing the Councils
even harder to make law enforcement for them easier. The law
enforcement advisory committee of the Gulf Council, for
instance, wants to put an electronic vessel monitoring system
(VMS) on commercial longliner boats and shrimp vessels. This is
akin to an ankle bracelet mandate for people on parole and it
is absolutely unacceptable to the overwhelming majority of the
fishing industry. NMFS even wants the boats to buy the VMS
devices and pay for their maintenance. If VMS systems are
required on commercial boats then they must also be required on
recreational fishing boats as well.
Cumulative impacts of all the regulations in the Gulf of
Mexico and the South Atlantic regions have never been examined
by anyone who is concerned with such impacts. NMFS certainly
doesn't seem to care how many regulations the industry has to
live under nor do they care how much they cost. A
Congressionally authorized study by a blue ribbon commission of
experts should be created and funded immediately. There is
great concern among industry that once you get rid of boat
captains and crew it will be impossible to replace them.
The paperwork burden is horrendous. The volume of what is
required to file on a timely basis with NMFS and the confusing
nature of regulations makes it very difficult for traditional
fishermen to understand the legalese and mumbo jumbo of CFR
writing. No attempt is made by NMFS to educate the industry.
Their philosophy is, ``We just write the regulations we don't have
to tell you all about them or explain them to you.''
Selective law enforcement is another problem with NMFS. We
feel NMFS and the Coast Guard enforce recreational fishing
differently than commercial fishing. NMFS certainly reports
differently as seen in the Law Enforcement Report given during
the November 1999 Gulf Council Meeting in Orlando, Florida.
A great deal of talk was heard about law enforcement of the
commercial fishing sector but not one word on the efforts to
enforce rules on recreational fishermen. Surely there must be
some law violators out of the million or so recreational
fishermen in the Gulf.
Litigation is the only way the commercial fishing industry
can get a fair hearing on fishery issues. Litigation is very
expensive for the industry but unlimited funds are available
for NMFS. We believe Dr. Matlock understands too well how to
use the ``presumption of correctness'' doctrine. He has used
this hammer in closing down commercial fisheries. He knows in
most instances if he can just provide even a scant paper trail
showing he tried to stay within the law, the court will rule in
his favor and against the industry. Even with all that power,
Dr. Matlock has been taken to task by two different federal
judges in the past year. I encourage the Committee to read the
Judge's Order in the flounder and shark litigation.
Both the District Judge in North Carolina (flounder issue)
and in Florida (shark issue) came down hard on the agency. This
evidently has no impact on Dr. Matlock as he has now indicated
in a sworn declaration, dated November 11, 1999, that if the
court doesn't get its act together, he will declare certain
sharks as endangered species and close them down and impact
more fishermen.
The role of NMFS as the research arm, review of the research
arm and enforcement arm of the Department of Commerce is
frightening. Our perception is NMFS sometimes makes their
science meet their preconceived goal. In one court case
pertaining to fish traps, Dr. William Fox, who was head of NMFS
at the time, came to the Southeast Region and forced his
regional staff to ``sequester'' certain science that was in
NMFS' possession but which did not help NMFS position in their
desire to ban fish traps. This was science developed by US
taxpayer dollars that was prevented from being put in the
record. This scandalous conduct is part of court records in the
lawsuit against the Department of Commerce by the Organized
Fishermen of Florida, I believe. It is a sad day when the
middle bureaucracy or ``keepers of the flame'' are forced to
look the other way in order to accomplish a personal agenda of
the agency head. I don't think the Senators know how subtle
pressure can be put on an underling who is just trying to do
his/her job and move forward on their chosen career path. The
Senate should take a hard look at the way some NMFS officials
do business.
Outside peer review of NMFS' science has been a bugaboo for
years and has even resulted in the National Academy of Science
being brought in on one occasion to take a look at NMFS' work.
Recently, our organization combined with the leadership of
Southeastern Fisheries Association and the Florida Offshore
Fishing Consortium to review gag grouper and red grouper
science. We engaged a certified Fishery Scientist and asked him
to review the science being used for grouper regulations and
write a report. That was our only direction to Dr. Trevor
Kenchington, of Nova Scotia, Canada, who had no ax whatsoever
to grind. His review was enlightening and pointed out some
problem areas of the NMFS science being used especially as it
pertained to genetics and stock size.
Dr. Kenchington was invited to a summer meeting of the Gulf Council
in Key West, Florida and made his report in detail. He was
subsequently invited to the recent meeting in Orlando, Florida
and was almost prevented from making any comments at all
because a designee for a state director didn't want to hear his
presentation. As a result of all this clamor and confusion, the
Gulf Council has rewritten their policy on outside science
which calls for the science to be reviewed by the Stock
Assessment Panel and other panels before it is presented to the
Council. This will be a good policy if the dates and time
available for submitting the review is not manipulated by NMFS
to prevent the outside reviews from being properly considered
on a timely basis.
This brings up another point. Maybe it is time for the state
directors to be a non-voting member of the Councils. A case
could be made of conflicts between state and federal management
because of policies and statutes. The federal fishery resources
belong to all the people of the nation and should be available
to them. When states are successful in prohibiting commercial
harvest for distribution throughout the nation, they in effect
reserve the fish for those local folks and tourists who come
thereby denying a great number of citizens the opportunity to
share in the resource. Redfish is the classic example. Here is
a federal resource and a state resource that could produce a
modest harvest in federal waters but politically it cannot be
harvested in federal waters because it became a sacred fish and
no state director will even consider opening federal waters to
a harvest. This is a blatant violation of the M-SFCMA. That's
all I will say on redfish but the way that fish was taken away
from the non-boating citizens is a shame.
Another area of our concern is NMFS does not listen to the
constituents during the public hearing process. Public hearings
are a sham. In the most recent grouper hearings, 90 percent of
the citizens, both recreational and commercial testified that
the grouper and red snapper are coming back and the fish are
getting bigger but their comments are ignored. It seems NMFS
develops a model, absolutely full of assumptions, and refuses
to change or even consider changes no matter what is brought to
them. Additionally, NMFS has done a horrible job of explaining
or even trying to explain their models to the citizens. Its
like the science is in the nether world and mortal fishermen
are not permitted to see what is going on.
If there is any doubt on what I am saying about the public hearing
process, get the public record from the Gulf Council on the gag
grouper hearings and read it. You will be amazed at how much
information is ignored.
NMFS has no programs to assist commercial fishing. Why? The
commercial fishing industry has vessels that are in the federal
waters every day but there is no cooperation between the
industry and NMFS in this region. It's like we are the enemy
and the designated target as well. We are under the gun from an
agency using our tax money to destroy us. Why? NMFS has gone
from turtles, to TEDs, to BRDs, to longlines to gear to
essential fish habitat etc., as a way of inflaming issues to
get media exposure which generates research money which keeps
the agency pumping out regulations.
All of us know NMFS has to create a demon or create fishery
collapse to be in a position to impose draconian regulations on the
fishermen. When will this insanity end? When will Congress step in and
say, ``Wait a minute, it is not now nor has it ever been our intent to
destroy an important food producing segment of our national economy!!''
But destroying us is exactly what NMFS is doing through the Sustainable
Fisheries division.
Members of the Committee, there are many other points that need to
be brought before you but I think I have brought enough for a start.
Check with other industry people from Maine to Texas for similar views.
The Pacific Coast might or might not have similar views and Alaska of
course, has a very unique situation separate from the lower 48. They
don't live under the NMFS heel like the rest of the country.
Thank you for anything you can do to help America's First Industry
survive and prosper in the new millennium.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert A. Spaeth, Executive Director
Southern Offshore Fishing Association
December 7, 1999
Senator Snowe. Thank you very much.
Senator Breaux. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF FELIX COX, COMMERCIAL FISHERMAN
Mr. Cox. Thank you, Senator Snowe, Senator Breaux, for the
opportunity to testify before your subcommittee.
I am Felix Cox. I am from Texas, Aransas Pass, Texas, a
little small town close to Corpus Christi. And I own a fishing
boat there. And I have been fishing all my life, I guess you
might as well say. Trying to make a living out of it is a
little difficult anymore.
Anyway, I have got two or three points I would like to make
that you might be able to help me, which is the reauthorization
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The first and most important point
is my support for individual transferable quotas. We have been
through a derby fishery in our red snapper fishery now for
eight years or so.
And I guess you have heard testimony in support of the
individual quotas, and so I would just like to add mine to
that. We just cannot live any longer with the derby fishery. It
has cut our profits. It endangers our lives. And bankruptcy is
just right around the corner for many of us. And so I would ask
you two Senators, if you would, to be supportive of lifting the
moratorium on the individual quotas.
The second concern that I have, and you have heard this
voiced already today, is the recreational and commercial
battle, the ongoing recreational and commercial battle. And
having been a fisherman all my life, of course you are going to
find me supportive of environmental fishing. I feel like people
in the country who cannot come down to the coast and fish still
ought to have some access to the fish. And I think it is
probably up to the Senate and the House of Representatives to
keep those opportunities available for people.
Now, you will hear our council, unfortunately, our council
has forever been tilted toward recreational interests. And that
is unfortunate, because the balance of the people in the
country just do not get a fair hearing. So I would appreciate
it if you two Senators could maybe do something about that. I
do not know what specifically, but maybe something, to make
sure that we always have a viable commercial fishery.
And I guess my last point would be some way to try to
return some of the power that fishermen used to have and no
longer have. We are told who we can sell to. We are told when
we have to go fishing. We are told when we have to come back.
And right around the corner I understand is a little thing
called a VMS that will be attached to us, something similar to
a leg band that prisoner wears, that will pinpoint where we are
at all the time. So I am not sure where this is going to end.
And if you two Senators could please address these little
concerns that I have, I would be most appreciative. Thank you
very much.
Senator Snowe. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF STEVE LOUP, RECREATIONAL FISHERMAN, GLENN,
LOUISIANA
Mr. Loup. Thank you, Senator Snowe and Senator Breaux, for
allowing me to talk.
My name is Steve Loup, and I am a recreational fisherman. I
am here representing several dozen fishermen who do not have a
voice and cannot come here. What I wanted to bring up was the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, which is what you all are talking about.
I would like to see National Standard 4 enforced. And by that,
I would like to explain what I am talking about.
The council had asked for a March 1st opening of the red
snapper season, and they were turned down by NMFS. And in the
Federal Register of September 1, it says: NMFS has disapproved
this measure based upon finding it inconsistent with National
Standard 4 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which requires an
allocation of fishing privileges be fair and equitable.
That is the reason they turned down the first season. Now
the council asked for the season to be opened April 21st
instead of March 1st. And now it looks like they are going to
approve it. They are just disregarding Standard 4 of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act.
And the reason that I cannot fish in the summer and a lot
of us cannot is because the red snapper comes from offshore, 40
or 50 miles in, to within 15 or 20 miles of the shore. And the
people with the 18- to 24-foot boats cannot go out 40 miles to
fish. We have to fish in close. Not only that, it costs so much
money to go fishing this red snapper, just for four fish.
So the only time we can fish is when the fish come in close
to shore. Which is when? November, December, January, February,
and March. Those five months are being closed. We are being
totally discriminated against. And I really consider myself to
be a poor minority winter recreational red snapper fisherman.
That is what I am. Seriously. And there are hundreds of us here
in Louisiana who only fish in the winter. And the reason is
because of the fish coming in. We cannot afford to go out in
the summertime, 40 miles out, like these charter people do,
with 60-foot boats.
For 30 years I have been doing this. I am going to lose my
fishing 100 percent. I am totally discriminated against. They
are not following the law. And I think something ought to be
done about it.
And I have got a second point. I have sent several letters
to the council. And they wrote back and told me that they could
not consider my suggestions because the reason why we could not
consider such changes as you recommended earlier is that the
council is not allowed to submit more than one set of
regulatory changes for the same management measure per year.
Well, them asking for another season on April 22nd is a second
change in one year. I do not see how that is legal. This is
according to the Magnuson-Stevens Act. I would like to have an
answer to that if somebody can answer me.
Senator Snowe. I see the point. Can you respond to that?
Mr. Cox. It is not a regulatory amendment?
Senator Snowe. Can anybody respond to that?
Senator Breaux. I think since he has made the request
public and has also written me, rather than trying to do it all
in this meeting, I think the question is very, very clear. And
we would like to ask the National Marine Fisheries Service to
get with him, get the exact question that he is talking about.
And it is basically a question of discriminating between
commercial and recreational fishing and the ability to catch
the fish closer in shore when they get there in their boats
instead of having to go further offshore. I think he feels that
Standard 4 says you cannot discriminate against recreational or
commercial fishermen, and he feels that currently there is
discrimination. And so I think you all need to get together and
talk about that.
Mr. Cox. Well that is the reason they said in the Federal
Register that they canceled the season the first time, at the
request by the council. Now they are acting like it does not
count anymore.
Senator Breaux. That is a good point and it deserves an
answer.
Senator Snowe. Yes, exactly.
Senator Breaux. We'll get you an answer.
Senator Snowe. Thank you very much.
Who is next?
STATEMENT OF CHRIS DORSETT, GULF RESTORATION NETWORK, NEW
ORLEANS, LOUISIANA
Mr. Dorsett. Senator Snowe, Senator Breaux, my name is
Chris Dorsett, with the Gulf Restoration Network, here in New
Orleans, Louisiana. We are a network of 43 groups, dedicated to
protecting and preserving the environment in the Gulf of Mexico
and its natural resources.
I have a written statement that I will hand to the
Senators. And in the interest of time, I would like to discuss
primarily essential fish habitat and its role in the Gulf of
Mexico. Our network feels that this issue is a priority concern
if we are to have productive fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico.
You heard some facts and figures already about the region's
productivity. I share those statistics. I have some more in my
testimony.
Essential fish habitat, in our opinion, it is really
simple, if we truly want productive fisheries in this region,
we must protect essential fish habitat. While the Act defines
essential fish habitat, it is very important--if we are to go
back and start dividing what is essential and what is not
essential based on the scientific information we have right
now--what level of productivity do we want from our fisheries?
Are we going to draw a line and say, OK, this is a level of
productivity that we want, here are the habitats we need to
support it, the rest is fair game? That is a question that has
to be answered before we go back and start drawing the line and
saying what is essential and what is not essential.
I urge everyone involved to review the council's amendments
to its fishery management plan addressing essential fish
habitat. For example, I have maps from the document of the
three commercially important species in the Gulf of Mexico. The
habitats utilized by these species are noted in this document.
And I will submit this for the record. And a review of this
will show the bays and estuaries and offshore habitats of the
Gulf of Mexico are extremely important to our fisheries.
This region is unique in that 95 percent of the commercial
and recreationally important species utilize the bays and
estuaries of the Gulf of Mexico, primarily as nursery grounds.
And the larvae move from offshore areas into the bays and
estuaries. It provides them shelter and food. When they grow to
a size needed, they then migrate back offshore, and the process
starts all over again, depending on the species.
I would like to address a little bit the requirements,
consultation requirements, in addressing non-fishing impacts in
the Gulf of Mexico. The way I understand this Act and the
interim final rule that implements the Act, the National Marine
Fisheries Service produces these rules. The Federal agencies
whose actions affect essential fish habitat must assess their
impacts. That is what it requires them to do.
The National Marine Fisheries Service does not have the
authority to say, no, you will not complete this project
because of its unacceptable adverse impacts on essential fish
habitat. The most they can do is call for a meeting between the
Secretary of Commerce, and let us use, for example, the Corps
of Engineers so, Secretary of the Army.
And let me start with this. We are very pleased that
Congress recognized formally the importance of habitat in
fishery management. If in fact the current processes, which I
think the National Marine Fisheries Service has used very
effectively to address essential fish habitat assessments, if
they truly are duplicative, all you would need to do is write a
statement: Here is our assessment of what this does to
essential fish habitat. And then you would have no extra work
at all.
Again, I feel it is very important that the impacts be
assessed. We have a choice here. And it is how much effort or
how much inconvenience to maybe some other industries do we
want to subject them to so that another industry can have
benefits, the fishing industry of the Gulf of Mexico.
I will end with those comments on essential fish habitat. I
also address some other topics. And I have a copy of a report
from Greenpeace that they sent me today. I have not read this
yet, so I do not endorse it. But I just wanted to submit it for
the record on their behalf.
Senator Snowe. Thank you very much.
Next.
STATEMENT OF DONALD WATERS, PENSACOLA, FLORIDA
Mr. Waters. Good afternoon. I appreciate the opportunity to
speak here in front of this Senate subcommittee panel. Thank
you, Mr. Breaux and Ms. Snowe.
I come here today to ask you to lift the moratorium on ITQs
so that the red snapper fishery can frame a limited entry ITQ
system for the red snapper fishery in the Gulf of Mexico. The
derby-type system we are currently participating in is not
working for the historical dependents of this fishery.
One of the reasons is the original qualifier was set too
low, which allowed fishermen who landed red snapper only as a
bycatch to participate in a directed fishery, which they had
never participated in before. In other words, the creation of
the current limited entry system in the directed red snapper
fleet was more than doubled. Some vessels that could qualify
only by catching 5,000 pounds a year are now producing over
60,000 pounds, while the original highliners struggle to
maintain their historical landings even though the quota has
more than doubled. This is due to short seasons.
The added number of vessels in the rapidly rebounding red
snapper stock created large market gluts, thus creating an
average drop in prices of 30 percent, coupled with a 2,000
pound trip limit that increased our expenses by approximately
30 percent. The only fair and equitable way to build a stock is
an ITQ system based on fishermen's historical landings. It is
not fair to reward some who take away from the historical
dependents of this fishery, the ones who have suffered the most
during long closed seasons.
An ITQ system should be put in place to maximize the
economic net benefits, increase the stability of the red
snapper fishery in terms of fishing patterns and markets, to
promote flexibility for the fishermen and their fishing
operations, and minimize the release mortality associated with
incidental bycatch after the commercial season has closed.
Last, but most important, safety at sea. And this should
not be a reallocation tool. As a historical participant in the
council process, attending at least 50 percent of all council
meetings in the last 10 years, I can honestly say it does not
work. The recreational interests, which has a controlling vote,
has gone as far as arrogantly voting to reallocate quota split,
to increase TAC only when needed by the recreational fishery,
to continuously ignore massive overruns in the recreational
fishery, and totally avoid any kind of logbook reporting system
for the charter boat/head boat industry. They do not want to
know how many snapper they are landing, and they do not want
you to know either.
With the special interests involved, it would be hard to
get a fair shake from the Gulf of Mexico Management Council.
That is why it is so important to have as many fishermen as
possible involved in developing a limited entry ITQ system, to
protect themselves as well as the American consumer.
Thank you.
Senator Snowe. Thank you very much.
Next.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES ROBIN, III, COMMERCIAL FISHERMAN, ST.
BERNARD, LOUISIANA
Mr. Robin. Good morning, Senator Breaux and Senator Snowe.
My name is Charles Robin, III. I am a fifth generation
commercial fisherman. I have been doing it all my life.
I come here today to talk about fishing and about turtles
and things. Back in 1987, I did a study with LSU. A guy came on
my shrimp boat. We did a study on turtles, to see if these
devices were going to work in our areas.
Well, I have a double-rig. I have two trawls. I put a TED
on one side and one without. We went through the marshlands,
because I fish inland waters, I do not fish offshore. We did
the survey for five days. We compared the trawls, what I lost
and how many turtles I caught. My survey came out that I lost
30 percent of my profit out that one hole. So, through the
whole trip, I never caught one turtle.
Now, for five generations I have been fishing as a
shrimper, from my grandfather, from my day. We never knew what
a Kemp Ridley was because we never seen any in our area.
I want to ask the National Marine Fisheries Service, what
kind of scientific data do you all have that you all forced us
to put these turtle devices to save this turtle? What
scientific data do we have to go by? Here, you have got to do
it. You have got to put this thing in your trawl, a 32-inch
hole. And I am going to race and patch a one-half mesh, so I do
not lose one shrimp. And I have got to rip this hole in my
trawl.
It is different if they would have the species in our area.
Yes, I agree, I am one of the biggest conservationists they
got. I have got to think about tomorrow. I have got to save my
young fish to grow, so tomorrow I can feed my family. That is
the way we are. That is the way I was brought up.
But I want to know why they force us to do these things. We
are talking about turtles and saving turtles. Yes, I agree. I
agree with saving turtles. But why force it on us when these
turtles do not even migrate in our area?
I had to take my kids to the aquarium to show them what a
Kemp Ridley was. I did not know what a Kemp Ridley was. That is
how naive I was. Because it was not in my area. It might be
some place else. But why shove it down our throats?
Then they come around and talk about bycatch. The bycatch
has been around here for hundreds of years. My people came from
the Canary Islands back in the 1780's, and made a life for
themselves down here. You have got to put a BRD in your trawl.
What the hell is a BRD?
But I have a device on my boat. It is called a test trawl,
16-foot. I am a shrimper. I do not catch fish. I do not want
fish. I want shrimp.
I will get into an area, and some places have got fish
here, shrimp here. I get into an area that has fish, and my
little test trawl, I pick it up every 10 minutes to see what I
am dragging on. If I get fish, I turn around, I go back where I
caught shrimp. I do not want that.
But I am going to tell you something. The fish, the bycatch
that I catch in my trawl, 100 percent of it is gone. Everybody
look at the movie, the Lion King, the cycle of life. Every year
I go back shrimping, I catch the same thing every year.
Back when I got my vessel in the 1980's, we had a shortage
of pelicans. Well, now we have got so many pelicans, they
follow us around. We depend on the pelicans to find fish to set
on, to catch.
But we have got to save all this. They did not realize that
we feed the pelicans, the porpoises, crabs; 99 percent of the
stuff that hit the bottom is gone. We only take what we need.
Now, red fish and trout, we cannot even do this any more. A
lot of people are tired of hearing this. This is something that
my grandfather and my great grandfather did. We look at them
pass and we cannot even catch them.
But I have got my kids going for an education, to take one
of these guys' jobs.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Robin. I guarantee you that. I am trying to preach to
them. They are bred into this business. I am bred into it. You
have got this, you have got shrimp and fish. The wife says, you
ought to get a blood transfusion. I said, why? I might wind up
with something that you might not like. But it is the truth. I
mean our livings are swept out from under our feet, from
generations, from generations, from generations. That is what
we do.
The bottoms over here where we fish with our trawls, the
bottoms, they are not fit for these TEDs. A couple of these
guys could tell you. We have got pictures. On normal
conditions, I lose 15 percent out of each trawl. Normal. There
is no normal conditions where we fish. None.
The marshland is not a hard sand bottom. It is mush,
oysters and shells. But we put up with this. My dad is 63 years
old, healthy as a horse. You probably might know my dad. There
is a tape made. Maybe somebody might have seen it. Have you
seen it, Mr. Breaux?
Some people think that was an act. It is not. You all ought
to see that. You ought to come jump in my shrimp boots, walk in
my shoes, to find out the way my life is. It is a hard life. I
love it, though. If some people try to take it away from me, I
get mad.
This man here, he said you have got to put it in. All of
his profits are going out the front end of his hole. When he
lifts up his trawl, his tail, there is a couple hundred pounds
of shrimp going out the front. It is supposed to go in the
back. Everything usually goes to the tail. We sort our things
out.
But when your profit goes out the front or the tail, well,
that is very stressful for you. That is like if you get your
little paycheck, it kind of hurts at the end of the week. I
think so.
But this man, healthy as a horse, 6 months later has a
heart attack. I wonder how in the heck my dad has a heart
attack. This man is as healthy as can be. He is healthy as a
horse. Stress. Head stress. My dad is almost 69 years old
today. He is home. He does not want anything to do with it no
more. The stress is too much on him now. Having his profits go
out the hole. It is just tremendously bad. It is bad.
So, just think about it. The people of the younger
generation coming up. Once this generation is gone, I have got
three sons coming up. They have been on a boat just like I was,
since they were in diapers, bring them up and watching our
industry. Our industry was a beautiful living at one time, a
beautiful living. Some of these actors get into our business.
To me personally, I do not care what they think. That is
the way we was brought up. We think about tomorrow. But they
try to stop us. They have so much fish out there right now,
Senator Breaux, you would not believe it. We are out there all
the time. We know what is going on. We are not here pushing a
pencil. We are not here on paper. That is not my cup of tea.
But I am out there. I see what is going on.
There is so much fish, there is going to come a time that
they are going to have one species of fish because every other
one is going to eat out each other. They do not know that you
have got to go and take. You have got to take from the land. If
not, it is going to eat it out. You have got to take from it.
I am 39 years old. I am hoping to do this the rest of my
life. So try to be easy on us with these regulations, and think
about the younger generation coming up. Because if we do not
have our young kids, who is going to feed the country? We are
going to have to depend on foreigners, the foreign lands, to
get our seafood. And it is not going to be fresh.
Thank you very much.
Senator Snowe. Thank you. We hope we can do everything we
can so that you can fish for the rest of your life.
Next.
STATEMENT OF GEORGE VARISICH, PRESIDENT, UNITED COMMERCIAL
FISHERMEN'S ASSOCIATION, CHALMETTE, LOUISIANA
Mr. Varisich. I am George Varisich, the President of United
Commercial Fishermen's Association. I am a third-generation
commercial fisherman, and probably I will be the last in my
family.
On behalf of what is left of Louisiana's commercial shrimp
industry, I want to thank you for, once again, affording me an
opportunity to go on the record to attempt to invoke some
reality to what has become the worst injustice that ever hit
one of South Louisiana's oldest industries. And I am going to
be talking about reality, so I want to pass you this for you to
look at. This is reality. And you can pass it through the crowd
after.
This hearing makes over 50 meetings I have attended,
fighting to educate the government on what really happens out
there in the real fishing world. The problem is, up to now,
hopefully, I have testified, been questioned and interrogated,
and showed the government agencies how devastating the TED
regulations have been to Louisiana's shrimp industry.
Unfortunately for us, the government did not feel any of
our information should be given any consideration. My only hope
is that today will be different. It will not be just another
exercise in futility.
Even my mom, who is my strongest supporter, questioned me:
Why was I going to lose another day's work to talk to people
who seemed to be indifferent about our plight?
My answer was: Remember, mom, about six years ago, when dad
died? I promised him I would fight to preserve Louisiana's
fishing heritage as long as there was air in my lungs. And I am
still healthy.
It has been 12 years since the devil first poked a hole in
my net and in my ability to make a profitable living.
Consequently, it seems fitting for us to look back and lay out
some of the facts for this hearing.
Fact Number 1: inshore Louisiana waters and considerable
Louisiana offshore territorial waters were never established to
be a critical nursery habitat for Kemp Ridley turtles. This is
very important. It never was established, but we have got to
pull these things.
Fact Number 2: turtle populations have rebounded faster
than predicted. They are up twice as fast as they thought they
would be.
Fact Number 3: although TED, if used successfully, allow
turtles to escape if encountered, no data has been established
linking turtle activity and recovery in Louisiana waters.
Everyone close to the subject knows the efforts made in Mexico,
the head start program and everything we have done on the beach
over there, is what enhanced the turtle recovery--not
necessarily TEDs.
Several years ago, we had one reasonable researcher come up
to one meeting, and we asked him about that. And he made a
statement. He said it would take seven years of trawling
offshore Louisiana just to see if we had had an impact. And
that is enough right there to let you know we should not have
to pull that stuff.
Fact Number 4: and this is the big one, the 5 percent
shrimp loss that NMFS adheres to is grossly inaccurate. The
most reliable information we have from our research, from
observers on boats like Charles', on real shrimping vessels in
real shrimping areas is a range from 12 to 22 percent shrimp
loss. At this real percentage, Louisiana's shrimpers are losing
approximately 15 million pounds of shrimp a year, with a vast
negative economic impact being felt in coastal communities.
I wish you had time to come down and see our area and see
how many boats are for sale, see how many boats are tied up,
just laying there, see how many boats are sunk on the side of
the bayou. It is pathetic.
Fact Number 5: prior to TED regulations, the Louisiana
shrimp industry supported 32,000 commercial trawlers. Now,
after 10 years, we have plummeted to just around 15,000. Ladies
and gentlemen, that is almost 60 percent in just 10 years that
have fell out of the industry.
The question is: How many of us have to fall before we
qualify for protection under the Endangered Species Act?
Seeing what NMFS has done to protect turtles that are not
there, I sure would like to have them protect me.
Fact Number 6: although the economic and socioeconomic
impact study was done, as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act,
which did in fact predict how devastating the TED regulations
would be, it never was acted upon. It just blew by. It is this
thick. It is 452 pages, laying out how many problems we were
going to have.
OK, we have done it. So what. You are going to go out of
business. Who cares?
Fact Number 7: since we got the temporary TED exemption
last year, after Hurricane Georges--thank you very much for
your assistance--we got to do a lot of our own testing, which a
lot of us took advantage to do: put one TED on one side and one
on the other. And we discovered, in the large white shrimp--we
thought for a while that Louisiana was not producing the 1015's
anymore--but the day, the very day after we got the exemption,
our white shrimp, large white shrimp, count went up 35 percent
on our catches.
And the second thing we also discovered was we have been
having a lot of damage from porpoises and sharks. It has been
increasing since the TED. So we did the same thing, put a TED
on one side and one not on the other. What is happening, the
sharks and the porpoises are just watching the fish come out
the TED. So you have got bycatch. It is being released. And it
is getting eaten.
And the problem is, when there is no fish coming out of the
TED, they go to hit the tail. They get hungry, they want lunch.
So you have got another problem because of the TEDs.
Fact Number 8: Louisiana shrimpers used to be one of the
happiest and easy-going people on the water. But now, having to
live with the fact that every day you are going to go out
there, go to work and lose money has made most of us miserable
and bitter, with no faith in your government to do anything to
help us out.
Fact Number 9: the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and
Fisheries has been conducting testing since 1966, has looked
over 48,000 samples, and has yet to catch a Kemp Ridley turtle.
That is not my data. That is data for data purposes only. That
should not be ignored anymore.
I could go on, but I feel I will get too frustrated to
remain objective. These are factors driving the past. My
concern now is the future.
Are you going to reauthorize this Act with survival of the
commercial fishermen in mind? I sure hope so. If so, I have a
simple solution: Let me, or us, the shrimp industry, fund a
recovery program for the turtles. When I go back to work
without this ball and chain I have been dragging around for 10
years, the economy wins, the turtles come out on top, and
everybody wins. It is a good solution, the same one I proposed
to you 5 years ago.
Last, I want to address Ms. Dalton on some statements she
made. Mainly the fact that you and NMFS want to work with the
fishermen to achieve some of these goals. Ms. Dalton, you
inherited a host of problems. The main one is credibility. The
people before you did a lot of bad stuff to commercial
fishermen.
They come on my boat, they took data, and the data showed
what I proved and never made it. So there have been lies, years
and years of lies. And every time they lie, they lie to cover
up the other lies. So there is no credibility at all. So now
you have inherited that problem. And I do not know how we are
going to get past it.
For example, how we are going to get past it, there is
going to be a question right now. We are here today testifying
and trying to educate you, to tell you that I am going out of
business left and right. I am one of the best there is in my
size class and I am barely making it. If it would not be for
oysters in the wintertime, I would be out of business.
So here I am educating you all. And tomorrow there is a
meeting in Pascagoula to examine the possibility of making
these damn holes bigger. So this is absurd. This is absurd. If
you cannot see what is going on, unless that is your goal, your
goal to kill us. I was told that by Dr. Andy Kimmer, who said,
we want to get the fishermen out of the Gulf. Off the record.
You cannot say that on the record.
And I told him, I said, Andy, you close the Gulf; I want
you to close it. And every shrimp dealer and processor,
everybody will be on this man's case so bad, I guarantee you.
He would not do it. I dared him to do it. But that was 2 years
ago. So now he is no longer there. And I have got to educate
another one of you all.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Varisich. Ms. Dalton, if you had to run NMFS like I
have to run my boat right now, I believe the regulations would
be a hell of a lot more reasonable. Once again, I am offering
my experience and my knowledge for you to draw on. I sent you
my card already and we have talked on the phone already.
Senators, this is for you all: If NMFS does not get its act
together and come to the real world, we will be asking you to
sponsor legislation similar to what we passed in Louisiana last
year, basically asking for area exemptions for TED use; that
is, areas that have no history of critical turtle habitat or
turtle existence.
Number 2, seasonal exemptions; that is, cold-water months,
like right now. In the boats fishing offshore, that water is so
damn cold, there is not a turtle within 150 miles from here.
Why do I have to pull this nonsense?
Third, an industry funded recovery program for the Kemp
Ridley turtle, provided that the turtles that we bring, you
release them off of Mexico. Do not release them off of
Louisiana, because you are putting them right in my trawls and
making me look bad again.
And if we do not get this done, I would like to see you all
put some legislation in to where you pay me, NMFS or anybody,
because they go through a hell of a lot of money, and I know
they are getting their State funds and stuff like that, pay me
for what I lose. I am taking a beating for this turtle
recovery. Nobody else. The shrimp industry is. So you pay me
for my 10 percent shrimp loss, and then I can survive.
Senator Breaux and Senator Snowe, I extend to you an
invitation next spring to come out on my boat, like we tried to
do one time before, Senator, and you can come see for yourself
what we have got to put up with.
Thank you all very much.
Senator Snowe. Thank you very much. We appreciate it.
And we have one more witness. If anybody wants to provide
additional testimony, statements, or questions, the legislative
record will remain open for 10 legislative days.
[Additional documents submitted for the record at the
hearing are available upon request from the office of Public
Information at the Senate Commerce Committee.]
STATEMENT OF TIM TORRANCE, COMMERCIAL FISHERMAN, LAROSE,
LOUISIANA
Mr. Torrance. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Senator Breaux. I
appreciate you all coming to this part of the world and giving
us a chance to express our grievances and concerns.
My name is Tim Torrance. I am from Larose, Louisiana. I am
the owner-operator of the 39-foot commercial fishing vessel Sea
Quest. I have served two terms on the Gulf Advisory Panel for
Reef Fish. I am currently on my third term on the Advisory
Panel for Coastal Pelagics.
I retired from the United States Coast Guard in October
1978, as a master chief bosun mate, after 20 years of active
duty, 16 of which I served as officer in charge of search and
rescue vessels. Besides being a commercial fisherman, I also
have served as a vessel operations consultant to 26 law firms
in Louisiana and Texas. I am accepted as an expert witness in
this field in the United States Districts Courts of the Eastern
and Western Districts Louisiana, and I am also qualified in
this field in numerous Louisiana State courts. I hold a 500-ton
master's license, an able-bodied seaman, any waters unlimited.
I would like to address the desperate need for the end to
derby fishing in the Gulf of Mexico. With the creation of derby
fishing, we have established what is probably, in my
professional opinion, one of the most hazardous and unsafe work
environments that exists at sea in modern times. With vessels
pitted against one another, fishing for their share of the
quota, we have a situation where vessel operators are forced to
work on a 24-hour-a-day basis, during any weather conditions
that prevail while the season is open.
The Coast Guard requires that licensed operators only
operate 12 hours a day. There are very few fishing vessels with
licensed personnel. Yet these vessels are operated on a 24-
hour-a-day basis, with unskilled, untrained personnel standing
wheel watches after having worked long hours fishing.
This leads to extreme fatigue and exhaustion, with a loss
of mental alertness. It places the vessels and personnel in
danger from adverse weather conditions, and often results in
vessels proceeding to sea that are not seaworthy. Virtually
every fishing season, vessels are involved with collisions with
oil structures, groundings and men lost overboard.
The operators are forced to sail into adverse weather
conditions in an attempt to make a living, knowing that they
could be found guilty of reckless and negligent operation
should a mishap befall them. It is only a matter of time, if
derby fishing continues, before the snapper fleet will be
caught in an unprecedented storm or a fast developing low
pressure system, with the loss of vessels and life.
When the Act was last reauthorized, National Standard 10
was included. This Standard promotes safety at sea. Derby
fishing violates this Standard. We in the industry must have an
individual transferable quotas system in order to survive. With
derby fishing, we flood the market with one species of fish at
a time. This results in depressed vessel prices and forces us
to sell our fish for any price offered by the dealers.
I would like to commend Ms. Dalton and Dr. Hogarth for
their efforts with the snappers stakeholders meetings this year
in an attempt to find a solution to the derby fishing problem.
I attended the meeting held in New Orleans and the executive
summary meeting in Biloxi, where the industry addressed these
problems and made recommendations to the Gulf Council on what
action could be taken to rectify the problems until an ITQ
system could be put in place.
At the November meeting of the council in Orlando, Florida,
the results of the stakeholders meeting was addressed. The
council recommended virtually every change the recreational/
for-hire sector wanted and none of the commercial industry's
suggestions. All the commercial sector got was five days of our
opening taken away from us, thus putting more pressure on us to
fish in any and all weather conditions when the season opens in
the dead of winter.
The only rationale I can see for this action was the fact
that the commercial sector has never, in my memory, had a
commercial fin fisherman represent us on the council. The
majority of the commercial allotted seats on the council are
held by fish dealers, whose best interests are not necessarily
the same as the fishermen.
Thank you very much for your time and attention.
Senator Snowe. Thank you. I want to thank all of you for
your very helpful comments and constructive suggestions. This
is not the end of the process, it is the beginning. So please
feel free to submit any additional information that you think
will be helpful as we proceed with the reauthorization of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Senator Breaux. I would just echo Senator Snowe's comments.
We have had some good comments today. We have had some very
serious problems brought to our attention. Certainly Senator
Snowe has a very sympathetic ear to some of the things that we
have heard today. I am delighted that she has been able to come
down here to this part of the country and listen to the
problems of our fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico.
We are committed to going back to Washington as we
reauthorize this legislation, to try and address legislatively
some of these problems that are not, I think, the intent of the
Congress. I think some things get lost in the shuffle, and we
intend to do everything we can to make this program work better
for everybody that it was intended to work for. Thank you.
Senator Snowe. Thank you. And I want to thank you for
inviting me to be here today with all of you. I can say without
any doubt that there is no finer person to represent you and
there is no one more knowledgeable on these issues than Senator
Breaux. We will do everything we can to reconcile some of the
problems that have been raised today. And please do submit
additional information that you think will be helpful to this
process.
With that, the hearing is adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 1:48 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Olympia J. Snowe to
Penelope Dalton
Question 1. Recently, an industry group sponsored an independent
stock assessment of red grouper in the Gulf of Mexico. This stock
assessment conflicted with the NMFS assessment in several areas. As a
result of this conflict and other problems with the NMFS assessment,
the Scientific Committee of the Gulf Council rejected the stock
assessment.
How can you improve the Council stock assessment process so that
stakeholders have more confidence in the outcome?
THE WITNESS DID NOT PROVIDE A RESPONSE.
Question 2. At previous hearings, some witnesses have questioned
whether it is appropriate to continue to use Maximum Sustainable Yield
(MSY) as the target for fisheries management.
a. Is MSY a reasonable goal and do you recommend any
modifications to the management process which would make
achieving such a goal more feasible?
THE WITNESS DID NOT PROVIDE A RESPONSE.
b. How do you view ecosystem management as it relates to the
management of species at MSY?
THE WITNESS DID NOT PROVIDE A RESPONSE.
Question 3. The agency has entered into a November 22, 1999 consent
order with the plaintiffs in National Coalition for Marine Conservation
v. Daley, requiring it to publish proposed regulations by December 15,
1999, and final regulations by May 1, 2000, to address ``additional
measures to reduce billfish and juvenile swordfish bycatch in the
pelagic longline highly migratory species fishery, including
considering whether certain areas in the United States' exclusive
economic zone should be closed to pelagic longline fishing.''
a. Is the December 15, 1999 proposed rule, which would close
areas in the south Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, the only
proposal in response to the consent order?
THE WITNESS DID NOT PROVIDE A RESPONSE.
b. If so, what other measures did you consider in addition to
those contained in the proposed rule?
THE WITNESS DID NOT PROVIDE A RESPONSE.
c. The consent order requires a final rule to be published by
May 1, 2000. Does the consent order require an effective date
for the final rule? If so, what is it?
THE WITNESS DID NOT PROVIDE A RESPONSE.
d. If the agency were to determine that it did not have
adequate information to publish a final rule, what, if
anything, does the consent order require the agency to do?
THE WITNESS DID NOT PROVIDE A RESPONSE.
e. If the order requires the agency to publish final
regulations but the agency has the authority to delay the
effective date, what kind of information must be in the
administrative record to delay the effective date? Please
explain in detail.
THE WITNESS DID NOT PROVIDE A RESPONSE.
Question 4. The agency is now collecting information through public
hearings on its administrative proposal. To what extent does the agency
propose to collect economic information, which would allow it to
mitigate the displacement of the longline fleet as a result of the
proposed closed areas? Please explain in detail.
THE WITNESS DID NOT PROVIDE A RESPONSE.
Question 5. Will the information allow the agency to take into
account the impact on shoreside processing, marine terminals and local
communities? Please explain in detail.
THE WITNESS DID NOT PROVIDE A RESPONSE.
Qustion 6. Will the agency also collect sufficient information to
determine the social impact on families which might be dislocated?
Please explain in detail.
THE WITNESS DID NOT PROVIDE A RESPONSE.
Question 7. How does the agency intend to address the dislocation
of vessels to the mid-Atlantic? Please explain in detail.
THE WITNESS DID NOT PROVIDE A RESPONSE.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Olympia J. Snowe to
John Roussel
Question 1. In 1995, the Council proposed the establishment of a
red snapper Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ) system. The system was
never implemented, however, due to the ITQ moratorium set by Congress
in 1996. Those opposed to ITQs have argued that they would result in a
consolidation of the fishery among a few big businesses, thereby
forcing the traditional and smaller fishing operations out of the
industry. Some proponents argue that ITQs can provide for improved
management, increased safety, and better quality seafood over longer
seasons.
In your testimony, you supported lifting the moratorium on ITQs.
How would the use of ITQs for red snapper stabilize the fishery?
Answer. My support for lifting the moratorium on ITQs is based on
my observation that with the moratorium in place, full study and debate
of the appropriateness of ITQs is stifled. ITQs can produce some
undesirable outcomes and I certainly share some of the concerns that
initially led to Congress establishing a moratorium. However, I feel
that fishery managers and the fishery participants should be afforded
the opportunity to consider the entire suite of management tools when
regulating fisheries.
At this point I am not prepared to say that the ITQ program
developed by the Council in 1995 is appropriate for the Gulf Red
Snapper Fishery, nor am I prepared to propose an alternative ITQ
program for the Gulf Red Snapper Fishery. However, if properly
structured, ITQs may provide an opportunity to eliminate the race for
fish, address overcapitalization, and create a safer fishery with a
higher quality product. Each of these conditions exists to some extent
in the Gulf Red Snapper Fishery.
If the moratorium were to be lifted, it is my opinion that there
should be substantial support from the fishery participants before
implementing an ITQ program for a particular fishery. Additionally, the
development of the specifics of the program should be careful and
deliberate so as to minimize undesirable outcomes and if possible any
ITQ program should be structured so as to not preclude the use of a
non-ITQ approach in the future should conditions in the fishery change.
Question 2. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the
Councils have begun to identify a subset of essential fish habitat
(EFH) called ``habitat areas of particular concern.'' This subset
targets critical areas such as places of spawning aggregations. Should
these ``habitat areas of particular concern'' be the true focus of
NMFS' work on EFH or has NMFS implemented the EFH provisions
appropriately?
Answer. The recognition of the importance of habitat issues in the
Act was a significant positive step. Undoubtedly the size and vitality
of our estuarine and marine fish populations are dependent on the
quantity and quality of their habitat. However, we have only a limited
understanding of the ecological relationships that constitute this
dependence. This limited understanding makes it difficult to
effectively address habitat issues especially on a species by species
basis.
The ``essential fish habitat'' and ``habitat areas of particular
concern'' concepts in my mind are both species based approaches. Since
both rely heavily on a good understanding of the relationship between a
species and its environment, they both share the same inherent
weakness. What is most important is that the Act require that there be
a mechanism for addressing non-fishing threats to healthy estuarine and
marine ecosystems.
Question 3. Many of our witnesses mentioned the need for increased
participation of fishermen in the data collection process. Several also
mentioned that we need to make management decisions that reflect a
consensus within the region. Please explain how we can increase
participation of fishermen in research when there are such different
views on how to proceed?
Answer. The barrier to increased participation of fishermen in the
data collection process is the adversarial relationship that tends to
exist between the regulated (fishermen) and the regulator (managers).
History has shown that fishermen and managers can have a good and
mutually beneficial relationship as has generally been the case when
both groups have worked together to collect data in the development of
new fisheries. Under this scenario the fishermen clearly see the
benefits of working with the managers, however, in a highly regulated
fishery the benefits are not clear to the fishermen and in fact what
the fishermen often perceive is more data equals more regulations.
In order to engage fishermen in data collection efforts in a highly
regulated fishery some type of incentive will probably be necessary.
The type of data collection as well as the type of incentive that may
be effective would likely vary from fishery to fishery. Opportunities
to incorporate incentives into the regulations are one area that I
think should be further explored.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Olympia J. Snowe to
Dr. Robert Shipp
Question 1. NMFS has been criticized for its implementation of
National Standard 8 under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Do you believe that
NMFS has properly implemented National Standard 8 and would you suggest
any changes to the Act to better protect traditional fishing
communities?
Answer. The problem with this standard is that the definition of
``fishing communities'' is too vague. NMFS has tried to implement it,
but there are no clear limits as to what constitutes a fishing
community. Thus I don't think it can be properly implemented, and the
Act must clearly specify what is intended by a ``fishing community''
and Senate-House staff should consult with NMFS as to the problems
encountered when trying to interpret the congressional intent.
Question 2. In 1995, the Gulf Council proposed the establishment of
a red snapper Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ) system. The system
was never implemented, however, due to the ITQ moratorium set by
Congress in 1996. Would the use of ITQs for red snapper stabilize the
fishery? Please explain.
Answer. ITQs would absolutely stabilize the fishery. It would
provide all harvesters, initially commercial, and eventually charter/
recreationals, with a plan to regulate themselves based on economic
considerations of the present and future. It would eliminate the derby
fishery which challenges common sense regarding safety and long term
conservation. The problems of implementation have been exacerbated by
the long delay, but the long term advantages far outweigh those
problems.
Question 3. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the
Councils have begun to identify a subset of essential fish habitat
(EFH) called ``habitat areas of particular concern.'' This subset
targets critical areas such as places of spawning aggregations. Should
these ``habitat areas of particular concern'' be the true focus of
NMFS' work on EFH or has NMFS implemented the EFH provisions
appropriately?
Answer. The ``habitats of particular concern'' should certainly be
the focus of NMFS' work on EFH. As it now stands, EFH has been diluted
to a meaningless expanse, essentially including all waters of the EEZ
and even adjacent nearshore and inshore habitats.
Question 4. Many of our witnesses mentioned the need for increased
participation of fishermen in the data collection process. Several also
mentioned that we need to make management decisions that reflect a
consensus within the region. Please explain how we can increase
participation of fishermen in research when there are such different
views on how to proceed?
Answer. The only way participation by fishermen can be increased is
by standardization and quality control of data gathering. Without this,
their participation is anecdotal and generally useless; with it, their
participation becomes empirical data and very useful. To accomplish
this, specific protocols, including the use of observers when needed,
would have to be adopted. Consensus within the region should not be a
requirement for effective fisheries management.
Question 5. At previous hearings, some witnesses have questioned
whether it is appropriate to continue to use Maximum Sustainable Yield
(MSY) as the target for fisheries management.
a. Is MSY a reasonable goal and do you recommend any modifications
to the management process which would make achieving such a goal more
feasible?
b. How do you view ecosystem management as it relates to the
management of species at MSY?
Answer. There needs to be far more latitude in implementation of
MSY, especially as habitat dynamics change. For example, habitat
increases for red snapper during the last half century have resulted in
projections of MSY some ten times what has ever been harvested. To
require NMFS to work toward this theoretical harvest is ludicrous and
damaging to the credibility of NMFS and Magnuson. MSY definitely needs
to be considered within the context of ecosystem management where MSY
for all species is often an impossibility, and preferences and
allowances need to be made based on economic, social, and long term
ecological considerations.
Question 6. Some groups have criticized other Fishery Management
Councils for not using information and recommendations submitted by
advisory committees. How does the Gulf Council incorporate the
recommendations of its Scientific and other panels into the decision-
making process?
Answer. The Gulf Council has always carefully considered advice of
its panels, and in fact feels legally bound in most instances to the
advice of its scientific and statistical panels.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Olympia J. Snowe to
Myron Fischer
Question 1. Some recreational fishermen contend that the red
snapper quota is flawed because it does not properly balance the social
and economic values of the recreational and commercial fisheries. Do
you believe that the recreational fishery deserves more quota? If so,
please explain in detail how such an allocation would affect the supply
and prices on domestic red snapper.
Answer. The original quota was based on a 49 percent-51 percent
historical catch divided between the recreational and commercial user
groups respectively. Many caveats appear; one being that the MRFSS
data, especially in this time frame, was suspect to precise accuracy.
Secondly, much of the commercial red snapper catch was foreign
(Mexican) and recreational interest contends that an incorrect portion
was discarded, yielding a higher domestic commercial catch. Lastly, the
socio-economic figures did not come into play regarding the impact of
either category, commercial or recreational. Looking solely at the
participants in this fishery, one can easily determine the vast
quantity of recreational anglers engaged as opposed to the minimal
population of the commercial sector. This figure, when added to the
economic benefits of the recreational community, poses a realistic
question as to whether the 49/51 percent split is justified. Many
anglers sitting on the recreational side of this issue will contend, in
the light of the three caveats mentioned above, that the percentage
split should be addressed. My personal feelings on the issue are that
this management scheme has evolved through expeditious annual framework
changes to the point that both sectors are not sure of what are the
regulations. This twisted menagerie of amendments leads me to the
conclusion that the entire FMP concerning red snapper should be
discarded and the council begin a new plan originating with a new
``original'' stock assessment; an item whose validity has been debated
vigorously.
Addressing the percentage split between user groups should not have
much bearing on commercial prices. The market seems to move at its own
pace with imports and substitute species affecting prices in unknown
manners. The actual problem may not be the user group split, but rather
the science that dictates the TAC. A twenty percent increase in TAC
would give both sectors more fish than any re-allocation would give to
one group while taking away that portion from the other group. The
congressionally mandated peer review of the red snapper management may
have indicated that judgments were based on sound science, but most all
reviewers also stated that the quality of the data going into the model
was suspect. If the original stock size was mis-calculated, then all
subsequent calculations and management decisions based on these
calculations are in error. Possibly, if we are unable to count the
original population of red snapper in the Gulf, then we should not rely
on any management scheme that requires such a percise number to be
known.
Question 2. The National Marine Fisheries Service and Councils have
begun to identify a subset of essential fish habitat called ``habitat
areas of particular concern.'' This subset targets critical areas such
as places of spawning aggregations. Should these ``habitat areas of
particular concern'' be the true focus of NMFS' work on EFH or has NMFS
implemented the EFH provisions appropriately?
Answer. These habitat areas of particular concern are considered to
be either the most fragile, most important, most critical, or some
other adjective to indicate that they are to be considered at the top
of the list. Of course, these areas should be the main focus of NMFS
work on EFH, but let us make sure that they are actually ``areas of
particular concern.'' How do we actually define such a term? I feel a
commercial fisherman will differ from a recreational fisherman, who
will differ from a scientist, who will differ from an environmental
group in how the criteria are laid out for a habitat area of particular
concern. The problem will not lie in how NMFS implements provisions but
rather in what habitat areas are chosen and on what standards.
Question 3. Many of our witnesses mentioned the need for increased
participation in the data collection process. Several also mentioned
that we need to make management decisions that reflect a consensus
within the region. Please explain how we can increase participation of
fishermen in research when there are such different views on how to
proceed?
Answer. The problem does not extend only to data collection, but
rather to quality data collection. Mandatory programs are often not
accepted unless the recreational sector is initially educated on the
benefits of such a program. The fears of government intervention and
further restrictions will be in the minds of fishermen participating in
such programs. Education and earning trust through a partnership may
shed more light than dictating a system to these fishermen. Science has
to originate the scheme of what data are needed and on what basis. The
anglers have to be sold into the system that the research is for their
benefit. Many recreational anglers feel that fishing is their right,
not a privilege. With this mindset, recreational anglers may look at
big government as big bully pushing something else on them. Even
allowing representatives of the recreational community in on the ground
floor of data gathering decisions does not necessarily translate to the
masses of recreational fishermen that the system is sound and in their
best interest. The change needed will be based on education through a
period of time. Trust is the largest hurdle to overcome and may just be
the barrier that causes failure.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Olympia J. Snowe to
Peter Emerson
Question 1. NMFS has been criticized for its implementation of
National Standard 8 under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Do you believe that
NMFS has properly implemented National Standard 8? Please explain in
detail, including whether or not you believe that the socioeconomic
impacts of fisheries regulations should be adequately considered prior
to finalizing these rules?
Answer. It is essential that the long- and short-term socio-
economic impacts of fishery management options be better understood and
considered by the Regional Councils and NMFS in managing the nation's
fisheries. Fishery management decisions would benefit hugely from more
comprehensive socio-economic data and complete analyses of short-term
versus long-term effects of regulations early in the decision-making
process.
Question 2. Would you please provide examples of instances where an
increase in the use of precautionary approach would not have had
negative economic impacts on fishermen and fishing communities?
Answer. Two examples of the ``precautionary approach'' in Gulf
fisheries are: (1) using a ``constant fishing mortality rate'' instead
of ``constant catch'' management; and (2) setting TAC and bycatch
reductions goals that have a high (>50 percent) probability of
achieving rebuilding targets. In the 1995 red snapper stock assessment,
Goodyear projected--that given reductions in the TAC over five years--
the rebuilding goal would be reached by the target date and total
allowable catch levels were estimated to rise and exceed current levels
by nearly 50 percent in 2005. These precautionary options were not
adopted. As a consequence, the stock continues to struggle, rebuilding
targets have been pushed back, and fishermen are locked into a low TAC
with no potential for improvement in the foreseeable future.
Question 3. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the
Councils have begun to identify a subset of essential fish habitat
(EFH) called ``habitat areas of particular concern.'' This subset
targets critical areas such as places of spawning aggregations. Should
these ``habitat areas of particular concern'' be the true focus of
NMFS' work on EFH or has NMFS implemented the EFH provisions
appropriately?
Answer. The Gulf Council has used narrowly-defined ``habitat area
of particular concern'' (HAPC) designations since the early 1980's to
prevent harm to selected bottom habitats from fishing gear. While
additional HAPC designations need to be considered as fishing gear and
techniques change and we learn more about their negative impacts, NMFS
is taking the right approach in recognizing the need to address the
broad array of both fishing and non-fishing activities (for example,
pollution, oil and gas activities, dredging and filling of wetlands)
that harm fish habitat and stocks.
Question 4. Many of our witnesses mentioned the need for increased
participation of fishermen in the data collection process. Several also
mentioned that we need to make management decisions that reflect a
consensus within the region. Please explain how we can increase
participation of stakeholders in research when there are such different
views on how to proceed?
Answer. Existing logbook and observer programs should be expanded
and improved, and new ones implemented where none exist, to gather
crucial data and answer controversial questions.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Olympia J. Snowe to
R. Michael Lyons
Question 1. In his testimony, Dr. Wilson of Louisiana State
University mentioned that reasonable progress has been made toward
implementing essential fish habitat requirements. He also highlighted a
problem that many others across the country have brought to our
attention--the difference between essential and non-essential habitat.
I know you have expressed similar concerns.
a. Would you please comment on this issue and provide the
Subcommittee with examples of how your business has been adversely
impacted by the lack of distinction between essential and non-essential
habitat and the resulting threat of burdensome regulations? Please be
specific with your examples, if possible.
b. Have you had any routine permit requests or other projects that
have been delayed or otherwise adversely impacted by a threat of a
``headquarters-level'' review based on the EFH consultation
requirements? Again please be specific.
Answer. a. The problem we have with the broad characterization of
``essential fish habitat'' is that it subjects a significant percentage
of the development activity in the State of Louisiana and the Gulf of
Mexico to yet another scope of review. Virtually all of this activity
affecting the broad area designated is currently subject to review
under both the Corps of Engineer 404/Section 10 permit process and the
Louisiana Coastal Zone Management permit process. The effects of
habitat alteration are fully addressed under both these programs. The
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) currently participates in both
these programs. We feel ``essential fish habitat'' concerns are
adequately addressed by these existing habitat protection programs. If
there are areas of particular or unique concern, which are not
otherwise covered or which would benefit from some special review,
perhaps we could understand. Unfortunately, the same areas now subject
to habitat review and mitigation will be looked at again, by the same
agency, for essentially the same purpose.
b. I know of no permit actions delayed by threat of ``headquarters-
level'' review.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Olympia J. Snowe to
William S. ``Corky'' Perret
Question 1. At the hearing, there was some discussion of the
difference between essential and nonessential habitat. What statutory
changes, if any, do you recommend to provide NMFS with the ability to
identify and protect truly essential habitat?
Answer. I do not believe that a statutory change can be made that
would allow for better identification of EFH. Making a rule is not
going to allow scientists to define EFH better than it has already been
defined. As defined in the interim final rule (62 FR 66551),
``Essential fish habitat means those waters and substrate necessary to
fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. For the
purpose of interpreting the definition of essential fish habitat:
`Waters' include aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical,
and biological properties that are used by fish, and may include
aquatic areas historically used by fish where appropriate; `substrate'
includes sediment, hardbottom, structures underlying the waters, and
associated biological communities; `necessary' means the habitat
required to support a sustainable fishery and the managed species'
contribution to a healthy ecosystem; and `spawning, breeding, feeding,
or growth to maturity' covers a species' full life cycle.''
To identify and describe EFH following the above definition, NMFS
produced guidelines calling for analysis of existing information at
four levels of detail. At Level 1 the presence/absence of
distributional data are available for some or all portions of the
geographic range of the species; at Level 2 habitat-related densities
of the species are available; at Level 3 growth, reproduction, or
survival rates within habitats are available; and at Level 4 production
rates by habitat are available. The guidelines also call for applying
this information in a risk-averse fashion to ensure adequate areas are
protected as EFH of managed species.
In order to more accurately define EFH, better science is needed.
Level 3 and 4 information is not currently available. It will only
become available through further scientific research, not statutory
rulemaking. The Councils, however, are being forced to act on data that
do not exist and lacks the funds to obtain the needed scientific
information.
Concerning essential and non-essential habitat. Yes, the entire
E.E.Z. in the Gulf of Mexico has been defined as EFH. What you must
consider is that the Gulf of Mexico is home to hundreds of different
fish and shellfish species all utilizing different habitats. The Gulf
of Mexico Fishery Management Council is responsible for managing almost
60 fish and shellfish species and over three hundred coral species.
When defining EFH for eggs, larvae, juveniles, and adults, an extensive
area is defined for each species managed. The entire Gulf of Mexico is
not defined as EFH for one single species. The entire Gulf of Mexico is
defined as EFH only when all of the managed species' areas are
combined. Every part of the Gulf of Mexico is essential to one species
or another. You can label certain habitats as non-essential to some
species, but that does not change the fact that the habitat is still
essential to other species.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Olympia J. Snowe to
Larry B. Simpson
Question 1. NMFS has been criticized for its implementation of
National Standard 8 under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Do you believe that
NMFS has properly implemented National Standard 8 and would you suggest
any changes to the Act to better protect traditional fishing
communities?
Answer. The NMFS has done an extraordinary job of advancing
management measures which ensure the prevention of overfishing and
rebuilding of stocks; however, this standard is broader than just that.
National Standard 8 involves effects to fishing communities and
minimizing adverse economic impacts on those communities. In the latter
considerations, I think the NMFS has not adequately considered the
impacts to those heavily-dependent fishing communities. As with much of
management, the cumulative impacts are most heavily felt. It is not so
much the single management measure that is felt but the cumulative
effect of management as a whole. The problem is relatively easy to see;
the solutions are much more difficult. Leaving management measures in
place for longer periods of time (two to three years) will provide some
stability to fishermen in the long-term; however, this is not the cure.
It is accepted that when significant changes occur in management, all
users will be impacted, but the extent of ``the hit'' needs to be
weighed against the immediate benefits of the management measures
themselves.
Question 2. At previous hearings, some witnesses have questioned
whether it is appropriate to continue to use Maximum Sustainable Yield
(MSY) as the target for fisheries management.
a. Is MSY a reasonable goal and do you recommend any modifications
to the management process which would make achieving such a goal more
feasible?
b. How do you view ecosystem management as it relates to the
management of species at MSY?
Answer. I do not believe that MSY is nearly as useful as other
population measures such as spawning potential ratios (SPRs). When a
population reaches an overfished status, MSY is not really valid
anymore. Recovery requires sustainability, and yield falls from the
equation. In most cases the concept of MSY is still valid and useful,
but these other approaches like SPR may provide more insight into the
status of the population rather than the fishery. Those involved in
population dynamics live and die by finite numbers which, when
considered, often do not rise to a threshold of making a discernable
difference. Yet, we change or are pressured to make changes that we all
know intuitively cannot be measured properly under current data
programs. I feel that heightened attention to better quality and
quantity of fishery-dependent and independent data collection and
administration will help tremendously. The solutions I feel are
appropriate involve longer term goals and not so much single year
changes which our data and models are really inadequate to be sensitive
to.
In a broader scope, multi-species or ecosystem management
philosophies are useful given there is real effort to consider the
various effects on multi-species interactions in closely related
fisheries. While this approach is not new, it has not been widely
examined. The work being done by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission should be watched carefully by all managers as they evaluate
the feasibility of multi-species assessment techniques for future
fishery management plans.
Question 3. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the
Councils have begun to identify a subset of essential fish habitat
(EFH) called ``habitat areas of particular concern.'' This subset
targets critical areas such as places of spawning aggregations. Should
these ``habitat areas of particular concern'' be the true focus of
NMFS' work on EFH or has NMFS implemented the EFH provisions
appropriately?
Answer. Yes, the NMFS definition of EFH is on the right track in
the critical areas it is identifying (spawning habitat, nursery
habitat, etc). The Commission agrees with and endorses the EFH
provisions fully.
Question 4. Many of our witnesses mentioned the need for increased
participation of fishermen in the data collection process. Several also
mentioned that we need to make management decisions that reflect a
consensus within the region. Please explain how we can increase
participation of fishermen in research when there are such different
views on how to proceed?
Answer. The NMFS suffers from an intense public relations problem.
Most fishermen distrust the fisheries service and naively feel that if
they could just show the scientist their side, the scientist would
understand--and everything would be fine. Most of the fishermen do not
understand the importance of research rigor or the relative importance
in collecting and comparing both fishery-independent and fishery-
dependent data sets. Clearly, both the NMFS and the fishery user groups
need to communicate more often and freely to bring fishermen into the
process. Some, not all, of what a fisherman knows about their fishery
is useful; however, their perception is that the NMFS has very little
knowledge regarding the fishery. In fact, the NMFS already knows much
of what the fishermen have to offer. Unfortunately, many of the
management recommendations provided by fishermen, while logical, are
impractical or simply too costly to implement. Again, communication
between the NMFS and user groups would reduce the sense of being
ignored that many fishermen complain about. We in the Gulf of Mexico
have cooperative research projects which actively involve the
fishermen. For example, observers and charter boat research platforms
obtain data on that sector. Public perception and involvement is a
constant strain for the NMFS and an area in need of increased priority.
______
Written Questions of Hon. John B. Breaux to
Penelope Dalton
Best Available Science
Question 1. National Standard 2 states that management plans must
be based upon the best scientific information available. Yet NMFS
acknowledges that we don't have enough information to determine the
status of 64 percent of species we manage. Long-term, dependable
scientific information seems critical to making good management
decisions. What is the biggest hurdle you face in getting the data and
scientific analyses needed for important management decisions?
Question 2. Will better scientific information on Gulf fisheries
lead to better management decisions? Why or why not?
Question 3. How is NMFS helping the Councils appropriately
incorporate scientific advice into the decision making process under
the Magnuson-Stevens Act? Please address situations in which scientific
advice provided to the Council admits a high degree of uncertainty with
respect to stock status or other projections--how should a Council use
this information?
Question 4. Do we need to modify any provisions of Magnuson-Stevens
Act to ensure that Councils are relying upon the ``best available
scientific information''?
MSY-based Management
Question 5. I understand that NMFS regulations interpreting the SFA
require the Councils to determine whether a stock is overfished using
both fishing rate (F) and stock size (biomass) criteria. While
fisheries have traditionally been managed using fishing rate criteria,
Councils are now required to use stock size (biomass) as an overfishing
criterion. I understand that biomass estimates are calculated using a
concept called ``maximum sustainable yield'' (MSY), and that
calculating MSY is difficult in species for which we do not adequately
understand the relationship between the stock and its recruitment
potential.
Red snapper are one such stock for which the stock recruitment
relationship remains unclear. As the Council attempts to implement the
SFA, I'm wondering how they can manage based on MSY in a situation
where the available data make it difficult to use this to estimate
stock biomass reliably using MSY. They seem to think they have no
choice but to use MSY. Do your rules provide the Councils any way to
use other means of estimating stock biomass based on the biology and
information available for the stock being managed, or must all FMPs be
based on MSY?
Question 6. If there is flexibility, please explain how the
Councils can (or do) exercise it.
Question 7. If Councils are not taking advantage of this
flexibility, how is NMFS planning to communicate this information to
them?
Essential Fish Habitat
Question 8. We heard from a few witnesses of some examples of
essential fish habitat designations that were of questionable merit.
Please provide us the following information with respect to these
concerns. What were the facts behind the two permit notices mentioned
by Mr. Lyons and Mr. Perret? Were these NMFS EFH designations and
consultations?
Question 9. Of the total number of Federal permits processed in the
State of Louisiana to date, how many and what percentage have gone
through the NMFS EFH consultation process? Please provide these
statistics for other states, and the entire nation, if currently
available.
Question 10. Have these consultations resulted in any permitting
delays?
Question 11. I'd like to follow up on a statement made at the
hearing by Larry Simpson. He expressed some confusion concerning the
funding needs identified in the NMFS report to Congress, ``Proposed
Implementation of a Fishing Vessel Registration and Fisheries
Information System.'' My questions deal solely with the Fisheries
Information System (FIS) portion of the report. Of the funding
requirements identified to establish and operate the FIS, how much is
already being provided to NMFS? Please use as an example the FY1999 and
FY2000 funding levels and identify the activities and amounts provided
for such activities (include budget account for each activity). How
much more annual funding will be required, and for what activities, to
put the FIS into operation?
Question 12. Of the funding requirements identified for states or
regional marine fisheries commissions (such as the Gulf States
Fisheries Commission), how much is already being provided to them?
Again, please use as a point of reference the FY1999 and FY2000 funding
levels. What activities are they already performing? How much more will
these commissions annually need to perform the work identified in the
FIS?
The witness did not provide a response.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John B. Breaux to
Frederic L. Miller
Question 1. Mr. Miller, you mentioned that recreational fishermen
are not an easily regulated group, that recreational catches are very
difficult and expensive to count accurately, and that existing data on
recreational fisheries are poor. Do you think the data we have on
commercial fishing are more or less complete than the data we have on
recreational fishing?
Answer. Yes, Senator, I think the data on commercial fishing are
more complete than the data on recreational fishing. Additionally, I
think that data on commercial fishing in the Gulf of Mexico are going
to improve over the next year as each state in the Gulf gets its Trip
Ticket system up and running. Louisiana is fully operational, Florida
is almost there. Texas is in the process of converting its system.
Mississippi and Alabama are making progress and should be up and
running by year end.
The fundamental difference between the data gathered in the Gulf
for commercial and recreational fisheries is that the commercial data
have the design potential to be real time data. The recreational data,
relying on the NMFS MRFSS system, are flawed in both its design and
NMFS' attempted use of the data. There is no way MRFSS data can be
accurate, nor can it be utilized to make management decisions.
Question 2. Please describe the specific recreational fishery data
gaps that need to be filled. Please be sure to identify information you
think necessary to allow the existing recreational quota management
requirements to work.
Answer. The recreational data gaps that need to be filled are very
large. NMFS' focus is entirely upon commercial fisheries and its data
gathering is geared to obtaining commercial data. NMFS has attempted to
impose its management paradigm for commercial fisheries onto
recreational fisheries and it simply does not work. NMFS cannot manage
recreational fisheries utilizing its present data or the data it
gathers under the present system. The states in the Gulf are the best
source of recreational fishing data. They are closest to the
recreational fisheries and to the recreational fishermen who dock in
state waters.
I do not believe that adequate data can be realistically and
economically procured to support recreational quota management. Fishery
managers all over the Gulf tell me that quotas are not the proper way
to manage a recreational fishery. No state agency in the Gulf manages
any recreational fishery in its jurisdiction through a quota. There are
too many recreational fishermen on the water at any given time, who
launch from their homes/camps or at public/private launch facilities or
who utilize for hire vessels. To accurately count the recreational
catch is virtually impossible. Therefore, managers rely upon limits--
numbers and sizes--and seasons to manage the recreational fishery.
Question 3. What sectors should be involved in the data collection
effort, and how would you advocate structuring the data collection for
each sector?
Answer. The states simply must be involved in recreational data
collection. The states conduct the MRFSS now, but their effort is small
and a great number of recreational fishermen are never surveyed. As a
recreational fisherman who spends more than 60 days on the water each
year, but who lives outside of the coastal parishes, I have never been
surveyed. Further, none of my friends who live in Shreveport have ever
been surveyed. The data collection effort must focus on the two sectors
of the recreational fishing community that fish in federal waters:
1. The purely recreational fisherman who fishes in his own boat
or with friends. Aggressive dockside sampling is the key to
obtaining these data.
2. The ``for hire fleet'' that services the recreational
fisherman who fishes only occasionally and hires the services
of a guide, charter boat or headboat. Logbooks, report forms
and dockside sampling can all be utilized in the ``for hire''
fishery as the numbers are finite and the owners are used to
record keeping.
Question 4. Are any of these gaps already identified and addressed
in NMFS' report to Congress, ``Proposed Implementation of a Vessel
Registration and Fishery Information System''?
Answer. No, not really. The VHS/FIN as proposed is primarily
addressed to the commercial fishing industry.
Question 5. Are NMFS or the states already attempting to address
these gaps?
Answer. Yes, but again the attempts are primarily directed at the
commercial fishing industry.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John B. Breaux to
John Roussel
State Based Law Enforcement
Question 1. Mr. Roussel, I agree 100 percent that we must solve the
current need for fisheries enforcement through the use of state-based
programs. I understand that South Carolina has had a highly successful
cooperative enforcement program between NMFS and SCDNR, and it is
unfortunate that we don't have such a program in the Gulf.
Would the state based law enforcement program be similar to the one
in South Carolina?
Answer. The South Carolina cooperative enforcement program involves
only one state. I would propose that Congress consider a Gulf-wide
program. Although the South Carolina program has been extremely
successful as an isolated example of what can be accomplished along a
portion of the East Coast, a region-wide approach would have a much
greater chance of success in achieving a sufficient level of compliance
with ongoing management efforts.
The South Carolina cooperative enforcement program was funded from
moneys within the Department of Commerce. It is my understanding there
are currently no funds available within the Department of Commerce for
a region-wide program in the Gulf of Mexico. A region-wide program
would require a new and reoccurring funding mechanism.
Question 2. Can you explain how such a program might work?
Answer. The Program itself could be implemented as a ``Joint
Project Agreement.'' These types of programs have been accomplished in
the past in other states. The agreements would authorize state law
enforcement officers with marine law enforcement responsibilities to
perform duties of the Secretary of Commerce relating to enforcement of
the provisions of the Act by providing a framework for joint
enforcement and prosecution of Federal and state marine resource laws.
The key features of the program to be implemented by the agreement
would be overt presence by state law enforcement officers, voluntary
compliance activities, and efficient cooperative prosecution procedures
that will serve as an adequate violation deterrent. The NOAA Fisheries
Office for Enforcement has had experience in drafting and executing
such agreements.
Question 3. How much annual funding do you estimate would be
necessary to run such a program in the Gulf region? Please include both
state and federal share.
Answer. A successful Gulf-wide program would cost approximately 18
million dollars annually. Each state's share would be based on the
volume of the industry located within its jurisdiction. Although the
states would not likely be unable to provide any new funding on match
type bases, as I indicated in my testimony, state enforcement agencies
currently produce more than seventy percent of all the cases initiated
for violations of the Act. The current state enforcement efforts
related to the Act should be recognized as state match. It is my
understanding that some law enforcement estimates of the economic loss
to the economies of the Gulf States due to unlawful taking of living
marine resources run in excess of one billion dollars annually.
Increased and more efficient funding of cooperative law enforcement
efforts has the potential to provide significant economic returns to
the nation.
______
Written Questions of Hon. John B. Breaux to Dr. Robert Shipp
Multi-Species Management
Question 1. It is becoming increasingly apparent that single-
species management can't take into account ecosystem issues, most
notably the relationship of disparate fisheries through predator-prey
and competitive relationships. This is particularly true of the reef
fish complex in the Gulf, where species overlap and interact with each
other during most stages of their life histories. Fishing affects those
relationships in ways that need to be taken into consideration in
fishery conservation and management plans.
While some scientists and environmentals recommend the development
of Fishery Ecosystem Plans as a first step towards ecosystem or multi-
species management, others, including the National Academy of Sciences,
recommend not moving away from single-species stock assessment. This
debate seems extremely pertinent to management of reef fish in the
Gulf, and in fisheries like the Gulf shrimp fishery, where the industry
has struggled with the incidental catch of juvenile red snapper. Are
our scientific and management capabilities ready to make the leap from
single-species management to multi-species or ecosystem based
management?
Question 2. Should we make such a change, and if so, how should we
proceed?
IFQ Program for the Gulf
Question 3. I heard loud and clear from the hearing tht we must
stop the increasing derby fishery for red snapper. However, I
understand that even if an IFQ system is available for the Gulf, it
would take some time to come to agreement on, as well as to actually
design and implement. Assuming the IFQ moratorium expires in 2000, how
long would it take to get agreement on the structure of an IFQ program
in the Gulf Council? How long would it take to design a program and
implement it? When is the earliest it could take effect through the
Council process?
Question 4. What other types of management approaches would allow
us to address the red snapper derby right now? Is it possible to put
these approaches into place now so that we can start dealing with the
issue before an IFQ program is established?
The witness did not provide a response.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John B. Breaux to
Dr. Chuck Wilson
Question 1. Dr. Wilson, I appreciate your very constructive
comments and proposals relating to EFH. I understand that you are
involved in some pioneering scientific research attempting to
quantitatively link habitat to fisheries using acoustic technology.
Could you elaborate on your research and what sort of information it
could provide us?
Answer. Several researchers at Louisiana State University have
combined their interests in fisheries acoustics (myself), geological
acoustics (Dr. Harry Roberts), and oyster habitat (Dr. John Supan), to
establish MHACS (Marine Habitat Acoustic Characterization System). This
system utilizes state of the art side scan sonar and sub-bottom
acoustic imaging to establish the acoustic geo-technical properties of
the surface and shallow sub-bottom in coastal Louisiana. At the same
time, we use dual-beam hydroacoustics to establish the density and
size-frequency distribution of fish overlying these different habitat
types. The side scan sonar identifies areas of high reflectance, and in
Louisiana this is either man-made objects or oysters. By establishing
where the oyster reefs are located, the fish communities associated
with those oyster reefs, and the subsurface geotechnical properties, we
can then quantitatively describe Essential Fish Habitat in Louisiana
shallow water bottoms, as well as elsewhere in the world. This
technology was originally stimulated by the various Breaux Act projects
and Corps of Engineers-sponsored river diversion projects to track the
impact of river diversion on our resident oyster fishery. In the
process of perfecting the use of this technology, we have come to
realize that it has major implications for documenting Essential Fish
Habitat. The reason this will be so important in the future is due to
new technology in positioning; our data are accurate to within 20cm,
and the new digital side scan technology provides a resolution of 10-
20cm. Consequently, we can identify very small objects and pinpoint
those objects over and over again.
Over time, we hope to develop bottom acoustic images of coastal
Louisiana that can be used in the future to accurately track the
impacts of river diversion, hurricanes, trawling, dredging, and oil and
gas activities. This imagery is very important and will have the same
type of value and application as some of the early 1900 aerial
photographs that are so valuable today in tracking things like
shoreline retreat. I envision this type of technology will be fairly
commonplace in the next ten years to describe and model essential fish
habitat, particularly for those species that are dependent upon
specific bottom types.
Question 2. Through identification of ``habitat areas of particular
concern,'' will we be able to avoid the potential over-regulation that
you mentioned, while maintaining the ability to consider habitat as an
important component of fisheries management? If not, do you have any
other suggestions?
Answer. The concept of habitat areas is of particular concern as a
step in the right direction for delineation of, for lack of better
words, high-value and low-value essential fish habitat. However, as we
are going to be faced with government agencies such as the Corps of
Engineers and/or developers seeking permission to disrupt certain types
of habitat; will the resultant designations (Essential Fish Habitat and
Habitat Areas of Particular Concern) be sufficient?
I am sure if you asked five scientists you would get five different
answers as to how a continuum should be structured. For starters, I
think it is important that we identify habitat that is critical to
bottleneck stages of fish life history. For example, in red snapper, it
appears that the habitat upon which juvenile red snapper depend is the
bottleneck. We think this habitat is where they are most vulnerable to
over-fishing activity (at the current time we believe this to be shrimp
trawls). As for salmon, essential fish habitat appears to be the access
to the spawning grounds. In the development of legislation, if we
declare the spawning grounds for the salmon which are upriver, as well
as the passage through the river to the Habitat Areas of Particular
Concern, it may lead to regulation that may prevent any damage to both
types of habitat. Currently the most important habitat is the spawning
grounds, industries (e.g power companies) have developed ladder system
to restore passageways that allow fish access to those critical
spawning grounds. I am not sure I have the entire answer, but thinking
out loud I might propose that we identify Critical Fisheries Habitat,
(specific habitat types that are critical to bottleneck life stages of
the species of concern), Habitat Areas of Particular Concern, (not
quite as important to the survival of the species), and Essential Fish
Habitat, (that habitat that that species occupies during some part of
its life history).
Question 3. Do you think the existing statute needs modification?
If so, what do you recommend we change?
Answer. I believe the existing statute is fine, although I would
like to see language in interpretation to encourage consideration of my
answer to Question 2.
______
Letter in Response to Senator Snowe's Post Hearing Questions to
Frederic L. Miller
February 13, 2001
Ms. Melissa Murphy,
Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation,
United States Senate,
Washington, D.C.
Via Facsimile No. 202-228-0326
Re: Senator Snowe's Post Hearing Questions
Dear Melissa:
In response to your facsimile of February 13, 2001, enclosing
Senator Snowe's post hearing questions, I am pleased to respond as
follows.
Essential Fish Habitat. In my opinion, what is truly needed is a
clear working definition of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). However, the
problem faced with EFH in Louisiana is one closely akin to the chicken
and the egg. Louisiana's coastal habitat is the most fertile estuarine
system in the Gulf and perhaps in the nation. Louisiana's estuaries are
undergoing assault daily from a number of environmental forces--
subsidence, salt-water intrusion, wind and wave erosion. The leveeing
and channeling of the rivers that feed the estuaries have served to
deprive the estuaries of much of the nutrient laden silt needed to
replenish the estuarine eco-systems. The pollutants in the waters
flowing from the northern reaches of the watershed--agricultural,
industrial and household--have exacerbated the decline of estuarine
health.
The point may have been reached that damage to the estuaries is
irreversible. If that is so, then the decline in habitat will reflect
directly upon the productivity of estuary.
Thus, where to draw the line between essential habitat and habitat
that is non-essential is most troublesome. Yes, funds are needed to
protect truly essential habitat, but what is needed most is a unified
national effort aimed at restoration of what has been lost and the
protection of what remains
Individual Transferrable Quotas (ITQs). If ITQs were allowed in the
Gulf of Mexico, it is the stated position of Coastal Conservation
Association (CCA) that the ITQs should be truly transferrable on a
willing buyer/willing seller basis. It is equally important that the
quota purchased may not be removed from the TAC allowed in the directed
Red Snapper fishery. The recreational sector would entertain the notion
of purchasing a portion of the ITQ and transfer the purchased portion
of the quota to the recreational quota.
The impact of an ITQ system in the Red Snapper fishery in the Gulf
of Mexico on consumer prices is unknown at this time. It is thought
that prices might decline because commercial fishermen can time their
catch to seasons and markets, rather than engage in a derby fishery
that holds ex vessel prices down.
Inasmuch as the Charter Boat sector, or the ``For Hire Fleet,'' is
classed as a segment of the recreational sector and share in the
recreational quota of Red Snapper in the Gulf of Mexico, an ITQ or
other limited entry system for them makes little sense to me. CCA
opposes any scheme that arbitrarily restricts access of recreational
fishermen to fisheries resources. However, if the For Hire Fleet were
to be allocated its own quota, separate from either the commercial or
recreational quota, perhaps an ITQ or limited entry system might work.
With my best regards, I am
Very truly yours,
Frederic L. Miller
______
Prepared Statement of Bob Jones, Executive Director, Southeastern
Fisheries Association
My name is Bob Jones. I have been the Executive Director of
Southeastern Fisheries Association (SFA) since 1964. SFA is a 501c6,
non-profit commercial fishing association. We are located at 1118-B,
Thomasville Road, Tallahassee, Florida. We were founded in 1952 in
Jacksonville, Florida and have members from North Carolina to Texas.
SFA represents fishing companies in all segments of the seafood
industry. We are organized into the following sections: Shrimp, Fish,
Crab, Lobster, Oyster/Clam, Baitfish, Import/Export, Charterboat,
Seafood Restaurant Alliance & Florida Offshore Fishing Consortium. We
have over 450 company members that employ at least 10,000 people in the
seafood industry.
First of all, we support the statement presented by the Southern
Offshore Fishing Association. If there has ever been a group of
fishermen who were mistreated by their government it would have to be
the shark fishermen. They were encouraged to enter the shark business
by NMFS and are now being savaged by NMFS. Only through the actions of
a U.S. Federal Court are they still somewhat economically alive.
Please, if you don't read anything else on fisheries, read the record
of the District Court in Tampa, Florida, and see how it feels about the
abuse of power by the Office of Sustainable Fisheries.
We submit the following issues for your review.
1. Have your staff provide you with a graph of what has happened to
food fish landings in the Gulf of Mexico since M-SFCMA.
2. Determine the cumulative impact of the never ending NMFS
regulations for fisheries. We had robust fisheries in the Gulf before
M-SFCMA. We had a healthy industry. We had 500 shrimp boats unloading
in Key West during the pink shrimp season before M-SFCMA and now are
lucky if we have 50.
3. Encourage NMFS to enforce fishery regulations equitably across
the board. Do not allow NMFS to put vessel monitoring systems on
commercial fishing boats without the full support of the sector of the
industry for which NMFS wants to monitor. Keep Big Brother at bay for
as long as possible.
4. Don't let NMFS use the Essential Fish Habitat policy to further
close down commercial fishing. Watch what NMFS is doing on marine
preserves. Make them work with all affected citizens and not just the
environmentalists.
5. Force NMFS to heed comments made at public hearings. Many
citizens have lost faith in this part of the process and figure why
come to one when the decisions have already been made.
6. Conduct more oversight hearings on NMFS policies and actions.
Give Dr. Gary Matlock a chance to be heard before your Subcommittee at
the same time you hear testimony by others who either support or oppose
his relentless zeal to close commercial fishing. You could draw a crowd
to such a hearing.
The red snapper fish management plan is a prime example of how not
to manage a federal fishery resource. NMFS actions keep the industry,
both commercial and recreational, in a state of confusion. They
indicate an opening date for the season will be this and it ends up
being that. The litigation is ongoing and the horrid science has caused
a fight between the shrimpers and charterboat fishermen that might not
be able to be healed.
Shrimp bycatch is the new poster child but great strides have been
made by the industry in reducing the non-targeted species and even more
can be accomplished if the industry can ever convince NMFS that the
Andrews soft TEDS in most instance can reduce bycatch as much as 70
percent. We know it is harder for the law enforcement officers to
measure a soft TED but do we want to reduce more bycatch and make
measurement a bit harder or do we want to force easy to measure gear on
the industry which kills more fish? Shrimping has been taking place in
many areas for over 75 years and the biomass is still robust and the
shrimp are still there each year. Don't let NMFS use the bycatch demon
as a tool to further stop commercial fishing. One NMFS document I
believe says shrimpers catch 88 percent of the juvenile red snapper. We
very strongly dispute that scientific fact. We don't think we could
catch 88 percent of anything in a directed manner. We wish NMFS and the
USCG would help us stop the stealing that goes on when other boats come
alongside our shrimp trawlers and trade a case of beer for 20 or 30
pounds of shrimp. The boat owners prohibit alcohol on the vessels but
sometimes the captains and crew want some beer and trade the owners
shrimp. They are at fault but so are the boaters and yachtsmen who are
on the receiving end of an illegal transaction. It has become so
rampant in some ports around the Fort Myers Beach area that some
boaters come back and sell their contraband shrimp at flea markets. Its
stealing when you trade beer for shrimp unless you make the trade from
a boat owner who happens to be on board. There are not any owner
captains that will trade $200 worth of shrimp for $6 worth of beer.
We recommend a moratorium on all new regulations until Congress
reviews NMFS operations in depth. There are no fisheries in dire need
of more management, there is no fishery about to collapse and there are
no unregulated fisheries demanding NMFS attention. It's time to just
stop and look at what has happened to the seafood industry in the past
almost quarter of a century since a federal fishing zone was created
and since a federal agency was given the power to control it.
We echo what Bob Spaeth asks of Congress which is for it to say,
``Wait a minute, it is not now nor has it ever been our intent to
destroy an important food producing segment of our national economy!''
He continues saying, ``But destroying us is exactly what NMFS is doing
through the Sustainable Fisheries division.'' Help us. The burden of
this governmental yoke known as NMFS is unbearable even for strong men
and women.
Thank You for your time.