[Senate Hearing 106-1086]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 106-1086
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
SECOND SESSION
__________
JANUARY 19, 2000
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
____________________________________________________________________________
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
SECOND 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, Republican Staff Director
Martha P. Allbright, Republican 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 on January 19, 2000................................. 1
Statement of Senator Gorton...................................... 4
Statement of Senator Snowe....................................... 1
Statement of Senator Stevens..................................... 6
Witnesses
Alverson, Robert, manager, Fishing Vessel Owners Association..... 40
Prepared statement........................................... 42
Anderson, Phil, Special Assistant to the Director of Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife................................ 29
Anderson, Sam, Executive Director, Master Builders Association of
King and Snohomish Counties, Washington........................ 98
Prepared statement........................................... 101
Barrow, Mike, Bristol Bay Drift Net Association.................. 124
Bassi, Wade, Owner-Operator, Fishing Vessel Polaris.............. 121
Brown, Ralph, Member, Pacific Fisheries Management Council....... 57
Prepared statement........................................... 58
Bruce, John...................................................... 124
Crowley, John, Longline Fisherman and Vessel Owner............... 127
Crowley, Jack, Longline Fisherman and Vessel Owner............... 128
Dalton, Penelope, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; accompanied by Will
Stelle, Assistant Administrator, Northwest Region.............. 8
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Deach, Laura, West Coast Longliner............................... 113
Doumit, Chris, Commissioner, Columbia River Crab Fishermen's
Association for Dale Beaseley, Chairman of the Columbia River
Crab Fishermen's Association................................... 118
Prepared statement of Dale Beaseley.......................... 118
Fujita, Rod, Senior Scientist, Environmental Defense............. 81
Prepared statement........................................... 85
Harp, Jim, Tribal Representative, Pacific Fishery Management
Council........................................................ 30
Prepared statement........................................... 32
Hendricks, Larry O., Alaskan Crab Fisherman...................... 126
Letter of Recommendations.................................... 127
Henkel, Tim, President, Deep Sea Fishermen's Union of the Pacific 66
Prepared statement........................................... 68
Henzler, Jude, Executive Director, Bering Sea Fishermen's
Association.................................................... 112
Hiner, Todd, Kodiak, Alaskan Crab Fisherman and Owner Operator... 121
Knudson, Darrell, Longline Fisherman............................. 126
Lee, Arnie, Commercial Fisherman and Owner Operator.............. 123
Leipzig, Peter, Executive Director, Fishermen's Marketing
Association.................................................... 94
Prepared statement........................................... 96
Lone, Jim, Chairman, Pacific Fishery Management Council.......... 16
Prepared statement........................................... 18
Lundsten, Mark, Owner-Operator of an Alaskan Longliner........... 114
Madison, Bart, Tacoma, Washington Recreational Fisherman......... 122
Prepared statement........................................... 120
Merklein, Mandy, Board Member, Pacific Marine Conservation
Council........................................................ 130
Moore, Rod, Executive Director, West Coast Seafood Processors
Association.................................................... 61
Prepared statement........................................... 62
Noggle, Charlie, Longline Fisherman.............................. 129
Paulsen, Edward, Paulsen Fisheries............................... 117
Powell, Mark, Marine Biologist, Center for Marine Conservation... 113
Sampson, David, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Fisheries, Oregon
State University............................................... 89
Prepared statement........................................... 91
Standaert, Jan, Crewman and Skipper, Deep Sea Fishermen's Union.. 111
Taufen, Stephen, Groundswell Fisheries Movement.................. 115
Prepared statement........................................... 116
Appendix
Grader, Jr., W.F. ``Zeke'' Executive Director, Pacific Coast
Federation of Fishermen's Association, prepared statement 144
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. John F. Kerry:
Jim Lone..................................................... 137
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Olympia J. Snowe:
Phil Anderson................................................ 134
Penelope Dalton.............................................. 133
Peter Leipzig................................................ 135
Jim Jone..................................................... 143
Rod Fujita................................................... 133
David Sampson................................................ 138
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE MAGNUSON-
STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT
----------
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 19, 2000
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Seattle, WA
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 8:15 a.m., in
the Seattle SEATAC Airport Auditorium, Hon. Olympia J. Snowe,
Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MAINE
Senator Snowe. Good morning. The hearing will come to
order.
I want to welcome everybody to this hearing on the
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. I want to express
my appreciation and gratitude to Senator Gorton for inviting me
and the subcommittee to Seattle to discuss the issues important
to the future of our Nation's fisheries.
It has been a privilege of mine to work with Senator Gorton
over the last five years on the Commerce Committee and in the
U.S. Senate. I can tell you, having seen firsthand his efforts
on the Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee, he is working very
hard. I do not know anybody more tenacious when it comes to
fighting for their state's interests in Washington. Certainly
that is the case with respect to fisheries policy that affects
the well-being of the industry in the State of Washington, as
well as on the west coast.
Slade is not afraid to tempt fate, either. Just to prove
that the friendly skies of America were Y2K ready, Slade flew
around on New Year's Eve with the FAA, as chair of the
Subcommittee on Aviation. Now, I call that a hands-on approach,
Slade.
[Laughter.]
I also want to thank Senator Stevens for being with us.
When it comes to the issues that we will be discussing this
morning, Senator Stevens quite literally helped write the book.
As one of the driving forces behind the Magnuson-Stevens Act,
along with the late Warren Magnuson of Washington, Ted was the
first chairman of the Subcommittee. His institutional knowledge
and depth of concern are unparalleled.
I also want to welcome all the witnesses who will testify
this morning. I see some familiar faces, such as Ms. Dalton, of
the National Marine Fisheries Service, who has been on the road
show with me around the country. We think it is very important
that your voice is heard in this process. Feedback from you is
indispensable as we consider the most significant issue to come
before the Subcommittee: the reauthorization of this Act.
Today we hope to hear answers to some very important
questions that have arisen as a result of the 1996 changes to
the Act. We want to know what has worked, what has not worked,
and what your concerns are. You are on the front lines. What do
you see as important for the future of your fisheries?
In our States, whether it is Washington, Alaska, Maine,
Oregon, or California, fishing has been important to many
generations who have been fortunate enough to work on the
water. Yesterday, the subcommittee held a hearing in Anchorage,
with Senator Stevens, and we discussed the many pressing issues
facing the fishing communities in Alaska.
Today we will hear from those of you who live and fish in
the great Pacific Northwest. Now, I am sure I do not have to
tell you that the Magnuson-Stevens Act, enacted in 1976, is the
principal law governing our fisheries in this country. It is
administered by the National Marine Fisheries Service, as well
as the eight regional fisheries management Councils, which
establish the rules under which the fishing industry operates.
They determine the harvest quota, season length, gear
restrictions, and license limitations--decisions which have
serious implications for those of you who fish and work in the
Northwest.
That is why these difficult management decisions cannot be
made in a vacuum. Your livelihoods are at stake. Your
perspective must be incorporated in the decisionmaking process
and in the final decisions that are made. It is critical that
all sectors of the fishing community receive a fair and
balanced representation.
In July, we began this process with an initial hearing in
Washington, D.C., to examine a broad array of issues. Dr. Dave
Fluharty, a professor at the University of Washington and a
member of the North Pacific Council, discussed several major
areas of concern. We will have the opportunity to explore these
further today.
The Subcommittee has held hearings in my own State of
Maine, in New Orleans, and as I said, in Anchorage yesterday.
We will be holding another field hearing in Massachusetts later
in the year. The intent and purpose of these hearings are to
hear from as many people as possible, so that we can obtain a
consensus on how to ensure a healthy future for our Nation's
fisheries.
While many regions are dependent on having commercial and
recreational fisheries that are strong and robust, others have
not fared as well. I know this is particularly true here with
the groundfish industry and the decline of fish stocks.
Communities in this region are feeling the weight of the
economic burden. Throughout this reauthorization process, we
will be attentive to the most efficient, effective, and
responsive ways to help bring about healthy fisheries as well
as healthy fishing communities.
One of the overall goals of the Act was to provide a
mechanism to determine the appropriate level of catch to
maximize benefits to the Nation, while still protecting the
long-term sustainability of the fisheries. It is a balancing
act among competing interests. We will hear about the need for
participation from non-fishing interests when managing public
resources.
The Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 also reflected
significant changes to the goals of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Proper implementation of these provisions is of great concern
to many different groups. That is why there will be
considerable interest in the activities of the regional
Councils, as well as the National Marine Fisheries Service.
The most substantial change under the 1996 Act was the
mandate to stop overfishing and restore overfished stocks. The
Councils were given a timetable to achieve this goal. Today's
witnesses will be able to give firsthand reports about the
level of success the Pacific Council has had in meeting this
requirement. The Councils and NMFS were also told to emphasize
the socioeconomic impacts that regulations have had on fishing
communities. Clearly, Congress intended to preserve the
fishermen as well as the fish.
Because of my concern, I asked about National Standard 8,
regarding the socioeconomic impacts, and the way in which it
was being implemented. Senator Breaux and I asked for an
investigation by GAO, to examine the ways in which NMFS has
administered this provision of law. The Sustainable Fisheries
Act also imposed a moratorium on the creation of new individual
fishing quotas, or IFQ's. The moratorium will expire on October
1st of this year, so I would encourage witnesses to offer
recommendations today on how the subcommittee should address
this issue in the future.
The final policy shifts in the Sustainable Fisheries Act
are the provisions to minimize bycatch and protect fish
habitat. Based on the concerns that certain fish stock have
declined due to their loss of surrounding habitat, the Act
established a national program to facilitate the long-term
protection of essential fish habitat.
Many argue that these provisions have not been properly
implemented. We will discuss that problem with our witnesses
here today.
Finally, from my own discussions with the fishing industry
and those who represent it in my State of Maine, I have heard
time and again that they feel the law is too rigid, that it's
not being implemented properly, and that--contrary to its
mandate--the best science is not being used in management. From
reviewing your testimony, I know that some of these same
concerns will be expressed by many of you.
As we move forward in this process, we must make sure that
sustainable fishing and good management become the norm and not
the exception. Clearly, this reauthorization will have major
implications for the future of marine fisheries in the United
States. I should say that I view this as a unique opportunity
to take what we have learned and to craft a sensible and
balanced approach to fisheries resources, which are so
important to the states that we all represent and to the Nation
as a whole.
I would appreciate hearing your views as to whether or not
we should overhaul the legislation or fine-tune it, in order to
make significant improvements for the future.
Some people say that it will take a very long time to
implement the provisions that are already in place from the
1996 Act. We have also been cautioned not to take too long,
because it erodes confidence when the policies do not work
efficiently and effectively.
So, again, I thank all of you for being here today. Now, it
is my pleasure to turn to Senator Gorton. Thank you again,
Senator Gorton, for having us here in the beautiful State of
Washington.
STATEMENT OF HON. SLADE GORTON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON
Senator Gorton. Senator Snowe has certainly gone well above
and beyond her duty in going from coast to coast, to Alaska,
and late back here this evening, to evidence the proposition
that she is interested in the fishery not only in her own State
of Maine, where it is obviously a vital natural resource, but
on the other coast, as well. And it is only through the kind of
cooperation that her willingness to do this hard work
illustrates that I think we are likely to solve some of the
very real challenges that face us here in this reauthorization
of Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Senator Stevens is also welcome. I hardly need to welcome
Senator Stevens to Seattle. He seems to be here almost as
frequently as I am, and has always shown a great interest not
just in fisheries, but in all of the other many issues that
bind our States so closely together.
All of you in this room know as well as Senator Snowe and I
do that Senator Stevens occasionally has strong views on
certain subjects. And I must say that those strong views, to
me, have created both a friendship and an association which is
one that I value more than almost any other in my career and in
my life. And he is particularly welcome here, not just as a
colleague, but as a friend.
For those of you in the audience, I wish that we could have
accommodated more formal witnesses. We are going to try to hear
from some of you in an open microphone session that will come
after the three panels.
The life of a fisherman has never been easy, but it has
been particularly difficult during the last couple of decades
here on the west coast. In the past 20 years, the harvest of
groundfish, except for whiting, off the west coast has been
reduced by 70 percent, but little has been done to reduce
fishing capacity.
In 1996, when we last reauthorized the Federal law that
governs fishing in the exclusive economic zone, we adopted a
series of stringent conservation measures to facilitate the
rebuilding of fish stocks. In response to these changes, the
Pacific Fisheries Management Council has imposed significant
cuts in many groundfish quotas, and made life for today's
fishermen even harder.
West coast fishermen have accepted extraordinary sacrifices
for the long-term health of the resource. This willingness to
embark on the long path to recovery, in the hopes that perhaps
for some overfished species, such as bocaccio, their children's
children's children, many uncontrollable environmental
conditions permitting, will see a healthy fishery--that is
laudable.
I recognize the inadequacy, however, of praise alone. The
sacrifices of west coast fishermen have imposed serious
economic hardships, particularly for small operations. I hope
that Congress will respond to the Pacific Council's warning
that the groundfish fishery is facing an economic disaster by
providing economic relief, just as it responded to fishery
disasters on the East Coast.
In 1996, we amended the Magnuson-Stevens Act to authorize
disaster relief for fishermen and vessel and license buyout
programs. We need to ensure that these provisions do not remain
dormant and unfunded at a time at which the need is so great.
In helping to put together today's hearing, I felt it was
critical to have one panel address the issue of data collection
and analysis. In the absence of more accurate information, many
have advocated a precautionary approach that, while generally
appropriate in the face of uncertainty, is not an acceptable
long-term management method. It is unfair both to the fishermen
and to the resource.
I understand that of the more than 80 species in the
groundfish complex managed by the Pacific Council, 75 percent
have never been formally assessed. And those species that are
assessed are evaluated only every third year. Unfortunately,
however, the problem caused by inadequate data is not easily
resolved. We can, however, start making some headway. And I
strongly believe that we should do so.
There are many stocks for which we will not have enough
information for decades to manage in a fully informed manner.
Not only do we not know the current stock size for many
species, we do not know what the stock size would be in the
absence of fishing, or even how much stock is being taken by
fishermen. The expanse of the scientific chasm that faces our
managers should not cause us, however, simply to turn around
and walk away. We need to start getting a better idea of what
is in our oceans and what we are catching if we expect the
regional Councils and the National Marine Fisheries Service to
manage the fisheries responsibly and fairly.
For years, I have attempted, with limited success, to
increase the President's budget for data collection and stock
assessments of west coast groundfish. Today, I appeal to the
administration to make this uphill battle easier by increasing
the funds allocated for west coast groundfish stock assessments
in the President's 2001 budget.
But while I hold the administration responsible in part for
inadequately funding groundfish stock assessments, Congress
bears the blame for not retaining the $2 million included in
the President's budget for a much needed west coast observer
program. I strongly supported this request, but was unable to
retain it in the face of opposition from the House of
Representatives.
I agree that an observer program should be implemented on
the west coast, and pledge to try to amend the Magnuson-Stevens
Act to authorize the Pacific Council to impose a broad-based
fee to pay for these observers. In recognition of the economic
hardship that is being suffered in so many of our fisheries,
however, I will also attempt again to obtain Federal funding to
help pay for such a program on the west coast, and hope that
the administration will continue its support for this program.
While the need for additional resources, and perhaps better
use of existing resources, for data collection is generally
noncontroversial, there are other issues we must deal with in
this reauthorization that are far more controversial. One of
these is individual fishing quotas, or IFQ's. The 1996
Sustainable Fisheries Act imposed a moratorium until October
2000 on the adoption of new IFQ's. Since then, all eight
regional Councils have recommended to Congress that the
moratorium on IFQ's be allowed to expire and that Councils be
permitted to include IFQ's in their management tool boxes.
The National Research Council, which Congress asked to
conduct a comprehensive study of IFQ's, made the same
recommendation. Recognizing the difficulty of many of these
policy concerns, including the equity of the original
allocations, the fear of excessive corporate consolidation and
the effect of IFQ's on the relative power of processors versus
catchers, I nevertheless concur with the Councils and hope that
Congress will not categorically extend the moratorium.
That said, I look forward to working with my colleagues and
all interested parties to determine what, if any, IFQ
guidelines should be codified in the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Another issue of the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act that we
need carefully to reconsider is the provision regarding
essential fish habitat and its impact on non-fishery interests.
While we have repeatedly been assured by the National Marine
Fisheries Service that the potential designation of much of the
States of Washington, Oregon and California as essential fish
habitat under Magnuson-Stevens will not unduly burden non-
fishery interests because the consultation requirements
required for Federal activity in these areas will overlap with
numerous other consultation requirements, National Marine
Fisheries Service regulations regarding essential fish habitat
suggests otherwise.
I look forward to hearing the testimony on this topic. The
issues, of course, are many and are complex. I look forward to
hearing from each of you how best you feel that we should
address them.
Thank you.
Senator Snowe. Thank you very much, Senator Gorton.
I would now like to recognize the distinguished Senator
from Alaska, Senator Stevens.
STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Madam Chairperson. I
am very pleased to be back here again to have an opportunity to
hear the views of the people of this area concerning the
problems we face in the fishing industry.
Yesterday, we had a very good hearing, I think, in Alaska.
It was a very extensive one. And we have heard a great many
ideas. Slade, you will be happy to know that there seems to be
a change of opinion in Alaska concerning IFQ's, at least to a
certain extent, with many of the people who, in the past
opposed IFQ's appearing before us yesterday, and suggesting
that this is a valuable tool for the regional Councils. But
they also suggested some other tools that might be considered
by the Councils and not mandate just one single new management
concept.
I do believe, though, that the most significant part of the
hearing yesterday was the portion that covered the crash of the
opilio fleet. And I think that is a very significant problem.
It certainly comes within the area of the disaster provisions
that you have referred to.
As Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and you are a
member also, Senator Gorton, and I do not know how many of you
realize, we provided $8 billion more than the Administration
requested last year for agricultural disasters. Well, we had a
severe problem in getting a small amount--I think it was about
$65 million before we were through--for a fisheries disaster.
That attitude has to change, because the effects of El Nino and
La Nina on fisheries resources is not different than the effect
of the tornadoes and extreme storms that the agricultural areas
have faced in the last few years.
I do hope that we can come to an agreement about how to
handle the disaster type of funding. And clearly the opilio
issue is going to be in the forefront of my mind as we try to
approach that issue this year.
I agree with what Senator Gorton said about the basic
problem of the habitat issues. And I was happy, and I think you
will be happy to hear, some of the comments made by the agency
representatives on that issue. It truly is, I think, a problem
that we have to avoid. We have to avoid making the essential
fish habitat concept into an Endangered Species Act, in terms
of the type of intercession that the courts could have on
fisheries management if we are not careful. And I hope that
everyone will agree on that.
There are a great many issues that we will cover today that
I think that we heard testimony on yesterday. And as I said, I
am looking forward to the comments that you all will make on
those issues.
I appreciate what Senator Snowe is doing. She also went to
Louisiana. She has been all over the country. And I have got
to, without tooting my own horn, say that I have been there and
I have done that.
[Laughter.]
And it takes time to do that and it takes really a
commitment of staff and of the Chairman's office to make these
hearings into what Senator Snowe has made them. They are very
informative hearings, and I think they are going to be
essential to convincing our colleagues who are not from coastal
States of the need for action this year to try to deal with
these issues.
I agree with you; I hope we can get the bill passed this
year. It is going to be a difficult thing to do because of all
of the problems of a Presidential election year. But if we can
come to a consensus and not have battles between areas of the
country or battles with those who are in charge with enforcing
the laws that we have passed, I do think we can come to an
agreement on what to do and get set about making the changes to
the existing laws that should be made because of the
developments we have seen in the last year or two.
Thank you very much.
Senator Snowe. Thank you, Senator Stevens. Thank you very
much.
Before I welcome the first panel, I would like to introduce
our staff: Sloan Rappoport and Stephanie Bailenson, from my
Subcommittee staff, and Margaret Spring, from the minority
Subcommittee staff, have travelled from Washington, D.C. to be
here. Jeanne Bumpus from Senator Gorton's D.C. staff is here as
well, in addition to Dave Russell from Senator Stevens's
office, and Bill Woolf from Senator Murkowski's office.
I would like to welcome the first panel members. Ms. Penny
Dalton is the Assistant Administrator of the National Marine
Fisheries Service, and I am grateful for her considerable
effort to travel around the country and attend all of the field
hearings that I have held. I really want to express my
appreciation to you, Ms. Dalton, for your willingness to
testify and be part of this process.
She is accompanied by Mr. Will Stelle, who, by the way, has
Maine roots. Good to have you here, and thank you very much for
being here.
We also have Mr. Jim Lone, Chairman of the Pacific Council.
The next witness is Mr. Phil Anderson, of the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife. Our final witness will be Mr.
Jim Harp, a member of the Pacific Council.
I thank you all for being here. Ms. Dalton, we will start
with you.
STATEMENT OF PENELOPE DALTON, ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR FOR FISHERIES, NATIONAL OCEANIC
ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, ACCOMPANIED BY WILL STELLE,
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, NORTHWEST REGION
Ms. Dalton. Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify. It actually has been a great learning experience for
me to participate in these hearings.
I am Penny Dalton, NOAA Assistant Administrator for
Fisheries. Accompanying me is Will Stelle, our Northwest
Regional Administrator.
As you know, marine fisheries make a significant
contribution to coastal economies in California, Oregon and
Washington. West coast fishermen harvested close to a billion
pounds of seafood in 1998, producing over $280 million in
dockside revenues. In addition, 1.7 million saltwater anglers
in the region took 7 million trips and caught 28 million fish.
While these figures are substantial, they have declined
noticeably in important fisheries like Pacific groundfish and
salmon.
On the west coast, NOAA Fisheries and the Pacific Fishery
Management Council manage 83 species of groundfish, five
species of salmon, and five coastal pelagic species under three
fishery management plans. Development of a fourth plan for
highly migratory species also is underway.
Other west coast fisheries, such as pink shrimp and
dungeness crab, are managed by the States, with coordination
through the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission.
The 1993 report to Congress on the status of U.S. fishery
resources designates three Pacific groundfish species as
overfished: bocaccio, ling cod, and Pacific Ocean perch. For
each of these species, the Pacific Council adopted, and NOAA
Fisheries approved, rebuilding plans that went into effect at
the beginning of the year.
At the same time, two other Pacific groundfish species--
cowcod and canary rockfish--were designated as overfished.
Catch levels for these species have been reduced to address
overfishing, while rebuilding plans are being developed and
implemented. It is now clear the Pacific groundfish stocks are
not as productive or as resilient as previously thought, and
the reduced quotas reflect this lower productivity.
The result has been much more restrictive management, not
only for the overfished species, but also for fisheries that
target other healthier stocks but incidentally take overfished
species. We expect commercial west coast ground fishermen to
incur a loss of at least $9 million to $11 million in the year
2000 relative to 1999. This loss might be greater if one
considers processing and support industries and coastal
communities.
The Governors of California, Oregon and Washington have
requested the Secretary of Commerce to determine that a
commercial fishery failure has occurred due to a fishery
resource disaster. Today, Secretary Daley is announcing that he
would make such an affirmative determination. His decision was
based on our scientists' assessment that an unusually low level
of recruitment of young fish into the fishery has resulted in a
resource disaster of undetermined but probably natural causes.
Among possible causes are an ocean regime shift, El Nino,
and low stock productivity. Because many of these stocks are
long-lived and slow-growing, rebuilding efforts are likely to
be lengthy. In addition, the groundfish fishery is composed of
several dozen stocks, and we still lack basic scientific
information for stock assessments in setting harvests at
sustainable levels.
If Congress appropriates funds to mitigate the fishery
failure, NOAA Fisheries will work with affected States,
fishermen and communities to develop an assistance program. We
are particularly interested in improving our scientific
understanding, addressing the needs of fishermen and their
families, and reducing overcapacity.
Regulations to implement an industry-funded buyback program
have been prepared and are under review by the Department and
OMB. We expect an interim final rule to be published soon. Our
challenge now is to protect and rebuilt depleted stocks while
minimizing, to the extent possible, economic and social impacts
on fishing communities.
Turning to Pacific salmon, the ocean salmon fishery has
been severely curtailed due to the listing under the Endangered
Species Act of 26 populations of salmon and steelhead trout.
The Council is working to limit impacts of marine fisheries on
these populations, reducing Snake River fall chinook harvests
by at least 30 percent and Puget Sound chinook harvests by up
to 45 percent. One recent effort was to fin-mark hatchery fish
to allow their continued harvest without jeopardizing the
recovery of wild stocks.
On a positive note, we successfully completed the final
steps to fully implement the new Pacific salmon agreement
between the United States and Canada. We look forward to the
conservation benefits and international stability that this
agreement will bring to our salmon recovery efforts.
The increased emphasis of the Magnuson-Stevens Act on
conserving and enhancing essential fish habitat remains an
issue in the region. Past management measures have included
restrictions on the use of certain gear in sensitive marine
habitat. EFH has been designated for nearly 100 west coast
species. And because of their large number and diversity,
designated areas range from freshwater streams and estuaries to
open ocean. In addition, the Council is evaluating the
potential of marine reserves for protecting habitat and
reducing overfishing in the groundfish fishery.
NOAA Fisheries has conducted close to 2,500 consultations
with Federal agencies whose non-fishing activities may
adversely affect EFH. The process integrates EFH consultations
into existing environmental reviews to minimize impacts on
Federal agencies and the public.
And to just digress for a minute, one of the things that I
thought might be helpful was to talk a little bit about the
background of this issue. We came out with a proposed rule
after the 1996 amendments that I think was criticized a fair
amount because it was too expansive. We looked at all of the
comments that we got and we published an interim final rule
that the basic purpose of it was to integrate this process into
our existing reviews that we conduct under the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act, the Clean Water Act, ESA, and the
Federal Power Act.
At this point, it is an interim final rule. We just
reopened the comment period. And we are hoping to be able to
publish a final rule sometime in the near future. What we are
hoping is a lot of the concerns that are being expressed now
have also been given to us during the comment period and that a
lot of our revisions should address those concerns as much as
we can.
Another thing that we have done, in California, we have
begun a process that is called one stop shopping, where we have
actually begun to integrate the permitting process for ESA,
EFH, essential fish habitat, also for the National Ocean
Service programs, like marine sanctuaries and coastal zone
management. And what we are hoping--that is a pilot program
now--is that that can be expanded to other parts of the
country, to reduce the regulatory burden on industries that
have activities in coastal areas.
We want to work with you, I think, to refine the statute
and the process. One of the things that we are a little
concerned of is not to lose sight of the goal that these
provisions were put in the Act for. And that is that good U.S.
fisheries, sustained U.S. fisheries rely on a healthy habitat.
So we need to deal with these problems.
In closing, NOAA Fisheries is still working to implement
the amendments made to the Magnuson-Stevens Act in 1996 and
will propose no major changes at this time. However, we have
identified revisions that may improve management process and
resolve some relatively minor problems. These are discussed in
my written statement.
In addition, we look forward to working with congressional
members on high-priority issues, such as observer programs,
individual fishing quotas, and funding of the authorities.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Dalton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Penelope Dalton, Assistant Administrator for
Fisheries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrator
Madame Chair and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
inviting me to Seattle 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 west coast fishermen. I am Penny Dalton, Assistant
Administrator for Fisheries for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
building a foundation for sustainable fisheries--west coast fisheries
Commercial and recreational fisheries off the coasts of Washington,
Oregon, and California are important national resources. In 1998, west
coast commercial fishermen harvested over 980 million pounds of fish,
shellfish, and crustaceans in marine waters (including Puget Sound),
producing over $280 million in dockside revenue from the commercial
fishery.
In addition, in 1998, 1.7 million marine recreational fishing
participants took 7 million trips and caught a total of 28 million fish
off the west coast. Seventy percent of the trips were made in
California, followed by 21 percent in Washington, and 9 percent in
Oregon. Although the recreational harvest on the west coast is much
smaller than the commercial harvest, this fishery is an important
component of the west coast fishing industry and way of life.
While the seafood and marine recreational fishing industries make
substantial contributions to coastal communities, current harvest
levels have declined noticeably in some key fisheries, notably Pacific
groundfish and Pacific salmon. Current harvest yields are substantially
lower than the long-term potential yield.
From a regional perspective, over 80 species of Pacific groundfish,
three species of Pacific salmon and five coastal pelagic species are
managed under three fishery management plans (FMPs) developed by the
Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council). The Pacific
Council is currently in the process of developing a fourth FMP for
highly migratory species. Other major west coast fisheries such as pink
shrimp and Dungeness crab are managed under State jurisdiction in
coordination with the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. In
the 1999 Report to Congress, three Pacific groundfish species managed
by the Pacific Council were declared overfished. NOAA Fisheries
notified the Pacific Council in March of last year that bocaccio
rockfish, ling cod and Pacific ocean perch were overfished. The Pacific
Council has adopted rebuilding plans for each of the three species with
the goal of rebuilding these stocks and increasing long-term yield.
NOAA Fisheries has approved regulations to implement the rebuilding
plans that became effective on January 1, 2000. Concurrent with the
publication of the year 2000 fishing regulations in the Federal
Register, NOAA Fisheries has notified the Pacific Council that two
additional species of Pacific groundfish, cowcod and canary rockfish,
are overfished bringing the total number of overfished species to five.
Although no salmon species currently meet the Pacific Salmon Fishery
Management Plan's definition of ``overfished,'' ocean salmon fishing
has been severely curtailed due to the listing under the Endangered
Species Act of 26 different populations of salmon, steelhead, and
cutthroat trout.
The Pacific groundfish fishery is an important commercial and
recreational fishery. Indeed, the flow of various products throughout
the year from the groundfish fishery is often what keeps many
processors and fishery participants in business. However, it has become
apparent that Pacific groundfish stocks are not as productive or
resilient as previously thought. We have reduced quotas to reflect this
lower productivity. In addition, the new provisions of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act necessitate more conservative management for the five
species that we have determined are overfished. This has resulted in
much more restrictive management not only for fisheries on the
overfished species, but also for fisheries that target on other,
healthier stocks that incidentally encounter overfished species.
We expect commercial west coast groundfish fishermen to incur a
loss of at least $3-$15 million in 2000 relative to 1999. This loss
might be greater if one considers processing and support industries in
the coastal communities. This assumes also that the quotas of all
managed species will be entirely harvested, which may not happen. Some
healthy stocks will not be fully harvested because their harvest will
be constrained by regulations designed to protect co-occurring
overfished species.
These declines are particularly painful when added to losses
experienced in previous years. Between 1997-1998, fishermen's revenue
from Pacific groundfish was just under $68 million, the lowest level in
18 years. This was in part due to instability in Asian economies, but
also due to reduced fishing quotas and other management actions for
some species. Moreover, because rebuilding plans on most overfished
groundfish species are expected to continue for about 30 years, the
prognosis for rapid economic recovery for the west coast groundfish
industry in the absence of some form of industry restructuring is not
good.
The Governors of California and Oregon have requested that the
Secretary of Commerce make a disaster declaration based upon a
commercial fisheries failure. We are currently in the process of
evaluating the causes for the fishery resource decline and its economic
impacts, and hope to make a determination very soon. If Congress
appropriates funds to mitigate a west coast groundfish fishery
disaster, NOAA Fisheries intends to work with the affected States to
consult with the fishing industry and affected communities to determine
the best use of disaster funding. Areas of particular interest are
finding ways to improve our understanding of the ecology of the
fishery, address the needs of displaced fishermen and their families,
and reduce significant overcapacity in the fishery.
Several fundamental issues still exist that complicate the
conservation and management of Pacific groundfish resources. A major
underlying reason for the current situation is the lack of basic
scientific data to conduct stock assessments and to set harvest limits
that will maintain groundfish stocks at sustainable levels. Although
NOAA Fisheries has improved its capability to collect scientific
information through a number of cooperative projects with the fishing
industry and with the academic community, we are far short of what we
need to improve our fishery management decisions. Typically, only six
of the over 80 groundfish stocks are assessed each year, and only 26
have had some form of stock assessment analysis. Only 16 of the
assessments have had enough data and analysis to allow determination of
the species status. Of these 16 species, five are listed as overfished.
Basic research needs include increasing the frequency and scope of
surveys; accounting for discarded bycatch through an at-sea observer
program; increasing research on essential fish habitat; and improving
the capability to assess social and economic impacts of fishery
management on fishery participants and fishing communities.
Turning now to Pacific salmon, you are all well aware that the
majority of native west coast salmon stocks are seriously depleted as
evidenced by the listing of 26 distinct populations from Central
California north to Puget Sound, Washington as threatened or
endangered. Factors in this decline can be categorized into the now-
familiar ``Hs''--habitat degradation, harvest overages, hydropower
development, and hatchery practices. The Pacific Council has made
significant progress in reducing the impacts of overharvest in marine
areas, including reducing the ocean harvest rate on Snake River fall
chinook by 30 percent or more. Although the harvest rate on Puget Sound
chinook in the ocean fishery is low (only 1 to 3 percent), commercial
chinook catches in Puget Sound have been reduced by 60 percent and the
total Puget Sound chinook harvest has been reduced by up to 45 percent.
In some areas, we have fin-marked 100 percent of our hatchery fish and
have started to implement ``fin-marked only'' selective fisheries,
where hatchery fish can be safely harvested, while unmarked wild fish
are returned to the water. We are proceeding cautiously in this area,
but believe that conservatively designed selective fisheries for marked
hatchery fish can be compatible with the recovery of our wild salmon
stocks. Also, we recently completed the final steps to fully implement
the new Pacific Salmon Treaty agreement with Canada, which should
contribute significant stability and coordination to our salmon
recovery efforts.
In spite of the fact that Pacific groundfish and salmon fishing
mortality has been reduced through state and federal management
efforts, we still have a long way to go. New stock assessments on
previously unassessed groundfish species are likely to result in the
need for further harvest reductions given what we now know about stock
productivity and other factors. Our challenge will be to protect and
rebuild those stocks most seriously depleted, while minimizing to the
extent possible adverse economic and social impacts on fishing
communities.
Recognizing that serious problems remain with some fishery
resources, we are cautiously optimistic about the future of west coast
marine fisheries. We must continue to protect overfished fish stocks,
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 Council, 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 west coast delegation, industry, and 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 enter the 21st 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 domestic 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. On the west coast, about 5 percent of
Federally managed living marine resources are overfished or are
approaching the overfished status, 12 percent are not overfished, and
there is another 83 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 provide for the sustained
participation of fishing communities and minimize adverse impacts to
the extent practicable. 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 (NEPA), 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, the Pacific groundfish fishing
regulations use varying trip limits that are designed to keep the
fishing season open during the majority of the year and stabilize
product flow and prices. In addition, new fishing regulations this year
offer higher trip limits to vessel operators willing to use fishing
gear that results in less bycatch of depleted species. Similarly,
selective fisheries for fin-marked hatchery salmon allow both
recreational and commercial fishermen continued access to healthy
hatchery salmon stocks without jeopardizing the recovery of wild
stocks.
To strengthen our social and economic analysis capabilities, we are
issuing revised Regulatory Flexibility Act guidelines to our employees,
hiring more economists, sociologists, and anthropologists, and working
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.
Along the west coast, the five overfished species of Pacific
groundfish have become the focal point for both overfishing and
bycatch. The management of Pacific groundfish, particularly rockfish
species, is complicated, because the species are very long-lived, and
require lengthy rebuilding programs. To stop overfishing in the
groundfish fishery, we have reduced quotas, redefined stock aggregates
to better manage stocks found in the same habitats, implemented
seasonal closures, and limited the landings taken with certain gear
types in the commercial sector, and we have reduced bag limits and
implemented similar seasonal closures in the recreational sector.
Minimizing bycatch: Minimizing bycatch continues to be a very high
priority for NOAA Fisheries on the west coast. We disapproved the
bycatch amendments in both the Pacific Groundfish and Coastal Pelagic
FMPs and returned the amendments to the Pacific Council for further
work, including developing more specific plans for determining bycatch
levels in the fishery and for minimizing bycatch. We are also working
with the Pacific Council to develop the parameters of an at-sea
observer program that will accurately assess the level of bycatch in
the Pacific groundfish fishery, and to find funding for the observer
program.
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.
On the west coast, EFH was designated for nearly 100 marine species.
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 freshwater stream and estuarine
habitats to the limits of the EEZ.
The EFH provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act address impacts from
both fishing and non-fishing activities. In response to fishing gear
threats, the 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. The Council is actively evaluating the
concept of marine reserves within which fishing activities would be
either prohibited or greatly restricted to protect marine habitat and
the ecosystems they support.
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. These reviews have been accomplished
by integrating EFH consultations largely 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. However, it is important
to remember that even prior to the designation of EFH, most Federal
actions affecting the habitat of marine and anadromous species were
subject to review by NOAA Fisheries under other legal authorities. EFH
has provided more emphasis and structure to these reviews, and we are
working closely with affected agencies and industries to ensure that
the EFH consultation process is efficiently implemented. For example,
once the Pacific salmon EFH designations are approved by the Secretary,
we anticipate that the vast majority of salmon EFH reviews will be
accomplished in conjunction with Endangered Species Act consultations
to ensure that no duplicative analyses are required.
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.
On the west coast, NOAA Fisheries is active in several partnerships to
improve the quality and quantity of information for marine resource
stewardship. One of these partnerships is the Pacific Fisheries
Information Network (PacFin), a cooperative state and federal data
collection and management program coordinated by the Pacific States
Marine Fisheries Commission for the entire west coast. A second example
is the use of new Magnuson-Stevens Act provisions to compensate vessel
operators with fish for participating in the conduct of cooperative
marine resource surveys. Just this last year, our Northwest Fisheries
Science Center expanded its ability to collect basic data necessary for
stock assessments by contracting with four private fishing vessels to
conduct the annual slope species groundfish trawl survey with as much
as one half of their financial compensation coming from the guaranteed
opportunity to take a special allocation of fish. 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 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, the federal government has the authority to
regulate anchoring and other activities of fishing vessels that affect
fish habitat. However, we remain concerned with threats to those
resources from non-fishing vessels. We intend to work with other
federal agencies to suggest amendments to the Act to clarify,
consolidate, and strengthen the federal government's 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
west coast delegation; the Pacific Fishery Management Council; and our
stakeholders to resolve problems affecting west coast 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, Ms. Dalton.
Mr. Lone.
STATEMENT OF JIM LONE, CHAIRMAN, PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT
COUNCIL
Mr. Lone. Good morning, Madam Chair and Committee members.
My name is Jim Lone. I chair the Pacific Fishery Management
Council.
This is a challenging time for fisheries management on the
west coast. Several important salmon and groundfish stocks are
depressed or overfished, and our fishing industry is severely
overcapitalized. Recently, this Council sent letters to the
Governors of the three west coast States, warning them of a
potential disaster in the groundfish fishing industry.
On July 29th of 1999, you received the joint
recommendations of the eight Regional Councils for the
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act as an attachment to
the testimony of Mr. Rick Lauber, Chairman of the North Pacific
Council. The Pacific Council fully endorses those
recommendations.
In particular, we want to emphasize our support of the
recommendations to rescind the moratorium on individual fishing
quotas and provide discretionary authority to establish fees
for observer programs. The Pacific Council has fishery
management plans for three fisheries: groundfish, salmon, and
coastal pelagic species. Work is progressing on development of
a fourth plan for highly migratory species.
The Pacific Council and NMFS have completed and implemented
amendments to the groundfish and coastal pelagic species FMP's
to meet the requirements of the SFA. Amendments to the salmon
FMP were delayed due to an existing commitment to update the
entire plan and its environmental impact statement. The Council
approved the salmon plan amendment in March 1999, and they
should be implemented this year.
Regarding groundfish, overcapitalization is the single most
important issue challenging the west coast fishing industry and
this Council. For years, national policy encouraged industry
growth and development as we Americanized the groundfish
fishery. The Pacific Council took steps to reduce
capitalization by establishing a groundfish license limitation
program that took effect in 1994.
We also took steps toward better management of the
sablefish fishery by developing an individual fishing quota
program. We delayed action on the IFQ program in response to
strong signals from Congress. With the 1996 reauthorization, we
lost the ability to implement an IFQ program. We strongly
support an end to the moratorium on IFQ's. We believe we need
this management tool as a means to stabilize the industry and
rebuild stocks.
On the west coast, we are now facing the results of years
of inadequate funding for research and data collection. There
is widespread concern about the quality and quantity of
scientific information on current stock conditions. The
decisions we make based on this information are vigorously
questioned.
And I have appended three letters to my testimony which
document the funding issues in more detail.
Regarding future reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act, it is our opinion that if NMFS and the Councils cannot
conduct the basic stock assessments and collect the necessary
fishery information, the system will not be able to make good
management decisions regardless of how the law is constituted.
Turning to salmon, over the last several years, many salmon
stocks have been at chronic low levels, and several have been
listed under the Endangered Species Act. The ongoing low stock
levels are currently more the result of longstanding and
continued degradation of freshwater habitat and unfavorable
marine survival than of any continuing impacts of fisheries.
Despite some draconian fishery reductions by the Council,
beginning in the early 1990's, little or no recovery is evident
for most of the salmon stocks listed as overfished.
Turning to coastal pelagic species, spurred by requirements
of the SFA, increased abundance of Pacific sardine, and high
demand for market squid, the Pacific Council greatly expanded
the scope and authority of the FMP. Of particular interest in
the Pacific Northwest is the expansion of effort in Pacific
sardine fisheries off Oregon and Washington. Favorable oceanic
and climatic conditions have caused an increase in both biomass
and geographic range of Pacific sardine.
In response, fishers and processors have become interested
in these new fishing opportunities, which may compensate for
reductions in groundfish optimum yields. However, any expansion
in capacity will have to be managed carefully, so as to avoid
the problem of another overcapitalized fishery in the future,
as sardine abundance will naturally decrease in response to
changing oceanic conditions.
In summary, Madam Chair, the Pacific Council fully supports
the intent of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and, with certain
exceptions previously noted, has developed workable plan
amendments to implement it. Moreover, the Council has begun
development of a strategic plan to address the major groundfish
issues and to help move the fisheries toward recovery and
prosperity.
To implement the strategic plan, we will likely need
legislation and financial support to help reduce the number of
fishing vessels that harvest fish off the west coast and to
collect the necessary data for competent management. We
appreciate the efforts and attention Congress has given to
improve and guide our management through passage of the SFA and
in your current efforts to make further beneficial changes in
our fishery management.
We hope that our comments to you today have been helpful,
and we thank you again for this opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lone follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jim Lone, Chairman, Pacific Fishery Management
Council
Madame Chairman and Committee members:
My name is Jim Lone. I chair the Pacific Fishery Management Council
(Pacific Council). Thank you for this opportunity to offer comments
related to implementation of the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA)
and the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
This is a challenging time for fishery management on the west
coast. Several important salmon and groundfish stocks are depressed or
overfished and our fishing industry is severely overcapitalized.
Recently, this Council sent letters to the governors of the three west
coast states, warning them of a potential disaster in the groundfish
fishing industry. Many small fishing businesses are in danger of
failing this year, or in the near future. It is likely the crisis comes
from the combined effects of a change in the ocean environment,
inadequate scientific data collection and analysis, and a national
policy that encouraged capital infusion into the fishing industry.
On July 29, 1999, you received the joint recommendations of the
eight regional Councils for the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act as an attachment to the testimony of Mr. Richard Lauber, Chairman
of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council.\1\ The Pacific Council
fully endorses those recommendations. In particular, we want to
emphasize our support of the recommendations to rescind the moratorium
on individual fishing quotas and provide discretionary authority to
establish fees for observer programs. The rest of my comments will be
specific to the management experience and recommendations of the
Pacific Council.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The collective recommendations were presented on July 22, 1999
to the House Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife, and
Oceans by Mr. Joseph Brancaleone, Chairman of the New England Fishery
Management Council.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Pacific Council has fishery management plans (FMP) for three
fisheries--groundfish, salmon, and coastal pelagic species (CPS; e.g.,
anchovy, sardines, and mackeral). Work is progressing on development of
a fourth plan for highly migratory species (tunas and billfish). The
Pacific Council and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) have
completed and implemented amendments to the groundfish and coastal
pelagic species FMPs to meet the requirements of the SFA.\2\ Amendments
to the salmon FMP were delayed due to an existing commitment to update
the entire salmon FMP and its environmental impact statement. The
Council approved the salmon plan amendments in March 1999 and they
should be implemented this year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The section on bycatch in the groundfish FMP, and the sections
on bycatch and maximum sustainable yield for squid in the coastal
pelagic FMP were not approved and are being modified by the Council at
this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GROUNDFISH
Overcapitalization is the single most important issue challenging
the west coast fishing industry and this Council. For years, national
policy encouraged industry growth and development as we
``Americanized'' the groundfish fishery. We didn't recognize quickly
enough that we had achieved that goal. The Pacific Council took steps
to stem the tide by establishing a groundfish license limitation
program that took effect in 1994. We also took steps toward better
management of the sablefish fishery by developing an individual fishing
quota (IFQ) program. We delayed action on the IFQ program in response
to strong signals from Congress. With the 1996 reauthorization, we lost
the ability to implement an IFQ program. We strongly support an end to
the moratorium on IFQs. We believe we need this management tool as a
means to stabilize the industry and rebuild stocks.
On the west coast, we are now facing the results of years of
inadequate funding for research and data collection. There is
widespread concern about the quality and quantity of scientific
information on current stock conditions. The decisions we make based on
this information are vigorously questioned. Some believe on-the-water
observations by fishermen indicate the Pacific Council's harvest
restrictions are not justified. Others believe the Council should be
even more restrictive until the science supports greater exploitation.
We are also required to assess the social and economic impacts of
management on the fishing industry and communities, yet we are not
provided adequate funds. We are required to reduce bycatch, yet we have
no funds for an observer program to collect bycatch data. I have
appended three letters to my testimony which document the funding issue
in more detail.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The following three letters are appended to this testimony to
document recent and future Council funding needs:
(1) Letter of December 22, 1998 from Mr. Lawrence D. Six, Executive
Director, Pacific Fishery Management Council, to Dr. William Hogarth
and Mr. Will Stelle, NMFS.
(2) Letter of December 14, 1999 from Mr. Robert K. Mahood,
Executive Director, South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, to Mr.
Alan Risenhoover, NMFS.
(3) Letter of December 17, 1999 from Mr. Pete Moffitt, Chairman of
the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, on behalf of the
Regional Council Chairmen, to Ms. Penny Dalton, Assistant Administrator
for Fisheries, NMFS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding future reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, it is
our opinion that if NMFS and the Councils cannot conduct the basic
stock assessments and collect the necessary fishery information, the
system won't be able to make good management decisions regardless of
how the law is constituted. Simply put, we cannot do the job you want
us to do, and the job we want to do, without the necessary resources.
In line with our need for more and better information, the Council
needs discretionary authority to establish fees to help fund observer
programs. This authority would be the same as granted to the North
Pacific Council under Section 313 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. In the
long term, the fishing industry may be able to shoulder more of the
costs to reduce overcapitalization and monitor the catch. In the short
term, however, our industry cannot afford these additional burdens.
SALMON
The SFA required little substantive change in the way we manage
salmon. Over the last several years, many coho and some chinook salmon
stocks have been at chronic low levels and several have been listed
under the Endangered Species Act. However, for the most part, the
management of salmon under the current FMP already met the more
conservative definition of optimum yield contained in the SFA. The
ongoing low stock levels are currently much more the result of long-
standing and continued degradation of freshwater habitat and
unfavorable marine survival than of any continuing impacts of
fisheries. Despite some draconian fishery reductions by the Council
beginning in the early 1990s, little or no recovery is evident for most
of the salmon stocks listed as overfished. The numerous variables
affecting abundance make it impossible to specify a time period in
which an overfished salmon stock will be rebuilt.
The biggest change in salmon management under the SFA has been the
inclusion of the description and identification of essential fish
habitat and the consultation requirements it includes. Since Amendment
14 to the salmon FMP has not yet been implemented, it is not possible
to determine the impacts of the essential fish habitat requirements.
However, considerable public input during the amendment process
indicates opposition among the general business community to the
breadth of the essential salmon habitat description. There is a fear of
additional permit requirements and delays in land use or development
projects. This is especially pertinent for salmon due to the inclusion
of thousands of miles of freshwater streams. Conversely, we have
received numerous comments deploring the lack of teeth in the essential
fish habitat measures to require compliance with NMFS or Council
recommendations. The extent of increased workload for the Councils and
NMFS remains in question. We view the SFA essential fish habitat
requirements as a logical, though controversial, step in increasing the
recognition of the importance of salmon habitat and ensuring its
protection and restoration, which is vital to long-term salmon
recovery.
COASTAL PELAGIC SPECIES
The most significant impact of the SFA on coastal pelagic species
(CPS) fisheries was expansion of the FMP. Spurred by requirements of
the SFA, increased abundance of Pacific sardine, and high demand for
market squid, the Pacific Council greatly expanded the scope and
authority of the FMP. Of particular interest in the Pacific Northwest,
is the expansion of effort in Pacific sardine fisheries off Oregon and
Washington. Favorable oceanic and climatic conditions have caused an
increase in both biomass and geographic range of Pacific sardine. In
response, fishers and processors have become interested in these new
fishing opportunities which may compensate for reductions in groundfish
optimum yields by providing opportunity to use idle fishing and
processing capacity. There is also potential for increased investment
in fishing and processing capacity. With any expansion in capacity, it
is likely the Council will have to grapple with an overcapitalized
fishery in the future, as sardine abundance will naturally decrease in
response to changing oceanic conditions. There is also concern that
expanding sardine fisheries in Oregon and Washington could catch
significant numbers of Pacific salmon (as bycatch). Preliminary data
and information from fishers indicate that incidental catch of salmon
is minimal, and the industry is working with the states to develop ways
to minimize salmon bycatch and bycatch mortality.
SUMMARY
In summary, Madame Chairperson, the Pacific Council fully supports
the intent of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and, with certain exceptions
previously noted, has developed workable plan amendments to implement
it. Moreover, the Council has begun development of a strategic plan to
address the major groundfish issues and to help move the fisheries
towards recovery and prosperity. To implement the strategic plan, we
will likely need legislation and financial support to help reduce the
number of fishing vessels that harvest fish off the west coast and to
collect the necessary data for competent management. We appreciate the
efforts and attention Congress has given to improve and guide our
management through the passage of the SFA and in your current efforts
to make further beneficial changes in our fishery management. We know
that there are many other interests throughout the nation competing for
your attention and funding. We hope that our comments to you today have
been helpful and will try to be responsive to any other information or
input you may need. Thank you again for this opportunity. I will be
happy to answer any questions you or the other Senators may have.
Pacific Fishery Management Council
2130 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 224
Portland, Oregon 97201
Jerry Mallet, Chairman
Lawrence D. Six, Executive Director
December 22, 1998
Dr. William Hogarth, Regional Administrator
Southwest Region
National Marine Fisheries Service
501 W Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200
Long Beach, CA 90802-4213
and
Mr. Will Stelle, Regional Administrator
Northwest Region
National Marine Fisheries Service
7600 Sand Point Way NE, BIN C15700
Seattle, WA 98115-0070
Dear Bill and Will:
Representatives of the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council)
and Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission met December 10, 1998,
with representatives of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
Northwest Region (NWR) and Southwest Region (SWR); and Alaska Fisheries
Science Center (AFSC), Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC), and
Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) to develop a consensus
package of budget initiatives to meet Council information needs for
fiscal year (FY) 2001. We agreed on nine major initiatives, which are
described below. We recommend this package be submitted to NMFS
headquarters by mid January as input into formulation of the
President's FY 2001 budget request. These initiatives are not presented
in priority order. They represent the highest priority needs, which
were boiled down from a long list of needed projects identified by the
Council and participants at the December 10 meeting. This package
addresses Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act) mandates only. We did not attempt to address
marine mammals, protected species, or other NMFS mandates.
In addition, the group expressed support for seven other
activities, most of which are national in scope and critically
important to successful implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
These efforts are described after the west coast initiatives.
Finally, as a result of our discussion of FY 2001 needs, it became
apparent there are significant shortfalls in funding for critical west
coast programs in FY 1999 and potentially for FY 2000. These shortfalls
are described herein.
West Coast Initiatives Implementing Magnuson-Stevens Act in FY 2001
1. Maintain and Enhance the Pacific Fishery Information Network
(PacFIN)--$1,166,000
This initiative has two components: improving economic data
collection and increased port sampling of groundfish landings. The
augmentations are in addition to the base program of $3.0 million for
PacFIN. With enhancements, the total amount needed is $4,166,000.
Economic Data Collection--$700,000
Economic data is needed to develop and implement fishery management
plans, assess the effects of those plans, and fairly allocate limited
resources among competing users. Further, the courts in two recent
cases have overturned management decisions, because the accompanying
economic analysis was insufficient. This initiative will implement the
Economic Data Plan, which was developed by Council, NMFS, and other
economists and then adopted by the Council. Funds are needed to
implement the plan beginning in FY 2000 and annually thereafter.
Increased Port Sampling--$466,000
Current funding is not adequate to sample nontrawl groundfish
fisheries, including the open access fishery and the live-fish
landings. Additional samplers in California, Oregon, and Washington
would provide the necessary coverage at a cost of $466,000.
2. Maintain and Enhance the Recreational Fishery Information Network--
$1,082,000
As the Council more actively manages the recreational fishery for
groundfish, it is apparent the current marine recreational fishery
statistics program on the west coast is not providing adequate
information for management purposes. There is a need for more reliable
estimates by species, time, and area on a finer scale. Sampling of
anglers needs to be increased, and the method of estimating effort
needs to be improved. The current funding allocation for the west coast
intercept survey is $918,000, which does not even provide for a 12-
month effort. An additional $1,082,000 is needed to bring the total to
$2,000,000.
3. Improve and Expand Groundfish Surveys and Stock Assessments--
$3,500,000
GOAL: Build a scientifically sound resource survey and stock
assessment program in the NWFSC and SWFSC and transition to allow
redirection of the AFSC resources to critical stock assessment problems
off Alaska.
BACKGROUND: Commercial, recreational, and tribal harvest of the 83
species of west coast groundfish is important to communities along
California, Oregon, and Washington. An investment in improved
monitoring of these species is necessary to guard against inadvertent
overharvest due to lack of adequate scientific information and to
reduce the need for precautionary harvest reductions. The scientific
basis for safe harvest levels typically comes from stock assessment
models which incorporate resource survey and fishery data. The critical
need for fishery-independent resource survey data is one of the primary
recommendations in the National Research Council's review of stock
assessment methods. A scientifically sound stock assessment program
will conduct frequent and timely assessments for all species groups;
will include relevant ecological, social, and economic information in
these assessments; and will engage in sufficient outreach to build
public understanding and trust in assessment results. The resource
survey program would conduct frequent standardized surveys of each
major fish assemblage, including adult and prerecruit life stages and
would engage in research to understand how environmental factors affect
survey results and to improve the calibration of the survey methods. A
combination of acoustic, trawl, egg/larval, hook-and-line, and new
advanced technologies is needed to cover the complexity of life stages
and habitats for groundfish. The program requires both a Fisheries
Research Vessel (FRV) and chartered vessels to deploy appropriate
survey methods over the entire west coast range of the species. The FRV
would focus on studies that require specialized equipment, high levels
of standardization, and multi-sampler projects. Multiple charter
vessels would be used for surveys that must cover broad geographic
areas in short time periods.
PROPOSAL: The expanded west coast survey and stock assessment
program will be able to provide critical information for management of
west coast groundfish. The program will conduct an annual bottom trawl
survey covering the depth range of nearshore flatfish, shelf rockfish,
and deep slope species. Such a survey was broadly endorsed by a
science/industry workshop in 1998. The program will conduct a
hydroacoustic survey for whiting, develop and deploy new survey
methodology for nearshore rockfish, and conduct specialized surveys
such as fixed gear surveys for sablefish and recruitment surveys for
key species. The enhanced stock assessment program will be able to turn
these expanded survey results into timely, comprehensive, and well-
understood recommendations on safe harvest levels for west coast
groundfish.
New Funding Need: $3,500,000, plus access to a FRV, plus use of an
allocation of the annual quota to partially compensate chartered
vessels.
4. Groundfish Observer Program--$4,700,000
Reliable estimates of total catch of west coast groundfish are not
available because of unknown amounts of discard at sea caused by
regulations and markets. Current estimates of discards are based on old
and very limited studies. A comprehensive observer program covering all
gears and areas is required to obtain reliable estimates of total
catch. This information is needed before the Council can adequately
address the mandate to minimize bycatch. Given the economic condition
of the industry as a result of reduced optimum yields, an industry-
funded program is not feasible. Federal funding is required. The
estimated annual cost of an observer program, including NMFS
infrastructure, is $4,700,000.
5. Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)--$1,000,000
There are three components to this initiative: marine reserves,
gear impacts, and habitat areas of particular concern. Total annual
long-term costs are $1,000,000.
Marine Reserves
Areas closed to fishing are widely viewed as having potential to
protect EFH and marine ecosystems and to serve as important tools for
fishery management. There is a pressing need to gather the
socioeconomic and scientific data required to rigorously evaluate
marine reserves as a fishery management tool on the west coast. This
will require research to identify the management needs that may be
achievable through marine reserves (e.g., which species and life
stages), design optimal reserves through modeling, and implement these
designs through field testing to evaluate the potential benefits. A
major component of this initiative will involve socioeconomic studies
of interested parties from potentially affected groups (e.g., tribal,
other governmental, recreational, commercial, community, and
environmental) to improve consideration of social needs and desires and
to foster acceptance of results and potential designation of marine
reserves for fishery management purposes.
Gear Impacts on Habitat
The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the regional fishery management
Councils to minimize to the extent practicable adverse effects on
habitat caused by fishing. Information on the effects of fishing gear
on west coast habitat is inadequate. There is a need to (1) evaluate
the effects of trawl, longline, and pot gears on a variety of bottom
habitats on the west coast; (2) conduct experiments to identify the
short-term and long-term effects of gear deployment and of repetitive
deployment (e.g., in situ studies of trawling and other gear impacts on
the benthos); (3) as feasible, implement a program to obtain longline
effort information; and (4) conduct experiments (e.g., with
modifications to gear or fishing practices, areas, or times) to test
ways to reduce adverse effects and develop recommendations that may be
implemented.
Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPCs)
To support the evaluation of marine reserves and EFH consultation
efforts, NMFS should (1) identify marine HAPCs for groundfish, salmon,
and coastal pelagic species (CPS) off the west coast; (2) inventory and
increase accessibility to available data from state, federal, tribal,
and private sources and include the information in a global information
system (GIS); (3) identify data gaps and research needs; and (4)
evaluate the condition of these HAPCs, if known, and recommend
necessary conservation measures.
6. Salmon Encounter Rates and Hooking Mortality--$100,000
The ability to harvest salmon from hatchery programs and other
healthy salmon stocks without risking the continued existence of some
weak stocks, including those listed under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA), depends on accurate estimates of hook-and-release mortality
rates and encounter rates in fisheries. The Council has appointed an
ad-hoc committee to address additional research needs related to
estimates of hooking mortality and encounter rates. At this juncture it
is clear that adequate estimates of encounter rates are lacking, and
this situation must be rectified. Additional research needs may be
forthcoming from the ad-hoc committee and Council in the future.
Encounter rates vary with relative stock abundances and ocean
conditions as well as gear and fishery. A program to have fishers
report encounters, coupled with a limited observer program, was
successful in 1995 to 1997, but discontinued in 1998 due to a lack of
funds. Such a program needs to be done annually to provide in-season
measures of encounter rates and develop a long-term data base for
prediction. This could be combined with stock identification research
to provide real-time fishery assessment capabilities. An additional
$100,000 per year is required to address this need.
7. Application of Genetic Stock Identification for Salmon Management--
$300,000
Increased listing of salmon stocks under the ESA and implementation
of mass marking and selective fishery programs will require much more
intensive evaluations of mixed salmon harvests in the future. No single
method will be able to provide all the necessary information; rather, a
variety of approaches will be required, including coded-wire tags and
other physical marks, genetic stock identification (GSI), otolith
marking, and perhaps others. Under the aegis of the Pacific Salmon
Treaty (PST), GSI research has produced a coastwide data set that is
used for stock composition in PST-related fisheries. Work should be
expanded into three areas: (1) extend the use of GSI analysis of
chinook salmon populations into areas of southern Washington, Oregon,
and California. This will provide the capability to respond to Council
and ESA mandates in fisheries not directly related to the PST; (2)
initiate the use of molecular markers for GSI of coho salmon. Although
most of the major populations of coho salmon have been examined for
protein genetic variation and regional patterns of variability have
been described, additional research is required to use genetic markers
for mixed-fishery analysis; and (3) initiate genetic stock
identification of chinook and coho salmon juveniles in coastal and
estuarine waters. Although the early migration patterns of hatchery-
reared juveniles have been studied to some extent with coded-wire tags,
little is known about the coastal migratory habits of juveniles from
wild populations. Identification of populations of origin is an
important element in interpreting the results of ongoing ecological
studies of early life-history stages in coastal waters. This phase of
the research would utilize juvenile samples collected as part of other
research projects. All three phases will be accomplished by extending
and updating the protein genetic baseline for chinook and coho salmon
populations, analyzing mixed-stock fisheries with current statistical
procedures, and developing the use of DNA markers for GSI estimations
for chinook and coho salmon. New funding needed is $300,000 per year.
8. Coastwide Coastal Pelagic Species Assessments--$660,000
The recently adopted fishery management plan for CPS includes two
actively-managed species, Pacific sardine and Pacific (chub) mackerel.
Both of these stocks now span thousands of miles of coastline from
British Columbia to southern Baja California. The biomass of sardine
has climbed to about 1.2 million tons, a level not seen for over 50
years, and the biomass of mackerel is around 130,000 tons. These
estimates, based on many assumptions, are very uncertain and may be
underestimated, because no coastwide measure of abundance exists. A
coastwide abundance estimate is needed to ground-truth the biomass
assessment models. A survey approach is proposed that combines
simultaneous (April) acoustic trawl surveys (ATS) (a precise relative
measure of biomass) and daily egg production (DEP) surveys (an absolute
measure of biomass). The ratio between ATS and DEP surveys in the south
(Mexico and California) will be used to calibrate ATS surveys off
Oregon and Washington. Two chartered commercial fishing vessels (30
days each) will be used along with data collected from routine April
survey data from existing CalCOFI and IMECOCal (Mexico) surveys. The
work will be a cooperative project involving the SWFSC and NWFSC. Costs
are estimated to be $660,000 per year.
9. Development of an Economic and Social Science Program--$1,300,000
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) must
develop an infrastructure for the social sciences and incorporate these
disciplines in the living resource management processes, including
strategic placement of economists, anthropologists, and sociologists.
Good social science programs should be located in each of the NMFS
Science Centers. The NWFSC needs full time employees (FTEs) to
institute a program, and the SWFSC needs additional FTEs to expand its
program to needed areas. For a solid infrastructure, social science
FTEs should also be strategically located within regional offices and
Councils. These FTEs are needed to apply the available data and
scientific analyses to the policy, decision, and regulatory
requirements associated with Executive Order 12866, Magnuson-Stevens
Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, National Environmental Policy Act,
and ESA. The NMFS NWR and SWR need FTEs to address the new Magnuson-
Stevens Act requirements and to address upcoming capacity/fleet
reduction programs and user group allocation issues. The NMFS NWR and
SWR also need FTEs to meet the growing policy and regulatory demands
associated with habitat restoration and protected resource/ESA issues.
To establish a good program within the NMFS NWR and NWFSC, and to
appropriately expand the NMFS SWR and SWFSC program, $1.3 million is
needed.
Support of Other Budget Initiatives for FY 2001
Ecosystem Management
The Magnuson-Stevens Act mandated appointment of an advisory panel
to develop recommendations to expand the application of ecosystem
principles in fishery conservation and management activities. The
panel's final report is imminent. The eight regional fishery management
Council chairs listed ecosystem management as one of the priority
activities which should be funded in the NMFS budget.
Minimize Bycatch and Bycatch Mortality
A new national standard in the Magnuson-Stevens Act calls for
bycatch to be minimized to the extent practicable. A national effort is
needed to address this vital mandate. On the west coast, an initial
step must be to implement a comprehensive groundfish observer program
to document the extent of bycatch and bycatch mortality.
Increase Regional General Counsel for Fisheries Staff
Regional offices of NOAA General Counsel are understaffed and
cannot provide timely reviews of numerous Council and NMFS actions
under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This is particularly a problem at the
NMFS NWR. Additional attorneys are needed.
Highly Migratory Species in the Pacific
We support NMFS SWR efforts to improve the science and management
of Pacific highly migratory species. These efforts benefit the Western
Pacific and Pacific fishery management Councils. The Pacific Council
expects to become active in the management of highly migratory species
on the west coast.
Electronic Data Collection and Fish Statistics
On the west coast, there is a pilot program to evaluate electronic
recording of logbook data. The Council supports expansion of electronic
data systems (including fishtickets and logbooks) on the west coast in
FY 2001 and beyond.
Enforcement
Council-approved management measures are only as good as our
capability to enforce them. Enforcement resources on the west coast are
stretched to the limit. They cannot adequately cover certain existing
fisheries, such as the live-fish fishery, and will not be adequate to
enforce significant new programs, such as individual quotas, which are
anticipated in the year 2000 and beyond.
Klamath and Trinity Rivers Chinook Escapement Estimation
The critical effort to estimate the spawning escapement of chinook
salmon in the Klamath and Trinity rivers is in danger of not being
funded in 1999 and beyond. NMFS should make sure that this program is
funded by the Bureau of Reclamation or other entity.
Critical Funding Shortfalls in FY 1999
NMFS SWFSC
NMFS SWFSC, La Jolla laboratory, has lost its only stock assessment
modeler (Dr. Larry Jacobson). Owing to the SWFSC deficit, the position
will not be filled after Dr. Jacobson's departure in January 1999. This
is clearly a loss of a most vital function for a fishery laboratory
(see Natural Resource Consultants report Improving Fish Stock
Assessments). This has grave consequences for the Council and the La
Jolla laboratory, because it will not be able to carry out its fishery
responsibilities in the NMFS SWR including: pending stock assessments
on mackerel and sardine under the new CPS plan; SWFSC support for
groundfish stock assessments; assessment modeling on the Highly
Migratory Species Plan Development Team; subsequent stock assessments
for west coast tunas, billfish, and sharks. The loss is also of deep
concern to California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), because it
closes a long-term stock assessment support provided to CDFG as part of
joint research carried out over the last 25 years. Salary range for a
Senior Stock Assessment Specialists for NMFS (level GS-14) ranges from
about $69,000 to $90,000 per year.
Elimination of overtime at NMFS SWFSC will eliminate the collection
of data needed for trends in abundance collected by CalCOFI surveys for
mackerel, sardine, and various groundfishes. For the two CPS species it
is the primary source of information for trends in abundance, and
without it we will be totally blind to changes in abundance.
NMFS NWFSC
NMFS NWFSC has identified a shortfall of approximately $400,000 to
conduct the late summer slope bottom trawl survey using chartered
fishing vessels in 1999. This was a successful cooperative program
begun in 1998, which the Council believes must continue. The research
vessel (R/V) Miller Freeman is expected to be available in 1999 to
conduct the late fall slope survey on the west coast, but there are
insufficient days at sea for the necessary level of sampling (see NMFS
AFSC below).
NMFS AFSC
There are insufficient days at sea for the necessary level of
sampling for the west coast slope survey aboard the R/V Miller Freeman.
The Council encourages NMFS to find the necessary funds to cover this
need.
In closing, we hope you agree with these high priority research
needs and submit them as regional input into the FY 2001 budget
request. Also, it is critical that funding shortfalls in FY 1999 and
2000 be addressed. I thought the December 10 session was extremely
productive in achieving a consensus package, and I look forward to
continuing this process each year. Thank you for your support of the
Council fishery management process.
Sincerely,
Lawrence D. Six
Executive Director
South Atlantic Fishery Management Council
One Southpark Circle, Suite 306
Charleston, South Carolina 29407-4699
Pete Moffitt, Chairman
Fulton Love, Vice-Chairman
Robert K. Mahood, Executive Director
Gregg Waugh, Deputy Executive Director
December 14, 1999
Memorandum
To: Alan Risenhoover
From: Bob Mahood
Subject: Regional Councils' 2002 Funding Request
The Councils appreciate the opportunity to participate in the DOC/
NOAA/NMFS budget process. Based on your guidance we are submitting our
request in a format compatible with the development of NMFS's 2002
budget. Our budget request consists of two parts, administrative
funding and programmatic funding, however, the total requested should
be maintained as one amount under the Regional Fishery Management
Council line item in the NMFS budget. The administrative funding level
requested will allow the Councils to conduct and improve current
management programs in a continuing effort to meet the mandates of the
Sustainable Fisheries Act. The programmatic funding requested will
allow the Councils to address specific information and data needs that
are essential for managing our fisheries.
Recommendations for funding priorities: The Councils are requesting
a total funding level of $19,047,000 ($15,624,000 in administrative
funds and $3,423,000 in programmatic funds). The total funding
requested represents a 12% increase over the Councils' 2001 budget
request. The administrative portion of the funding request represents a
modest increase of 9% per year over the Councils' 2000 budget and is
our highest priority. The administrative funding level requested is
necessary to maintain, and in some cases expand, current management
activities to meet the mandates of the SFA. Programmatic funds have not
been available to the Councils since the 1980's. We believe if funding
above our administrative (basic operational) requirements can be
obtained the Councils will be in a position to help NNIFS address
critical data needs on a real time basis.
BUILD SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES: Most Council activities fall under
building sustainable fisheries. The SFA passed in 1996 significantly
increased the Councils' management responsibilities and we are still
struggling to obtain the financial resources to meet those
responsibilities. The Act will be reauthorized in 2000 or 2001 and the
Councils will respond accordingly to any new requirements that result
from changes to the Act.
To continue basic Council operations/activities at current levels
in 2002 (allowing for anticipated increases in fixed costs such as
personnel, facilities, etc.) will require $14,387,000. Mandated
expansion of current programs will require $1,167,000 and additional
needed infrastructure costs will require $70,000.
New Initiatives--$3,423,000 (main focus of programmatic funds)
Develop plans for and/or conduct (contract) data
collection programs to fill the gaps in the data necessary to meet the
required provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, specifically in the
areas of EFH, bycatch, stock assessments, overfished species (MSY
biomass determinations), fishing communities, and economic and social
assessments.
Establish recreational fishery data collection programs or
enhance existing programs.
Expansion of Current Programs--$1,167,000
Develop new FMPs and/or amend current FMPs to meet
management goals of rebuilding overfished species; achieving MSY and
OY; and addressing EFH, bycatch and fishing communities.
Address development of ecosystem management.
Develop new or refine existing limited access, EFQ/ITQ and
other similar programs.
Assess and improve reporting and monitoring programs.
Conduct comprehensive reviews of various FMPs to determine
their effectiveness.
Coordinate international species management.
Enhance public information/education dissemination.
Manage Pacific HMS.
Address Current Shortfalls--$1,850,000
Funds are currently not available for the Councils to:
--meet the SFA requirements relative to EFH, bycatch,
overfishing and fishing communities
--conduct international fisheries management
--develop and monitor marine reserves
--establish observer and other reporting and monitoring
programs
--address issues related to seabird interactions, marine
debris, endangered species and marine mammals
Infrastructure Costs--$70,000
Increase in Council office space and/or costs.
Develop video conference capability in some areas.
RECOVER PROTECTED SPECIES: The Councils have some management activities
that fall under this category, such as minimizing protected species
interactions and impacts from fishing operations.
SUSTAIN HEALTHY COASTS: Council activities addressing essential fish
habitat relate to this category.
If you require any further or more detailed information, or have
any questions relative to our 2002 funding request, please contact me.
South Atlantic Fishery Management Council
One Southpark Circle, Suite 306
Charleston, South Carolina 29407-4699
Pete Moffitt, Chairman
Fulton Love, Vice-Chairman
Robert K. Mahood, Executive Director
Gregg T. Waugh, Deputy Executive Director
December 17, 1999
Ms. Penny Dalton
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries
National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA
1315 East-West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Dear Ms. Dalton:
We regret you were unable to attend the budget meeting with us on
October 29, 1999. A number of issues were discussed relative to the FY
2000 appropriations, the FY 2001 budget request and development of the
FY 2002 budget. We also discussed ways to improve the Councils' input
into the NOAA/NMFS budget process. Alan Risenhoover did his usual
excellent job of briefing us on the status the budgets and provided
guidance on how we could more effectively participate in the budget
process for FY 2002. Following his guidance we have already submitted
the Councils' FY 2002 budget request. We hope you will strongly support
our request through the NMFS/NOAA/Commerce budget development process.
As you are aware, the eight regional Councils requested an
appropriation of $15 million for FY 2000. The proposed funding level of
$13.15 million creates a shortfall of $1.85 million which will greatly
impede the Councils' ability to meet the mandates of the SFA and to
manage the fisheries resources in their jurisdictions. The attached
``Funding Shortfalls'' document outlines the activities each Council
will not be able to undertake because of the proposed budget shortfall,
and the approximate additional funding that would be required to
accomplish these activities. In cases where these listed activities are
mandated by law the Councils will have to delay or eliminate other on
going management programs if additional funding can not be obtained. We
are requesting that NMFS provide the Councils with additional funding
to help us do our job as specified in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. We
realize you may not be able to make up the entire $1.85 million
shortfall, however, any additional support you can provide would be
greatly appreciated.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Pete Moffitt
On behalf of the Regional Council Chairmen
funding shortfalls for fishery management councils in fy 2000
The eight regional Councils requested an appropriation of $15
million for FY 2000 to meet their fisheries management
responsibilities. The proposed funding level of $13.15 million creates
a shortfall of $1.85 million which will greatly impede the Councils'
ability to meet the mandates of the SFA and to manage the fisheries
resources in their jurisdictions. The following briefly outlines the
activities each Council will not be able to undertake because of the
proposed budget shortfall, and the approximate additional funding that
would be required to accomplish these activities. In cases where these
listed activities are mandated by law the Councils will have to delay
or eliminate other on going management programs if additional funding
can not be obtained.
New England Council
Develop new FMPs for skates, red crab and shrimp
Program for managing capacity in the groundfish and
scallop fisheries
Fund activities of the Research Steering Committee
US/Canada relations
Additional funding needs for these activities--$500K
Mid-Atlantic Council
EFH research to address adverse effects of fishing gear on
EFH
Conservation engineering research to address bycatch
reduction
Additional funding needs for these activities--$590K (includes COLA
adjustments and non-labor costs)
South Atlantic Council
Collection/analysis of community related socioeconomic
data
Additional funding needs for these activities--$75K
Caribbean Council
Stock assessments for key FMP species
Develop/monitor marine reserves to comply with EFH
requirements
Additional funding needs for these activities--$127K
Gulf Council
Hire consultant to write FMP/amendment regulations
LDevelop amendments to address marine reserves, shrimp,
spiny lobster, mackerel and vessel monitoring systems
Additional funding needs for these activities--$187K
Pacific Council
Develop rebuilding plans for 5 species of groundfish
Develop new HMS FMP
Meet AFA requirements
Marine reserves analysis
Community impacts analysis
Groundfish capacity reduction (strategic plan
implementation)
Additional funding needs for these activities--$271K. The Pacific
Council also needs $2 million to fund the proposed observer program.
North Pacific Council
Receiving additional funds to meet needs
Western Pacific Council
Unknown
Total additional funding needs for these activities--$1.75 million
Senator Snowe. Thank you very much, Mr. Lone.
Mr. Anderson.
STATEMENT OF PHIL ANDERSON, SPECIAL ASSISTANT
TO THE DIRECTOR OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
Mr. Phil Anderson. Thank you, Madam Chair, and good
morning. My name is Phil Anderson. I am a Special Assistant to
the Director of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,
and I head up the Intergovernmental Policy Group.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today and
present the views of the Department relative to the
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act.
The State of Washington has very significant interest in
issues within the Pacific Fishery Management Council and the
North Pacific Council forums. Washington State is the home of
many vessel owners, crew members and processors that
participate in fisheries managed by the North Pacific Council.
Similarly, Washington coastal communities, as well as
communities in Puget Sound, serve as the home for commercial
and recreational fisheries managed by the Pacific Council.
The Department supports the revisions adopted by Congress
in 1996 that addressed a more cautionary approach to managing
the Nation's fisheries resources. The revisions have been
aggressively implemented by both the Pacific and the North
Pacific Councils. However, to fully implement and maintain this
new course will require additional resources being made
available.
Congress must be prepared to provide support to the Council
process, including attainment of the necessary scientific data
to manage the fisheries and implement the Act. Partnerships
between the Council and the States can assist in meeting the
needs of the Council. The Department of Fish and Wildlife is
committed to the Council process and our partnerships with the
National Marine Fisheries Service and other coastal States.
It is important that the Council have available to them
management tools that are reasonable and consistent with the
mandates of the Act and the National Standard Guidelines. The
Pacific Council is currently struggling to address overcapacity
in the face of greatly reduced harvest allowances in our
groundfish fishery. In order for market forces to lessen the
adverse impacts associated with capacity reduction, IFQ's must
be available to the Council. We strongly recommend that the IFQ
moratorium be allowed to sunset and that Congress inform the
Councils of their intent as soon as possible.
Council authority to assess fishers for fishery data
collection should be expanded to include the Pacific Council.
Congress has so far been unwilling to pay for an observer
program on the west coast groundfish fishery, and we are
concerned about the fishers' ability to pay fees to support an
observer program unless this cost is distributed equally
throughout the fleet. Only the North Pacific Council is now
authorized to collect such fees and establish a fund to recover
the cost of a mandated observer program. And we believe that
authority should be extended to the Pacific Council.
National Marine Fisheries Service deserves credit for their
efforts to be responsive to the new direction established by
the Act in 1996. It is a fact, however, that commitment alone
does not get the job done. Regardless of how lean and mean the
management machine is, sufficient resources must still be
provided. Congress must provide additional resources to
National Marine Fisheries Service to ensure timely review and
approval of the regulatory amendments.
The lack of adequate data, stock assessments and 3-year
intervals in trawl surveys have played a large role in the
failure of our management to detect the decline of many species
of groundfish on the west coast. Absent additional resources
being made available to the National Marine Fisheries Service,
the Council will likely fail in its effort to manage groundfish
stocks responsibly. We recommend the Congress provide National
Marine Fisheries Service with the necessary resources to meet
the data needs for managing west coast groundfish.
The Act currently provides the States of Washington, Oregon
and California interim authority, with certain exceptions, to
enforce State laws and regulations against any vessel engaged
in the dungeness crab fishery in the EEZ adjacent to the
respective States. This authority has been a valuable tool for
the Department in securing management agreements with coastal
treaty tribes and has facilitated our ability to spread the
effects of such agreements across all non-treaty fishers who
fish in the EEZ adjacent to our State.
This authority will expire in October of 2001. We recommend
extending the authority until such time as the Secretary adopts
a Federal management plan for this fishery.
In summary, the Department believes that the changes made
in the 1996 Act were thoughtful, timely, and will result in an
improvement of the Nation's fishery resources. Successful
implementation, however, will depend on Congress providing
adequate tools and resources to National Marine Fisheries
Service and the Councils. In short, we do not support an
overhaul of the Act. A combination of new funding vehicles and
resources to meet the demands of implementation will allow the
Council to meet the intent of the Act.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today. I
would be happy to answer any questions.
Senator Snowe. Thank you, Mr. Anderson.
Mr. Harp.
STATEMENT OF JIM HARP, TRIBAL REPRESENTATIVE, PACIFIC FISHERY
MANAGEMENT COUNCIL
Mr. Harp. Madam Chairman, honorable members of the
Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on
behalf of 26 tribes in the Pacific Fishery Council area.
I plan today to speak to five issues that bear on the
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and add a comment.
First, the tribal seat. In 1996, the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act was reauthorized and
amended. The tribal seat on the Pacific Fishery Management
Council was added at that time. The tribes continue their
support of the tribal seat.
One small area of improvement would be for the tribal seat
to be allowed designees. This addition would allow for tribal
representatives from a specific area the opportunity to
participate in the deliberations of fisheries within their area
of interest. Currently, other government agencies represented
on the Council have the ability to have designees for their
seats.
This is an effective and useful process because it allows
the designation of individuals with specific expertise on a
regional- or stock-specific issue, and it allows the Council
representative to have a stand-in when workload demands the
representative be elsewhere. The tribes are again requesting
consideration of amending the tribal seat on the Council that
would allow this designee request to be implemented in the
reauthorization process.
Second, fishery management plans. As a result of the
amendments to the MFCMA in 1996, a major process of amending
the various fishery management plans has been underway. While
these amendments have often been useful and have dealt with
needed issues, they have been very time consuming and have been
a drain on the Council resources, as well as the resources of
the various government agencies that work within the Council
family.
Also, many serious conservation concerns are facing most of
our fisheries and the regional Councils simply need more
resources to deal with these additional issues. An ability to
provide stipends for scientists participating in the groundfish
management team, the salmon technical team and the scientific
and statistical committee would help ensure that the agencies
who provide these scientists can devote the time of their top
staff to serve in these advisory positions.
Third, bycatch. A critical issue facing the groundfish
fisheries on the west coast is bycatch. The declining trip
limits for many species has aggravated the problem of dealing
with bycatch. Because there is no observer program on the west
coast, the Council cannot measure the amount of bycatch in our
fisheries adequately. This insufficiency has complicated the
Council's efforts to successfully deal with the problem. Any
changes to the Act to facilitate the development and funding of
an observer program would be helpful.
Individual quotas: Another important issue is that of IQ's.
Currently there is a moratorium on the development and
implementation of IQ's in the Pacific Council area. While the
tribes recognize that this is primarily a non-Indian issue,
they support the concept of IQ's. IQ's can bring a great deal
of stability to the fisheries, which would benefit both the
Indian and non-Indian fishers.
Fifth, stock assessments. Many of the problems facing
fishery management on the west coast, especially groundfish
management, have more to do with the inadequate funding for
both NMFS and the PFMC rather than problems with the Magnuson-
Stevens Act itself. Several of the groundfish stocks are very
depleted and we have problems assessing the status of these
stocks, as well as developing recovery plans.
The NMFS triennial trawl survey is an important part of our
stock assessment process. However, it is not done often enough,
and Congress seems to be moving away from funding adequate
levels of NMFS research. Currently the Council tries to do
stock assessments for each species on a 3-year basis. However,
this is not adequate, given the number of important species we
try to manage and the number of species that are yet to be
assessed. Stock assessments are expensive, but necessary, if we
are to adequately manage fisheries.
A final comment. Within the reauthorization process, we
request Congress to renew the commitment to the core purposes
and policy statement behind the Magnuson-Stevens Act. That is,
to ensure conservation and management of the national fisheries
resources and to promote domestic fisheries under sound
conservation and management principles. In the management of
the salmon resource in the Pacific Northwest, the Pacific
Council must meet the obligations as defined by the Pacific
Salmon Treaty, Indian Treaty Fishing Rights, ESA, and other
domestic management considerations.
Also, just as the Magnuson-Stevens Act is required to be in
compliance with other applicable laws, the application of these
other applicable laws needs to comply with the Magnuson-Stevens
Act. In the development and application of ESA obligations,
there needs to be recognition of Magnuson-Stevens Act
principles that these fishery resources are managed for
utilization and under the goal for attainment of maximum
sustainable yield.
This concludes my testimony, and again, I appreciate your
consideration of my remarks.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Harp follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jim Harp, Tribal Representative, Pacific Fishery
Management Council
Madam Chairman, honorable members of the Committee, I appreciate
the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the twenty-six tribes in
the Pacific Fishery Council area.
I plan today to speak to five issues that bear on the
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and add a comment.
TRIBAL SEAT
In 1996, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act (MFCMA) was re-authorized and amended. A tribal seat on the Pacific
Fishery Management Council was added at that time. The tribes continue
their support of the tribal seat. One small area of improvement would
be for the tribal seat to be allowed designees. This addition would
allow for tribal representative(s) from a specific tribal area the
opportunity to participate in the deliberations of fisheries within
their area of interest. Currently other government agencies represented
on the PFMC have the ability to have designees for their seats. This is
an effective and useful process because it allows the designation of
individuals with specific expertise on a regional or stock specific
issue and it allows for the Council representative to have a stand-in
when workload demands the representative to be elsewhere. The tribes
are again requesting consideration of amending the tribal seat on the
Council that would allow this designee request to be implemented in the
reauthorization process.
FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLANS
As a result of the amendments to the MFCMA in 1996, a major process
of amending the various Fishery Management Plans has been underway.
While these amendments have often been useful and have dealt with
needed issues, they have been very time consuming and have been a drain
on Council resources as well as the resources of the various government
agencies that work within the Council family. Also, many serious
conservation concerns are facing most of our fisheries and the regional
Councils simply need more resources to deal with these additional
issues. An ability to provide stipends for scientists participating in
the groundfish management team, the salmon technical team, and the
scientific and statistical committee would help ensure that the
agencies (who provide these scientists) can devote the time of their
top staff to serve on these advisory positions.
BYCATCH
A critical issue facing the groundfish fisheries on the west coast
is bycatch. The declining trip limits for many species has aggravated
the problem of dealing with bycatch. Because there is no observer
program on the west coast, the Council cannot measure the amount of
bycatch in our fisheries adequately. This insufficiency has greatly
complicated the Council's efforts to successfully deal with the
problem. Any changes to the Act to facilitate the development and
funding of an observer program would be helpful.
INDIVIDUAL QUOTAS
Another important issue is that of Individual Quotas. Currently
there is a moratorium on the development and implementation of IQ's.
While the tribes recognize that this is primarily a non-Indian issue,
they support the concept of IQ's. IQ's can bring a great deal of
stability to fisheries, which would benefit both Indian and non-Indian
fishers.
STOCK ASSESSMENTS
Many of the problems facing fishery management on the west coast,
especially groundfish management, have more to do with inadequate
funding for both NMFS and the PFMC rather than problems with the
Magnuson Act itself. Several of the groundfish stocks are very depleted
and we have problems assessing the status of these stocks as well as
developing recovery plans. The NMFS Triennial trawl survey is an
important part of our stock assessment process. However, it is not done
often enough and Congress seems to be moving away from funding adequate
levels of NMFS research. Currently the Council tries to do stock
assessments for each key species on a three-year basis. However, this
is not adequate given the number of important species we try to manage
and the number of species that are yet to be assessed. Stock
assessments are expensive but necessary if we are to adequately manage
fisheries.
FINAL COMMENT
Within the reauthorization process, we request Congress renew the
commitment to the core purposes and policy statement behind the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. That is to ensure conservation and management of
the national fisheries resources and to promote domestic fisheries
under sound conservation and management principles. In the management
of the salmon resource in the Pacific Northwest, the Pacific Council
must meet the obligations as defined by the Pacific Salmon Treaty,
Indian Treaty Fishing Rights, ESA, and other domestic management
considerations. Also, just as the Magnuson-Stevens Act is required to
be in compliance with other applicable laws, the application of these
other applicable laws needs to comply with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. In
the development and application of ESA obligations, there needs to be
recognition of Magnuson-Stevens Act principles that these fishery
resources are managed for utilization and under the goal for attainment
of maximum sustainable yield.
This concludes my testimony, and again I appreciate your
consideration of my remarks.
Senator Snowe. Thank you. Thank you all for your testimony
here this morning.
Let me begin with you, Ms. Dalton. I would like to explore
this with the panel. The issue that has repeatedly come up in
today's testimony, which I have heard from witnesses in other
field hearings and will hear from other witnesses testifying
here today, is the issue of the quality of the stock
assessments and the lack of scientific data.
So what is the problem, and how are we going to rectify it?
I hear from my fishermen at home in the State of Maine, and it
was one of the major issues that came before the Subcommittee
during the course of the field hearings. I also just read an
article that appeared in the National Fishermen, in the
February issue, that talked about the lack of data and the lack
of support by the agency and Congress for quality stock
assessments. This lack of support is making the job much
harder.
We are here this morning to discuss the groundfish
industry. We are not sure exactly what the causes are that have
been attributed to the decline in the groundfish industry here
off the west coast. We heard similar testimony yesterday in
Alaska, with the opilio crab. These two problems are obviously
connected in some way. But what are we going to do? What is it
going to take to rectify this problem?
I know it is Congress' responsibility, but I think it is
your agency's and all of our responsibilities. What will be the
major issues that will help turn this around? Is it all money?
Will it be more management tools?
Obviously the financial support of Congress and the agency
is an issue. I think it is going to require a cooperative
commitment on all of our parts, to ensure that we get the kind
of data that will rebuild confidence in the ultimate decisions
that are made.
So I would like to have you address that here this morning.
This article that appeared in the National Fishermen talked
about one researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology Sea Grant Program, who was very frustrated because
he was trying to get permission from NMFS to test a low-impact
scallop dredge, and he was unable to do it. The bureaucratic
paperwork and process led to inevitable delays, until the point
where he finally gave up.
This researcher said that the process totally discouraged
research by scientists, let alone by fishermen. He also said
that they are essentially blocking the intent of the original
Magnuson-Stevens Act for approval of an experimental fishery.
He said that the permitting process was so ridiculous that it
made research extremely difficult and frustrating.
There are a lot of issues at stake here. I think we really
have to be committed to resolving these issues in this
reauthorization process. So will you tell me what it is going
to take?
Ms. Dalton. Obviously one huge factor is resources. I think
there are some events that have led us to where we are now--the
historic precedent, where we have put our efforts on the nature
of the fisheries themselves, and distribution of resources. In
Alaska, and I would also suggest in New England, we actually
have the best traditional investment in our stock assessment
resources, in part because that is traditionally where our
biggest fisheries have been. So we know that we need the
assessments and, over the years, we have built up a better
stock assessment program.
A problem that we have on the west coast, and you also
heard about it in the Southeast, is we have fisheries where we
have a huge number of stocks. We have 80-some species that are
involved in the groundfish fishery. In the Southeast, we have a
few hundred species that are actually involved in their
groundfish fishery. It is difficult to complete stock
assessments for each. And the harvest for each of the different
stocks is not necessarily very large.
What we have done on the west coast is focus most of our
attention on assessing whiting, which is the big biomass
fishery, and we have not been able to put the resources into
assessing a lot of the different rockfish species that are
really where we are having trouble now. We have our acquisition
plan. We also have our fisheries information system, which
intended to get fishery-dependent data.
One of the things that we are very excited about, that we
think will improve our stock assessments markedly, are the new
research vessels. Thanks to Senator Stevens' help, we got the
money last year for the first one of those four vessels. One of
the problems on the west coast is we have not had a fishery
vessel here. There just has never been the funding it.
Senator Snowe. How many vessels do you have for that
purpose?
Ms. Dalton. I am not sure. I believe about six right now,
across the country. But a lot of them are old. Most of them are
over 35 years old. And the new vessels are also acoustically
quiet, so we get much better information from them. One of the
issues, as you raised with MIT, is not really stock
assessments--it is gear. MIT is trying to figure out new
techniques to improve gear efficiency, reduce bycatch, and deal
with the habitat issues. That has been a separate effort.
A lot of that is the work that you and other members have
been doing to develop cooperative research programs. We have
some cooperative research that is being done on the west coast.
But one of the things that we would like to do is invest in
more.
Senator Snowe. Well, if we were to do one, two, or three,
what should it be?
Ms. Dalton. The easiest thing to do is to invest more money
in it. The problem is you are never going to have enough money
to assess all these resources, and so you have got to put the
dollars where you get the best return.
Senator Snowe. Such as the observer program?
Ms. Dalton. The observer program would be a huge help on
getting fishery-dependent data and also getting information on
bycatch. And that was one reason why it was in our request last
year.
Senator Snowe. Mr. Lone, can you address that? I would like
to have the rest of the panel also address this issue, because
obviously you have all raised it in your testimony.
Mr. Lone. Thank you, Senator Snowe, I can address two or
three items. Number one, I am a strong supporter of our need
for an observer program to identify what our bycatch is. We are
severely constrained as we establish annual allocations for the
various species, since we do not have an observer program.
Speaking about the fishermen involved in the assessment
process, we have looked into this issue on the west coast on a
limited basis. As you have pointed out, there are bureaucratic
challenges to implementing such an approach.
Please note the letters that I appended regarding funding
needs. In December 1998, with the help of the NMFS Northwest
and Southwest Regions and Science Centers, the Council prepared
a plan describing the need for additional funding.
Unfortunately, we have been unable to secure funding to date.
While this plan was for the year 2001, it can serve somewhat as
a master plan for what is needed in future years.
Senator Snowe. Mr. Anderson.
Mr. Phil Anderson. Thank you, Senator Snowe.
First of all, let us recognize that the groundfish fishery
has been ignored up until very recently. It has been passively
managed. We did not have a groundfish plan until 1982. We had
our first stock assessment along the lines of about 1988. We
cannot passively manage this resource and be successful.
Priorities, it is a matter of priorities. Take a look at
the expenditures in an agency like mine or an agency in the
Northwest region of the National Marine Fisheries Service on
the amount of dollars being spent on salmon versus groundfish.
I do not know the precise numbers in the National Marine
Fisheries Service, but I do know the numbers in our budget. And
groundfish takes a back seat in a big way in a long limousine.
So what are the solutions? Partnerships between the
National Marine Fisheries Service and the States on collecting
data. Just the basic data of looking at the catches that are
landed, looking at age structures, getting otoliths read,
finding age readers--just those very basic things that we need
to do to get some more information about some of these stocks
does not cost a lot of money relative to building a new survey
vessel, but just getting qualified people, making an investment
and getting the basic data and information coming out of the
landed catch would be a big help, in my judgment.
Where is the funding going to come from? I hate to come
before Members of Congress or the legislature and continually
say the answer is just give us more money. That does not
usually sell real well. But I think the Conservation and
Reinvestment Act, CARA, there are substantial dollars in Title
I that could be used by the States, in partnership with
National Marine Fisheries Service, to get us the kind of data
that we need to successfully manage these fisheries.
And those are the kinds of partnerships that I am talking
about. A lot of the stock assessment authors and some of the
expertise are in the State agencies, as well as National Marine
Fisheries Service. Certainly the observer program. It is not,
in my judgment, a big ticket item, but it is a very--we have to
know what our total mortalities are.
That is another linchpin to managing any of these species,
knowing what our total fishery-related mortalities are. And we
do not know that right now. It is not going to cost a lot of
money to get that information, but the piggy bank is dry right
now. Whether it costs a dollar or a million dollars, the piggy
bank is empty. And we do not have the necessary funds to get
that information.
So some basic data collection, through partnerships, and an
observer program, along with the additional surveys, trawl
surveys, on an increased interval, not the every 3-year
interval we are on right now. Those three things, in my mind,
could greatly improve our management of west coast fisheries.
Senator Snowe. Do you think good data would have predicted
the decline in the groundfish industry?
Mr. Phil Anderson. I think timely data would have given us
a much earlier indication of what was going on and we could
have reacted to it before the collapse occurred, to the extent
that it has.
Senator Snowe. Mr. Harp, would you care to comment on this
issue? I agree with you on the tribal designee, and we will
explore that. It is a good suggestion.
Mr. Harp. Thank you for that comment, Madam Chair.
I would just like to echo what Mr. Anderson has said. As I
said in my testimony, I think we need to get more frequent and
better stock assessments, which requires additional money. I
think we need to have an observer program implemented on the
west coast here to get a better estimate of the amount of fish
that are actually caught. That would address the bycatch part
that I mentioned in my testimony.
I think there also needs to be an emphasis for more
cooperation and coordination amongst the tribal, State and
Federal agencies with the data that they do have on hand.
Although it is limited, we can then expand from there.
One of the things about a situation in that resource is
that when you get to a declining level, I think it does promote
much more cooperation than when you do have a lot of abundant
species. That has been my observation over 25 years in natural
resources. When you have less to deal with, it fosters much
more cooperation than when you have plenty of fish.
Thank you.
Senator Snowe. Thank you.
Senator Gorton.
Senator Gorton. Mr. Anderson, was the Council properly
consulted and asked for input on the part of the National
Marine Fisheries Service in preparing its 4H paper with respect
to the impact of commercial harvest on listed salmon stocks?
Mr. Phil Anderson. Senator Gorton, to my knowledge, the
draft 4H papers were prepared without input from the Council.
Senator Gorton. If you had provided input, would it have
been different with respect to the impact on harvest than you
have read in the 4H paper?
Mr. Phil Anderson. We are, as the Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife, along with other entities, being provided an
opportunity to provide comments to National Marine Fisheries
Service on that draft. And we are in the process of formulating
our comments. And I do not have specific knowledge of the
precise language, but I know the thrust of the 4H paper and how
it represents harvest versus hydro.
Out of the 12 listed species in the Columbia River, seven
of them essentially do not have any harvest. And so eliminating
harvest on those seven species that does not exist is not going
to rebuild those stocks. There is harvest impact on
particularly the Fall Snake River run. In our judgment,
balancing the impacts of the actions necessary to recover those
fish between hydro and harvest, that that is the appropriate
way to proceed, and not to put it all on the backs of harvest.
Senator Gorton. Thank you.
Ms. Dalton and Mr. Stelle, is there in your regulations or
in your minds a distinction between essential fish habitat
under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and critical habitat with
respect to listed fish under the Endangered Species Act? Is
there critical habitat that is not essential fish habitat? Is
there essential fish habitat that is not critical habitat?
Ms. Dalton. Will may have a different opinion on it. I
would say the two of them probably would be very similar,
because the definition of essential fish habitat is the waters
and substrate that are essential for the fish to grow and spawn
and feed, and critical habitat is what is necessary for the
continued existence of the species. So it would seem that the
two should be fairly similar to each other, if you look at it
on the face of the law.
I think the way that they are treated under the two
different statutes are very different and the requirements that
are associated, and our responsibilities, are very different in
the two statutes. On the one, what we are talking about in the
Magnuson-Stevens Act is a consultative process. Section 7
consultation requirements in the ESA are much tighter.
And I will let Will comment.
Mr. Stelle. Good question, Senator. Penny is right. On the
matter of the substance of what is critical habitat for a
species versus essential fish habitat, there are not huge
differences. The huge difference is in what is the implication
of a designation. Under the Endangered Species Act, the
designation of critical habitat does invoke the powerful
requirements of Section 7 of ESA, and they are much more
stringent and powerful than the advisory consultation process
under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. So it is the effect of the
designation where the principal difference is, sir.
Senator Gorton. And if we were to take the waters of the
State of Washington, are all of them both EFH and critical
habitat?
Mr. Stelle. No. All of the waters of the State of
Washington have not been designated either as critical habitat
or as EFH. There are waters that are not critical habitat and
there are waters which are not EFH.
Senator Gorton. Describe some that are not EFH.
Mr. Stelle. The freshwaters of the State of Washington that
have not been currently or historically occupied by salmonids
or those freshwater systems which have historically been
occupied by salmonids but which are now blocked off from
passage. So if it is not historically salmon waters, it is not
EFH for salmon purposes.
Senator Gorton. You used the term ``historic.'' If some
human construction, a dam or anything else, has meant that say
for the last 40 or 50 years there are no salmon but there were
salmon 50 or 100 years ago, is it or is it not EFH?
Mr. Stelle. To the best of my knowledge, sir, no. And the
classic case in point is Grand Coulee. The waters of the
Columbia above Coulee are not EFH. That is permanent blockage
of fish passage.
Senator Gorton. Okay, thank you.
Fish obviously live in water. How do you get to the point
where you have EFH that is not water--uplands? And are you not
on your maps designating substantial land areas as essential
fish habitat?
Mr. Stelle. Again, Senator, to the best of my knowledge,
no. My recollection of the anticipated designation of EFH is it
is the aquatic system.
Senator Gorton. So a map that showed a whole county really
is just a shorthand to say the waterways within that county and
not the land area?
Mr. Stelle. Yes, sir. And my recollection of the general
regulation is that it does identify activities in the upland
riparian area as factors which may affect EFH. But the actual
area which is designated as EFH is the water system itself.
Senator Gorton. Well, if the land is a factor that may
affect EFH, what control does the designation or the Magnuson-
Stevens Act give to the National Marine Fisheries Service over
activities on that land?
Mr. Stelle. Under the terms of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, it
provides us with the authority to make recommendations to the
agency that may be engaged in that activity on how those
activities may affect or adversely affect the essential fish
habitat. Those recommendations, and also the recommendations of
the Council on that matter, are advisory only to the agency
doing the thing.
Senator Gorton. And so in that respect are dramatically
different from critical habitat?
Mr. Stelle. Correct, sir.
Senator Gorton. Thank you.
Senator Snowe. Thank you, Senator Gorton.
Senator Stevens.
Senator Stevens. I think the chair said that she agreed
with Mr. Harp. Do the rest of you have designated
representatives, if you are absent, on the Council? I think it
is a habit in the North Pacific Council that the seat can be
filled by any person within the agency or the area that has the
right to hold it. Apparently, from Mr. Harp's point of view,
they have to have just one. And he is asking for some
flexibility.
Do you agree with that, Mr. Anderson?
Mr. Phil Anderson. The State agencies and Federal agencies
can have designees. But on the Pacific Council, the eight
members that are either in the at-large or obligatory seats
cannot have designees.
Senator Stevens. Why? Is that just because the Congress put
it that way or is that the way you all want it?
Mr. Phil Anderson. No, that is because that is the way
Congress established it in the Act.
Ms. Dalton. For the State and Federal, it is the
representative or their designee. But the at-large members are
included because of their unique qualifications. They are not
included on the basis of their representation of the State or
Federal Government.
Senator Stevens. I can understand that if it is a
particular individual who has significant qualifications. But
in an area such as a representative of the tribes, I do not see
why they should not be able to designate their person.
I do not have any questions. I appreciate very much your
clarifications on the problems of the Pacific Council area.
Senator Snowe. Can I just ask one other question on IFQ's?
I gather you agree about lifting the moratorium on IFQ's. Would
you recommend that Congress establish certain conditions under
which IFQ's could exist?
Mr. Phil Anderson. I believe that the National Academy of
Sciences, that did the review for Congress, recommended that
certain criteria be established by Congress in the Act relative
to IFQ's. I would support that.
Senator Snowe. Mr. Lone and Mr. Harp, do you have any
thoughts on this matter?
Mr. Lone. I agree with Mr. Anderson.
Mr. Harp. I agree with Mr. Anderson and Mr. Lone.
Senator Snowe. Mr. Stelle, in response to Senator Gorton's
question about what areas are designated as EFH, how much of
the EEZ is designated as essential fish habitat off the coast
here?
Ms. Dalton. The Pacific Council has not completed an EFH
amendment for Pacific salmon yet. So, prior to that, the
Council has worked on it, but nothing has been submitted to us
yet.
Probably, we have most of the EEZ covered because of the
large number of species and the diversity of areas that you
find them in.
Senator Snowe. So that is almost the entire area?
Mr. Stelle. Madam Chair, for groundfish, the EEZ has been
designated as EFH. And Ms. Dalton is right, for salmon, the
process has not--we are still in the middle of the process of
working on that designation.
Senator Snowe. So it is the entire EEZ, out to 200 miles.
We will have to re-visit this issue. How to define and
interpret the essential fish habitat provisions continue to
surface at these hearings.
Are there any other questions from the Committee?
[No response.]
Thank you all very much. We appreciate your testimony here.
And now for the second panel. Our first witness will be Mr.
Bob Alverson, Manager of the Fishing Vessel Owners Association;
Mr. Ralph Brown, a member of the Pacific Council; Mr. Rod
Moore, Executive Director of the west coast Seafood Processors
Association; and Mr. Tim Henkel, who represents the Deep Sea
Fishermen's Union of the Pacific.
We will begin with Mr. Alverson. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT ALVERSON, MANAGER,
FISHING VESSEL OWNERS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Alverson. Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Bob
Alverson, and I am representing the Fishing Vessel Owners
Association, here in Seattle. I would like to thank you for the
opportunity to provide this statement.
The Association is a trade association, representing the
owners of 84 hook and line vessels that operate in longline
fisheries from California to Alaska. Our species of concern
include halibut, sablefish, Pacific cod in the Bering Sea and
Alaska, and sablefish and rockfish species off the coast of
Washington, Oregon and California.
My oral comments will be tailored to the lower Pacific
coast. Our written comments significantly outline the benefits
of the halibut/sablefish IFQ program. Based on the favorable
experience in that program in Alaska, the Association believes
that individual transferable quotas should be available for
application to any fishery in the United States exclusive
economic zone. The Association urges Congress to allow the
statutory moratorium on individual quotas to expire in
accordance with its terms.
This position is strongly supported by such organizations
as the Alaska Crab Coalition, Deep Sea Fishermen's Union,
numerous trawl organizations up and down the coast, and all of
the regional fishery management Council chairmen. And, equally
notable, the National Academy of Sciences has recommended it,
based on your request to have them analyze the situation.
Relative to the lower coast, the Association is seriously
alarmed and adversely affected by the conditions prevailing in
the west coast groundfish fisheries under the jurisdiction of
the Pacific Council. Here is a case crying out for some form of
IFQ. Excess harvesting capacity and extremely depressed
resource conditions combine to defeat conventional management.
Indeed, it is conventional management, necessitated by the IFQ
moratorium and a flawed system of scientific data acquisition
and analyses, that have caused these conditions.
Specific to our fixed-gear fleet, the fixed-gear sablefish
fishery off the coast of Washington, Oregon and California is
managed with three tiers, each tier having a different trip
limit based on the historical production of the participating
vessels. In 1999, each vessel that had a sablefish permit was
allowed a nine-day season, beginning August 15th, regardless of
the poundage of the applicable tier.
The Pacific Council attempted to allow a longer period of
time for harvest in order to provide safety, management
certainty and to better fit the sablefish harvest with other
fishery activities. However, NOAA general counsel's office
maintained that to allow too much time to catch a trip limit
would be construed as an IFQ. Therefore, it would violate the
moratorium on the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
On that basis of that ruling, the Pacific Council is
currently forced to adjust a harvest time and trip limit sizes
for the fleet, such that the fleet only has the probability of
not catching their trip limit of 26 percent. This last season,
on August 15th, most of my fishermen in our organization have
what they call a tier 2 permit, which is equivalent to about
30,000 to 40,000 ground pounds of sablefish, 22,000 pounds
dressed weight, and they were given a nine-day season to go out
and catch that.
The caveat with that is based on a mathematical
progression, that 26 percent probability, that the average guy
will not catch his trip limit. Which is quite an incentive to
try to go out and force the issue and try to catch your 26
percent--beat the system. But if you beat the system, the
system tells you, we will shave another day off next year so
that we can maintain this overhead. The 26 percent probability
of not allowing us to catch our historical fish is called
overhead, and that satisfies NOAA general counsel in not
calling this an IFQ.
Madam Chairman, we request for the Pacific Council, if at
all possible, that the Senate let us know if they are going to
go ahead and allow this moratorium to expire or not by April.
By giving us some indication in April, it would save the
Pacific Council two full seasons in trying to prepare what is
going on in terms of how it is affecting the industry.
IFQ's take a lot of time to design and implement. It took
nine years for us to design and implement the one in the North
Pacific Council. We had six years of design work going on in
the sablefish fishery in the Pacific Council, that Jim Lone
spoke to earlier, when the moratorium came into effect. It
takes a lot of time, a lot of designing. And saving two full
seasons would greatly help the Pacific Council.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Alverson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert Alverson, Manager, Fishing Vessel Owners
Association
Madam Chair:
On behalf of the Fishing Vessel Owners Association (``FVOA''), I
would like to thank you for the opportunity to provide this statement.
The FVOA is a trade association representing the owners of 84 hook-and-
line fishing vessels that operate in fisheries from California to
Alaska, and in the mid-Pacific Ocean. Our fisheries include halibut,
sablefish, and Pacific cod in the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska, and
sablefish off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California, as well
as albacore within and beyond the United States Exclusive Economic Zone
in the Pacific Ocean. Although I am, at present, a member of the
Pacific Fishery Management Council, and I am a former member of the
North Pacific Fishery Management Council, I provide this statement
solely in my capacity as Manager of the FVOA. I note that the Deep Sea
Fishermen's Union, which represents the crewmen on vessels owned by
FVOA members, has endorsed this statement.
SUMMARY
The FVOA and DSFU believe that the 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801, et
seq.) have provided, in several respects, the basis for improved
management of our nation's fisheries. The Act's National Standards on
safety (National Standard 10, 16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(10)) and bycatch
(National Standard 9, 16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(9)), enacted in the Sustainable
Fisheries Act of 1996, are notable for the focus that they have
provided on critically important aspects of fisheries management. The
FVOA and DSFU were joined by the Alaska Crab Coalition (``ACC'') in
first proposing the enactment of these new National Standards, and in
securing wide support among Washington State and Alaskan fishing
industry organizations. The FVOA, DSFU, and ACC also contributed to the
development of conservation-related amendments to the then Magnuson Act
in 1990.
The habitat provisions of the Sustainable Fisheries Act have
contributed to the progressive management of our fisheries. In
particular, these provisions have helped to draw attention to the need
for actions to reduce the impacts of trawling on the benthic
environment, which serves as nursery grounds for valuable species of
fish. The FVOA, DSFU, and ACC took the initiative among fishing
industry groups to propose habitat-related amendments during the
process leading to the Sustainable Fisheries Act.
Most importantly for the FVOA and DSFU, the Sustainable Fisheries
Act preserved the Individual Fishing Quota (``IFQ'') program that had
been established for the halibut and sablefish fisheries off the coast
of Alaska. This program, after ten long years of preparation by the
North Pacific Fishery Management Council and the Department of
Commerce, ended the deadly and damaging open access halibut and
sablefish fishing derbies. IFQs have been the great success that their
proponents had predicted from the outset of the development of the
program.
However, one provision of the Sustainable Fisheries Act--the
moratorium on IFQs--cannot be viewed as contributing in a positive way
to fisheries management [16 U.S.C. 1853(d)(1)]. On the contrary, this
congressionally-imposed constraint on fisheries managers serves as a
roadblock to effective management, especially, but not exclusively, in
fisheries plagued by excess fishing capacity and/or low resource
abundance.
Based on the very favorable experience in the halibut and sablefish
fisheries, the FVOA and DSFU believe that individual transferable
quotas should be available for application to any fishery in the United
States Exclusive Economic Zone. The FVOA and DSFU urge Congress to
allow the statutory moratorium on individual quotas to expire in
accordance with its terms. This position is strongly supported by the
ACC, as well as by all the regional fishery management Council
chairmen. Equally notable is the fact that the report to Congress by
the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, as
directed by the Congress in the 1996 amendments (section 108(f), P.L.
104-297) definitively describes the benefits of individual fishing
quotas. The development and design of IFQ programs by the regional
fishery management Councils should be permitted as recommended by the
NRC. [Executive Summary, Prepublication Copy, December 18, 1998.]
The FVOA and DSFU are seriously alarmed, and adversely affected, by
the conditions prevailing in west coast groundfish fisheries under the
jurisdiction of the Pacific Fishery Management Council. Here is a case
crying out for some form of IFQs. Excess harvesting capacity and
extremely depressed resource conditions combine to defeat conventional
management. Indeed, it is conventional management necessitated by the
IFQ moratorium, and a flawed system of scientific data acquisition and
analysis, that have caused these conditions. An attempt at creative
management by the Pacific Council only resulted in a legal
determination that the proposed measures violated the IFQ moratorium.
As described in detail, below, this led to perverse results. If
Congress decides to extend the IFQ moratorium, an exception should be
made for west coast groundfish fisheries. At a minimum, Congress should
ensure that the Pacific Council will no longer be constrained by
interpretations of the IFQ moratorium that prevent the establishment of
vitally needed, remedial management measures.
The FVOA and DSFU also ask Congress to extend to the Pacific Region
the fisheries research plan provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. [16
U.S.C. 1862.] As discussed further, below, there is an urgent need for
a comprehensive observer program in the depressed groundfish fisheries
off the Pacific Coast. There is simply no other way to obtain reliable
data on bycatch of depressed, and even threatened, species. It is true
that the industry would be hard-pressed to find the funds to pay for an
observer program. But it is also the case that Congress has been
unwilling, to date, to provide federal funds. An effective observer
program is indispensable to recovery of the fish stocks and the fishing
industry. Authorization for the imposition of observer fees on industry
should be provided, so that in the continued absence of federal
funding, the vitally needed observer program can be established. The
fishing industry stands to benefit from improved conservation of our
public resources. Consequently, the industry should be prepared to pay
for the needed observer program, if federal funding is inadequate or
unavailable. Playing Russian Roulette with our fisheries has proved
disastrous to important groundfish species and to the industry that has
depended on them. We must have observer data in order to manage our
fisheries with confidence that we are doing the right things. I note
that, in the event that an IFQ program is established for these
fisheries, industry capability and willingness to fund an observer
program would, no doubt, be considerably enhanced.
Conservation
As discussed in detail, below, replacement of the open access race
for fish by the halibut/sablefish IFQ program has resulted in improved
conservation and management. The incidental catch of halibut in the
directed sablefish fishery has declined 38%. The incidental catch of
groundfish in the sablefish fishery has dropped by 39%. Halibut
mortality due to lost fishing gear has decreased by 59.65% (translating
to an average $3.5 million dollar saving, annually).
Incidentally caught sablefish is no longer discarded in the
directed halibut fishery. Sablefish in the western and central Gulf of
Alaska is now fully harvested, not only avoiding waste, but also
generating an economic gain for the industry (an average $3.93 million
gain, annually).
These improvements accord with the principal purpose of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, which is conservation, and with a major, related
objective of that statute, minimizing bycatch and related mortality.
[16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(1), (9).]
In the absence of IFQs, the west coast groundfish fisheries have
continued to be plagued by excessive waste. This has contributed to the
further decline of once-abundant resources.
Safety
As noted above, the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that fisheries
management promote the safety of human life at sea. [16 U.S.C.
1851(a)(10).] Replacement of the open access race for fish by the IFQ
Program has greatly improved the safety of life in the halibut and
sablefish fisheries off the Alaskan coast. The former halibut fishing
derby was the second most dangerous occupation in the United States
(preceded only by the Bering Sea crab fisheries).
Weather conditions off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and
California are by no means as severe as the conditions off the coast of
Alaska, where the halibut/sablefish program functions. Nevertheless,
there are injuries and vessel and gear losses attributable to the race
for fish in bad weather in the Pacific Council region. IFQs would
undoubtedly provide relief, insofar as the pace of the fisheries would
be slowed and fishermen would be able to choose the conditions in which
they would carry out their operations.
Communities
The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that fisheries management take
into account the interests of fishing communities. [16 U.S.C.
1851(a)(8).] Community development quotas (``CDQs''), which are
integral to the halibut/sablefish IFQ program, have assured isolated,
low-income, Alaskan native coastal communities a major source of
employment and revenue. At the same time, economic and social
disruption of other communities has been avoided; the top five halibut
ports and the top four sablefish ports remain the same as under the
open access system. Small vessels serving minor ports have been
guaranteed their place in the fisheries, and an industry fee-based loan
program has been established for the owners of those vessels and for
new entrants to the fisheries. In short, this IFQ program has increased
the overall value of the fisheries, making it possible to dedicate a
portion to the poorest communities, without adversely affecting the
others.
The FVOA and DSFU would by no means suggest that CDQs or an
industry-funded loan program be established in the Pacific region.
Conditions there are quite different from those in Alaska, where
communities are both small and isolated and have fewer sources of
income. However, it is a fact that some communities in the Pacific
region will suffer greatly from the depressed conditions in the
groundfish fisheries and that an IFQ system, by improving those
conditions, would contribute to the recovery of the affected, local
economies.
Overcapitalization
The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides for consideration of economic
efficiency, and for reduction of excess fishing capacity. [16 U.S.C.
1851(a)(5), 1861a (a)-(e).] Excess capacity in fisheries has been
identified as one of the fundamental causes of resource declines,
unsafe conditions, lost economic efficiency, and lower quality product.
The halibut/sablefish IFQ program has resulted in a reduction of the
halibut fleet from 3,450 (1994) to 1,601 (1998). [Restricted Access
Management (``RAM'') Report, NMFS, 1999, page 27.] Conservation risk
associated with fishing pressure on the resources has declined
radically. Unsafe conditions due to 24-hour halibut derbies and 2-week
sablefish seasons have disappeared, as fishermen have gained the
opportunity to conduct their operations in periods of good weather
during eight months of the year. Longer seasons have led to full-time
employment on vessels and in processing plants, and higher fish values
have resulted in better lives for vessel owners and crews. Slower paced
fisheries have allowed much improved handling of the catches, and thus,
better quality product for the consumer. It is reliably estimated that
a government-funded buyback achieving what was accomplished by the
halibut/sablefish IFQ program would have cost the taxpayers
approximately $318.8 million.
There is considerable doubt that an industry-funded buyback can
work in the west coast groundfish fisheries. The financial condition of
the fleet and the depressed condition of the resources suggest strongly
that the economic basis for such a buyback simply does not exist for
those fisheries. By the same token, there is no indication that
Congress is willing to provide federal funds to pay for a fleet
reduction program. These factors, too, argue for IFQs.
Greatest Overall Benefit to the Nation--Conservation, Safety,
Efficiency, Quality, Value
The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that fisheries management achieve
the greatest overall benefit to the Nation. [16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(1); see
16 U.S.C. 1802 (28)(A).] In addition to achieving improved
conservation, safety, and efficiency, the halibut/sablefish IFQ program
has resulted in improved product quality and higher product value. The
slower paced fisheries have translated to greater availability of
higher quality product, in particular, fresh halibut for eight months,
instead of a few days of the year, and greater bargaining power for
U.S. producers in the sablefish export market. Landings of halibut
provide a continuous supply of product for eight months, averaging
about 12% of the harvest per month. The same is true for sablefish.
[RAM Report, NMFS, 1999, page 12.] Similar benefits could be
anticipated for the groundfish fisheries of the Pacific region.
review of the halibut/sablefish individual fishing quota and community
DEVELOPMENT QUOTA PROGRAMS
When the North Pacific Fishery Management Council recommended
approval by the Secretary of Commerce of IFQs and CDQs for the halibut
and sablefish fisheries, it was on the basis of an administrative
process involving extensive debate and intensive analysis. The Council
had considered an array of possible management responses to
conservation, social, and economic factors at work in the then open
access fisheries. These factors were identified, as follows:
Allocation conflicts;
Gear conflicts;
Fishing mortality and other costs due to lost gear;
Bycatch loss of halibut and sablefish in other
fisheries;
Discard mortality for halibut and other retainable
species in the halibut and sablefish fisheries;
Excess harvesting capacity;
Product quality, as reflected in halibut and sablefish
prices;
Safety of fishermen;
Economic stability in the fixed gear halibut and
sablefish fisheries and affected communities; and
Rural coastal community development of a small boat
fishery.
The Council ultimately determined that the IFQ system would be the
best management response to these factors. The Council also decided
that CDQs would provide a useful economic boost to Alaskan coastal
communities.
Allocation Conflicts
Allocation conflicts between the operators in the halibut/sablefish
fisheries generally were found in skirmishes involving halibut. Prior
to implementation of the IFQ program, the allocation issues centered
around manipulations of when specific area openings would take place in
order to advantage or disadvantage various groups.
In the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands area, there evolved a series of
complex clearing procedures designed to make it more inefficient for
non-Alaskan-resident-operated vessels. This included such regulations,
in the Pribilof Islands area, as constraining trip limits and a
requirement that non-resident vessels deliver to Dutch Harbor. This, of
course, gave the local fishermen additional fishing time. Similar
clearing requirements were established for the Eastern Bering Sea, Area
4E, and the area known as Area 4B in the Aleutian Islands.
The annual meetings of the International Pacific Halibut Commission
(``IPHC''), were prolonged for hours on the question of precisely when
to have the spring and fall 24-hour halibut openings. Some of the
issues that drove this debate were as follows: Were the Canadian or the
United States fishermen going to open first to get an advantage on
price; would the spring opening conflict with the spring herring
fishery in southeast Alaska; would the openings conflict with western
peninsula salmon seasons; would openings occur during big tides; would
openings put product at the docks in Alaska at the right time for the
Sea Land ships; would the fall opening conflict with the State of
Alaska sablefish openings; and would the opening conflict with the
Russian Orthodox holidays?
None of those issues, which were debated with emotion and zeal,
have arisen since the implementation of the IFQ program. When the IFQ
program was adopted, the onerous clearing requirements and trip limit
regimes in the Bering Sea district were removed (though there are still
clearing requirements they are not of an allocative nature). Former
Governor of Alaska, Walter J. Hickel, correctly observed of the IFQ
program, ``Ultimately the free market decides.'' [Letter from Walter J.
Hickel to Bob Alverson, August 27, 1997.] All of the concerns of when
to fish or not to fish that the industry and fisheries managers debated
at length prior to implementation of the IFQ program are now the
business decisions of each and every vessel owner, subject to
overarching conservation and management regulations.
Gear Conflicts
The supplemental environmental impact statement (``SEIS'') for the
halibut/sablefish IFQ program stated:
Although an IFQ program will tend to decrease gear conflicts
within the halibut and sablefish fishery, it may increase gear
conflicts between halibut or sablefish fishermen and other
fishermen by increasing the areas and length of periods in
which such conflicts can occur. For example, it is less costly
for trawlers to avoid the halibut grounds during brief halibut
openings than to avoid these areas most of the year. Similarly,
the areas and times with a high risk of gear conflicts are
easier to identify and avoid with the current intensive halibut
fishing periods than with an IFQ program. No attempt has been
made to estimate the magnitude of this effect. [SEIS, page 2-
7.]
Halibut fishermen no longer have gear conflicts with sablefish
fishermen. The best sablefish grounds are usually located on the outer
continental shelf, or at about 350 to 600 fathoms. The halibut fishery
is conducted generally between 100 and 250 fathoms. The IFQ fishery
allows the participants to target where the fish are located. The time
available for the fishermen to decide where and when to set gear allows
avoidance of other fishing operations, particularly now that the
grounds for halibut and sablefish are no longer saturated with gear.
The statement, ``it is less costly for trawlers to avoid the
halibut grounds during the brief halibut openings, than to avoid these
areas most of the year'', is ironic, because the reverse has turned out
to be the case. It is very costly for trawlers to avoid halibut
grounds, because the trawl groundfish seasons have become very short.
This is particularly true in the Gulf of Alaska. Should trawlers
inadvertently get into a school of halibut or area where halibut gear
is set, the trawl fishermen do not have the time to make optimum
adjustments. If the trawlers had the time to make those adjustments,
the bycatch and potential gear conflicts could be further reduced. As
it stands, now, the longline IFQ fishermen have adequate time to
harvest their quota shares and can avoid most of the intense trawl
activity. In fact, the Pacific cod fishery in the Gulf of Alaska has
been shortened, so that it ends about the time the March 15th IFQ
fisheries start, with the result that few, if any, gear conflicts have
been occurring with that directed fishery.
The openings set forth below were provided the trawl fleet in the
Gulf of Alaska during 1995 and 1999. One can easily see that fishing
time is now at a premium to the trawl fleet, as it was to the halibut
and sablefish fishermen prior to the IFQ program. The loss of fishing
gear, particularly someone else's, becomes a low priority, when fishing
time becomes a high priority.
1995
Pacific Cod Western Gulf January 20 to March 17
(inshore) Central Gulf January 20 to March 22
Pollock Western Gulf January 20 to February 2
June 1 to June 2
July 1 to July 2
October 1 to October 1 (12
hours)
Central Gulf January 20 to January 24
June 1 to June 5
July 1 to July 5
October 1 to October 4
S.E. Alaska Pacific ...................... July 1 to July 9
Ocean Perch Plus two days in October
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area in the Gulf of
1999 Sector Alaska
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Cod (Trawl) Inshore 610 Opened 1/20/99 closed
3/8/99
Inshore 620 & 630 Opened 1/20/99 closed
3/14/99
Offshore 610 Opened 4/18/99 closed
6/7/99
Pollock (Trawl) Inshore 630 Opened 1/20/99 closed
1/27/99
Inshore 610 Opened 1/20/99 closed
1/31/99
Inshore 620 Opened 1/20/99 closed
2/17/99
Inshore 640 & 650 Opened 1/20/99 closed
3/6/99
Inshore 610 Opened 6/1/99 closed 6/
7/99
Inshore 630 Opened 6/1/99 closed 6/
10/99
Inshore 620 Opened 6/1/99 closed 6/
11/99
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, the SEIS predicted fewer gear conflicts, and this has
proved correct. The SEIS' prediction of IFQ harvesters experiencing,
among themselves, gear conflicts, has not proved accurate. This is
largely because sablefish and halibut operations take place at
different depth strata, and because of the eight months of fishing
time, halibut harvesters can afford to communicate with their fellow
fishermen and avoid each others' gear. The same applies for sablefish
harvesters. The conclusion of the SEIS about trawlers has turned out to
be just the reverse of actual experience. The trawl derbies have
increased the trawlers' cost of avoiding gear conflicts.
The initial reports to the Pacific and North Pacific Councils on
the operation of the whiting and pollock cooperatives indicate that the
resulting reduction of capacity has favorably affected the fisheries by
slowing the race for fish. Particularly helpful benefits should include
reduction of bycatch and gear conflicts.
Fishing Mortality and Other Costs Due to Lost Gear
The SEIS correctly predicted the following with regard to gear loss
and related fishing mortality:
``There are several reasons why an IFQ program is expected to
decrease gear losses and the associated costs. First, it would
reduce the amount of gear that is on the grounds at any one
time, and therefore, reduce the amount of gear that becomes
tangled. Second, it would increase the willingness of fishermen
to take more time to avoid tangling gear and to retrieve lost
or tangled gear. It would do so by decreasing the opportunity
cost of the time required either to set gear so that it is less
likely to become tangled or to retrieve it. Third, it would
eliminate the current gear losses that occur because fishermen
set more gear than they can retrieve before the end of the
brief halibut openings. Finally, it would allow fishermen to
fish at a pace and in areas, time periods, and weather
conditions that decrease gear losses.'' [SEIS, page 2-6.]
The SEIS stated, ``There are principally two types of costs
associated with gear losses in the halibut and sablefish fishery. There
are (1) cost of replacing lost gear, and (2) harvest forgone due to the
fishing mortality caused by the lost gear.'' [Id.] The SEIS estimated
that, in 1990, 1,860 skates of gear and two million pounds of halibut
were lost. [Id.]
In its annual reports, under the category of waste, the IPHC
includes the mortality of halibut due to lost gear in the IFQ fleet. In
the 1994 Annual Report, waste was recorded at 2.85 million pounds. The
1995 and 1998 Annual Reports recorded waste as 1.0 and 1.9 million
pounds, respectively. This represents a 48% average reduction in waste,
or an annual savings of approximately 1.4 million pounds of halibut
from 1994. This compares impressively with the 50% saving predicted by
the SEIS. Based on the 1999 Seward, Alaska price for halibut
(approximate average, $2.44/lb.), the savings due to reduced waste is
approximately $3.36 million.
The lost fishing gear in the halibut derbies was primarily the
result of 4,000 to 6,000 vessels setting their gear all at the same
time, and the gear becoming entangled. Gear lost in this manner is a
thing of the past. The SEIS estimated the value of lost gear at $2.0-
$2.4 million per year in the halibut derbies. [SEIS, page 2-6.] Under
the IFQ program, the vessels share the grounds over an 8-month season.
Gear still can be lost due to the normal hang-up on the bottom, but
there are no longer large amounts of gear lost due to gear conflicts.
There has also been a savings in the amount of gear purchases for
each vessel each season. It was not uncommon for vessels to pre-bait
and set 80 to 130 skates of gear during a 24-hour derby opening.
Vessels are now fishing with 50 to 70 skates of gear. Additionally, the
vessel operators, prior to IFQs, used two different types of gear--one
for halibut and one for sablefish. Many harvesters are now using their
sablefish gear to harvest the halibut quotas, further reducing gear-
related costs to the fleet. The SEIS predicted a 50% reduction in gear
needed to harvest the same amount of fish. [SEIS, page 2-7.]
The open access sablefish fishery had similar problems with lost
gear; however, the SEIS did not quantify the loss. It is reasonable to
conclude, based on the halibut experience, that the lengthened
sablefish seasons under the IFQ program have also resulted in lower
gear losses and associated resource mortality than prevailed in the
open access fishery.
In summary, there has been at least a 48% reduction in waste of
halibut recorded by the IPHC, with a net benefit of $3.36 million
annually to the fleet. The IFQ program has resulted in much less gear
being set to harvest the quota.
Bycatch Loss of Halibut and Sablefish in Other Fisheries
The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides, ``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.'' [16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(9).]
Congressional interest and intent with respect to bycatch reduction
was clearly reflected in the Senate and House Floor debates in the
104th Congress. Senator Stevens declared that, ``Under S. 39
[Sustainable Fisheries Act], the Councils will be required to reduce
the amount of bycatch in every fishery around our country.''
[Congressional Record, September 18, 1996 at S10810.] He also stated,
``We thought Americanization would go a long way toward conserving the
fishery resources of this Nation. Foreign vessels have now given way to
U.S. vessels that are capitalized now far beyond what we ever
envisioned in the seventies, and the fisheries waste continues to get
worse in many areas.'' [Id.] Senator Murkowski stated, ``This will put
us on the road to stopping the shameful waste that is currently
occurring in many fisheries.'' [Id. at S10820.] Senator Gorton
remarked, ``I join my colleagues in lauding those provisions that aim
to reduce waste and bycatch in the fisheries''. [Id. at S10814.]
On the House Floor, Congressman Young, principal author of H.R. 39
(companion bill to S. 39), and chairman of the committee of
jurisdiction, stated, ``The reduction of bycatch in our fisheries is
one of the most crucial challenges facing fisheries managers today.''
[Congressional Record, September 18, 1995 at H9116.] On passage of S.
39, he stated, ``The bill recognizes that bycatch is one of the most
pressing problems facing the continuation of sustainable fisheries.''
[Congressional Record, September 27, 1996 at H11438.]
Prior to the implementation of the IFQ program for sablefish and
halibut, the length of the seasons had shortened to a point of causing
chaos. The sablefish fishery had collapsed from a 9-month season to a
less than a 10-day fishery in the western Gulf of Alaska, and to a
five-day season in southeast Alaska.
By 1994, the halibut fishery had become two 24-hour openings, one
in the spring and one in the fall. In the mid-1970's, the halibut
season had been nine months. By the 1990's, when fishermen harvested
sablefish, they were required by regulation to throw away their
incidentally caught halibut, and during the halibut derbies, the
fishermen were required to throw away the incidentally caught
sablefish. The mortality associated with this regulatory bycatch was
deducted from the available commercial harvests.
The IPHC recorded the halibut mortality in the directed sablefish
fishery by the use of the observer program. The average halibut
mortality in the longline sablefish fishery for each of the five
seasons preceding the IFQ program was 1,816,000 pounds. The bycatch
mortality, after the IFQ program was implemented in 1995 was recorded
at 297,000 pounds. This represented an 84 percent reduction in halibut
mortality, or a reduction of 1,519,000 pounds annually. There have been
no updates on this in the NMFS database since 1995, but there is no
reason to expect that the experience has changed since then. The
reduction resulted from a variety of several factors. Two of the more
important ones were: (1) the fishery slowed down, and juvenile halibut
were able to be released with better care, and thus with lower
mortality; and (2) the adult halibut were allowed to be retained and
counted against the quota. (Juvenile halibut are not allowed to be
landed; they are defined as being less than 32 inches long.)
Similar information is not available to quantify what has taken
place with incidentally caught sablefish. The directed halibut fishery
is generally conducted in a shallower habitat than that in which the
sablefish are usually found, so the numbers of sablefish saved in the
halibut fishery would probably not be as great as the numbers of
halibut saved in the directed sablefish fishery. (The deep-water
sablefish habitat does, however, have substantial numbers of halibut in
the late winter and spring.) The important point is that the fleet is
now landing incidentally caught sablefish. That was not the case prior
to the IFQ program.
The reduction in halibut mortality in the directed sablefish
fishery of 1,519,000 pounds represents approximately a $3.2 million
gain to the longline fishermen, assuming an average 1997 price of $2.10
per pound. As noted above, prior to the IFQ program, this now-retained
bycatch was discarded and deducted from what might be available for
commercial harvest.
There has been an additional saving to the longline fleet with the
implementation of the IFQ program. Prior to 1995, the longline
sablefish fishery operated in the Gulf of Alaska with a halibut cap of
700 metric tons. Once this bycatch mortality was accounted for, with
the help of the observer program, the directed sablefish fishery was
closed. This had the effect in the western Gulf of Alaska, and at times
the central Gulf of Alaska, of stopping the harvest of sablefish, in
order to protect halibut. The ability under the IFQ program to keep the
sablefish fishery open in the Gulf of Alaska in each of the years,
1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999, has allowed for the western Gulf of
Alaska harvest level to be fully achieved, and the central Gulf quota
to also be harvested. For 1997, in the western Gulf of Alaska, the
harvestable amount of sablefish quota shares amounted to 1,690,222
round pounds, representing an additional $3.93 million to the fleet.
(Price $3.70/dressed, 63% recovery.)
In summary, the IFQ program has allowed the fleet to recapture the
lost harvest of halibut that was occurring due to sablefish operations.
This gain amounts to an average of $3.2 million annually since the
inception of the IFQs. The program additionally allows for the full
harvest of sablefish in the western and central Gulf of Alaska,
providing an average annual gain of $3.93 million.
Janet Smoker of Fisheries Information Services (``FIS'') completed
a review of the IFQ directed sablefish fishery in the Gulf of Alaska
relative to the retention of various species caught incidentally. The
FIS report examines the 1994 season against the IFQ seasons of 1995,
1996, and part of 1997. The following conclusions were based on the
North Pacific Fishery Management Council's observer program.
While conducting a directed fishery on sablefish, some of the
target catch is discarded. The retained sablefish has always been high,
according to the report. The retained sablefish in the directed
longline fishery for sablefish during 1994 was 96.8% (a number that is
hard to improve upon), and during the 1995, 1996, and 1997 seasons
averaged 97.03%. One observation concerning the small difference in
retained bycatch between the open access period and the IFQ fishery is
that there has been very little ``high grading'' in the IFQ fisheries,
indeed, less than in the pre-IFQ fisheries. High grading had been a
concern with respect to the IFQ program, when it was under development.
The SEIS noted several very important points relative to this
subject. Vessel profit would increase 6%, if sablefish under 4 pounds
(eastern dressed weight) were discarded, but in so doing the number of
fishing days would increase 70%. [SEIS, page 2-14.] The fishermen would
have made more money, but would have worked many more days. As noted
above, the observer statistics compiled by FIS, which indicate a 97.03%
retention of sablefish, suggests that the SEIS was accurate. High
grading, which means catching the fish at least twice, is not
economical.
The FIS report also indicates that the directed sablefish fishery
during the 1994 season was retaining 75.5% of all groundfish, inclusive
of sablefish that was being caught. The next three seasons under the
IFQ program increased the total groundfish retention to 84.9% of all
groundfish species. Discards of groundfish declined from 24.5% of the
catch to an average of 15.03% of the catch, representing a 39%
reduction in discarded groundfish.
The retention of groundfish, not including sablefish, increased
from the 1994 season level of 25.7% to an average of 34.6% during the
1995, 1996, and 1997, seasons. This represented a 35% increase in
groundfish retention, not including sablefish. The halibut discards
that occur during the directed sablefish fishery have gone from 21.1%
in 1994 to an average of 13.03% during the 1995, 1996, and 1997,
seasons. This represented a 38% decline in halibut discards. Discards
of halibut under the IFQ program in the directed sablefish fishery are
largely halibut that are less than the legal size for retention.
The discards of rockfish and Pacific cod in the IFQ fisheries are
significantly the result of the rockfish and cod quotas being achieved
during the race for fish in those fisheries, which then result in
regulatory discards for the remainder of the year for IFQ fisheries.
The majority of groundfish discards in the IFQ fisheries are flounders
and skates, for which markets have not yet been adequately developed.
In summary, according to the cited evidence and analysis through
1997, the retention of sablefish has remained in the 97% range
suggesting very little, if any, high grading. The discards of
groundfish in the directed sablefish fishery reduced 39%, for a 84.9%
retention of everything caught. The fish currently discarded are
primarily skates and flounders for which markets are not available. The
halibut discards in the sablefish fishery declined 38%. The IFQ program
has, therefore, helped reduce bycatch significantly. Data for 1998 and
1999 are not available.
Excess Harvesting Capacity
The SEIS made a number of comments with regard to excess harvesting
capacity. ``The fact that there are too many vessels has been
identified as a problem.'' [SEIS, page 2-52.] ``The Council has
considered the introduction of a quota system as a means to enable
vessels to leave the industry to receive some recompense through the
sale of quota shares for so doing.'' [Id.] ``It is hoped that following
introduction, transfer of quotas will lead to less efficient vessels
leaving the industry.'' [Id.]
In 1994, the number of vessels participating in the sablefish
fishery opening numbered 1,139, and in the halibut fishery, 3,450. The
number of vessels participating in the sablefish fishery in 1995, 1996,
1997, and 1998, were 517, 503, 504, and 449 respectively. The
corresponding numbers of halibut vessels were 2,057, 1,962, 1,925, and
1,601. [RAM Report, NMFS, 1999, page 27.]
The reduction of vessels as envisioned by the SEIS is working and
is being accomplished without any federal buy-back assistance. The
fleet is using the equity value of quota shares to buy itself out. The
FVOA estimates that, in order for the Federal Government to have
achieved a fleet reduction in the halibut fishery from 3,450 vessels in
1994, to 1,601 in 1998, a reduction of 1,849 vessels, it would have
cost at least $172,432 for each vessel and its potential harvest of
fish. This means that the halibut fleet has self-rationalized itself in
the amount of $318,822,000 ($172,432 1,849 vessels) in four
years, without any federal assistance.
There are no mechanisms comparable to IFQs in terms of cost
effectiveness in reduction of a fleet. The taxpayer cost of one New
England buy-out was $23 million, and the impact was minimal.
One of the options the North Pacific Fishery Council seriously
looked at, when it was considering whether to adopt IFQs for the
halibut fishery, was a license limited entry program that would have
reduced the halibut fleet from 5000 vessels to less than 1000 vessels.
This option would have provided no compensation to the 4000 vessel
operators eliminated from the fishery, and accounts, in large part, for
the adoption of the IFQ alternative.
Product Quality, as Reflected in Halibut and Sablefish Prices
The SEIS made numerous predictions regarding the expected effects
on product quality, the availability of fresh halibut, and ex-vessel
prices. One of the primary goals of the IFQ program was to provide high
quality fresh halibut on a continual basis. The 24-hour openings in the
derby fisheries limited the ability of fishermen and processors to
provide fresh halibut to brief periods of the year, and to very few
customers. For example, the Hotel Captain Cook, in Anchorage, Alaska,
had to import fresh halibut from Canada to supply its customers, even
though Alaska produced more halibut than did any other place in the
world.
``. . . I mention the Crow's Nest Restaurant in the Hotel Captain
Cook, which has a reputation of serving nothing but fresh halibut.
Prior to IFQs, most of the year we flew fresh halibut in from
Vancouver.'' [Letter from the Honorable Walter J. Hickel to Mr. Bob
Alverson, August 27, 1997.]
The SEIS had the following specific expectations with regard to the
IFQ program. First, the program would provide the flexibility in
scheduling landings that is necessary for fishermen and processors to
take advantage both of the latent year round market for fresh halibut
and the seasonal consumption patterns for sablefish, and to decrease
storage time and costs for the halibut and sablefish that are frozen.
Second, the program would increase the quality of landed halibut and
sablefish, by decreasing the opportunity cost of the time required to
assure that the catch is quickly dressed and cared for. Third, the
program would eliminate the brief, intensive openings that result in
such large concentrations of landings that unloading and processing
delays can decrease product quality and prices. [SEIS, page 2-4.]
Flexibility in scheduling landings to take advantage of a year-
round market for fresh halibut and seasonal consumption patterns is
evident from the IPHC monthly landing reports for the 1995 through 1998
seasons. [RAM Report, NMFS, 1999, page 12.] The fleet has spread its
landings over the entire time provided, all eight months. This has
allowed the fresh fish market to absorb approximately 75% of the
harvest. The initial forecast by the SEIS was 50%. [SEIS, page 2-5.]
With regard to storage costs and savings, the SEIS stated, ``If 75
percent of landings currently are frozen and if an IFQ program would
result in only 50% being frozen, the cost savings in 1990 would have
been $4.2 million ($0.32 per lb. 25% of 52.6 million lbs.).''
[SEIS, page 2-5.] With 75 percent of the harvest now going to the fresh
markets, cold storage saving in terms of 1990 dollars is $9.8 million.
($0.32 per lb. 50% of 61,200,000 lbs. (1999 quota).) This
saving thus is over twice that forecasted by the SEIS. Additionally, in
terms of product quality, the SEIS assumed, on average, that halibut
was frozen 6 months a year. This is no longer the case, and the quality
is, therefore, higher than anticipated.
The SEIS stated, ``The price increase for sablefish is expected to
be less than for halibut, because the potential benefits from the fresh
fish market are probably less for sablefish''. [SEIS, page 2-5.]
The SEIS greatly underestimated the Japanese frozen market for
sablefish, and the marketing advantages that IFQs gave U.S. fishermen,
in terms of negotiating leverage in this foreign market. (Harvest
guidelines have decreased as well, which has put an upward pressure on
prices.) Japan consumes over 97 percent of the U.S.- and Canadian-
harvested sablefish. Since the establishment of the IFQ program, the
sablefish price has steadily increased. The 1997 average price to
fishermen would conservatively be estimated at $3.70 per dressed pound.
The NMFS assumes a 63 percent recovery rate between dressed and round
sablefish, therefore in terms of round weight, the price would be $2.33
per pound. The 1999 dressed weight price in Alaska averaged
approximately $3.10 per pound, reflecting the recent recession in
Japan.
The SEIS estimated that the round pound price for sablefish would
increase $0.05. That document stated, ``In 1991, this would have been a
$0.05 per pound round weight increase in the ex-vessel price or about a
$2.8 million dollar increase in ex-vessel value.'' [SEIS, page 2-5.]
The price for dressed sablefish in 1991, based on the SEIS, was
$1.59 per dressed pound or $1.00 per round pound. The 1997 round price
of $2.33 converts to a 1991 price of $1.98, using a consumer price
index regression of .849. In terms of 1991 dollars, the IFQ program
added $0.98 per round pound to the price of sablefish. In terms of the
allocated 1997 quota shares, the added value to the resource is
$29,629,207, in 1991 dollars. ($0.98 30,233,885 1997 round
pounds.) The prediction of a $2.8 million gain, therefore, was very
greatly underestimated. In terms of revenues to the State of Alaska,
under the 3.3% raw fish tax, the gain has been $957,000 per year on the
average, through 1997.
With respect to halibut the SEIS predicted the following: ``In
summary, it is estimated that an IFQ program would increase halibut ex-
vessel prices by $0.04 to $0.68 per pound. Given the 1990 landings of
52.6 million pounds, the resulting increase in the ex-vessel value of
the fishery would have been from $2.1 million to $35.8 million.''
[SEIS, page 2-5.]
The SEIS used a 1990 value for halibut at $1.78 per pound. The
prices for halibut since the IFQ program was initiated in 1995 have
been in the $1.90 to $2.40 range in the Seward Alaska area. Prices in
the Seattle area are generally 35 to 60 cents above Seward prices,
largely reflecting transportation costs. Assuming an average price for
1997 of $2.25 per pound, and using a consumer price regression of .814,
the 1990 value would have been $1.83 per pound. Hence the added ex-
vessel value to the industry in terms of 1990 dollars is approximately
5 cents. This would mean an added ex-vessel value to the fishermen of
$2.5 million. Consequently, although there has been, in fact, an
increase in price paid to the fisherman, the amount has been at the
lower end of the prediction.
It should be noted, however, that this value may be somewhat
misleading, in that the halibut industry has completely changed since
the implementation of the IFQ program. There are no more long lines of
fishing vessels waiting to deliver halibut. Processors no longer have
product stacked on their processing floors for days at a time because
freezers are too full. Prior to the IFQ program, containers of frozen
halibut were transshipped to the Seattle area for redistribution. Now,
significant amounts of halibut are air freighted out of Anchorage,
Alaska. There has been an added cost in air transportation to get good
quality fresh fish to distant markets, which does not readily appear as
an additional value when only looking at the price the fishermen
receives. There are new businesses in air-freighting as well as long-
haul trucking out of Anchorage that were not envisioned prior to the
IFQ program.
The industry has been revolutionized, and the most important
quality aspect for halibut of the new system is shelf life. The better
the quality at the boat, the longer the fresh fish can be available to
consumers. The need for good quality to ensure shelf life for halibut
now is the driving force on prices paid to the harvesters. A letter
from Dory Seafoods states:
The majority of the high quality buyers want to know when was
the fish caught and how old will the oldest fish be when it is
received in the market place. Many buyers will not buy old
fish, or if given a choice, they will pay more for fresher fish
with a longer shelf life.
I believe the overall quality has improved on air shipments out
of Alaska. The fishermen have more time to dress, ice and take
care of the product on board the fishing vessels. In addition,
the processing plants are receiving smaller quantities per day
and, in most cases, are able to ship the product out the same
day as received. As a result, the halibut is handled much
quicker and received in the market place in better shape than
in pre-IFQ years. [Letter from Dory Seafoods to Robert D.
Alverson, August 28, 1997.]
There have been complaints from several shore-side processors that
they are not doing well under the IFQ program. It is clear that the raw
product cost has not changed very much for halibut from the 1990
prices. It is also evident that the frozen market nature of sablefish
makes all ports competitive for sablefish. More importantly, as shown
below, the landings per port have not changed materially. What the
fishermen do notice is that those processors that have available to
them good and reliable transportation, either air or long-haul trucking
routes out of such locations as Anchorage, seem to be very competitive
for halibut. Those who have chosen as a business decision not to be
active in fresh fish marketing probably have lost market share.
Processors in western Alaska and the Dutch Harbor area have some access
to the fresh markets, but with more difficulty. In these areas, the
landed halibut generally reflects a frozen product price. In the case
of sablefish, the product must be frozen for export to Japan, and
therefore, all Alaskan ports with freezer capacity should be able to
participate in that fishery.
Sablefish is unique in that the final destination is Japan or other
Asian markets. Sablefish has very few fresh fish sales. The nature of
the flesh quality and high oil content make it necessary to freeze the
product. The distribution of sablefish before and after IFQs were
implemented can be seen in the RAM reports. There has not been any
significant change in landings to particular ports of call. [NMFS 1999
IFQ Report.]
In summary, it is evident that quality has improved and halibut is
now available fresh throughout an 8-month period. Some of the
additional values to the fishermen, considering some of the predictions
of the SEIS, are $8.2 million in annual average savings in cold storage
costs for halibut; $2.5 million of additional annual average ex-vessel
value of halibut; and $29 million in added annual average export value
of sablefish. The SEIS discussed savings in gear, food, bait, and fuel
costs to the fleet. That analysis estimated annual savings of $1.8 to
$2.5 million for food; $3.1 to $4.0 million for fuel; $20.0 to $28.0
million for opportunity cost of labor, and $9.2 to $11.7 million for
fixed costs. This statement does not attempt to quantify these actual
savings, although they have materialized in all of these categories.
These savings and additional values to the fleet have resulted in at
least a $75 million net average annual benefit to the industry.
Safety of Fishermen
The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides, ``Fishery management measures
shall, to the extent practicable, promote the safety of human life at
sea.'' [16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(10).] Senator Patty Murray stated during the
Senate Floor debate on S. 39, the Sustainable Fisheries Act:
``This race for fish creates serious safety considerations in
many fisheries. Under this race, fishers feel compelled to keep
fishing even when the weather or conditions of the vessel or
health of the captain or crew would suggest otherwise. Unless
fishery management plans provide opportunities and incentives
for fishers to sit out storms and return to port for repairs or
medical attention, lives will continue to be lost.
For this very reason we included promotion of safety of life at
sea in the National Standards of the Magnuson Act.
[Congressional Record, September 18, 1996 at S10818.]
The SEIS stated:
An IFQ program is expected to increase vessel safety by
reducing substantially the incentive fishermen have to
disregard factors that increase the risk of accidents. However,
due to a lack of reliable data and methodological problems, it
is hard to provide quantitative estimates on the linkages
between vessel safety and other factors, such as management
practices. [SEIS, page 2-3.]
In the recently released book, Fishing Vessel Safety, Blueprint
for a National Program, the National Research Council noted
that commercial fishing has one of the highest fatality rates
of any occupation and that safety has largely gone unregulated.
[Page 142.] While attributing a large portion of the safety
issues to the vessel (e.g., its structure, equipment, and
crew), the authors did consider fishery management practices to
be one of three major external influences on vessel safety.
[Page 131.] Allocation conflicts have ``resulted in a highly
competitive operating environment in which fishermen may take
unnecessary risks to maintain their livelihood''. [Page 132.]
In addition to its enforcement responsibilities, the Coast Guard
monitors safety at sea, and reports that, during the 1998 IFQ season,
there were 11 search and rescue missions undertaken (fifteen in 1995,
seven in 1996, and nine in 1997). There were no sinkings in 1998 (four
in 1997, two in 1996, and two in 1997), and two lives lost (none in
1995, two in 1996, and one in 1997). In the three years prior to the
IFQ fishery, there were an average of 28 SAR missions, two vessel
sinkings, and two lives lost during the short derby seasons. Three of
the deaths have occurred while the vessels were moored in harbor. Only
one death has occurred during heavy weather.
Economic Stability in the Fixed Gear Halibut and Sablefish Fisheries
and Affected Communities
The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides:
Conservation and management measures shall, consistent with the
conservation requirements of this Act (including the prevention
of overfishing and rebuilding of overfished stocks), take into
account the importance of fishery resources to fishing
communities in order to (A) provide for the sustained
participation of such communities, and (B) to the extent
practicable, minimize adverse economic impacts on such
communities. [16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(8).]
Although the establishment of the IFQs and CDQs for halibut and
sablefish predated this provision of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the
Council and the Commerce Department took into account community
interests in designing these management programs. The Commerce
Department, in approving the IFQ program, recognized that the open
entry fishery for halibut and sablefish had created an extreme excess
of capital investment. The Department observed that the excess capital
was causing instability and uncertainty in the fishery. The SEIS
states, ``However, once the adjustments are made, IFQs would decrease
uncertainty and increase the ability of fishermen and processors to
plan their participation in the halibut fishery.'' [SEIS, page 2-13.]
Of the 7,992 different vessel owners who participated in the
halibut fishery between 1984 and 1994, 38% did so for only one
year while only 9% participated all seven years. It is
estimated that 1,443 vessel owners participated in the fixed
gear sablefish fishery between 1985 and 1990. Of these, 45%
participated in only one year and only 6% participated all six
years. [Id.]
This is the case in terms of both short and long-term planning.
In areas with only a few very short openings, if a vessel
breaks down, a fisherman might miss all or a substantial
portion of the season. Likewise, increased fishing effort does
not allow processors to plan for consistent or orderly
processing. The short-term discontinuities make planning
difficult. [SEIS, page 2-12.]
A further benefit of quota systems is deemed to be the degree
of certainty given to participants upon which to base their
investment and fishing decisions. It is argued that if people
are aware of the quantity of fish available to them that they
will be able to make soundly based decisions about the future.
[SEIS, page 2-54.]
The vessel owners are now able to fish and time their operations,
not only around bad weather, but also with a view to market
opportunity, so they can efficiently operate in other fisheries that
may otherwise have been unavailable to them because of brief, fixed
season openings. Prior to the IFQ program, thousands of vessels had
two, one-day earning opportunities. Today, earning opportunities,
through consolidation, are creating stability within the harvesting
sector. Stability has been enhanced by the constraints on quota share
concentration, through the use of ownership caps, vessel caps, and
vessel classes. These were designed to prevent too great an
accumulation of quota share ownership by individuals in the fleet and
to ensure processors an adequate number of harvesting vessels.
Ownership caps and vessel cap limits are cited in the RAM report, 1999,
page 25.
The SEIS stated that, under the IFQ system, people would be able to
make sound business decisions about their future. The system was
designed to encourage transfers of quota within certain limits. It was
designed to encourage an owner-operated fleet. This was provided by
requiring new purchasers of IFQs to be on the vessels when the quota
shares were being fished. It is clear that the program is functioning
as designed. The owner-operator provision is providing stability for
crews and vessel owners who work on deck.
Some members of FVOA have chosen to sell, and others have chosen to
purchase, quota shares. The results are that for those who have chosen
to purchase, the owners and the crews are earning more. Those who have
sold out have received some compensation for their past investment and
efforts. The crews that have been displaced to date are those who were
participating in two, one-day jobs. The SEIS states on this issue, the
following, ``In considering the employment effects of an IFQ program,
it should be remembered, that many fishermen take a break from other
fishing or non-fishing activities to participate in the halibut
fishery. Therefore, their alternative to participation in the halibut
fishery is not unemployment.'' [SEIS, page 2-10.] However, the IFQ
fisheries are becoming attractive as full or near full time employment
opportunities.
In terms of stability for the local communities, there have been
some claims that the IFQ program has adversely affected the ports of
Kodiak and Dutch Harbor. The 1997 IPHC Annual Report list by port the
halibut landings as follows:
1. Kodiak 20% 9,103,000 Lbs.
2. Homer 12% 5,242,000 Lbs.
3. Seward 9% 3,876,000 Lbs.
4. Dutch Harbor 6% 2,855,000 Lbs.
5. Sitka 6% 2,800,000 Lbs.
The RAM September 1997 report, page 50, shows that, in 1995 and
1997, the top five halibut ports remained the same as in 1994, and the
percentage of landings was similar.
With regard to sablefish, the SEIS did not provide analysis similar
to that for halibut, however, in looking at the 1990 data provided in
that document, four of the top five districts are still in the top five
for landings, when compared to the 1997 September RAM report, page 50.
1. Wrangel, Petersburg 7,121,000 Lbs. 26%
2. Sitka Borough 6,131,000 Lbs. 22%
3. Seward Borough 4,302,000 Lbs. 15%
4. Juneau Borough 2,481,000 Lbs. 9%
5. Kodiak Island Borough 2,134,000 Lbs. 8%
6. Aleutian West Borough not available
The IFQ program was designed to have a minimal impact on
communities, by preventing a massive redistribution of landings. This
was accomplished significantly with the three-year qualification period
of 1988, 1989, 1990, where there had to be a landing to qualify for any
poundage in one of these years. This helped ensure that quota holders
were still active and operating in the same location as was
historically the case. Clearly, this has been accomplished as shown by
the hard evidence of landing reports. An argument of economic
disadvantage to Kodiak or Dutch Harbor based on IFQ poundage being
delivered elsewhere cannot be substantiated.
The instability of these communities is most likely the result of
the remaining pulse-type groundfish fisheries. The fishermen in the
Kodiak area have three, three-day pollock openings; Pacific cod has
barely a two-month operation. The landings in Kodiak were down between
1995 and 1996 by 160 million pounds; none of this reduction could be
attributed to the IFQ program. In 1997 and 1998, Kodiak landings
rebounded to 277 and 362 million pounds, respectively. This reflected
increases of salmon landings.
Fisheries of the U.S. 1998, NMFS
Similarly, landings in Dutch Harbor were reduced by 105 million
pounds between 1995 and 1996. The argument that this was due to the IFQ
program is similarly insupportable. It was due to a reduction in
pollock landings. The landing in 1997 and 1998 were 587 and 597 million
pounds respectively, which are still 100 million pounds below 1995
levels. This is all due to pollock landings, not IFQ halibut or IFQ
sablefish. [Id.] The 1999 RAM Report, pages 13 and 14, show the same
ports in the top 10 as in previous years for halibut and sablefish.
Rural Coastal Community Development of a Small Boat Fishery
The SEIS made the following statements and conclusions regarding
rural coastal community development of a small boat fleet:
The Council wished to enhance the opportunities for rural
coastal communities to participate in the sablefish and halibut
fisheries. It was in pursuit of this objective that the western
Alaska community development program was inserted into the
preferred alternative. [SEIS, page 2-55.]
Opportunities for small communities will be enhanced by having
portions of total allowable catches set aside. [Id.]
Many of the constraints imposed on transferability have been
introduced to preserve a small boat fishery for sablefish and
halibut. [Id.]
The community development quota program was specifically set up for
western Alaska rural communities. The CDQs for 1999 amounted to
2,610,000 dressed pounds of halibut. In the halibut regulatory areas of
4C and 4E, all of the CDQ quota, 1,400,000 pounds, was harvested and
landed by the local community.
The ex-vessel value of CDQ-landed halibut was approximately
$5,200,000 (Dutch Harbor price, $2.00). The CDQ halibut quotas thus are
a significant benefit to the coastal community of western Alaska and
the small vessels which operate out of those communities.
The Gulf of Alaska's small boat fleet vessels, less than 35 feet in
length, have a secure position in the fisheries. Poundage earned by
initial recipients is safeguarded permanently in their vessel length
category.
The small boat fleet has been additionally enhanced with recent
regulatory amendments that allow quota share holders operating small
vessels to buy quota from larger vessel classes and fish that quota on
the smaller vessels. IFQ holders operating larger vessels cannot use
smaller vessel class quota on their larger vessels. This new provision
gives smaller vessels, which tend to operate close to shore, more
purchasing opportunity.
As noted above, the 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act
provided for a government loan program funded, in part, from landing
fees of the IFQ participants. [16 U.S.C. 1853(d)(4).] Those who can
apply for the loans are fishermen with little or no holdings of IFQs.
The amount per loan is limited to about 8,000 lbs. of resource, and
anyone holding or controlling 50,000 lbs. or more of quota is not
eligible for the loans. Congress chose to help out the crews and those
fishermen looking for upward mobility in the industry. This program
should help rural citizens who have few cash-generating industries.
However, I cannot leave this subject without noting that the
conference report on appropriations for Commerce, Justice, State and
other agencies for fiscal year 2000 purported to divert halibut/
sablefish IFQ fees from their intended purposes in the North Pacific to
Hawaiian communities. To comply with this conference report directive
would be a gross violation of the express provisions of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act and an unconscionable breach of the Federal Government's
commitment to the fishermen, communities, and fisheries of the North
Pacific. I urge our elected representatives in Congress to stop this
ill-considered diversion of funds.
Comment on Gulf Coastal Communities Proposal
The Gulf of Alaska Coastal Communities Coalition will be sponsoring
a proposal which would allow certain tax exempt coastal village
corporations of Alaska to participate in the purchase of IFQ for
halibut and sablefish. The villages are part of the large native
regional corporations set up under the Alaska Land Settlement Act
program. There are about 42 villages in the Gulf of Alaska that have
been identified that would participate in these purchases. The Fishing
Vessel Owners Association and Deep Sea Fishermens Union oppose this for
the following reasons.
1. The halibut and sablefish IFQ program was set up to ensure an
owner operated fleet in the future. For the past 5 seasons crew and
boat owners have been purchasing QS on this basis. The GACCC proposal
would allow corporations to bid against crew and boat owners in the
market and lease back to certain village fishermen. This would begin to
turn the fishery into a company store fishery with the fisherman not
being the owner of the QS.
2. The 42 villages are part of five larger native regional
corporations that generated well over 200 million dollars in net
operating profit last year. There is no reason these regional
corporations can not assist the villages and underwrite the local
fisherman if there is a problem.
3. Some of the existing sources of funding at this time are as
follows: (a) The Bureau of Indian Affairs provides individual business
loans of up to 500,000 dollars and each individual village can qualify
for up to a 5,000,000 dollar loan, which could be used to help local
residents. (b) The State of Alaska has its own loan program for
Alaskans. In fact, the State provided loans for 199 IFQ holders,
according to the RAM Report, 1999, page 23. (c) The village fishermen
can participate in the existing IFQ loan program established under the
1996 Magnuson-Stevens Act amendments. The NMFS loan program has
provided loans for 14 IFQ operators. [RAM Report, 1999, page 23.] (d)
Private banks have provided loans for 1,234 IFQ holders. [RAM Report,
1999, page 23.]
We also have the concern that if 42 villages maximized the
ownership privileges that this could result in 40 percent of the
resource of sablefish and 20 percent of the recourse of halibut being
bought up from the existing quota share pool. There is a concern that
over the long term the quota purchased by the villages will not
circulate for future purchases as does quota share when existing crew
and/or boat owners retire. This will push up the cost of entry for
crews and new vessel owners that are not members of the villages. In
addition to this the villages are tax exempt, which will give them a 20
percent advantage on price when bidding against crew and boat owners.
WEST COAST GROUNDFISH
Major groundfish fisheries off the coast of Washington, Oregon, and
California are in severely depressed condition. The impact on the
affected industry and dependent communities is serious.
Key Facts About Stock Conditions and Economic Impacts
Certain key ground fisheries off Washington, Oregon, and California
have had the following reductions in allowed harvest since 1982, when
the Pacific Council adopted its groundfish management plan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1983 ABCs 2000 ABCs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sablefish 13,400 mt 9,692 mt
Widow rockfish 18,300 mt 5,750 mt
Lingcod 7,000 mt 700 mt
Bocaccio 6,100 mt 164 mt
Canary 2,700 mt 356 mt
Dover sole 19,000 mt 9,426 mt
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cut back in harvest level in 1998 resulted in revenues to the
vessels dropping from $99,479,252 to $67,803,000. [SAFE document, 1999,
Pacific Council.] This represented a 32 percent drop in income. The
revenue information from 1999 is not available, but should show a
further income decrease, as the Council reduced the rockfish harvest in
1999. The 2000 harvest levels have been reduced from the 1999 levels,
with the addition of 5 overfished species. When a resource has been
declared overfished, additional restrictions are required. It is
anticipated that some fishing will have to be curtailed in 2000,
because certain overfished resources will hit their harvest limits
midway through the year. This will result in the allowable harvests of
the healthy resources not being fully taken. The State of Oregon has
predicted that the 2000 cuts in harvest could result in an additional
$24 million in lost income.
The condition of these fisheries has resulted from failures of
local science, regional management, and national policy. Due to poor
data and dubious scientific analyses, stock assessments have been
fatally flawed. Lack of confidence in the science, and failure to
employ the precautionary approach have led to excessive allowable
catches. Belated management responses to the deplorable condition of
the groundfish fisheries have been hampered by the moratorium on IFQs
and by overly broad interpretations of it. The Pacific Council has
reduced harvests in each of the past three years, but has been unable
to institute a management system that would mitigate the economic
impacts and reduce excess capacity.
Management of trawl and fixed gear operations is accomplished with
the use of trip limits. The trip limit management tool can be
successful when the amount of fishing effort matches up with sufficient
quantities of fishery resources. This tool fails where there is an
imbalance. The lower Pacific Coast has too much effort and too little
resource. Other than for fixed gear sablefish harvests, all trip limits
are the same for every vessel. There is one set of trip limits per
vessel, and that set applies uniformly to all vessel sizes and gear
types. Currently, two or more licenses cannot be combined, or
``stacked'', for a single vessel, thus precluding an efficient means of
consolidating excessive effort. Consequently, the fisheries remain
extremely inefficient and difficult to manage for conservation.
For each trawler or longliner, trip limits apply to 14 species.
These trip limits are supposed to be harvested once every three months,
and sometimes, once every two months. These limits become, as they are
now, economically unsustainable when allowable harvests fall below, and
harvesting capacity rises above, certain levels. Most of the
economically important species for the fixed gear industry have such
low trip limits that the fixed gear vessels have in many cases ceased
to operate, except for sablefish. The recent reduction for the 2000
season will likely be as disastrous to the trawl fleet as preceding
reductions have been to the fixed-gear fleet.
The fixed-gear sablefish fishery is managed with three tiers, each
tier having a different trip limit based on the historical production
of the participating vessels. In 1999, each vessel that had a sablefish
permit was allowed a nine-day season, regardless of the poundage of the
applicable tier. The Pacific Council attempted to allow a longer period
of time for harvest, in order to provide for safety, reduce management
uncertainty, and better fit sablefish harvests with other fishing
activities. However, the NOAA General Counsel's Office maintained that,
to allow too much time to catch a trip limit would be construed as an
IFQ, and therefore, would violate the moratorium in the Magnuson-
Stevens Act. On the basis of that ruling, the Pacific Council is
currently forced to adjust harvest time and trip limit sizes for the
fixed gear sablefish fleet in a manner that creates a 26% probability
that a trip limit will not be achieved during a given fishing time.
This percentage is called ``overhead''. Overhead guarantees that the
race for fish in tightly constrained fisheries suffering from excess
capacity will be greatly accelerated. Conservation and safety risks, as
well as economic inefficiency, increase accordingly. Ever greater
financial pressures lead vessel owners to add more crew, conduct
fishing operations around the clock, and fish in dangerous weather
conditions. For their part, the government managers occupy themselves
with readjusting the fishing periods to account for fluctuations in the
fisheries in a manner that will ensure continued achievement of the 26%
probability that the trip limits will not be reached.
The fixed gear solution that has been discussed and supported by
many of the affected permit holders would include allowing the existing
sablefish tiers to be harvested over a nine-to-twelve-month time frame.
Of course, this would require removal of the overhead requirement,
because any season this long would result in the certainty of a permit
trip limit being harvested. In view of the prevailing legal ruling, the
removal of the overhead requirement would be permissible only if the
Magnuson-Stevens Act moratorium were lifted for this fishery.
The ability to ``stack'' the permits and provide for reasonable,
cumulative trip limits for sablefish and/or other groundfish species is
also supported among those who operate in these fisheries. This
approach would allow the fleet size to be reduced, so that harvesting
capacity would better fit with the available resource and management
would be less difficult. NOAA General Counsel has indicated that
allowing stacking begins to assure fishermen certain guarantees of
achieving trip limits, and therefore, cannot be reconciled with the IFQ
moratorium. Here, again, the need for lifting the moratorium becomes
evident.
As noted, above, the other, vital need is to authorize an industry-
funded observer program for the west coast groundfish fisheries. This
requires an amendment to section 313 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. [16
U.S.C. 1862.] I have noted that the present economic conditions in
these fisheries is such that industry fees to fund an observer program
would be unwelcome. However, as I have also noted, the establishment of
a credible observer program is indispensable to gaining an
understanding of the groundfish fisheries that will allow their
effective conservation and management. If Congress will not appropriate
the funds in the public interest to provide for such a program, then
there is no alternative to industry, in its own interest, finding the
means to do so.
There are provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act that would appear,
at first blush, to have some potential for ameliorating the conditions
in the west coast groundfish fisheries. However, upon close
examination, each of these provisions has its deficiencies. Fisheries
disaster assistance, as provided by section 312(a) of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1861a(a)) has merit, within limits. It does not
answer the need for a long-term resource recovery program, and there
are many issues concerning appropriation and allocation of funds under
this section that would have to be resolved before short-term relief
could be implemented. Accordingly, I believe that, if fisheries
disaster relief is seriously pursued, it must not be allowed to divert
attention and effort from achieving the long-term solution of reduced
fishing capacity and increased resource abundance. I add that this
provision does not authorize funding beyond the end of fiscal year
1999.
An industry-funded capacity reduction program, as authorized by
section 312(b)-(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act has some superficial
appeal. However, the economic and resource conditions of the west coast
groundfish fisheries are so badly deteriorated, it is difficult to see
how the statutory requirements can be met for financing a buyback.
CONCLUSION
By any rational measure, the halibut/sablefish IFQ program has been
a great success. With this example firmly established, individual
transferable quotas should be available to fisheries managers
nationwide, and in particular, should not be barred for west coast
groundfish fisheries. In addition, Congress should authorize an
industry-funded observer program for the west coast groundfish
fisheries, so that, if federal funds are not forthcoming, vitally
needed observer data can be secured, nonetheless.
Senator Snowe. Thank you, Mr. Alverson.
Mr. Brown.
STATEMENT OF RALPH BROWN, MEMBER, PACIFIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT
COUNCIL
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the
Subcommittee. I am Ralph Brown. I am a trawl boat owner here on
the coast and also a Member of the Pacific Fisheries Management
Council.
Fishing is basically all I have ever done, so if I come
across as a fisherman, that is why. That is what I am.
I am not going to read my testimony. I spent about four
pages basically saying that the big problem is we do not have
the information. And whether the Magnuson-Stevens Act would
work as presently constructed with the right amount of
information, I do not know. Because we do not have it. If we
had the right amount of information, I do not know.
One thing I do know on this coast, is that if we started
collecting much of the information we need to adequately manage
it, it is going to take enough years that the effects that we
are feeling now basically will have become permanent in the
fleet. As a consequence, my focus has to be on what do we do
with those people. We have got to do something for those
people. We cannot just say, well, too bad, folks; it was a good
run for your money, but now you are out.
In my testimony I did forget to put one comment in. I agree
with Bob on the desirability of ending the moratorium on ITQ's.
I know that has been a contentious issue. And if you cannot see
your way to end the moratorium on ITQ's, I would at least ask
you to look at the National Marine Fisheries Service
interpretation of what an ITQ is--it is very broad right now--
and see whether or not that was really your intention in the
moratorium. We run into the definition of an ITQ in places that
I just would not think you would. So I would at least ask you
to do that.
Ideally, of course, we would have the information to
adequately manage our fisheries, to do the things that the
Magnuson-Stevens Act require. In the absence of that, when we
are left with the great uncertainty that we have, it appears
that the only response we have now are actions that destroy
industries. Mr. Phil Anderson mentioned the dungeness crab
fishery as one that we have been asked to manage. We sort of
delayed with the interim language. We do not know whether we
are going to be asked to manage it in the future.
I took, admittedly, a quick and dirty look at the
regulations and requirements that we would have to use if we
managed the dungeness crab fishery. And I came up with a
reduction in catch of 60 percent. That fishery today is
considered to be one of the best managed fisheries on the coast
biologically, and yet I still come up with we would be required
to reduce it by 60 percent.
We need to think about our definitions of MSY. That is a
fishery that our current definition does not fit very well. And
in fact, one of the reasons that we did not have a management
plan before is that we could not get advice from our scientists
on how we would even define MSY for that fishery, it is so
variable. Catches have run, since 1952, have run from a low in
the State of Oregon from 3 million pounds up to a high of 18
million pounds. It is not a stable kind of resource. It bounces
all over.
While we were developing our coastal pelagics plan, the
squid portion was turned down by National Marine Fisheries
Service. Our scientific statistical committee advised us they
did not know how to develop a MSY for the squid resource. It is
another that is extremely variable due to environmental
conditions. So we need to rethink that a little bit.
But the main thing that we need on this coast is better
information. And in the absence of better information, we need,
along with the absence of better information, we really need to
do something for our people that are just literally going to
have to leave the
fishery.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ralph Brown, Member, Pacific Fisheries Management
Council
Thank you for asking me to testify before this Sub-committee. I am
Ralph Brown of Brooking, Oregon. I grew up in the fishing business and
currently own two trawlers that fish out of Southern Oregon. I am vice-
president of Fishermen' Marketing Association (FMA), a trawl
organization that has approximately 600 members living in Washington,
Oregon and California.
I also serve on the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) in
one of the At-large seats. I am currently in the middle of my second
term in that position.
For this testimony, I am speaking only for myself and am not
speaking for either the FMA or the PFMC.
A discussion of management and management failures in this region
has to focus on a discussion of the information that we use. A lack of,
or in some cases, poor information characterizes management of
fisheries along this coast.
The Council and Council staff worked very hard to upgrade our
management plans to be in compliance with the new requirements of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. This was so time consuming that good ideas for
improving management of our fisheries had to be deferred. We are just
now getting to the point where we can move forward with new management
ideas.
What was the result of all of this hard work? We are left with a
description of Essential Fish Habitat that includes nearly all of the
aquatic habitat from the top of the Rocky Mountains to the western edge
of the EEZ. We simply didn't have the information to narrow the
description any further. We are left with a requirement to minimize
impacts on habitat by fishing gear, with no idea what those impacts
are. We are left with a requirement to consider social and economic
information but with no social or economic information to use. We are
left with the requirement to minimize by-catch without knowing how much
by-catch is occurring or who is producing it. We are left with a
requirement to end over-fishing on stocks for which we don't have the
foggiest idea as to their condition, because we don't have the
information to do assessments on the majority of the species listed in
our management plan.
I have been an observer of this management Council and the
management process for a long time now, for two decades. I find the
people involved to be sincere and dedicated to proper management of our
fisheries. You will hear people saying that the state of our fisheries
is bad because the Council did not make hard decisions when they were
needed in the past. This is not true. This Council has never shied away
from hard decision. As an example, this Council adopted a limited entry
plan back when limited entry was a controversial subject throughout the
country. This Council has never had an information base that was
adequate to base decisions on.
The shortage of information is particularly acute with respect to
stock assessments and harvest levels. Our assessments have bounced all
over the place.
Our normal schedule is to assess the stocks that we assess every
three years. Three years ago, harvest levels for sablefish were at
7,000 tons. The management team came to the Council with a
recommendation to reduce harvests to 2,500 tons. They said it with a
straight face. I argued successfully to delay the full cut and we
reduced catches to 5,300 tons, with a promise to have a new assessment
the following year, rather than on the normal three year schedule. This
assessment occurred and the next year the management team recommended
an Acceptable Biological Catch number of 9,692 tons. They said this
with a straight face also.
Much of the management of our deep water fishery is driven by
management of shortspine thornyheads. A paragraph from the Stock
Assessment Review Panel Report of 1997 states ``The thornyhead
assessments are particularly short of data, but the management regime
nonetheless requires a specific number based on a sophisticated
reference point as a basis for the ABC. The assessment is unable to
deliver that ABC estimate with certainty. This means there is a high
probability that management will simply be unable to achieve the
desired target.''
We are going through an examination of our harvest policies right
now. This is the fourth examination that I am aware of. The previous
examinations have resulted in successively more restrictive harvest
policies. I expect the next harvest policy to be more restrictive than
the last. Overly lenient harvest policy has been given as the reason
that we have overfished species. This may be true, but the Council
followed the advice of its scientists in each case.
At this point, the proper question to ask of our scientists is:
Does anyone here have any idea of what is going on in the ocean?
I am critical of the science that has been used on this coast. I
hope this is not viewed as criticism of the scientists here. All of the
scientists here have done their best with the shortage of information
that they have to work with, but they also can't make a silk purse out
of a sow's ear. We have to be given permission to admit that we have
sow's ears and not be forced to continually pretend that they are silk
purses.
What happens today if we successfully argue that the science is
flawed? National Marine Fishery Service recommends that greater
uncertainty in the stock status be matched with greater precaution in
harvest. If we successfully argue that the science is poor, then we
have demonstrated a greater uncertainty and get larger cuts in harvest.
It's like being involved with a protection racket: ``If you argue with
our science we'll cut you worse.''
Most of the members of industry here think that the science that we
base our decisions on is inadequate. We've tried to lobby for more
research money and we've tried to work with National Marine Fishery
Service to increase our understanding of our resources. We haven't
gotten very far for a variety of reasons, and now the shortage of
information threatens to destroy the industry.
I believe that we are not done with the cuts in harvest. National
Marine Fishery Service has been sued by a coalition of environmental
groups that claim that not enough protection has been given the
unassessed stocks in this region. There is a reason that the stocks are
unassessed. We simply don't know enough to do assessments on them.
National Marine Fishery Service has guidance on dealing with stocks
that can't be assessed. Their guidance is to reduce the catch on
species like this by twenty-five to seventy-five percent. These species
are all incidentally caught, along with other targeted species. The
only way to achieve a reduction in the unassessed species is to reduce
the target catch by an equivalent amount.
In 1982, landings of groundfish, other than whiting, were 119,000
tons. According to the latest report, in 1999, landings were 36,000
tons, a reduction of seventy percent. There are people saying that that
reduction is not enough.
If my fear of the future comes true, we will have reduced catches
of groundfish, other than whiting, on this coast to 15,000 tons, or a
reduction of nearly ninety percent, and there will still be people
saying that that is not enough of a reduction due to the uncertainty of
our assessment process.
I don't want a shortage of information to be an excuse for
overfishing, but it is unacceptable that the only response allowed
today to a shortage of information is to destroy an industry.
The Council now has five species that are listed as overfished. We
have rebuilding plans developed for three of them. The remaining two,
canary rockfish and cowcod, were declared overfished this year, and
rebuilding plans have not been developed for them yet.
The time required for rebuilding of these species has been
projected to range from ten years for lingcod to nearly fifty years for
Pacific ocean perch. Some of the model runs for bocaccio rockfish
showed rebuilding not being finished for 300 years. When canary
rockfish and cowcod rebuilding plans are developed, the rebuilding
period will be similar to that of Pacific ocean perch.
These rebuilding plans cannot be viewed as temporary and they can
not be viewed as actions that will result in a stronger industry for
anyone fishing today. We have made permanent changes in the industry
and have entered a brave new world of fishery management.
This brave new world may work if the information needed to make it
work is provided, but we don't have that information today and it will
be many years after we start to collect the information before it will
be sufficient to make wise management decisions.
What do we do for people involved in fisheries now? We have very
nearly destroyed the industry. Continuation of this course of
management will destroy the industry. The promise of a better life
fifty or one hundred years from now is not sufficient.
Today we have many displaced workers and large amounts of displaced
capacity. If we continue along our management path we will have larger
numbers of displaced workers, and larger amounts of displaced fishing
capacity. We have to deal with these as top priority.
Unless we address the capacity that is and will be displaced by
these cuts in groundfish we will spread the impact of these cuts to all
parts of the industry. Dealing with this displaced capacity must be a
top priority for fishery managers in the very near future.
In closing, I do not have specific recommendations, today, for
solutions to the problems that are facing us in management of fisheries
along the west coast. I am working with other members of industry to
develop recommendations and we look forward to working with you to
solve these problems.
Priorities would be to improve the information base that we use to
make management decisions and to provide for the people that we are
displacing, and, finally, I would like to repeat that destroying an
industry, as the only allowable response to uncertainty, is not
acceptable.
Thank you.
Senator Snowe. Thank you.
Mr. Moore.
STATEMENT OF ROD MOORE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
WEST COAST SEAFOOD PROCESSORS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Moore. Thank you, Senator Snowe. For the record, my
name is Rod Moore. I am Executive Director of the West Coast
Seafood Processors Association. And I sort of feel like I am a
constituent of all of you since I was born in Portland, Maine,
and lived in Alaska for several years, and worked for Senator
Stevens' colleague, Congressman Young, for 18 years, and I am
now living on the west coast, with several of our members in
Washington State. So I want to thank all of my Senators for
coming here today.
[Laughter.]
Senator Snowe. You have covered all of your bases.
Mr. Moore. I have tried.
[Laughter.]
You have my written testimony in the record, and I just
want to highlight some of the things that I talked about there.
There are three issues in particular which, in combination,
have really done the most to exacerbate our problems in terms
of fisheries management on this coast.
First, as you have heard from a number of witnesses, is
science or, rather, the lack thereof. The standard in the Act
calls for using the best scientific information available. We
have the standard of no scientific information available. If
you look at the research abilities, time series and so forth in
the Bering Sea and in New England and you contrast that with
the west coast, you will find that we are sorely lacking in the
basic scientific data that is needed to properly manage the
fisheries.
We are at the point where we have to go out and beg people
for money for an annual trawl survey that we started a couple
of years ago, using industry vessels. It is the sort of thing
where we are trying to get the National Marine Fisheries
Service to pull money out of one pocket and put it in another,
just so we can do a basic survey. And these are the sorts of
surveys that other parts of the country have available to them.
And without science, the requirement to impose a precautionary
approach is almost automatically going to lead to reductions in
harvest.
The second issue is the whole treatment of overfishing and
rebuilding required in the Act and the regulations which
implement the Act. A fishery is overfished if, regardless of
cause, it has declined to a low percentage of virgin spawning
biomass. However, without a survey time series--which we really
do not have because we do not have any science, remember--
virgin biomass must be calculated from the computer model using
current data.
But if the current data set is not the best, then you have
to make assumptions using what little you do know. So if your
data base is zero and you use that to back-calculate, you get
zero, and then you take a ratio, what do you get? You get zero.
In other words, you are overfishing almost automatically. And
once you are overfishing, you have to develop a rebuilding
plan. And what do you base that rebuilding plan on? It is the
same lack of data that you have already got.
Obviously I am exaggerating a little bit here, but it
illustrates the problem of trying to use sparse data to manage
fisheries under very stringent legal requirements. And what is
even worse is that we may be asked to rebuild to an impossible
state of nature. Fish exist in a complex environment of depth,
salinity, temperature, prey, predators, and competitors. Their
populations are dynamic. They are not stable. They are not
point estimates. They change over time. And they often change
relative to each other and because of each other.
Senator Stevens, I know you are aware of it in the Gulf of
Alaska, what has happened with the tremendous increase in arrow
tooth flounder up there as a result not only of changes in the
aquatic environment but also the fisheries that have occurred
in other species. Arrow tooth flounder moved in. If for some
reason we were able to develop the fishery on arrow tooth
flounder but we had to rebuild one of those other fisheries to
some level that comes from who knows where, you are going to
wind up depressing arrow tooth flounder to get someplace else.
So you just go back and forth on rebuilding one or the other.
So we are asked to bring single stocks back to a level that
the ocean may no longer be capable of supporting, and to do so
within a politically defined area as opposed to an area where
the fish may actually exist. On this coast, sablefish is a
great example. Sablefish can be found from Mexico all the way
up past Canada, out to Alaska, and over to Japan and Russia.
What we have to look at, in terms of whether sablefish are
declining, overfished, where they are, is a political segment.
We cannot really look at what is going on someplace else.
Finally, the third issue, which is related to the first, is
that if you, as the Congress, require us to do something,
please give us the resources to do it. Do not tell us we are
overfished and then not provide us with the science and
management capability to do rebuilding plans. And do not tell
us to reduce capacity to save fish and then deny us the tools
to do so. Do not tell the seafood industry that we will be
responsible for research and management but neglect to give us
the rights and privileges we need to carry out that
responsibility.
We need the science, realistic legal structure and
appropriate resources. There are 6 billion people here on
earth. Please give us what we need to help feed them.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Moore follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rod Moore, Executive Director,
West Coast Seafood Processors Association
Madame Chair, members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to present this testimony on behalf of the West Coast
Seafood Processors Association (WCSPA). Our Association represents
shore-based seafood processors and associated businesses in Washington,
Oregon, and California. Collectively, our members process the majority
of Pacific groundfish, Dungeness crab, and pink shrimp landed in those
States, along with substantial quantities of salmon, sardines,
swordfish, albacore tuna, and a variety of other species. Three of our
members also operate facilities in Alaska. Most of our member companies
are family or individually owned, some for several generations.
Most of my testimony will discuss the effects of the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) on the Pacific
groundfish fishery, so it may be helpful to understand a bit about that
fishery. The Pacific groundfish fishery, which is primarily managed by
the Pacific Fishery Management Council under a fishery management plan,
comprises some 83 different species, most caught in association with
others. The fishery is the largest on the west coast in both volume and
value and is the economic mainstay of our coastal fishing communities.
The majority of groundfish landings are by trawl vessels, although
there are significant components taken by fixed gear (both hook-and-
line and pots) and recreational vessels. A limited entry permit system
has been in effect since 1994 and most landings are by limited entry
vessels. There is also an ``open access'' component of the fishery
which includes shrimp trawlers that incidentally take groundfish, small
hook-and-line vessels, and the small beach-launched dory fleets in
Oregon and California. Finally, there is an offshore fleet that
harvests Pacific whiting, composed of catcher-processors and
motherships that are supplied by smaller trawl vessels.
Under the fishery management plan, harvests are allocated among the
different entities, as well as to tribal fisheries in accordance with
treaty provisions (some of which are under legal challenge). Harvest
levels are generally set as coast-wide limits, though some species have
different limits in the north and the south due to their relative
abundance. Most recently, in order to address concerns with population
sizes, the several rockfish species have been subdivided based on their
normal occurrence by depth: near-shore, shelf, and slope.
Along with overall harvest levels, individual vessel harvests are
regulated by cumulative trip limits, which may vary throughout the year
and by type of gear used. The current gear restrictions on cumulative
limits, which largely were developed by the seafood industry in order
to conserve distressed species, impose greater restrictions on the
harvest of those species which have been designated as ``overfished''.
Now that you know everything about the Pacific groundfish fishery,
let me turn to the statute that governs how it operates--the MSFCMA.
Before getting into specifics on the Act and its implementation, there
are some general principles which we all need to think about.
First, assumptions. Before taking my current job over five years
ago, I spent nearly 18 years on the staff of the U.S. House of
Representatives, working for Congressman Young of Alaska and the
Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. Between January, 1977, and
December, 1994, many of the changes to the MSFCMA were my ``babies''; I
was the House staffer who helped draft them and monitored their
implementation. In doing so, I made a number of assumptions about how
the language of the law and the intent of Congress would be carried
out, just as you and your staff do today. Only after leaving Congress
and coming to work for the seafood industry did I discover how wrong I
was in many of my assumptions.
Just to give you a small example: when the MSFCMA was passed, it
created eight regional Councils in recognition of the regional
differences in fisheries. We then proceeded to put in place national
standards, mandatory provisions for all fishery management plans, etc.
In short, we ignored the fact that we had created a regional system and
imposed a one-size-fits-all pattern. So, the Congress talks about doing
things via fishery management plan amendment, when in some cases--and
Pacific groundfish is a good example here--the fishery management plan
is a framework and everything accomplished under the plan is done by
regulation. So, we wind up arguing with NMFS, NOAA General Counsel, and
the Office of Management and Budget as to whether what we want to do
with Pacific groundfish qualifies as a ``plan amendment'' even though
it is being done by regulation. Frustrating as it is, this is only a
minor example of making incorrect assumptions.
Second, put your money where your mouth is. The workload imposed on
our managing entities--both NMFS and the Councils--and on the seafood
industry by statutory requirements is not matched by the resources
needed to get the job done. As a result, we are constantly robbing
Peter to pay Paul, and pretty soon both of them will go bankrupt. For
example, there are numerous requirements for considering environmental,
economic, and social impacts of regulations. These are all good things
and the Congress has tried to streamline the fishery management process
by having all analyses completed by one deadline. Unfortunately, no
resources are provided to develop the database on which such analyses
depend, or to provide the people to do them. In the NMFS Northwest
Region, there are 3 people working full time on all aspects of
groundfish management--that's three people to cover the biggest and
most valuable fishery on the west coast. Looking at the science side,
it's even worse: the harvest levels for yellowtail rockfish in 2000,
for example, are based on 4 to 5 year old data. We have had at least
one El Nino, one La Nina, and the beginnings of a major ocean regime
shift since those data were collected, and this is one of the better
examples. We scramble to find boats and money to conduct surveys, we
have fewer stock assessment scientists than are listed in the NMFS
Table of Organization, and yet our managers and scientists are being
asked to produce more and more science. Something has to be done before
the system collapses under its own weight.
Third, we need to remember that fish stocks are dynamic and subject
to a wide variety of fluctuations in size, location, and productivity.
We cannot assume that what is here today will be here tomorrow nor, if
it is gone, that human beings were the primary cause. We cannot assume
that fish stop at some arbitrary political border in the ocean. We need
flexibility in our management. Split-nosed rockfish (known locally as
``rosefish'') in central California are a good example. In 1998, huge
numbers of rosefish were found; in 1999, the numbers went back to
``normal'' levels for the same mysterious reason that they bloomed the
year previously. How did management respond? In 1998, there was no
avenue for raising harvests for that year; instead harvest levels were
increased in 1999. So, in 1998, fishermen had to discard rosefish to
stay within their legal limits, and in 1999 they couldn't catch what
was allowed because the fish had moved on. Fish--and fishermen--are
dynamic; the law and management need to recognize that.
So let's turn to specifics. The Subcommittee's letter of invitation
asked me to testify specifically on the impacts that the 1996
amendments to the MSFCMA (known collectively as the ``Sustainable
Fisheries Act'') have had on the west coast fisheries. The following
comments are on particular provisions of the Act:
Optimum Yield definition--In the 1996 amendments, the Congress amended
the existing definition to prohibit increasing harvest above maximum
sustainable yield (MSY) due to social and economic factors. This causes
a variety of problems. First, MSY is often unmeasurable; in fact, the
Pacific Council uses a proxy for MSY which is a harvest rate that
results in a remaining spawning stock biomass of some percentage of
what would exist absent any fishing. Our optimum yield is established
by applying that harvest rate to the current biomass (as estimated
through stock assessments) with necessary reductions if the current
biomass is judged to be below 40% of the virgin biomass. In effect, we
are taking a number--which may have confidence intervals of as much as
50%--and treating it as a point estimate, then reducing it. We have
completely abandoned flexibility. Rather than the iron-clad definition
found in current law, we would be far better off stipulating that
``optimum'' reflect some accepted scientific principle (rather than
MSY) as modified to meet appropriate conditions.
Best scientific information available--This is the ``science standard''
on which many provisions in the Act are based. It is not defined. Like
beauty, it often seems to be in the eye of the beholder. For example,
several years ago the biomass estimates for Pacific whiting were
reduced by 40% based on a single experiment conducted by a single
scientist. When we suggested that more work be done before making such
a drastic reduction, we were told that the single experiment
constituted the best scientific information available and the new
technique would be used. The standard needs to be defined; it needs to
incorporate a peer-review process, and it needs to take into account
anecdotal data. And if the Subcommittee is interested in a peer-review
process that works, I recommend looking at the process used by the
Pacific Fishery Management Council which involves scientists, fisheries
managers, and industry representatives formally analyzing stock
assessments.
Overfishing, the term--Before discussing the process used to deal with
overfishing, I hope the Subcommittee will think about the term itself.
If a fish stock declines for any reason, it is considered
``overfished.'' Unfortunately, the term implies human--and indeed,
harvest related--causes, even though it may simply have been Mother
Nature throwing us a curve ball. Since few members of the media and
even fewer members of the public have any clear understanding of the
legal basis for an overfishing declaration, the seafood industry gets
the blame and you in Congress get letters from irate citizens demanding
that you do something to curb the excesses of those avaricious
fishermen. Pacific Ocean Perch (POP) is a good example. POP have been
considered overfished for 20 years because of the current biomass level
in relation to virgin biomass. And how do we estimate POP virgin
biomass? It is based on harvest reports from Russian trawl vessels that
operated off our coast long before the MSFCMA was first enacted,
reports whose veracity is highly questionable. In fact, there is
speculation that POP were never abundant off the west coast, that what
we have is a fringe population whose center is in Southeast Alaska. Yet
we get the blame. Perhaps a term such as ``distressed fishery'' might
be more appropriate, a term which takes into account population
declines from a variety of sources.
Essential fish habitat--Under current definitions and guidelines, the
entire ocean has been declared ``essential'' for many species, thereby
both diluting the effect of this change in the law and putting
additional burdens on the seafood industry, since the effect of fishing
gear on essential fish habitat is about the only thing that gets
regulated. We need to look at ways to go after areas that truly are
essential.
Conflict of Interest--We are rapidly approaching the point when we will
make it impossible for individual fishermen and processors to serve on
management Councils, a direct contravention of the cooperative
management system that was originally envisioned in 1976. Under NMFS'
interpretation of the law, a 10% interest in a fishery triggers a ban
on Council member voting. However, what varies is whether the 10% test
applies to a fishery as a whole (e.g., the Pacific groundfish fishery)
or to a port or region (e.g., the port of Astoria or the lower Columbia
River region). It is a fact of life that our fisheries are
consolidating and thus getting smaller in many areas. Applying the 10%
test to a particular port or region can easily prevent a Council member
from voting on most issues. To make matters more confusing, a
representative of a group of fishermen or processors can vote more
freely on issues than can any of the people he or she represents. We
are moving the Councils more to participation by paid representatives
and state officials and losing the expertise that can be provided by
individual, long-term fishermen and processors. This doesn't make any
sense.
Individual Quotas--The Congress should lift the moratorium on
individual quota programs and include language to enable processors to
achieve equitable benefits--and bear equitable costs--in any program
established. If there are guidelines that need to be created, they
should provide flexibility among regions and fisheries. Any fees or
other costs recovered should be returned to the fishery or region in
which they were collected. Whether or not to establish an IQ program
should be a decision made by a particular Council. Please note that
under current NMFS interpretations of what constitutes an IQ, our
cumulative trip limit management system would not be allowed. We need
to provide flexibility for the Councils to develop management programs
that work for their particular fisheries.
Overfishing/rebuilding process--Section 304(e) is a wonderful
illustration of the old adage about the road to Hell being paved with
good intentions--and here on the West Coast we are feeling the burn.
First, consider how a stock is determined to be ``overfished''--we use
point estimates to gauge the status of stocks that may fluctuate widely
and we have insufficient data to determine what that status is in
reality. Take canary rockfish, an important--and ``overfished''--
species on the west coast. In 1999, the acceptable biological catch was
1,045 metric tons, a figure derived from a prior stock assessment. In
2000, the ABC is 356 metric tons, based on the most current stock
assessment and the species has been designated as ``overfished'' under
the guidelines established by the Sustainable Fisheries Act. I served
on the review panel that examined the most recent stock assessment and
there are no technical problems with the assessment itself; however, it
does make a number of assumptions based on exceedingly sparse data.
Nevertheless, we have to ask: did this species crash in the three year
time period between assessments? If so, was the crash human caused or
environmental? If the latter, can it be rebuilt absent another change
in the environment? By using a single point--current biomass in
relation to virgin biomass--are we looking at the true picture of this
stock, which may fluctuate widely?
Second, are we considering the proper parameters? Overfishing
designations are based on current biomass in relation to virgin
biomass. The world has changed and is continuing to change. Carrying
capacity of the ocean fluctuates. Can we even achieve a stock size
above the ``overfished'' level given contemporary ocean conditions?
Third, once a stock is designated as ``overfished'' the Council has
a relatively short period of time to come up with a rebuilding plan.
Given the lack of resources--both human and fiscal--available to NMFS
and the Council, especially in this region, all of our efforts will
suddenly be directed to preparing rebuilding plans, thereby ignoring
other needed science and management efforts. How many stocks suffer (or
how many fishermen suffer) when all attention is focused on a handful
of stocks?
Fourth, we need to ``end'' overfishing; not respond to it or
address it, but end it. If overfishing is a result of long-term
oceanographic changes that affect the basic productivity of the stock,
how do we accomplish that objective?
Fifth, we have time frames that don't fit biology. Ten years might
be a sufficient period when dealing with a fast growing, highly fecund
gadoid whose biomass has been depleted by over-harvest, but it doesn't
work for a slow growing, long lived rockfish with moderate fecundity
that has been depleted by changes in ocean conditions. While there are
exceptions for overfishing resulting from environmental changes, trying
to convince anyone that Mother Nature caused the problem is extremely
difficult, especially given our current state of knowledge.
Sixth, once we embark on a rebuilding program, we really have no
way to monitor if we are doing right, doing wrong, or if the fish are
just coming back by themselves. Do we prepare a new stock assessment
and come up with a new point estimate? Will we be going from famine to
feast every three years? Or will we wind up ten years older with no
more fish than we have now?
Last, but not least, how do we deal with mixed stock complexes,
which is how most fish are caught? Does the overfished species become
the tail wagging the dog? This year, the Pacific Fishery Management
Council adopted most of a plan developed by the seafood industry which
we think will allow fishermen to maintain access to healthy species
while avoiding ``overfished'' species. This will require a significant
investment by the industry in modified gear. But what if one of the
other species becomes overfished as well--a possibility according to
some scientists. Will we then have to close off large areas of the
ocean, tie up boats, shut down processing plants, all to avoid two
species? These are very real and very scary questions.
I realize that I have raised a number of questions and what you are
looking for is answers. A group of us in the seafood industry from
around the country have been working on those answers and we hope to
have something for you in the near future.
Observers--Suggestions have been made that the Pacific Fishery
Management Council be included in the North Pacific Fisheries
Conservation language found in section 313 of the MSFCMA. While we
recognize the noble intent in this proposal, as a practical matter
section 313 was designed specifically for the North Pacific Fishery
Management Council and simply including the Pacific Council would not
work. As I mentioned above, we have a large open access fleet and a
recreational fleet, both of which can have significant impacts on some
species. Neither of these fleets are regulated or permitted by the
MSFCMA; they fall under the jurisdiction of the several States. Thus, a
change such as has been suggested would put the full burden of paying
for and carrying observers on the limited entry trawl, hook-and-line,
and pot fleets--the direct opposite of what the Congress tried to do
when it enacted section 313 in its original form. If the intent is to
try to find an equitable cost sharing method for paying for and
carrying observers, new language would have to be developed.
Marine Protected Areas--While I realize that this subject will be
addressed by a separate panel, I want to add a few thoughts of my own.
WCSPA has testified in favor of looking at MPAs; one of our members
served on a Council committee looking at MPAs and my deputy is
currently a member of the Council's Marine Reserve Committee. MPAs are
not a new concept; in fact, they are an extension of traditional time
and area closures long supported by the seafood industry. However, they
have their own set of issues. For example, we believe that the size and
area of MPAs should be decided by the appropriate Council. Second, if
an MPA is established, it should be a true MPA, closed to all fishing,
and not just an excuse to allocate fish among industry sectors. Third,
we need to deal with overlapping and conflicting jurisdictions. To give
a worst case example, an MPA established 15 miles off the Olympic
Peninsula here in Washington would have to untangle the jurisdiction of
two countries (the U.S. and Canada, in the case of albacore), one
Native American tribe (the Makah tribe), the Pacific Fishery Management
Council, and three States (Washington, Oregon, and California, who
regulate recreational fisheries and commercial fisheries for crab and
shrimp through landings laws). How you would do that if the MPA is
controversial boggles the mind. Less complicated but similar examples
exist up and down the coast. I leave it to the next panel to determine
if they have any answers.
Madame Chair, members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my
testimony and I would be happy to answer any questions. I want to thank
you for taking the time out of your busy schedules to visit our half of
the world. I look forward to working with you and your staff in
developing a re-authorization bill for the year 2000.
Senator Snowe. Thank you.
Mr. Henkel.
STATEMENT OF TIM HENKEL, PRESIDENT,
DEEP SEA FISHERMEN'S UNION OF THE PACIFIC
Mr. Henkel. Good morning, Madam Chairman and members of the
Committee. My name is Tim Henkel. I am a professional longline
crewman. I have been a working fisherman for 22 years, and for
the past 13 years I have been a crewman and relief skipper
aboard the halibut schooner, Masonic, out of Seattle. I
currently hold the position of President of the Deep Sea
Fishermen's Union of the Pacific.
I would first like to say that the Deep Sea Fishermen's
Union strongly supports Mr. Alverson's view on the west coast
groundfish management. I would like to address the individual
fishing quota from a crewman's perspective.
Under the IFQ system, working conditions are much safer
than during the frenzied derby days of the open access era. For
example, when fishermen had to deal with extremely limited time
constraints in effect, the 24-hour halibut openings, in order
to be competitive, they were compelled to go out on the ocean
in any kind of weather, with far too much gear aboard their
vessel than it was designed to safely handle, leading to vessel
instability. Today, I am relieved to say that this situation no
longer occurs. Coast Guard rescues have been significantly
reduced as a result of the IFQ management.
Under the previous open access system, the quality of the
product often suffered due to the huge delivery gluts. It also
created an adverse effect on prices paid to fishermen. Today,
under the new IFQ system, the product quality has improved due
to better handling. Combined with a reasonably safe supply and
a growing fresh market, these changes have ultimately brought
about better revenues to fishermen and have improved the
quality of the product to the consumer.
From 1991 to 1994, incomes began to take a sharp decline,
in great part due to an increase in the number of boats
participating in the open access fishery; the proverbial slice
of the pie was getting smaller for everyone. Had this phenomena
continued, many crewmen feel they would have been forced to
abandon the fishery in search of other employment, or continue
as part-time longliners and try to establish themselves in one
of the already overcrowded, depleted fisheries.
For the crewmen who have survived this change, the IFQ
system has provided them a much more stable income. The halibut
and sablefish resource is becoming healthier as a result of IFQ
management. The Deep Sea Fishermen's Union is a professional
crewmen's union, working under contract with the Fishing Vessel
Owners Association since 1912. As far as we know, we are the
only fishing crewmen's union in the United States.
During the open access years, our collective bargaining
ability lay in our skills as highly efficient, productive and
professional crewmen. This was essential to the fishing
operation in order to compete for the resource. Under the
privatized IFQ system, a professional crewman is desirable but
not necessarily essential. Thus, our collective bargaining
ability has been greatly diminished. Many crewmen believe that
the acquisition of quota will become the future collective
bargaining tool.
The Federal IFQ loan program, as mandated by the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, has been an excellent vehicle for crewmen and
small vessel owners to acquire fishing quota. And on behalf of
a lot of crewmen, I would like to thank this Committee, Senator
Stevens and Senator Gorton, Madam Chair, for that program. That
program has been manna from heaven to crewmen.
I personally am a recipient of the loan program. The role
of crewmen is moving away from the boots and oilskins mentality
and into fully invested quota shareholders. Some of us have
more invested in quota than the value of the vessels we work
on. Unfortunately, the labor sector of the fishing industry
still has no real voice in the decisionmaking and
implementation process. It is my hope that in this hearing the
Committee will consider this, and mandate the labor sector a
voting seat on the North Pacific Fishery Management Council.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Henkel follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tim Henkel, President,
Deep Sea Fishermen's Union of the Pacific
Deep Sea Fishermen's Union of the Pacific
5215 Ballard Avenue N.W.
Seattle, Washington 98107
January 10, 2000
The Honorable John McCain: Arizona
United States Senate
508 Dirksen Building
Washington, DC 20510
Re: U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation 2000,
Magnuson/Stevens Reauthorization Hearing, January 14, 2000--Seattle,
Washington
Senator McCain:
Individual Fishing Quota System 1995-2000; A Crewman's Perspective
Under the I.F.Q. system, working conditions are much safer than
during the frenzied ``Derby Days'' of the open access-fishing era, For
example, when fishermen had to deal with extremely limited time
constraints e.g., twenty-four hour halibut openings, in order to be
competitive, they were compelled to go out on the ocean in any kind of
weather with far too much gear aboard than the vessel was designed to
safely handle, leading to vessel instability. Today I'm relieved to say
that this situation no longer occurs. Coast Guard rescues have been
significantly reduced as a result of I.F.Q. management. Under the
previous open access system, the quality of the product often suffered
due to huge delivery gluts that also created an adverse effect on
prices paid to fishermen. Today under the new I.F.Q. system the product
quality has improved due to better handling. Combined with a reasonably
steady supply and a growing ``fresh market'' these changes have
ultimately brought about better revenues to fishermen and have improved
the quality of the product to the consumer.
From 1991 to 1994, incomes began to take a sharp decline in great
part due to an increase in the number of boats participating in the
open access fishery. The proverbial ``slice of the pie'' was getting
smaller for everyone. Had this phenomenon continued, many crewmen feel
they would have been forced to abandon the fishery in search of other
employment or continue as part-time longliners and try to establish
themselves in one of rite other already overcrowded and depleted
fisheries. For the crewmen who have survived this change, the I.F.Q.
system has provided them a much more stable income.
The halibut and sablefish resource is becoming healthier as a
result of I.F.Q. management. We're not experiencing the lost gear
deadloss of the ``derby days''. Releasing sub-legal halibut unharmed is
much easier now because the fishermen are not forced to haul gear at
unsafe breakneck speeds. Environmentally the program all but eliminated
discards of bycatch, increased the focus on stock assessment and even
allowed us the freedom to develop an in-season survey for bird-bycatch
reduction. (An impossibility under an open access or license limitation
scheme.)
From a labor standpoint, there are a few backlashes. Jobs have been
cut, but many believe it had to happen. Now we have a smaller more
professional fleet instead of a hugely overcrowded part-time fleet.
The Deep Sea Fishermen's Union is a professional crewmen's union
working under a contract with the Fishing Vessel Owner's Association
since 1912. As far as I know, we are the only fishing crewmen's union
in the U.S. During the open access years, our collective bargaining
ability lay in our skills as highly efficient, productive and
professional crewmen. This was essential to the fishing operation in
order to compete for the resource. Under the privatized I.F.Q. system,
a professional crewman is desirable but not necessarily essential. Thus
our collective bargaining ability has been diminished greatly. Many
crewmen believe that the acquisition of quota will become the future
collective bargaining tool. The Federal I.F.Q. Loan Program, as
mandated by the Magnuson Act, has been an excellent vehicle for crewmen
and small vessel owners to acquire fishing quota. I personally am a
recipient of the loan program. The role of crewmen is moving away from
the ``boots and oilskins'' mentality into fully invested quota
shareholders. Some of us have more invested in quota than the value of
the vessels we work on. Unfortunately, the labor sector of the fishing
industry still has no real voice in the decision making and
implementation process. It is my hope that in this hearing the
Committee will consider this and mandate the labor sector a voting seat
on the North Pacific Fishery Management Council.
Thank you for inviting my comments on this issue.
Respectfully,
Tim Henkel
President
Deep Sea Fishermen's Union of the Pacific
Senator Snowe. Thank you, Mr. Henkel. I want to thank all
of you for your very important testimony.
Let me begin with the scientific data, because you all
mention it in your testimony. Do you think that if we had
adequate resources to collect the data necessary to make
decisions at the regional and Federal level, the credibility of
the decisions would be enhanced?
I know my fishermen at home in Maine often question
whatever decision comes out of the agency. How can we restore
the credibility of the National Marine Fisheries Service when
people have so many doubts about it?
For example, when NMFS says that the status of 75-80
percent of fish stocks is unknown, it emphasizes the negative
results of fisheries management. Would better data be enough to
restore credibility to the agency?
On the one hand, the status of certain stocks is unknown.
That raises questions with not only the fishermen, but also
with environmental groups and others who are concerned about
conservation. So we get it at both ends. Would this cure the
problem?
Mr. Moore.
Mr. Moore. Senator, I do not think it would completely
solve the problem, because people are always going to be
skeptics. It would certainly help. I think once you have the
resources to more adequately assess the stocks out there, to
provide money for surveys and so forth, that then gives the
Federal and State agencies more flexibility to work with the
industry. And once the industry, both the fishermen and the
processors, are brought into the process of conducting research
and analyzing research, that, in and of itself, helps out with
the credibility.
But you need that financial base to start with, to provide
the basic data and the basic tools. We in the industry are
doing some of that ourselves.
Bob, I think your group was working on some sablefish
research at one time. I know Ralph and I have worked on some
things.
Our Council has developed a stock assessment review
process, sort of a peer review of the data, which deliberately
involves somebody from the groundfish advisory panel, which is
the industry and public panel, as part of the review. That
helps create the credibility. But the tools for doing all of
those things are very limited.
Now, we all hate to say it. We all hate to come up here and
beg you for money. But that is part of the problem, is trying
to get the people and the tools we need to get the better data.
Senator Snowe. Mr. Brown, you are on the Council. What is
your perspective?
Mr. Brown. Thank you. I have spent an awful lot of time at
stock assessment meetings. Probably, of the fishermen on the
coast, I may have spent more time than any others. So I am
fairly familiar with the science and the science needs.
And it would certainly help an awful lot if we had adequate
data. It is very frustrating to go to a stock assessment
meeting, and review panel meeting, and hear the stock
assessment authors say, on something like short-spine
thornyheads, ``well, we know they live somewhere between 60 and
160 years.'' It makes a big difference in the mortality.
Mortality directly relates to the amount that you harvest every
year. But in order to do a stock assessment, we have to pick
something. And so it gets picked.
It is very distressing, in the same stock assessment, to
hear, well, we are not exactly sure what the catch was because,
until 1994, we landed thornyheads as thornyheads rather than as
short-spine and long-spine thornyheads. They were not
separated. So we have really no way to know what the catch of
short-spine thornyheads specifically was, prior to about 1994.
And so we have developed a formula that we will apply to
the catch information to give us that number. Unfortunately it,
of course, has to include a number of assumptions that the
modeler is making, that frankly I do not think were adequate.
We got into a bit of an argument about it. But, again, she did
what she had to do. She had to have catch.
There were three or four different growth curves that were
presented. They were not tremendously different, but they were
some different. She had to use one of them. She could not use
all four.
I am trying to see if there was another factor. I cannot
remember what it was now. The recruitment is absolutely
unknown, and so they fixed it at 10 million fish, because we
have to have something. And at that point, you start wondering
what exactly did we assess here, when we have basically assumed
all of the parameters. And yet, that stock assessment is
driving the management of most of our deep water species. It is
very difficult to stay chipper about all the processes with
that kind of information flow.
So it would help an awful lot. Because I think then, when
we do go to the stock assessment meetings, we would have at
least some confidence that the information going into the stock
assessment had some basis other than an assumption based by the
modeler.
Senator Snowe. Mr. Alverson.
Mr. Alverson. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I think the short answer to your question, Madam Chairman,
is yes, it would go a long ways. To be more specific, the
current survey, the current tri-annual survey, may adequately
survey maybe 30 of the 84 species that we have to manage. There
are a number of species that we have very little or no data
base on that are driving a lot of our management.
The science of how to fund this is a concern. I did hear a
comment about these new vessels that the National Marine
Fisheries Service is supposed to get. And I do not necessarily
want to get sideways with the Service, but ever since my dad
was director of the Service, I have been sideways with the
Service.
[Laughter.]
But those boats, we are told, are $40 million a copy. I do
not know if that is accurate, but that is what we heard. And if
I had that $40 million and I put it in a U.S. 30-year T bill at
six percent, that is $2.4 million. And we could do one hell of
a lot with $2.4 million annually out here.
The other aspect to that, in terms of money--and I would
caution Congress that--and again, I do not want to get sideways
with the Service--but if you allocate funds, we need on-the-
water activity, We do not need people behind a desk, from my
perspective--where those funds go. Our Association has been
greatly concerned for the last decade and a half with
management. We have testified many times to the Pacific Council
that we thought there was a decline taking place in the
different resources.
What is driving a lot of the reductions now, that the
Council has to vote on, is a change in science. The best
available science has changed in the last three to four years.
The best available science prior to three or four years ago,
with all the wonderful population dynamics, the people we have
up and down the coast and our SSC peer reviewing all of this,
suggested a rockfish species could be harvested at what they
call an F-35 rate.
That has now changed. And it began to change three or four
years ago. And it is suggested that they should have been
harvested over the last 20 years at an F-45 and perhaps an F-65
rate. That means our long-term harvest policies over the last
20 years have been anywhere from 30 to 50 to 60 percent higher
than what the resources could naturally reproduce themselves
at.
So that is part of the science and part of the picture. And
again, the short answer is yes, but with the qualifications
that I made.
Senator Snowe. You are saying that there would be a better
use of the money than putting it into more vessels. My staff
said that it costs $50 million per vessel.
Mr. Alverson. Per copy?
Senator Snowe. Yes.
Mr. Alverson. Well, that is $3 million a year at six
percent.
[Laughter.]
Thank you.
Senator Snowe. Yes, Mr. Brown, did you have something to
add?
Mr. Brown. Yes, please. I am sorry to interrupt here.
We keep talking about the amount of surveys, and we talk
about the tri-annual survey occurring once every three years. I
should point out that that tri-annual survey does not go inside
of about 200 feet of water, and we have never had a survey
inside or south of Point Conception. And yet, as one of our
overfished species, lingcod, a major portion of the stock--and
we of course do not know how much--lives inside of 200 feet of
water.
Another one of our overfished species, bocaccio rockfish,
it is primarily south of Point Conception, where we have never
had a survey, and the juveniles live inside of 200 feet of
water. For one of the species that was recently listed as
overfished, cow cod, the area of concern is south of Point
Conception, where we have never had a survey.
Senator Snowe. Mr. Henkel, you mentioned in your testimony
that IFQ's have worked very well and improved the health and
safety of the crewmen on board the vessels. Do you think that
IFQ's have in any way consolidated the industry in favor of
larger vessels? One of the legitimate concerns is that IFQ's
will result in a few large operations dominating the industry,
overtaking the smaller-sized, traditional, family-run vessels.
Mr. Henkel. Madam Chairman, I think consolidation has
occurred. I think that is a fact of life under the system. But
you have to compare it back to the old open access days. It was
completely overcrowded. People have a tendency to focus on that
consolidation aspect. But I walk the docks, and I have not
talked to a single working fishermen who wants to go back to
the dark ages of open access.
And from a crewman's perspective, yes, we have--I actually
compiled a list--I do not know if I have it with me--of vessels
that have dropped out and of crewmen that have been laid off.
However, a phenomena I see occurring here is small groups of
crewmen, twos and threes and fives, are acquiring quota. And
they are going out in little groups and they are approaching a
skipper and they are making trips. And this phenomena is just
kind of now getting underway.
It took a long time for us to get over the initial shock,
and there was this collective resentment about allocation. And
in my opinion, this is sort of a little sleeping giant starting
to wake up. And I think, in terms of the committed fishermen,
who are in for the long haul, there is going to be a leveling
of the playing field. I think a new paradigm of crew employment
and crew to skipper and vessel balance will be--the new
generation of crewmen after the initial key people start
retiring and whatnot, it is sort of leaning toward groups of
crewmen with quota, uninvested participants I believe--this is
more my opinion, but it seems to be the trend--are going to
become more of a thing of the past.
It is interesting now, where you have to step up to the
plate and invest. And the guys I know and work with do not have
any problem with that. We do have a small problem with
competing with larger entities with financial leverage.
However, I thought that an idea like a capital construction
fund for crewmen that could be applied toward the acquisition
of quota would be an excellent vehicle.
This system, it is interesting, it is beginning to work. I
think it needs some more time. And you hear a lot of stuff but,
all in all, I think it is just beginning to take off. And we
are pretty happy with it.
Senator Snowe. What gives the crewmen incentives under
IFQ's?
Mr. Henkel. Well, for instance, one of the arrangements we
have on the vessel I work on, if the crewmen go out and buy
quota, we can come on to the--you have to pay for that quota,
obviously, and it is quite expensive, so one has to charge a
fee for the use of that quota. We are talking about a second
generation quota as opposed to--the Vessel Owners Association,
that we have a contract with, some of them have allocated
quota, which they do not charge us for. But if quota is
purchased, then we have an agreement that we can charge to pay
back that purchase.
So when crewmen get together and buy quota, they can charge
enough to make that quota pay for itself. And over a period of
time, that snowballs. And where the traditional boat share/crew
share split used to occur, the acquisition of quota is sort of
bringing that back into balance, you might say. I do not know
if you are following that.
Senator Snowe. Yes, I do. It is a very interesting
perspective. It is an interesting observation. Thank you.
Senator Gorton.
Senator Gorton. Bob, if the participants in the west coast
sablefish management program had the same eight-month season
that North Pacific does, what would be the dynamics or the
benefit?
Mr. Alverson. The initial dynamics is that our insurance
costs would go down, because of the intensity and the high risk
of the current derby that we are forced into.
Senator Gorton. You mean it would be safer?
Mr. Alverson. It would be safer. It would be definitely
safer.
The dynamic of the W.C. fishery is that most of the boats
are involved in two or three fisheries. There is a complaint
constantly at the Pacific Council that that August 15th date
unfairly penalizes albacore fishermen, because that is when
they tend to school along the west coast. And some of those
people are hook and line sablefish fishermen. So it will allow
them to participate in May or June, catch their black cod, as
opposed to be force fitted into one-season-fits-all. And it
would allow the fishermen either to go do their other things
and better organize their fishery.
These trip limits that we have been allocated were based on
an overpopulated industry to begin with. So they do not reflect
what they used to 10 or 20 years ago, where someone might
actually fish for five months off the coast. These are
basically, at the most, a 15-day trip, which is what they have
been reduced to. Some of the number one tiers might take two or
three weeks to catch, if you have the proper amount of time.
The other dynamic is the Pacific Council would like the
ability to stack these. And there would have to be a limit of
how many you could stack. But the idea of stacking is employed
in Chatham Strait, in Alaska, on their black cod fishery, and
in their Clarence Strait fishery on black cod. And that allows
a fishermen or a crewman to own one of these and go on another
boat that already has a quota. And that would reduce the amount
of boats and gear in the water and help reduce the
overcapitalization that we have. So that the boats could get
back, and the crews, to the historical income base and harvest
base that they used to have.
I think that the trading of these quotas, if they had eight
months to fish--they are called an IQ under the current law--
but the trading of them would take place very similar to what
goes on in Alaska, on their IFQ and their Chatham Strait black
cod fisheries.
Senator Gorton. Thank you.
Mr. Moore, I understand, and I hope I am correct on that
understanding, that you are a strong supporter of a $4 million
observer program for the west coast cod fish fisheries. The
President and the Senate came up with $2 million. The House
zero. Is $2 million better than zero?
Mr. Moore. I would say $2 million is certainly better than
zero. $1 million is better than zero.
I think, Senator, that what we need to do in all of the
research-oriented sorts of things, whether it be observer
coverage, whether it be money for trawl surveys, whether it be
more for scientists to conduct stock assessments and so forth
and so on, we need to look at whatever pot of money you in your
infinite wisdom and capabilities can get available for
groundfish and figure out what we can do with that pot of
money, and set priorities based on where the needs are.
Senator Gorton. Okay. You are also critical of the National
Marine Fisheries Service and its research program. Is that
primarily because it does not have enough money, or do you
think it is not prioritizing right with what it does spend on
research?
Mr. Moore. Well, I hate to wave a red flag in front of
anybody, but I sort of have to echo Phil Anderson's comments,
from the previous panel. When you look at the huge amount of
money that is spent on salmon on this coast and the economic
returns from the salmon fishery to the west coast, then you
look at the paltry sum that is spent on groundfish and what
have been huge economic returns from groundfish, there is an
imbalance there. There needs to be some shifting of priorities
in terms of allocation of money.
Senator Gorton. You need an Endangered Species listing.
Mr. Moore. Well, I have thought about that, Senator.
[Laughter.]
The problem is, when you are dealing with a fishery that is
150 miles out in the ocean, the only people who get shut down
by the endangered fishery listing are Ralph and Bob and my
processors, so it does not do any good.
Senator Gorton. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Snowe. Thank you, Senator Gorton.
Senator Stevens.
Senator Stevens. Madam Chairman, I do not want to be a
bastard at the family reunion, but I want to have a little
reading here and make sure that I get the views of our friends
about IFQ's. The National Research Council did give us its
report. And in the executive summary they said categorically:
`Congress should lift the moratorium on the development and
implementation of the IFQ programs established by the
Sustainable Fisheries Act.'
But they also pointed out that the Magnuson-Stevens Act
defines an IFQ as a Federal permit under a limited access
system to harvest a quantity of fish expressed by a unit or
units representing a percentage of the total allowable catch
that may be received or held for the exclusive use by a person.
No argument so far, I assume.
But then it says: `Congress should permit, one, the
assessment of fees on initial allocations of quota and first
sale and leasing of it, imposition of an annual tax on quota
shares, zero revenue auctions.' The Magnuson-Stevens Act
presently imposes limits on various fees that may be used to
recover the cost of IFQ management enforcement. The Congress
should increase these limits so that the IFQ management and
other forms of limited entry can be recovered fully.
Additionally, revenues extracted from IFQ fisheries should
be used to mitigate some of the potential negative impacts of
IFQ's and support research. Now I am going to start to
eliminate some of this and not read all that is in this
section. The committee recommends the Magnuson-Stevens Act be
amended to allow the public to capture some of the windfall
gain generated from initial allocation of quotas, to recover
incremental costs of IFQ management authorized by the
collection of fees from the transfer and holding of IFQ's.
It has a whole series of other things of what the Congress
should do. And then it has a whole series of things about what
the Secretary of Commerce and the National Marine Fisheries
Service should do. It also requests that the Council should
consider including fishing communities in initial allocation of
IFQ's.
It has a new concept of rents. And it says: Councils should
avoid taking for granted the gifting of quota shares to
participants in the fishery, just as they should avoid taking
for granted that vessel owners should be the only recipients of
quota, and historical participation should be the only measure
for determining initial allocations. There is a whole set of
things that they say both the Congress should do and that
Congress should authorize the Council to do.
Now, I take it that there is a general feeling that the
moratorium should be lifted. What do you think about the advice
they give us as to what the Council should do, the Secretary
should do and the Congress should do as we lift the moratorium?
Mr. Alverson.
Mr. Alverson. Madam Chair, Senator Stevens, I thank you for
the opportunity to comment on those specific issues. With
regards to the fees, we negotiated significantly with the
Senate, yourself and Senator Gorton on the fees that applied to
our IFQ program up north. And we do not object to that. It is a
little bit tough being the only fishery in the United States
that pays for itself. But we got a big benefit out of that. And
it is being managed very well.
So if we had an IFQ auction in the Pacific Council, we
would not object to the fee. It does drive an issue on natural
resources issues in general. The broadcasting systems are
public. Should they pay three percent of gross? New taxes on
the west coast, when Senator Hollings and Senator Breaux and
Senator Inouye's people do not pay fees? Our President says we
have a $3 trillion surplus. We need this money for research,
but Congress needs to set some priorities.
You mentioned the inland Senators would like that money to
go for their wind storms. But we have got La Nina and El Nino
that maybe some of the surpluses ought to go to from Congress.
So the fee issue, there is a lot of things to be talked
about on fees. But we will take our fees. We note that the East
Coast quahog got out of the fee program. I think it is
inappropriate for the west coast to be the only ones paying
fees.
With regards to the National Academy of Sciences
recommendations, the 1996 amendments on limited entry, in
general, require a whole litany of hoops to jump through for a
Council. Many of those are applicable to the IFQ program. And
many of them are applicable to the National Academy of Sciences
recommendations.
I think the National Academy of Sciences asked that the
hard decisions on all those issues, of whether the crew people
are involved, whether the boat owners get the lion's share, the
issues of community development, should reside with the
regional Councils, because every region has a different
political situation and different economic makeup. And we would
agree with the Academy's recommendation, though those should
probably be delineated and lined out for the Councils, to make
sure they go through those hoops by Congress.
That concludes my comments, Madam Chairman.
Senator Stevens. Mr. Brown.
Mr. Brown. Thank you. I hesitate to say this with my back
to the crowd, but I have always felt that when privileges were
extended for use of a resource, that it was not unreasonable to
also expect that the user accept some responsibilities for the
use of that resource. Therefore, certain fees probably are
reasonable.
As you know, on this coast we had a proposal for an
industry funded buyback program to try to reduce our capacity.
That was our way of trying to use our money to make our
situation better. It took a long time to get the enabling
legislation and, unfortunately, we ran out of time before we
could get that. Although I think we are looking at it again.
We have had proposals in the past to try to fund our own
research organizations. We have had a difficult time trying to
figure out how to collect those funds from everyone under the
existing mechanisms. When we actually went to Congress, the
Senate, to try to get the enabling legislation to allow for the
buyback, what we actually started with was a program that was
similar to what States use when they have special service
districts, recreational districts, library districts, where
groups of fishermen could vote among themselves to tax
themselves to use the money for the common benefit of the
industry.
And the things that we were thinking about were things like
research, primarily research, but we wanted it broad enough
that you could actually use it for other things that might come
up, whatever that might be. We did not get that far. We did get
the buyback language, fortunately.
So, the bottom line--I think reasonable fees are
acceptable. And one thing I would say is that if we are going
to make major changes in the structure of the industry, we need
to get them over with so that the industry can adjust to them
and get on with business. One of the hardest things to deal
with right now on this coast is the fact that nothing is ever
stable long enough for the industry to adjust to. That may be
more difficult than the actual magnitude of the cuts, the fact
that we do not know if they are done. We did not see them
coming. And we are never given time to adjust.
So if we are going to do a fee structure, if we are going
to do marine reserves, if we are going to do those sorts of
things, let us get them done so that the industry can adjust to
them and we can stabilize.
Senator Stevens. I do not think either you or Mr. Alverson
commented upon the windfall gain and rent proposal. They say
that we should allow the public to capture some of the windfall
gain generated from the initial allocation of quotas and
recover the incremental costs by the collection of fees from
the transfers, and we should also consider the concept of
rents, to pay an annual fee for the utilization of the quota.
Mr. Alverson. Mr. Chairman, our three percent fee, I
consider that to be a rent. Whether it is three percent or a
fixed amount per individual, we are going to be paying a rent
of three percent, equivalent to a B&O tax that the States
assign, only the States assign about a one percent B&O tax.
But I am not sure, beyond that, if these largely
bureaucrats who make up the National Academy of Sciences,
whether they are trying to feather their nest, too, off our
back. What is fair?
We pay three percent. We will be paying a three percent
Federal tax. We pay a 3.3 percent State tax to the State of
Alaska when we offload. We pay an additional two percent to
most of the State of Alaska for what they call a village tax or
something like that. We have a CDQ that takes five percent of
our gross.
When you add all these taxes that we currently pay, that
five percent and the three percent add up to eight percent out
of our gross that currently go to domestic programs in our IFQ
program for halibut.
Senator Stevens. That is the existing IFQ.
Mr. Alverson. Right.
Senator Stevens. Do not you think these Council
recommendations go further than that now?
Mr. Alverson. Say again?
Senator Stevens. Do not you believe that the
recommendations of this Council go further than the existing
IFQ?
Mr. Alverson. Well, they are looking at future IFQ, surely.
And I believe a rent should be assessed.
Senator Stevens. But we do not have a windfall gain
concept.
Mr. Alverson. Sure, you do. You people in Congress have a
windfall tax program. When we sell out, we have to pay windfall
tax or you pay a corporate tax to the Federal Government when
you sell out.
Senator Stevens. But they are not talking about that.
Mr. Alverson. I know they are not talking about that. They
are talking about a new tax.
Senator Stevens. Right.
Mr. Alverson. But you fellows have a tax. When we sell out
and retire, we pay a tax on the gain.
Senator Stevens. That is not a windfall tax. That is just
income tax. You are talking about the income tax on the
increase in the value of your assets.
Mr. Alverson. It is all money out of our pockets, Senator.
Senator Stevens. I understand. But I am trying to get your
idea. When you look me in the eye and say, I want you to lift
that IFQ moratorium, I want you to understand that Congress has
been told a whole series of criteria that ought to be put into
effect as that is done.
Mr. Alverson. Okay.
Senator Stevens. It is not a simple matter to get this
thing done with that report. And we have got until what,
December to do it?
Senator Snowe. October.
Senator Stevens. October to do it.
Senator Gorton. And they want to know whether we are going
to do it by April.
Senator Snowe. That is right.
Senator Stevens. And you wanted to know if we were going to
do it by April. And I want to know by April whether you agree
with what they recommend. Because if you are in agreement with
them, we can get it done fast.
Mr. Alverson. Well, what are the numbers? What are the tax
numbers we are talking about? If they are similar to what you
already have in there, a three percent fee--I think there was
at one time a one percent of your----
Senator Stevens. I do not happen to agree with them. I am
the author of the limits in the existing language.
Mr. Alverson. I know you are. And we are thankful of that.
[Laughter.]
Senator Stevens. Mr. Moore.
Mr. Moore. Thank you, Senator.
Looking at it from the processors' perspective, first of
all, in terms of lifting the individual quota moratorium,
obviously we are in favor of it. It is something that the
vessels need. We think that there needs to be some sort of
accommodation.
Senator Stevens. Should it apply only to limited entry
fisheries?
Mr. Moore. Well, on this coast--and I just want to limit
myself to that, if I can--we really have two limited entry
fisheries and then sort of a mixture of open access.
Senator Stevens. Rod, tell me, should it be limited?
Because existing law currently limits IFQ's to limited entry
fisheries.
Mr. Moore. That is correct.
Senator Stevens. It means we have got to amend two acts if
we are going to lift this moratorium and do what they say.
Mr. Moore. I think you would probably wind up having to do
one all-encompassing thing, something similar to what you and
Senator Gorton did with the American Fisheries Act, if you
will, where you tried to solve a number of problems in one
major piece of legislation.
Senator Stevens. And we did that primarily by consensus.
Mr. Moore. Yes, sir, you did. I think that perhaps the same
sort of approach needs to be done with IQ's. And then, as Bob
and Ralph have both said, kind of leave to the Councils what
some of the mechanics are for particular fisheries. There may
be fisheries that are not appropriate for individual quotas and
maybe should never be under them.
Senator Stevens. That is the criteria that they want us to
spell out when they are appropriate.
Mr. Moore. That is something, Senator, that I cannot see
how you can do. With everything that you have to deal with on
your plate, how you can figure out which fishery, some small,
podunk fishery in California or Oregon----
Senator Stevens. Well, that is why we are here. What are
the criteria that you would approve?
Mr. Moore. I would have to sit down and give you a laundry
list. It is not something I could do off the top of my head.
Senator Stevens. That is what I am afraid of, a laundry
list.
Mr. Moore. I know. Nobody likes them.
Senator Stevens. Let me move on. I do not want to take too
much of my time.
Mr. Henkel, have you got any comments about this? You were
for IFQ's. Are you for all these things the Council wants to
put on?
Mr. Henkel. Senator Stevens, I look at it this way. I have
to speak from a labor aspect. If labor had a real voice in the
decisionmaking and implementation process of the fisheries, not
just halibut and sablefish in the longline fishery but North
Pacific fisheries, and we had some sort of a leg up in terms of
a capital construction fund or something like that--not money
given to us, but just a leg up so we can work; we will pay our
own way--if you want to give us a leg up like that, we will
fund that loan program. You bet, we will pay tax. If you give
us a chance to get into some IFQ, we will gladly pay the tax on
it.
Senator Stevens. My last comment and question would be
this. I mentioned the opilio crab crash. We have obviously got
to do something about that disaster. Last night it was
suggested to me that we allow using the capital construction
fund for the vessels involved, on a pool basis, to become a
matching fund to Federal moneys, to bring about a buyback, to
immediately institute a buyback.
What do you all think about using the capital construction
fund in that manner?
Bob.
Mr. Alverson. Madam Chairman, Senator Stevens, I do not
represent the crab guys. I did negotiate prices for them. And I
know that they have a horrible situation of overcapitalization.
I think that that option should be provided to them. I think it
is innovative. There is always a problem and question of, is
everybody paying in the same amount?
Senator Stevens. Well, they will have to work that out.
Mr. Alverson. I am not quite sure how a buyback would work.
Senator Stevens. They would have to work that out. Probably
three votes to pool our funds and one of them comes out.
Mr. Alverson. Yes. I think that there is something there
that could be worked out.
Senator Stevens. Does anyone disagree?
Rod.
Mr. Moore. Senator, I do not disagree. I would like to add
to that, though. We have a situation with the capital
construction fund, where some of the committees in the House
and Senate have tried to get rid of it for years. It is now
being discussed in sort of the world forum that subsidies are
bad and capital construction funds are a subsidy.
One of the problems that faces fishermen on this coast when
they try to get out of the fisheries, because they are just not
making any money, is they cannot do anything with their boat
because they have got the profits tied up in a capital
construction fund. And the tax penalties for coming out of that
fund are so huge, they cannot afford to get out.
It seems to me that some general revision of the capital
construction fund ought to be looked at. Allow a fisherman who
is retiring from the fishery to turn it into a Roth IRA or to
an education account for his kids or use it for buyback or use
it for safety. Do not limit it to simply constructing and
reconstructing vessels, and thereby increasing the capacity
problems that we have. Let people be flexible in using that
capital construction fund if they are going to be getting out
of the fishery.
Senator Stevens. Mr. Brown.
Mr. Brown. Thank you. I was a member of the Federal
investment task force that looked at Federal subsidies and the
role of the Federal Government in capitalization of the fleet.
And I believe one of the recommendations that we came out with
would be that the capital construction fund be used in such a
manner. If I remember correctly, and it has been a while since
I reviewed any of the information, there was about $250 million
tied up in capital construction funds through the country for
the fishing portion, not dealing with merchant marines, and the
bulk of that money was on the west coast.
When we have fisheries that are severely overcapitalized,
as we do, anything that we can do to use those kinds of
resources to help decapitalize the fleet rather than increase
capitalization seems to be appropriate. I would take it a step
further, also. That on this coast, I do not know how much money
we have tied up in capital construction funds for the
groundfish fishery, but one of the ideas that we have had would
be that we use the same concept that we had in our buyback
program--a fee on landings for people who stay in the fishery--
as part of a match for some portion of a buyback program that
we would assess future participants.
Thank you.
Senator Stevens. Thank you.
Madam Chair, I think we ought to ask GAO to tell us how
much money is in those funds right now. They are part of a
financing package that make it possible to deal with disasters.
Thank you very much.
Senator Snowe. That is a good suggestion. Thank you,
Senator Stevens.
Mr. Moore, I just have one question. You suggested in your
testimony that we should reexamine the term ``overfishing,''
because it is used as an all encompassing description,
regardless of the source of the problem, that is attributed to
a declining stock. You suggest using the term ``distressed
fishery'' instead. How would that help in rebuilding the stock?
Is it a perception issue?
Mr. Moore. There are two aspects. One is the perception
issue. Just to give you an example, I had a conversation with
somebody in the National Marine Fisheries Service who, to
protect their identity, I will not name them, and to protect
their job, I will not name them. They were working on some
disaster relief things for the west coast and other areas and
were talking to the attorneys in the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration about the need for disaster relief.
And the attorneys said, ``but the west coast stocks are
overfished, and so therefore there is no need for any disaster
relief.'' At which point, the folks from NMFS tried to point
out that, in some cases, it is not the fact that fishermen
caught too many fish, it is that the environment changed, it
drove down the stock, and so forth and so on. And the attorneys
came back with, ``but no, but they are overfished.''
So partially it is a perception problem. People, when they
hear overfished, think it is the fishermen's fault, no matter
what. I think as Ralph said in his written testimony, if a
river dries up and all the salmon disappear, those salmon are
overfished and it is the fishermen's fault.
The other issue is if you do want to differentiate in
rebuilding plans between fisheries that are distressed--and I
will use my favorite term--as a result of environmental
conditions versus fisheries that are distressed because we did
something wrong, there may be a need to look at different sorts
of rebuilding plans. Because, in the one case, you can control
the wrongdoers, and that is us; in the other case, there is not
much you can do about the wrongdoer, because that is Mother
Nature. So there is a dichotomy there that you may want to look
at as well.
Senator Snowe. That is a very good suggestion.
Thank you. Thank you all very much. Excellent testimony.
The third and final panel will include: Dr. Rod Fujita, a
Senior Scientist with Environmental Defense; Dr. Dave Sampson,
a Professor of Fisheries at Oregon State University; Mr. Pete
Leipzig, of the Fishermen's Marketing Association; and Sam
Anderson, Executive Director of the Master Builders Association
of King and Snohomish Counties.
[Pause.]
We will begin with you, Dr. Fujita.
STATEMENT OF ROD FUJITA, SENIOR SCIENTIST, ENVIRONMENTAL
DEFENSE
Dr. Fujita. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the
Subcommittee. My name is Rod Fujita. I hold a doctorate in
marine ecology and I am a Senior Scientist with Environmental
Defense, formally known as the Environmental Defense Fund.
Environmental Defense is a leading national environmental
group, with over 300,000 members nationwide. We are also a
member of the Marine Fish Conservation Network, and fully
support the Network's agenda for reauthorization. Thanks for
this opportunity to comment.
I will focus my remarks on two fundamental problems we face
today in fisheries management. One is the depletion of stocks.
And the second is the degradation of fish habitat. There are
three causes, in my view. The first is that managers must rely
on insufficient data and on a rather poor understanding of
marine ecosystems, quite apart from the lack of data.
Second, most of the management systems currently in place
create strong incentives for waste and over-exploitation of
fisheries. And third, many of the habitats that support
fisheries are being seriously degraded as a result of poor
coordination amongst agencies and a real lack of focus on the
importance of protecting fish habitat.
Let us discuss the science first. It has garnered a lot of
attention on the panel so far. One reason that fisheries
science is in the state it is in is that good science is
expensive and funds are really limited. But it is also
important to realize that marine science is very difficult to
do under the best of circumstances. It is kind of like asking a
bunch of forest scientists to study a forest by sending them
out to stumble around at night with some butterfly nets. More
data will certainly help, but the ocean is intrinsically
variable and uncertainty will always be with us.
Given the high levels of uncertainty that almost everyone
complains about, one would think that management would proceed
cautiously, like a driver in the Seattle drizzle. The
definition of optimum yield and other provisions in the Act are
aimed at implementing a precautionary approach which calls for
managers to err on the side of the fish populations, given this
uncertainty. Yet the opposite occurs much too often.
In fact, a double standard prevails. Little or no data are
needed to keep fishing, but large amounts of high-quality data
seem to be necessary to justify precautionary catch levels or
other conservation measures. The result has been an
overaggressive catch policy for west coast groundfish and other
species, even with the strong conservation provisions of the
1996 amendments.
Many complain that the science does not support the recent
reduced catch limits for rockfish populations and other
groundfish. But does the science support the status quo? Not in
my view.
What is the solution? Well, more funding for fishery
science should certainly help. But it is also critical to
strengthen the implementation of the precautionary principle in
the face of uncertainty, which will remain with us as long as
the ocean remains mysterious.
The real tragedy here is that the decline of the
groundfish, whatever caused it, could have been prevented. Many
scientists, environmentalists and some managers, such as Phil
Anderson, Bob Alverson, and other members of the Pacific
Council, were warning years ago that rockfish and other species
could not sustain the high catch levels that they were being
subjected to. However, these warnings were largely ignored. And
I think one powerful reason for this lies in the management
regime itself.
Most fishery management regimes create very strong
incentives to over-exploit fish populations and to waste large
amounts of fish and other marine resources. Open access
management clearly creates incentives for a fisheries arms race
and over-investment, leading to debt and calls for ever-larger
catches to forestall short-term economic disaster.
Many advocate limited entry as a solution. But limited
entry also has an abysmal record. They are often implemented
very late in the game, when fleets are already overcapitalized.
And due to political pressure at that time, often, too many
permits are granted. And because fishers do not get reliable
assurances that they can catch a certain amount of the
allowable catch, fishing actually increases in many limited
access programs, according to the scientific literature on this
topic.
This is true even when input controls are used, due to the
ingenuity of fishermen in getting around such controls. Now, in
the west coast groundfish fisheries, declining fish abundance
has required drastic cuts in catch quotas and progressively
smaller trip limits, to which the people on the previous panel
alluded. Because the number of vessels is much higher than the
number required to catch the available fish profitably, the low
quotas and trip limits threaten the economic viability of many
fishers.
Moreover, many fishermen have told me that the low trip
limits induce discards--waste--as fishermen try to maximize the
value of the small loads that they are allowed to land by
throwing back the lower value fish. The Pacific Council
determined that Individual Transferable Quotas, or ITQ's,
showed a lot of promise after years of consensus building, for
the sablefish fishery. But, as you have heard, their hands have
been tied by the ITQ moratorium.
In contrast to open access and most limited access
management regimes, almost all individual transferable quota
programs that have been implemented around the world have ended
the race for fish and reduced overcapitalization. Those are
very robust results.
Five of the six ITQ programs reviewed in the National
Academy report ended the race for fish. Moreover, ITQ's have an
excellent conservation record, which is why Environmental
Defense has taken a stand on this. Most ITQ's have improved
compliance with catch limits, which is the major conservation
tool that fishery managers have at their disposal.
The best picture of how U.S. ITQ programs can operate can
probably be obtained by looking at the performance of the
Alaska sablefish and halibut ITQ program, because it is really
the only ITQ program in the world that incorporates the latest
thinking about how to design ITQ programs, much of which is
reflected in the NRC committee report. The Alaska program has
performed admirably. It has ended the race for fish. It has
improved product flow. It has improved prices. It has reduced
bycatch and ghost fishing by about 80 percent, according to the
NRC, and improved safety, as you have heard.
And it has done all this while improving compliance with
overall catch limits. I am not aware of any excessive
consolidation or corporatization of the fleet resulting from
these ITQ's.
Environmental Defense recommends, along with the NRC, that
moratorium on ITQ's be lifted. We also suggest that guidelines
for preventing adverse social or economic impacts that can
occur due to the free reign of market forces be adopted and, in
addition, guidelines for promoting the strong conservation
benefits of ITQ's also be adopted by Congress. Where ITQ's are
not appropriate, we recommend buyouts to reduce fleet capacity
in accordance with strong conservation criteria to prevent the
displacement of excess capacity to other stressed fisheries.
We also strongly support disaster relief for fishermen, but
we need to be mindful of the interaction between natural
variation and fishing. When an El Nino hits, and they are now
predictable by NOAA due to good satellite data and good models,
fishing effort has to come down in order to accommodate nature.
Nature is not going to accommodate us. We must control our
fishing mortalities to accommodate nature.
Better science and improved management of fisheries will
accomplish nothing if the habitats that support fish are
destroyed or degraded. But that is just what is happening. The
degradation of salmon habitat by poor forestry practices,
massive water diversions, dams and other factors has received a
great deal of attention and money. In some regions, I am happy
to report that great progress is being made due to these
efforts. And it is to the credit of many farmers, water
districts, loggers, and others that I have personally worked
with in California.
The winter run chinook is making a valiant attempt to
recover. and it is up by several thousand fish over a few years
ago due to these efforts.
Unfortunately, this is not true everywhere. And there is
going to be a continuing need for vigilance to bring back the
salmon and the fishery that depends on it. Part of the problem
is that fish habitat really is all over the place. It is all
over the ocean. And it is spread across the jurisdictions of
many different agencies.
The EFH mandate of the Act can keep habitat protection on
the radar screen of all the relevant Federal agencies. The EFH
mandate needs to remain broad, in my view, to address the
plethora of threats to the freshwater and marine habitats. NMFS
is working quite effectively to implement EFH with low or no
impact on existing regulations in the Bay Delta system near San
Francisco, where I work.
Unfortunately, very little progress has been made toward
meeting the other mandate of the EFH provisions, which is to
reduce the adverse impacts of fishing. This, despite the large
and growing body of scientific evidence that certain kinds of
fishing reduce biodiversity and harm the integrity of the
marine habitats that support all of this economic activity. The
Pacific Council and NMFS have started to take action to try to
understand what these impacts are.
But the most powerful way to understand the impacts of
fishing on habitat would be to establish research reserves,
where fishing is excluded. This is simply the way good science
is done. One must isolate the factor of interest. And this is
the only way we are going to discover what the role of fishing
is in the decline of fish stocks, as opposed to natural
variation, pollution or other factors. You must isolate the
variables.
Reserves, if designed well, would have the added benefits
of proactively protecting habitats for fishing while this
information is being gathered. Marine reserves are often
criticized as being untested and uncertain. However, dozens of
scientific studies show that marine reserves do indeed increase
fish abundance and size, often by several-fold. There is also
increasing evidence that marine reserves export young fish to
fishing grounds, enhancing yields there.
And perhaps you have heard from people in New England about
the phenomenal success of the closed areas in Georges Bank in
increasing scallop and haddock populations inside those closed
areas. Scallop populations are up by 1,300 percent in some
cases. And the significant thing on Georges Bank is that it
shows clearly that these closed areas can actually export young
fish and young scallops over their borders and enhance yields
by up to 130 percent nearby.
Are there similar data supporting the efficacy of
conventional fishery management measures? I do not think so.
In summary, Environmental Defense has concluded that while
well-intentioned, the 1996 amendments to the Act have not
fulfilled their great conservation or economic promise. Modest
changes in the Act are needed, but I agree with other panelists
that the larger changes that are needed are really in
implementation and funding. Priorities should include
documenting bycatch and quantifying discards with an observer
program out here on the west coast.
We are recommending greater funding for fishery science,
not just for data acquisition, but for improving the scientific
and theoretical basis for understanding how fish populations
work and how ecosystems work. This needs to be coupled with
stronger implementation of the precautionary principle.
Because, as I said before, this uncertainty is not going to go
away, no matter how much money we throw at it.
We further recommend that the moratorium on ITQ's be lifted
in accordance with the recommendations of the National Research
Council (NRC) report. And, finally, we recommend that the EFH
provisions of the Act be strengthened and implemented in part
with marine reserves to reduce the uncertainty around the
impacts of fishing and to protect marine and freshwater fish
habitats.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fujita follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rod Fujita, Senior Scientist, Environmental
Defense
Thank you for this opportunity to testify on the reauthorization of
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. I am Rod
Fujita, senior scientist with Environmental Defense (formerly known as
the Environmental Defense Fund). Environmental Defense fully supports
the reauthorization agenda of the Marine Fish Conservation Network,
which is attached. 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.
I will focus my testimony on three fundamental problems facing US
fisheries today: (1) scientific uncertainty and the lack of sufficient
precautionary action; (2) lack of management resolve; and (3)
management regimes that create incentives for overexploitation. I offer
solutions to each of these problems: (1) higher appropriations for
fisheries research, the establishment of a network of marine reserves,
and a greater emphasis on precautionary action; (2) better balance
among stakeholder interests within the regional fishery management
Councils; and (3) lift the moratorium on Individual Transferable Quotas
(ITQs).
problems
Too many commercially exploited fish populations are in decline.
Here on the west coast, bocaccio, canary rockfish, cowcod, yellowtail
rockfish, and lingcod were all fished down too aggressively; managers
and agency scientists overestimated the productivity of these long-
lived fish. This aggressive fishing took place during a time of
relatively low productivity. The warnings of environmentalists and
other scientists that aggressive fishing plus poor ocean conditions
could result in collapse were largely ignored. These fish population
declines have resulted in devastating economic loss, and untold
ecological damage. Strong action was called for, in order to sustain
fishing communities and protect the marine ecosystems that support
them. The 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act had the potential to effect real change. However,
spotty and timid implementation has resulted in the continuation of the
status quo in too many cases. As a result, the west coast and the
Nation as a whole are still suffering large economic and ecologic
losses from poor fisheries management.
DIAGNOSIS
(1) Scientific uncertainty and lack of sufficient precautionary
action. West coast fishery managers and agency scientists relied on
uncertain assumptions about groundfish productivity that later proved
to be wrong. Sometimes the precautionary approach was applied, but too
often it was not. The precautionary approach calls for management
actions that reduce the risks to fish populations and marine
ecosystems, when the impacts of fishing are uncertain. However, in
fisheries management, a double standard prevails, in which very few or
no data were necessary to support status quo fishing levels, but
precautionary or conservation measures were often strongly opposed
because of lack of data. Many argued that the data showing declines in
fish abundance were of such poor quality that they could not support
management actions such as reduced fishing quotas. However, when
uncertainty is that high, it is certainly more prudent to cut back on
fishing and conduct research to discover what truly sustainable fishing
levels are, than to maintain the status quo, as was done too often.
Moreover, although many claim that the precautionary approach was built
into stock assessments and the quota-setting process in the form of
conservative assumptions, the truth is that fishing mortality was
probably grossly underestimated because discard mortality has never
been quantified or properly accounted for. Also, managers refused to
establish no-take marine reserves, which would have afforded the only
effective insurance policy against management errors by protecting
real, living fish in the water, rather than theoretical fish spawned in
computer models. Moreover, marine reserves would have allowed managers
to perceive declines earlier (by offering contrast to conditions on the
fishing grounds) and to tease out the relative importance of fishing
mortality, ocean productivity, and other factors of decline.
The ecological costs of fishing are even less studied than the
impacts of fishing on target and bycatch populations, but evidence of
adverse ecological impacts is emerging. Globally, recent research shows
that fishing has altered the very structure of ocean food webs,
simplifying them by taking out top predator species. There is clear
evidence that fishing resulted in mass starvation of seabirds in
Norway. There is also abundant evidence that scallop dredging, certain
kinds of trawling, and other types of fishing can harm bottom habitats.
On the west coast, a recent study conducted in the Monterey Bay
National Marine Sanctuary shows that trawling has strong impacts on
bottom habitat (Engel and Kvitek, 1998). The heavily trawled area that
was studied had less large rocks and mounds, more exposed sediment, and
less debris than the lightly trawled area.
Rocks and mounds contribute to the structural complexity of the
bottom, and are very important to many different kinds of organisms
that are found only in association with such structures. Exposed
sediments tend to be poorer in food quality than sediments that are
covered with encrusting organisms or held together by tube-forming
organisms; hence, productivity is usually lower. Debris (usually
fragments of kelps, marine ``snow'', fecal material, and the like) is a
critically important food source for many benthic organisms. Not
surprisingly, the study showed that sea pens, sea stars, sea anemones,
sea slugs, and most polychaete worms were all far less abundant in the
highly trawled area. Nematode and oligochaete worms (opportunistic,
``weedy'' species) were more abundant in the highly trawled area, but
overall, trawling clearly reduced biodiversity.
The authors of this study concluded that ``the only way to address
these questions adequately [referring to questions about the impacts of
fishing on habitat] is through large-scale, long-term, manipulative
studies in marine reserves'' (Engel and Kvitek, 1998).
Another Pacific study found significant differences in rockfish
assemblages between trawled and untrawled areas (Matthews & Richards,
1991). The rockfish assemblages differed significantly in species
composition, biodiversity, and biomass, with the untrawlable regions
having significantly larger catches than the trawlable habitats
(Matthews & Richards, 1991). This finding indicates that as more
regions become trawlable due to gear improvements and as benthic
habitats become more altered, there may well be significant changes in
species composition and biomass, resulting in lower fish productivity.
Despite these findings, and similar findings from around the world,
no action has been taken to reduce the risk of harming marine
ecosystems from the impacts of fishing, contrary to the intent of the
EFH requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Marine reserves can help
reduce the adverse impacts of fishing on habitat, in compliance with
these EFH requirements. In addition, marine reserves offer one of the
only rigorous scientific methods for evaluating the impacts of fishing,
by offering reference or control areas for comparison with fishing
grounds.
(2) Lack of management resolve and leadership. Proper
implementation of the precautionary approach requires painful choices
and leadership. Caving in to short term economic pressures subverts
fisheries management. While many individual west coast fishery managers
have shown a great deal of courage and leadership over the years, the
reliance on general consensus among a very large and diverse group of
stakeholders has hamstrung them and resulted in a lowest-common
denominator approach to management too often.
(3) Management regime that creates incentives for overexploitation.
Open access management clearly creates incentives for a fisheries arms
race and overinvestment, leading to debt and calls for ever-larger
catches to forestall economic disaster. In the free-for-all created by
open access, any fish left in the water for conservation purposes can
be caught by the next vessel that comes along, and fish have value only
when caught. This sort of management system creates strong incentives
to catch as many fish as quickly as possible, and this leads to
frenzied fishing derbies (if total allowable catch levels are set).
Limited entry programs have a rather abysmal record, because they
are often implemented very late in the game when fleets are already
overcapitalized. Often, too many permits are granted in response to
pressure to be inclusive; hence, fleet size and fishing power are not
reduced. Strong incentives to increase fishing power persist in most
limited access systems because fishers do not have reliable assurances
that they can catch a certain portion of the TAC (Gorte et al., 1985;
Waters, 1991; Townsend, 1992). As a result, fishing power usually
increases within limited access programs, even when input controls are
in place (e.g., Norwegian purse seine fishery, BC salmon fisheries, US
New England groundfish fishery; Townsend, 1992; Anthony, 1990) due to
creative circumvention of input controls.
In west coast groundfish fisheries, declining fish abundance has
necessitated the adoption of drastically reduced catch quotas and the
imposition of smaller and smaller trip limits. Because the number of
vessels is much higher than the number required to catch the available
fish profitably, the low trip limits threaten the economic viability of
many fishers. Moreover, the low trip limits induce discards, as
fishermen try to maximize the value of the small loads that they can
land by throwing back lower value fish.
In contrast to open access and most limited access management
regimes, almost all Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ) programs have
effectively ended the race for fish and reduced overcapitalization
(Muse and Schelle, 1989; Muse, 1991). Five of the six ITQ programs
reviewed in NRC (1999) did so.
Moreover, ITQ programs have an excellent conservation record. Of
the ITQ programs reviewed in NRC (1999), only the Icelandic cod ITQ
program failed to keep catch within TAC levels, and this was because
many vessels were exempted from the ITQ program. Landings have been
substantially below the TAC in the wreckfish ITQ program, perhaps
because quota holders are ``banking'' fish in the hopes of realizing
sustainable catches over the long term (NRC, 1999). Pressure to
increase the TAC that existed prior to ITQs has now disappeared (NRC,
1999). The biological status of New Zealand fisheries has improved
substantially since ITQs were implemented: 7.4% are overfished, 11% are
above the biomass needed for MSY, 18% are at or near MSY biomass, and
the status of 64% is unknown (NRC, 1999).
The best picture of how US ITQ programs may operate can probably be
obtained by looking at the performance of the Alaska sablefish and
halibut ITQ program, because it is the only US ITQ program that
incorporates many of the features that have been recommended by the NRC
committee on Individual Fishing Quotas (e.g., caps on quota
accumulation, owner-on-board requirement, etc.).
The Alaska ITQ programs stopped the race for fish and
increased season length from less than 5 days per year to 245
days per year, and reduced overcapitalization.
The TAC has never been exceeded under the Alaska ITQ
programs (NRC, 1999).
Bycatch discard was reduced by about 82% in the Alaska
halibut fishery after ITQs were implemented (NRC, 1999). This
estimate is uncertain.
Ghost fishing mortality for halibut was reduced by
about 77% in the Alaska halibut fishery after ITQs were
implemented (NRC, 1999).
There is no evidence of highgrading (dumping of lower
value fish to maximize value of the quota share) resulting from
the Alaska ITQ programs (NRC, 1999).
Safety appears to have improved due to the Alaska ITQ
programs, due to the end of the race for fish; search and
rescue missions dropped by 63% after ITQs were implemented
(NRC, 1999).
Excessive consolidation of fishing fleets and
corporate takeovers of independent fishing firms has not
occurred, probably due to the restrictions on ITQ ownership
contained in the Alaska ITQ program.
SOLUTIONS
(1) Scientific uncertainty.
Keep the EFH mandates in the MFCMA intact, and provide
more resources for conducting the research and mapping
necessary to identify especially important habitats for
protection. Environmental Defense fully supports the position
of the Marine Fish Conservation Network on EFH.
Appropriate more money for fisheries science and
research, but increase cost-effectiveness by contracting with
fishermen and graduate students. Focus on identifying important
habitats, food web interactions, controls on reproduction and
recruitment, quantifying discard mortality, reducing bycatch
and discards, creating a new MSY policy for groundfish, and
developing gear performance standards to minimize habitat
damage. Recognize that due to natural variability, even
substantial uncertainty will remain despite even quite large
increases in research investment.
Establish networks of no-take marine reserves.
(2) Lack of management resolve and leadership.
Create a better balance of stakeholder interests on
the regional Councils by including more scientists, economists,
conservationists, consumer advocates, etc.
Consider breaking regions up into smaller management
areas.
(3) Management regime that creates incentives for overexploitation.
Lift the moratorium on ITQs, on the condition that all
ITQ programs comply with conservation principles as outlined in
the Marine Fish Conservation Network agenda. ITQs can be
structured to prevent undesirable social and economic outcomes,
such as excessive consolidation of fleets or take-overs by
large corporations, as well as to improve fisheries
conservation.
LITERATURE CITED
Anthony, V.C., 1990. The New England groundfishery after ten years
under the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act. North
American Journal of Fisheries Management 10:175-184.
J. Engel and R. Kvitek, 1998. Effects of otter trawling on a benthic
community in Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. Conservation
Biology Vol. 12(6):1204-1214).
Gorte, R.W., E.H. Buck, D.M. Sale, and A.C. Grenfell, 1985. Limiting
access for commercial fish harvesting. Congressional Research Service,
8501151 ENR. 71 p.
Matthews, Kathleen R. and Laura J. Richards. 1991. Rockfish assemblages
of trawlable and untrawlable habitats off Vancouver Island, British
Columbia. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 11:3120318.
Muse, B., 1991. Survey of Individual Quota Programs. Alaska Commercial
Fisheries Entry Commission, Juneau, Alaska. CFEC 91-7. 34 p.
Muse, B., and K. Schelle, 1989. Individual Fishermen's Quotas: A
preliminary review of some recent programs. Alaska Commercial Fisheries
Entry Commission, Juneau, Alaska.
NRC, 1999. Sharing the fish: toward a national policy on Individual
Fishing Quotas. Committee to Review Individual Fishing Quotas. Ocean
Studies Board, National Research Council. National Academy Press,
Washington, DC.
Townsend, R.E., 1992. A fractional licensing program for fisheries.
Land Economics 68(2):185-190.
Waters, J.R., 1991. ITQs and the bycatch problem. Abstract, p. 50 in:
Dewees, C.M. and Ueber, R. 1990 (eds.), Effects of different management
schemes on bycatch, joint catch, and discards. Summary of a National
Workshop sponsored by the Sea Grant College Program and the National
Marine Fisheries Service. January 29-31, 1990, San Francisco,
California. Report no. T-CSGCP-019 California Sea Grant College,
University of California, La Jolla CA 92093-0232.
Senator Snowe. Thank you.
Dr. Sampson.
STATEMENT OF DAVID SAMPSON, PH.D., ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF
FISHERIES, OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY
Dr. Sampson. Madam Chair, members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for inviting me to testify before you today.
For the record, my name is David Sampson, and I am an
Associate Professor of Fisheries at Oregon State University. My
work includes preparing stock assessments for the Pacific
Fishery Management Council and conducting research on the
accuracy of stock assessment methods. I will focus my testimony
primarily on the use of stock assessments in fisheries
management, but I will also comment on the use of observers.
Stock assessments provide fishery managers with the basic
information regarding the status of exploited fish stocks. Many
of our stocks are managed on the basis of annual harvest quotas
that are derived from estimates of current stock size and
estimated target fishing rates. These estimates of biomass and
fishing rate are subject to considerable uncertainty.
In general, there are two primary sources for the data used
in the stock assessment. One set comes from scientific surveys
of the stock. The other comes from the fishers, either in the
form of landing receipts and logbooks, or from scientific
sampling of the landed catch. Assessment scientists often use a
catch-at-age analysis to reconstruct the demographic history of
the stock and estimate the current exploitable biomass on which
the harvest quota is based. Assessment scientists use a second
type of analysis to derive the target fishing rate, the other
key ingredient for calculating the harvest quota.
In response to the new guidelines for the national
standards established in the 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, the Pacific Council adopted new definitions for
overfishing, overfished and optimum yield, and established new
procedures for setting the annual harvest quotas. These
procedures are illustrated in the diagram.
And if I could have the overhead please.
These procedures are considerably more complex than the
previous ones. And, in my view, they place unrealistic demands
on fisheries science. The primary change was the addition of
two thresholds. If the stock is greater than 40 percent of its
unfished size, then the quota is just the product of the
current stock size times the target fishing rate. If the stock
drops below 40 percent of its unfished size, the target fishing
rate is set below the FMSY level and the quota is reduced
proportionately. If a stock drops below 10 percent of its
unfished size, the target fishing rate is reduced to zero.
It is entirely appropriate that fish stocks be managed more
conservatively when they are at low levels. However, it is
extremely problematic to implement this engineering approach to
harvest policy because of our general inability to provide
reliable estimates of current and unfished stock size. Also,
for many of our west coast stocks, there are inadequate data
available to estimate the current stock size, let alone the
unfished size.
Estimates of fish stock size are inherently imprecise.
Consider, for example, estimates of stock size from recent
assessments of a west coast stock of yellowtail rockfish. The
stock size series estimated by the 1996 assessment was
dramatically different from the 1993 assessment, and indicated
that significant reductions were needed in the annual harvest
quota. The assessment was redone in 1997, and the estimates of
stock size and the harvest quota essentially returned to the
levels estimated in the 1993 assessment.
Part of the instability of west coast assessments is due to
the general lack of reliable long-term survey and fishery data
series. For example, the trawl survey estimates of rockfish
stock size are highly imprecise. And the surveys are only
conducted every third summer. However, even with thorough long-
term monitoring and top-quality stock assessment science, our
perceptions of stock status can be highly inaccurate. Pacific
halibut off Alaska and northern cod in Atlantic Canada provide
recent examples of stocks that have been extensively monitored
and studied and yet, in retrospect, there were dramatic errors
in the assessments of stock size.
The harvest quota system that has developed as a result of
the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act is unrealistically
complicated, given the level of accuracy that we can reasonably
expect from our stock assessments. We need to develop fishery
control systems that have simple data requirements and that are
robust to data errors.
With regard to observer programs, the Pacific Council does
not currently have any observer programs. An observer program
could provide information on the bycatch of fish that are
currently discarded at sea. Better information on discards
would undoubtedly improve the quality of our stock assessments.
But so, too, would better survey or age composition data.
Instituting an observer program to monitor at-sea discards
seems an extraordinary way to handle the wastage of marketable
fish. Counting how many fish are thrown overboard draws our
attention to the problem, but it does little to solve it. Trawl
fishers discard their catches of salmon and halibut because the
law requires them to do so. Why cannot we have a system that
allows trawl fishers to buy the rights to take incidental
harvests of salmon and halibut rather than forcing the fish to
be discarded at sea? The fish would not be wasted. The salmon
and halibut fishers could be compensated for their lost fishing
opportunities. And the public would enjoy additional fish in
the market.
Similarly, discarding of marketable fish due to trip limits
could largely be eliminated if fishers were permitted to trade
and stack fishing permits to cover their trip limit overages, a
practice that is currently banned because of the SFA
prohibition against individual fishing quotas.
Madam Chair, this concludes my testimony. Thank you for
inviting me to speak to you today.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Sampson follows:]
Prepared Statement of David Sampson, Ph.D., Associate Professor
of Fisheries, Oregon State University
Madam Chair and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting
me to testify before you today on issues related to the reauthorization
of the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA). For the record, my name is
David Sampson and I am an Associate Professor of Fisheries at Oregon
State University. My work includes preparing stock assessments for the
Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) on behalf of the Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife, and conducting research on the
accuracy of stock assessment methods, sponsored by the Oregon Sea Grant
College Program. Also, I was a member of the National Research
Council's Committee to Review Individual Fishing Quotas and for six
years (1993-98). I served the PFMC as an at-large member of its
Scientific and Statistical Committee. You have asked me to testify on
the impact of the SFA on fisheries in the Pacific Northwest and to make
recommendations for the reauthorization of the Act. I will focus my
testimony primarily on the use of stock assessments and scientific data
in fisheries management, but, as requested, I will also comment on the
use of observers and on the essential fish habitat provisions of the
Act.
STOCK ASSESSMENTS AND SCIENTIFIC DATA IN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT
The two main problems confronting fisheries managers are
determining acceptable levels of harvest and crafting regulations that
will achieve those levels. Setting regulations is an especially
difficult task because almost all regulations tend to favor one group
of fishers over another. Political maneuvering to influence the
regulations often is very intense. Because I have no expertise in
fisheries regulations I will confine my testimony to issues related to
determining target levels for harvest.
Stock assessments provide fishery managers with basic information
regarding the status of exploited fish stocks, whether they are
increasing or decreasing and why. Many stocks are managed on the basis
of annual harvest quotas. The quota for a stock is usually derived from
the estimated current exploitable biomass and the estimated target
fishing rate. Projections of future harvests can be made if the
strength of incoming year-classes (the recruits) can be estimated or
assumed. These estimates, of current biomass, the target fishing rate,
and future recruitment, are subject to considerable uncertainty. Marine
organisms are difficult to observe and reliably monitor and they are
often subject to variable environmental factors over which Man has no
control. Fishery managers aim to maintain the fish stocks and the
fisheries that exploit those stocks, but they generally have imperfect
information on the conditions of the stocks and dull instruments with
which to affect the stocks.
In general there are two primary sources for the data that are used
in a stock assessment. One set of data comes from scientific surveys of
the stock; the other comes from the fishers, either in the form of
landing receipts and logbooks, or from scientific sampling of the
landed catch. With a relatively long-lived organism assessment
scientists often use a ``catch-at-age analysis'' to reconstruct the
demographic history of the stock. This type of analysis provides the
estimate of the current exploitable biomass on which the harvest quota
is based. The analysis attempts to account for temporal changes in
stock abundance based on landings and age composition data series from
the fishery, coupled with stock size and age composition data series
from the scientific surveys. Assessment scientists use a second type of
analysis, usually a ``yield-per-recruit'' or ``spawning-biomass-per-
recruit'' analysis, to derive the target fishing rate, the other key
ingredient for calculating the harvest quota. These analyses use
estimates of growth, mortality and maturity to gauge the impact of
different fishing rates on the productive capacity of the stock.
In response to the new guidelines for the National Standards
established in the 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act, the Pacific Fishery Management Council
amended its Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan. The
Council adopted new definitions for ``overfishing'', ``overfished'',
and ``optimum yield'', and established new procedures for setting
annual harvest quotas. The new procedures, illustrated in the diagram
below, are considerably more complex than the previous ones and, in my
view, they place unrealistic demands on fisheries science.
The primary change in the procedure for setting the ``optimum yield''
quota was the addition of two thresholds. If a stock is greater than
40% of its unfished size, then the quota is the product of the current
stock size times the target fishing rate (FMSY, the fishing
rate that produces the maximum sustainable yield, MSY). If a stock
drops below 40% of its unfished size, the target fishing rate is set
below the FMSY level and the quota is reduced
proportionately. If a stock drops below 10% of its unfished size, the
target fishing rate is reduced to zero.
It is entirely appropriate that fish stocks be managed more
conservatively when they are at low levels. Compared to the Council's
old harvest policy (indicated in the diagram by the dashed line), the
new policy will more rapidly rebuild an overfished stock to levels that
will support larger and less variable harvests. However, it is
extremely problematic to implement this engineering approach to harvest
policy because of our general inability to provide reliable estimates
of current and unfished stock size. We do not have a stable measure to
gauge whether a stock is overfished. Similar problems arise with
thresholds based on an MSY stock size level. Also, for many of our west
coast stocks there are inadequate data available to estimate the
current stock size, let alone the unfished stock size.
Estimates of fish stock size are inherently imprecise. Consider,
for example, estimates of stock size from recent assessments of a west
coast stock of yellowtail rockfish.
The stock size series estimated by the 1996 assessment was dramatically
different from the 1993 assessment and it indicated that significant
reductions were needed in the annual harvest quota. The assessment was
redone in 1997 and the estimates of stock size and the harvest quotas
essentially returned to the levels estimated in the 1993 assessment.
There have been similar dramatic changes in our perceptions of stock
status with several other west coast stocks.
Part of the instability of west coast stock assessments is due to a
general lack of reliable long-term survey and fishery data series. For
example, the trawl survey estimates of rockfish stock size are highly
imprecise, with large coefficients of variation (50% or larger).
Furthermore, the surveys are only conducted every third summer.
Even with thorough long-term stock monitoring and top-quality stock
assessment science our perceptions of stock status can be highly
inaccurate. Pacific halibut off Alaska and British Columbia and
Northern cod in Atlantic Canada provide recent examples of stocks that
have been extensively monitored and studied, and yet retrospective
analyses have uncovered dramatic errors in assessments' estimates of
stock size. In the case of Pacific halibut, assessments conducted in
the mid 1990s estimated the stock size for Area 3A at about 130,000
tons in 1989, compared to the 80,000 tons underestimated by the 1989
assessment. The reverse type of error occurred with Northern cod. Stock
assessments conducted during the early 1980s overestimated stock size
by a factor of two compared to estimates for the same period from later
assessments. The consequence for Northern cod was overfishing, stock
collapse, and the closure of what had been a highly productive and
stable fishery.
The harvest quota system that has developed as the result of the
1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act is unrealistically complicated given the
level of accuracy that we can reasonably expect from our stock
assessments. We need to develop fishery control systems that have
simple data requirements and that are robust to data errors.
OBSERVER PROGRAMS
The Pacific Fishery Management Council does not currently have any
observer programs. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, in
cooperation with the Oregon Trawl Commission and the Pacific States
Marine Fisheries Commission, has for several years operated a limited
program with volunteer trawl vessels fishing from ports in Oregon. An
observer program could provide information on the bycatch of fish that
currently are discarded at sea. Some of these discards occur because
the fish are unmarketable, some because they are prohibited species
(e.g., salmon and halibut in the trawl fishery), and some because of
the system of trip limits that the Council uses to slow the pace of
fishing and thereby maintain year-round fisheries. west coast stock
assessments generally attempt to account for these at-sea discards but
do so without any current data. Better information on discards would
undoubtedly improve the quality of our stock assessments, but so too
would better survey or age-composition data.
Instituting an observer program to monitor at-sea discards seems an
extraordinary way to handle the wastage of marketable fish. Counting
how many fish are thrown overboard draws our attention to the problem
but does little to solve it. Trawl fishers discard their catches of
salmon and halibut because the law requires them to do so. All of the
discarded salmon and half or better of the discarded halibut do not
survive the experience. The trawl fishers are no better off as a result
of this practice, nor are the salmon and halibut fishers, nor are the
stocks of salmon and halibut, nor is the general public. Why can't we
have a system that allows trawl fishers to buy the rights to take
incidental harvests of salmon and halibut, rather than forcing the fish
to be discarded at sea? The fish would not be wasted, the salmon and
halibut fishers could be compensated for their lost fishing
opportunities, and the public would enjoy additional fish in the
market. Similarly, discarding of marketable fish due to trip limits
could largely be eliminated if fishers were permitted to trade and
stack fishing permits to cover their trip limit overages, a practice
that is currently banned because of the SFA prohibition against
individual fishing quotas.
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT
All organisms require suitable habitat for their continued
existence and successful reproduction. For many marine organisms the
habitat requirements vary as the organisms grow through their various
life stages. Defining on a scientific basis that a particular habitat
is essential for the survival of a given organism is extremely
difficult, except when done in very general terms. For many marine
fishes along the west coast spawning occurs over a broad geographic
range and the larval fish drift in the plankton for several months.
During this interval the waters in which the larvae reside are
essential to their continued existence. Given that there is a myriad of
commercially important fish species along the west coast leads to the
conclusion that the entire expanse of the territorial sea and beyond is
essential fish habitat. Such a broad definition seems likely to have
little practical importance.
With regard to possible detrimental effects of fishing gear on the
long-term productivity of the ecosystem, little information is
available. Given the generally high degree of natural variability in
the marine upwelling ecosystem off the west coast, it seems likely that
long term studies will be required to establish conclusively whether or
not the various types of fishing gear have more than just a transitory
effect on bottom habitats.
Madame Chair, this concludes my testimony. Thank you for inviting
me to speak to you today.
Senator Snowe. Thank you, Dr. Sampson.
Mr. Leipzig.
STATEMENT OF PETER LEIPZIG, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FISHERMEN'S
MARKETING ASSOCIATION
Mr. Leipzig. Good morning, Madam Chairman and members of
the Subcommittee. My name is Peter Leipzig. I am an Executive
Director of the Fishermen's Marketing Association. And I
represent commercial groundfish and shrimp fishermen in
Washington, Oregon and California. I have worked for the
Fishermen's Marketing Association since 1978. My education is
in the field of zoology and wildlife management. And in the
past, I have worked with the National Marine Fisheries Service,
as well as the California Department of Fish and Game.
I have been a participant in the Pacific Fishery Management
Council process for nearly 22 years. And I have served on
numerous Council committees and have served two terms as a
Council member. I was Vice-Chairman of the Council for a two-
year period, also.
I have been asked to focus my comments on the stock
assessment process and data collection. And it should be
obvious without saying it, but the quality of any of our stock
assessments is no better than the data and the quantity of data
that goes into those assessments. To answer the question, ``do
we need more data,'' well, yes, certainly we need more data. We
need all sorts of data and all varieties of data.
However, we have to be realistic. There are some data that
we are never going to obtain. We cannot go back in time and
begin collecting data that we have failed to collect in the
past. And this missing data is a major shortcoming in many of
our stock assessments, in my view.
We lack some of the most fundamental information, such as
landings data, prior to 20 years ago, for the rockfish species.
We lumped 50-some species of rockfish into one category called
``other rockfish.'' And that is the way they come into the
landing. So we had very little information on which species
composed that category.
In many cases, we lack length information and weight
information and sex information. We have survey work that is
conducted by the National Marine Fisheries Service. And others
have referred to this, the tri-annual survey that is conducted
once every three years. That survey is our longest time series,
and it began in 1977. But we have very few data points over
that 20-some-year period because of the frequency of that
survey. It produces biomass estimates that are plus or minus
100 percent. They are not very precise estimates.
So where are we right now? Well, we do not know how many
fish we have caught. We do not know how old they are, for the
most part. We do not know how fast they are growing. And we
have poor estimates of our population trends.
And even though this historic information is poor and we
are making little progress to begin collecting contemporary
information, the management system is demanding more and more
technical answers. Now, I am supporter of the Council process
and of regional management. However, I believe that our current
system is broken. It has become too complicated and too rigid.
We are simply demanding too much from science.
A stock assessment scientist now is asked to estimate not
only the current biomass with this limited information, but
estimate the unfished biomass. And then project into the future
what the yield should be for the purpose of establishing
quotas. In reality, we would be lucky if we can detect what
change is occurring in the stock itself.
To better understand fish populations, biologists have
attempted to model them. This modelling exercise requires much
of the same information that we are lacking. But it also
assumes that the environment is constant. We know that this is
not correct. We know that the ocean environment is changing
constantly. We know from science that long ago we had ice ages
and that, since then, the earth has warmed up. We are no longer
considered in an ice age. And that is a very long-term type of
change.
We also know that there are very short-term types of
changes. This is the kind of thing that every fisherman can see
from year to year. We have, for some species, very strong year
classes that appear out of nowhere. And this is because the
environment has provided the opportunity for those fish to
experience that and survive.
We are beginning now to understand that there are some
changes that occur in the ocean environment that are more
intermediate in length, perhaps 10 to 40 years. And during
these periods, the ocean conditions are conducive for the
survival of certain fish and not very conducive for the
survival of other fish. And when this condition reverses, those
species that were surviving in the past may be on a decline in
the future.
Oceanographers are referring to these as regime shifts. And
it is widely agreed that in the Pacific region, a regime shift
began in the late seventies. During this period, and others
have mentioned it, we saw a decline in northern anchovies while
we saw a similar increase in abundance of Pacific sardines.
Relating to the groundfish fishery, through this period, we
have seen a dramatic decrease in survival of young rockfish.
Bocaccio rockfish is a species of very much concern. There has
been nearly a complete recruitment failure of bocaccio rockfish
since the late 1970's. The reason I am dwelling on this point
is I think the fisheries management can no longer just take a
snapshot in time and assume that those conditions are going to
continue into the future.
Central to our management system is the concept of MSY. And
this assumes that there is some long-term average that we can
harvest from our stocks. But it also assumes that the
environment is constant.
There is a concept that comes out of wildlife management
called the carrying capacity. It refers to the amount of
animals that a habitat can produce and sustain. It is in
relation to the current ability of the habitat. As the habitat
changes, the environment changes, and the carrying capacity
decreases. I believe that this concept should be incorporated
into our definition of what MSY is.
If the Act were to be modified in such a way that we could
begin thinking in terms of stocks that are at low levels of
abundance, one, as those that have been overfished and are at
low abundance; secondly, those that are at low abundance
because man has caused some changes to the habitat; and, third,
because the habitat itself has changed. And I think this would
provide the Council some flexibility on how they go about
approaching stocks at low abundance, rather than simply
referring to them all as ``overfished.''
In conclusion, we need more data collection. We need survey
work and port sampling, as Phil Anderson had referred to. We
need to improve our systems for tracking the data collection
that we do engage in. We need personnel in order to do it. But,
most importantly, we need to begin imposing some common sense
into determining when stock assessments can be conducted. And
we need to begin thinking about non-quota approaches to
managing some of our fish. The system in general has to become
far more flexible.
I see the red light has come on, and so I will end right
there and answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Leipzig follows:]
Prepared Statement of Peter Leipzig, Executive Director,
Fishermen's Marketing Association
Madame Chairwomen and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Peter
Leipzig. I am the Executive Director of the Fishermen's Marketing
Association. I represent commercial groundfish and shrimp fishermen in
Washington, Oregon, and California.
I have worked for the Fishermen's Marketing Association since 1978.
My education is in the fields of Zoology and Wildlife Management. In
the past I have worked for the National Marine Fisheries Service and
the California Department of Fish and Game.
I have been a participant in the Pacific Fishery Management Council
process for nearly 22 years. I have served on numerous Council
committees and as a Council member for two terms, including two years
as vice-chair.
I have been asked to focus my comments on the stock assessment
process and data collection. The quality and quantity of data available
for any species limits the quality of any of our stock assessments. Do
we need more data? Yes, we need more data of various types. However, we
will never obtain some data. We can not go back in time and begin to
collect information that we did not collect in the past. This missing
data is a major shortfall in many of our assessments.
In most cases we lack the most fundamental information, such as
landings data beyond 20 years ago. We used to lump 50-some species
together as ``other rockfish''. In other cases we lack length, weight,
and sex information. Bony structures used to age fish are not collected
for most species. And needless to say, without bony structures, age
validation studies for most species are not being conducted.
The fisheries independent survey work that NMFS has performed for
the longest time period on the Pacific Coast is conducted once every
three years. This survey provides biomass estimates that are generally
plus or minus 100%.
So where are we? We do not know how many fish we caught, we do not
know how old they were, we do not know how fast they grow, and we have
poor estimates of trends in the populations.
Even though we lack historical information and little progress is
being made to collect contemporary data, the management system is
demanding more and more technical answers.
I am a supporter of the Council process and of regional management
of the resource. However, I believe that our current system is broken.
We have made this process too complicated and too rigid. We are
demanding too much from science. An assessment scientist must tell the
Council what the current biomass is, what the unfished biomass was, and
project yields for quotas into the future. In reality, we would be
lucky to show whether a population is changing. Yes, assessment
scientists can produce the information we ask of them, but around the
country--sport and commercial fishermen--are reacting with disbelief to
many of these assessments. Their perception of the status of a stock of
fish does not jive with the conclusions of many stock assessments.
To better understand fish populations, biologists have attempted to
model them. This requires information about growth, mortality, and
removals. This required information is the same data that we are
missing or have very little. We also assume that the environment is
constant. We assume that a fish population in a state of equilibrium
will produce the same amount of offspring, will grow at the same rate,
and produce the same amount of fish that can be harvested year after
year.
Change in the environment is not part of the model, even though we
know the ocean environment is a dynamic, ever changing system. We know
from science that there are very long-term changes in the environment.
We know that many years ago there was an ice age and that gradually the
environment has warmed up. We also see very short-term changes. From
year to year the ocean environment is different and for some species
this may be seen as strong year classes.
What we are beginning to understand is that there are changes that
are more intermediate in length. These may be 10 to 40 years in
duration. During these periods some species may prosper, while others
may decline. When these conditions reverse, those species that had done
well may begin to decline and those that had not done well will
increase in abundance.
Oceanographers call these changes ``regime shifts''. It is widely
agreed that a regime shift occurred in the North Pacific in the late
1970's. During this time we saw a decline in abundance of northern
anchovy and an increase in abundance in Pacific sardine. More
importantly to the Pacific groundfish fishery, there has been a
dramatic decrease in the survival of young rockfish. For bocaccio
rockfish, there has been a near complete recruitment failure since the
late 1970's.
Why am I dwelling on this point? It is important in fisheries
management that we do not simply take a ``snapshot in time'' and assume
that those conditions will continue in the future. Fish populations
that exist today could decline in the future simply because of changes
in the ocean environment. Similarly, a fish population in the past may
have been very large because environmental conditions were good, while
the population may currently be at a low level because environment
conditions are poor.
Central to our management system is the concept of Maximum
Sustainable Yield (MSY). This concept assumes that there is some
maximum amount of fish that can be removed from a stock of fish every
year without impacting the stock. This concept assumes that the
environment is relatively stable and therefore has little impact on the
abundance of fish. This concept is flawed. We know the environment can
significantly influence the abundance of fish.
There is a concept in wildlife management that has never made it
into fisheries management, called the carry capacity. This is the
maximum population the environment can support any point in time. It
recognizes that the environment changes and therefore the number of
animal will also change. I believe this concept should be incorporated
into the Act in relation to MSY.
If the Act were to incorporate such a concept, then we could begin
to think about stocks being at low levels of abundance as a result of:
(1) overfishing, (2) man-caused impacts to the environment, and (3)
natural fluctuation to the environment. Currently, the Act labels any
stock at low levels of abundance as ``overfished'', even when a river
dries up in a drought and all the salmon die. This distinction would
allow Councils to continue to address overfishing problems, but could
provide Councils needed flexibility in managing other stocks of fish.
One example of a data poor situation that the Pacific Council has
dealt with this past year is the southern lingcod. The assessment was
peer reviewed by a Stock Assessment Review (STAR) Panel last summer.
During the several-day review, the author on a daily basis
expressed his opinion that sufficient data did not exist to conduct the
assessment. He had only six years of biological information. He did
have three sets of fishery-dependent trend data; however, none of these
included the last several years. The modeling exercise was conducted
and an estimate of current biomass was produced. An unfished biomass
was estimated using high estimates of recruitment from earlier periods
of greater abundance.
It was determined that the current biomass was less than 10% of the
unfished level; therefore the stock was declared overfished. Sport and
commercial fishermen both believed the stock to be in excellent
condition. Nevertheless, regulations have been implemented that
effectively have terminated a fishery for lingcod.
All of the data used in this assessment came from the fishery.
Without a fishery, there is no method to monitor the recovery of this
stock from its declared overfished state. The rebuilding plan contains
a schedule of how much lingcod can be taken every year, and at the end
of ten years the stock will be declared rebuilt. The loss of the
fishery data over that ten-year period will hinder future stock
assessment.
In conclusion, we need increased data collection through survey
work and port sampling. We need to improve our data collection system
of tracking landings, including recreational catch. There is the need
for more personnel to collect and deal with this additional data. But
most importantly we need to impose common sense in determining when
stock assessments can be conducted. We need to think about non-quota
approaches to managing some of our fish. The system must become more
flexible.
Lastly, we need to begin addressing fishing capacity reduction on a
national level. And I ask you to lift the moratorium on new ITQ
systems.
Senator Snowe. Thank you. Did you have much more? Did you
want to finish your statement? Go ahead.
Mr. Leipzig. I would like to just say this. And it has
nothing to do with data collection, but, as everyone else, I'll
get my digs in. I think the time has come for the prohibition
on ITQ's to be lifted. I think that it is a legitimate
management tool. And the management Councils should have the
flexibility to proceed with the development and implementation
of those types of systems.
We also need to begin addressing the capacity issue on a
national level. We have far too many people engaged in fishing
activities. We need to find a way for them to exit the
fisheries in a graceful manner. Right now, people can certainly
leave the fishery. But they cannot do it by selling their
business. Nobody is going to be buying boats entering into the
fishing business at this point. We need to find some way for
the Federal Government to participate in removing some of this
effort.
And lastly, on observers, and I guess this does relate back
to data collection, but I think there need to be clear
objectives when an observer program is going to be implemented,
and that some sort of uniform deployment of those persons
across all users of the resource, people that are interacting
in a fishery with the species in a fishery, should all be
sampled. It cannot just be heavily weighted to the people that
catch the most of those fish.
And reasonable costs have to be derived. The mean gross
revenue in the groundfish trawl fishery for the three States of
the Pacific groundfish fishery was $160,000 in 1998. Things are
worse now. I have been told that observer costs for an observer
company run in the neighborhood of $7,500 a month. That is
$90,000 if you have an observer 12 months year. And 100 percent
observer coverage is not going to be realistic if you expect
for the industry to pay for the bill, because there is not that
kind of money in this fishery.
Thank you.
Senator Snowe. Thank you.
Mr. Anderson.
STATEMENT OF SAM ANDERSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
MASTER BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF KING AND SNOHOMISH COUNTIES,
WASHINGTON
Mr. Sam Anderson. Madam Chair, members of the Committee, my
name is Sam Anderson. I am the Executive Officer of the Master
Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties. I am also
a member of the National Association of Home Builders. And
today I represent not only the building industry, but also
other industries that belong to the Essential Fish Habitat
Coalition, which includes the National Association of
Homebuilders, the American Forest and Paper Association, the
Bay Delta Urban Coalition, the Edison Electric Institute, and
the Association of California Water Agencies.
As a representative of the home building industry, I find
it unusual to be speaking to this Subcommittee and on this
panel, commenting on a statute that is intended to ensure
sustainable populations of fish so they can be commercially
harvested. But our coalition is here to ask the Subcommittee to
consider three requests while passing the reauthorization of
the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
First, we ask Congress to clarify in legislation its
original intentions for the essential fish habitat program by
narrowing the definition of essential fish habitat. We believe
Congress never intended for the National Marine Fisheries
Service to interpret the program as broadly as it has.
Second, we ask Congress to prohibit NMFS from imposing
mandatory duties or timeframes on other Federal agency actions.
Third, we ask that Congress direct NMFS to immediately develop
a general concurrence for those activities that are already
regulated and cause minimal impacts to areas identified as
essential fish habitat.
I would like to touch briefly on our main concerns. First
is our concern with NMFS' interpretation of Congress' intent.
Congress spoke only of establishing guidelines and providing
information on essential habitat. There is no indication in the
Act that the essential fish habitat provisions should be of a
regulatory nature. But, under the proposed EFH program, Federal
action agencies are required to consult with the National
Marine Fisheries Service and are required to provide a written
assessment wherein there are mandated timeframes as part of
that consultation process.
These requirements establish a new mandatory series of
actions for Federal agencies. There is little doubt in our
minds that the essential fish habitat regulations could delay
or stop building permits, timber permits and other land-based
activities in the Puget Sound. Further, if time lines are not
met and recommendations are not followed, we are concerned that
private parties will pursue litigation and even more permits
and projects will be delayed.
Secondly, we are concerned NMFS's definition of essential
fish habitat is too broad. NMFS' final interim rule retains an
extremely broad definition of essential fish habitat. The
regional fishery management Councils are mapping all existing
and potentially historical habitat. When all habitat is covered
under the program, the term ``essential'' becomes meaningless.
We expect, with this broad interpretation, NMFS will be
regulating activities occurring on inland waterways.
For example, the proposed essential fish habitat
designations for salmon within the Pacific Fishery Council
include the existing geographic range of all salmon species and
much of their historic range. And I have with me the map that I
think Senator Gorton was looking for when he was talking to
Will Stelle. You will notice that most of the watersheds
certainly west of the Cascades in the State of Washington have
now been designated as essential fish habitat.
And to answer your question, yes, all of the 200-mile limit
has been designated, as well.
Third, we are concerned about the information gathered to
identify essential fish habitat. NMFS' interim final rule
provides that data for identifying essential fish habitat
should be obtained from the best available information. The
information gathering procedures of both NMFS and the fishery
management Councils ignore non-fishing entities or interests.
A Council system is designed to promote the interests of
the fishing community, and justifiably. Yet the information
from these Councils will carry great weight in determining
essential habitat, and it will truly impact non-fishing
interests. Also of concern in this area is NMFS' reliance on
historic information when mapping essential habitat.
Fourth, we are concerned with the essential fish habitat
consultation provisions. The interim final rule sets forth
extremely stringent criteria for a consultation that does not
take advantage of existing processes. NMFS often states that
the essential fish habitat program is a voluntary information
gathering tool. Yet it has promulgated a regulation that
requires Federal action agencies to prepare essential fish
habitat assessments, undertake other mandatory measures and
meet mandatory deadlines. We believe Congress should direct
NMFS to base the program purely as an information exchange
process.
Fifth, we are concerned that the essential fish habitat
consultation process is duplicative and redundant. For the most
part, land-based activities have been addressed and controlled
through numerous Federal, State and local laws and regulations.
Most coastal States, including Washington, California and
Oregon, have particularly stringent environmental protection
laws at the State and local levels. And all three of these
States have comprehensive land planning and regulations
protecting environmentally significant areas and lands.
For these reasons, we believe it is important that a
general concurrence policy be implemented between NMFS and
other Federal agencies, and Congress should address the cost/
benefit of this program.
Lastly, we are concerned with the unavailability and the
lack of information. In my written statement, I have outlined
information we believe should be provided by NMFS so that the
American public and Congress can conduct meaningful review of
the essential fish habitat consultations done to date. We ask
that this Subcommittee request similar information, as outlined
in my written testimony, from NMFS. Having significant
information about consultations will be important if Congress
is to evaluate the implementation of the EFH program to date.
In conclusion, we believe it is important that Congress
clearly define the essential fish habitat provision's intent
when it addresses reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act
this year. Congress should also assist the American public by
halting implementation of the essential fish habitat program
until more guidance can be provided in the Act itself. Our
coalition is, has been, and continues to be engaged with the
National Marine Fisheries Service and Congress in a discussion
on how this program should work and where we might help.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sam Anderson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sam Anderson, Executive Director, Master Builders
Association of King and Snohomish Counties, Washington
Madame Chair, members of the Committee, my name is Sam Anderson and
I am the Executive Officer of the Master Builders Association of King
and Snohomish Counties. I am also a member of the National Association
of Home Builders. Today, I represent not only the building industry but
also other industries that belong to the Essential Fish Habitat
Coalition. This Coalition is comprised of diverse non-fishing resource
and business interests including the National Association of Home
Builders, the American Forest and Paper Association, the Bay Delta
Urban Coalition, the Edison Electric Institute and the Association of
California Water Agencies. We are all extremely concerned about the
National Marine Fisheries Service's (NMFS) implementation of the
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fisheries Act.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For convenience sake, I will use the acronym ``MSA'' from now
on.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First and foremost, the coalition is very concerned with the scope
of the Essential Fish Habitat provisions as proposed by NMFS. The
coalition believes that NMFS has far exceeded Congressional intent in
its implementation. Because we work in heavily regulated industries, we
worry that the proposed Essential Fish Habitat regulations will slow
down permits and foster law suits--which will only raise the cost of
conducting business for our industries. Worse, the requirements under
the proposed regulation are redundant and duplicative.
As a representative of the home building industry, I find it
curious to be speaking before a Senate Subcommittee on Oceans and
Fisheries commenting on a statute intended to ensure sustainable
populations of fish, so they can be commercially harvested. Yet, those
familiar with the recently developed Essential Fish Habitat program
will understand why I am here and why builders, developers, miners,
hydropower electricity providers, farmers, and timber manager,
nationwide are so concerned. We all know that the Essential Fish
Habitat designation acts as a federal zoning overlay. The designation
will ultimately result in land use restrictions and economic impacts on
both coastal and upland land areas.
As a result of this, we ask you to consider three requests while
passing the reauthorization of MSA. First, we ask Congress to clarify
in legislation its original intent for this program by narrowing or
clarifying the MSA's definition of Essential Fish Habitat. The
coalition believes Congress never intended for NMFS to interpret the
program as broadly as it has. Second, we ask Congress to prohibit NMFS
from imposing mandatory duties or timeframes on other federal agency
actions. Third, we ask that Congress direct NMFS to immediately develop
a ``general concurrence'' for those activities that are already
regulated and cause minimal impacts to areas identified as EFH.
We do not dispute the importance of efforts to identify and
conserve the vital habitat areas of the United States' domestic
fisheries. Our central opposition to the EFH regulatory program is that
it superimposes the MSA decision process onto the land development
process--a process that is already subject to state and federal
comprehensive regulatory programs that address the full range of
environmental concerns, including fish habitat.
1. NMFS is Acting Beyond the Scope of Congress' Intent in Developing
Consultation Program
The home building industry, as well as the other members of our
coalition, are very heavily regulated and sensitive to any additional
pending restrictions on our activities. We believe Congress' intent
under the MSA was to create a consultation program, not a new
regulatory scheme. In fact, Congress spoke only of establishing
guidelines and providing information on essential habitat.
Unfortunately, we believe very strongly that, based on NMFS's
overzealous interpretation of the MSA, we will indeed face new mandated
regulatory requirements. Let me explain. Under the proposed program,
federal action agencies are required to consult with NMFS and to
provide a written assessment as to how an agency action will effect
EFH. Once NMFS has responded by providing the agency their
determination and recommendation, the agency is required to reply
(again in writing) as to whether or not they will follow NMFS's
recommendation. This requirement will divert key federal agency staff
from normal permitting and operational duties. Further, it is highly
unlikely that these written responses by the agencies will be within
the time limits established by the program. We do not know what effect
this three part process will have on permits, but suspect that it will
cause significant delays as the same staff which provided the
assessment must justify their failure to meet the deadlines of the
program. Meantime, permits and agency tasks languish. Further, if time
lines are not met and recommendations are not followed, we are
concerned that private parties will pursue litigation and even more
permits and projects will be delayed.
We are also concerned that conflicts and disagreements between NMFS
and federal agencies over consultation issues will undoubtedly arise.
How will these be resolved? We do not know. But, we strongly believe
that disagreement between NMFS and another agency will take time to
settle, leading to additional permit delays and costs.
We also suspect that very soon NMFS, working with other agencies,
will require that industry pay for the EFH impact assessments. NMFS has
argued in its final interim rule that it will not impose new or
additional enforceable duties on State, local, tribal or private sector
entities that would constitute a federal mandate. This has been
misleading. Let me explain why. The rule requires federal agencies to
complete detailed EFH assessments for many private sector activities
requiring federal permits or other authorization. The rule authorizes
these agencies to designate a non-federal representative to prepare the
assessment. This creates a problem in that federal-permitting agencies,
not funded themselves to complete EFH assessments, will require
nonfederal private applicants to pay for them in order to obtain needed
permits. As we have learned under the Endangered Species Act, part of
the cost of getting a permit is usually gathering information and
research for the agency.
2. The Definition of EFH is Overly Broad
NMFS's final interim rule retains an extremely broad definition of
``essential'' fish habitat. The Regional Fishery Management Councils
are mapping all existing and potentially historical habitat. When all
habitat is covered under the program, the term ``essential'' becomes
meaningless. The EFH designations should carry some measure of unique
value, if they are to have any added benefit for protecting and
restoring salmon populations and their essential habitats.
In contrast, NMFS has interpreted EFH in its regulations to cover
not only the critically important essential habitat, but instead
concluded the designation should cover all habitat necessary to a
``healthy ecosystem.'' In other words, rather than isolating
``essential'' habitat as a subset of all habitat, NMFS designated
``essential'' the ecosystem within which the fish habitat is located.
An overreaching interpretation indeed.
This interpretation means that NMFS will regulate activities
occurring on inland waters. Once inland, NMFS unsurprisingly announced
the need for ``watershed'' planning--not only would rivers, estuaries,
and wetlands be covered, but also all areas that could impact those
waters. Finally, NMFS determined that it was not enough to cover waters
where fish currently are found, but also that EFH should cover areas
where fish historically were found.
Rather than debate the definition in an academic manner, it is
illustrative to review how the definition is being implemented by NMFS.
The proposed EFH designations for salmon within the Pacific Fishery
Council include the existing geographic range of all salmon species and
much of their historical range.\2\ These maps illustrate the broad
brush used by the Fish Councils and NMFS in identifying EFH. Virtually
every watershed within Washington State is included within the EFH
designation. And, it is important to remember that the regulatory reach
of the EFH program, as devised by NMFS, includes a review of not only
the actions within designated EFH, but those activities outside EFH
that ``may adversely affect'' EFH. A vast landscape of NMFS influence
and control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See attached maps [Contact the Master Builders Association].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to its definition of the word ``essential'' NMFS uses a
very broad definition for the term ``adverse effect''. It is defined as
``any impact that reduces quality and/or quantity of EFH.'' This
includes any loss of prey or reduction in species fecundity. All
activities anywhere are likely to have some ``adverse effect''
somewhere on EFH as that term is now defined. As best we can see, there
is no limiting principle that would leave any activity outside of NMFS
purview.
We find especially troubling the question of lost ``prey.'' NMFS
states that actions that reduce the availability of prey species or
prey species habitat may be considered adverse effects on managed
species and EFH. Since NMFS offers no corresponding requirement that
the loss have some meaningful impact on the managed fishery, the loss
of a few prey or a whole population may qualify as an adverse effect.
Thus, actions, which have little or no impact on truly essential
habitat, may nonetheless be regulated under these provisions.
3. Information Used to Identify EFH
NMFS's interim final rule provides that data for identifying EFH
should be obtained from the ``best available information.'' The
regional Fish Councils are to use logbooks and local knowledge in this
identification. The information gathering procedures of both NMFS and
the Councils ignore non-fishing entities that are not given a
comparable role in providing information and shaping habitat
identification and recommendations. Nonetheless, we will be
significantly impacted by these regulations. The Council system is
complex, cumbersome, and unresponsive to non-fishing interests and
designed to promote the interests of the fishing community, not strike
a balance between fishing and non-fishing sectors.
The possibility that historic habitat may be designated as EFH
points out further problems with the EFH identification approach.
Presence of a species, either historic or current, in an area does not
mean that the species can survive or reproduce in that area. There
should be some assurances that information will be developed to
identify habitats that are truly essential--and not just potential or
historic.
4. Consultation Provisions
NMFS has stated to the regulated community that it will strongly
encourage the use of existing consultation and environmental review
processes to satisfy the EFH requirement. By contrast, the interim
final rule sets forth extremely stringent criteria for the consultation
that does not take advantage of existing processes.
For example, as part of the stringent consultation rules, the
regional Fish Councils have been given a role in determining whether
general concurrences may be used when allowing public review of the
concurrence. NMFS also hopes to develop agreements with the Councils to
coordinate comments and recommendations on actions affecting EFH. Thus,
through formal agreements with NMFS, the Councils will have a role in
determining the end product of an EFH consultation. All of these
changes make the consultation process even more difficult to deal with
for non-fishing, regulated entities--and they vest improper power in
the Councils.
As noted above, the homebuilders and other members of our coalition
have little input into the way the Councils act. Indeed, they are
heavily weighted to consider fishing interests. But, we will be
subjected to the regulatory power of the Councils through NMFS's
regulatory scheme. We do not believe this result was ever intended.
Indeed, it is notable that when the EFH concept was being developed
during the 1996 MSA reauthorization process, the views of the non-
fishing sector were never solicited. Why? Because, quite obviously,
Congress did not intend that inland interest groups be pulled into the
program. But, NMFS has now expanded the EFH program so extensively that
non-fishing interests are forced to become involved.
5. The EFH Assessment
NMFS has written that the EFH assessment must include an analysis
of alternatives ``particularly when an action is non-water dependent.''
Nothing in the terminology of the MSA, its legislative history, or case
law suggests that the Act covers non-fishing, non-water dependent
activities such as land development or construction activities, mining,
timber harvesting, etc. This particularized burden on federal agencies
to assess alternatives to non-water dependent actions is not only
unauthorized, it is also without any basis in reason. Why is it more
appropriate, in order to protect fish habitat, to consider alternatives
to non-water dependent activities when certain fishing (i.e., water
dependent) activities are acknowledged to contribute equally to EFH
degradation?
There are numerous other problems with the consultation process.
For example, the rule states that the purpose of the procedures is to
``promote the protection of EFH.'' This standard of providing
``protection'' is found nowhere in the MSA. NMFS may request further
review of any federal agency decision that is inconsistent with a NMFS
EFH recommendation. There is no authority for this requirement. The
acting agency need only respond in writing; NMFS cannot perpetuate the
consultation process or mandate a result in this manner.
6. Duplicative and Redundant Provisions
Without a doubt, there are activities that threaten fish habitat
that are causing fish populations to decline and affect commercial
fisheries. These activities should be regulated to ensure that their
impacts are minimized and mitigated. We, however, do not believe that
land-based activities are causing a significant enough adverse impact
to warrant the burdensome consultation process set forth in the EFH
interim final rule. This is not to say that many land-based activities
do not cause deleterious environmental impacts. However, for the most
part these impacts have been eradicated through the numerous federal,
state, and local laws and regulations already in place. The
environmental regulations established since 1970 have precluded
significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on all land,
whether it is essential fish habitat or not. Most coastal states
including Washington, California, Oregon have particularly stringent
environmental protection laws at the state and local levels. And, all
three states have comprehensive land planning and regulations
protecting environmentally significant areas and lands.
Over the past two years, NAHB, as well as other Coalition members,
have repeatedly asked the NMFS and the Fish Councils to identify the
adverse impacts to those areas considered Essential Fish Habitat that
are not already addressed by other regulations. Sediment and runoff,
for example, which can be problematic for many fish species, is largely
eliminated by the federal storm water program administered by the
Environmental Protection Agency and local storm water management
requirements. Consequently, NMFS's role in this heavily regulated area
adds little because runoff and pollutant discharge issues are well
defined, well regulated, and appropriately mitigated to the extent
possible by existing federal, state and local agencies.
We are concerned that the EFH program, as described in the NMFS
interim final regulations, already has grown into yet another
regulatory impediment imposed by Congress on businesses as a condition
to receiving a federal permit. A large variety of permits could be
affected. The EFH regulations could delay or halt altogether building
permits, timber permits, and other land-based activities in the Puget
Sound region.
NMFS often states that the EFH program is a voluntary information
gathering tool, yet it has promulgated a regulation that requires
action agencies to prepare EFH assessments and undertake other
mandatory measures and meet mandatory deadlines. Congress did not vest
NMFS with the power to impose these duties on other agencies and, if
the program is to be cooperative and voluntary as NMFS asserts, these
requirements must be deleted and replaced with cooperative mechanisms.
For example, Congress should direct NMFS to recast the program so that
NMFS will provide helpful information about truly essential habitat for
fish species of concern, allowing other agencies to consider that
information in their own reviews of projects without formal
requirements for EFH assessments and consultations.
Without this Congressional direction, there will undoubtedly be
permitting delays. The cost of getting permits will increase--due to
delays, due to the need to undertake consultation and prepare EFH
assessments, due to the inevitable slippage in deadlines that cover the
federal agencies, and due to the cost of complying with EFH
restrictions. Permits are likely to be subject to new restrictions. In
some cases, permits for activities are likely to be denied. And keep in
mind, these are not restrictions for species in danger of extinction,
they are restrictions to protect the habitat of all fished species, no
matter how plentiful or widely dispersed.
7. Lack of Information
This Committee and the public must be given sufficient information
about these consultations to evaluate the implementation of the EFH
program to date. The following information should be provided by NMFS
so that the American public and Congress are enabled some level of
meaningful review of EFH consultations to date:
(a) The number of consultations completed, by NMFS Region;
(b) The average time taken to complete a consultation, and
the range and distribution of time taken for each consultation
around that average;
(c) The average cost of each consultation, in dollars and
person-hours or full time equivalents (``FTEs''), and the range
and distribution of the costs of each consultation around that
average;
(d) The distribution and amount of that cost among NMFS,
action agencies, third party applicants for federal
authorizations, and others;
(e) The number of consultations in each category described
under the interim final rule: national general concurrences;
regional general concurrences; abbreviated, expanded, extended,
and supplemental consultations; and separately the number of
programmatic versus project-specific consultations;
(f) The number of documented ``no effect'' determinations by
action agencies, the number of these with which NMFS concurred/
did not concur, and the number of these for which an EFH
consultation was nevertheless completed;
(g) The number of consultations involving federal actions for
which ESA consultation was also completed, and the number of
these which involved ESA consultation with NMFS;
(h) The number of consultations involving federal actions for
which the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA)
documentation was also completed, and the category of NEPA
documentation completed (e.g., Environment Assessment or
Environment Impact Statement);
(i) The number of consultations involving other environmental
analysis documentation besides an EFH assessment, and the
number of these for which the environmental documentation
prepared for other purposes also served as the EFH assessment,
without modification to meet EFH consultation requirements;
(j) Other information about how EFH consultation was
consolidated or integrated with procedures such as NEPA, ESA,
Federal Power Act licensing procedures, and Coastal Zone
Management Act regulations for individual or collective
actions;
(k) Categories of activities for which EFH consultations were
completed, including the basic categories of fishing and
nonfishing, more specific federal action categories such as
Clean Water Act Section 404 permits and Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission power facility licensing or relicensing,
and more specific types of activities, such as timber sales,
road projects, marina developments, oil and gas drilling,
hardrock mineral extraction, housing subdivisions, agricultural
water diversions, and so on;
(l) How many EFH consultations have been initiated, but not
yet completed, and how long they have been pending; and
(m) The categories and representative examples of
recommendations made by NMFS in consultations, action agency
disagreements with such recommendations, and how these
differences were resolved.
We ask that this Committee request NMFS to compile this kind of
information in a format that facilitates understanding of the EFH
consultations which have occurred so far and that enables constructive
further comment.
Conclusion
The non-fishing sector does not oppose the EFH concept. Indeed, we
address these concerns regularly. However, we believe the actions set
forth in the EFH provisions are duplicative and redundant and we
seriously question the cost/benefit of this program. Even NMFS has said
that of the 2000 consultation to date, most were already covered by
some other environmental review. NMFS has also said that they strongly
encourage the use of existing consultation and environmental review
processes to satisfy the EFH requirements, yet the rule sets forth
extremely stringent criteria for the use of any such process.
When asked why the EFH definition is so broad that it now includes
almost the entire coastline of the United States, and substantial
upland habitats, NMFS points to the lack of guidance it received from
Congress. The 1996 Amendments, NMFS asserts, established a broad and
vague definition of the term. So NMFS moved in, filling what they
perceived as the void. It is important that Congress clearly define the
EFH provisions when it reauthorizes the Magnuson-Stevens Act this year.
Congress should also assist the American people by halting
implementation of the EFH program until more guidance can be provided
in the Act itself. Our coalition is, has been, and continues to be
engaged with NMFS and Congress in a discussion on how this program
should work and where we might help.
Thank you for your time today and consideration of our concerns.
Senator Snowe. Thank you, Mr. Anderson. I will start with
you.
Do you have any examples of how the EFH process has
directly affected your constituency and the industries that you
represent?
Mr. Sam Anderson. I do not in this region, but I can
provide you some through the National Association of Home
Builders.
Senator Snowe. Do you know of any specific examples
anywhere in this country where this has had a negative impact?
Mr. Sam Anderson. I have not personally been involved in
them, but I have been told by the National Association that it
has.
Senator Snowe. We have been getting testimony from others
who represent non-fishing interests. Did you ever think non-
fishing interests were intended to be covered by this
designation?
Mr. Sam Anderson. No, we did not. What I find interesting
in it is that about a year and a half ago, this came to light.
And we focused a lot of our attention in the building industry
out here on the Endangered Species Act and the listing of the
chinook, and all of a sudden, out of the blue, came the
essential fish habitat provisions that nobody thought we had
anything to do with essential fish habitat, fish management, or
the Pacific Fisheries Council or any of this other stuff.
Then, the next thing we know, in the building business,
suddenly there is a potential that our permitting activities
will be regulated through essential fish habitat and the
designation of significant inland waterways as essential fish
habitat. No, we were not prepared.
Senator Snowe. So you see it as another bureaucratic
impediment and overlay in the process?
Mr. Sam Anderson. Yes, we do.
Senator Snowe. It was intended to be a consultation
process, but that has become another matter. You believe it may
be too restrictive?
Mr. Sam Anderson. That is correct.
Senator Snowe. You believe the process causes delays and
complicates decisionmaking on federally permitted projects.
Dr. Fujita, can you tell me, are you satisfied with the
current provisions of essential fish habitat? You believe they
should be broad, is that correct?
Dr. Fujita. That is right, Senator Snowe.
Senator Snowe. You do not see any problems in the way that
it is being interpreted at this point? I would like to have Dr.
Sampson and Mr. Leipzig also comment on this issue. We have
heard considerable testimony from various witnesses at other
hearings about the broad interpretation of the essential fish
habitat provisions what was truly originally intended by EFH is
more similar to how the more narrow habitat areas of particular
concern are currently being defined.
Would you agree that there are some problems with the
overly broad interpretation of the essential fish habitat
provisions? We have even found that the entire Gulf of Maine
and the entire EEZ have been designated as EFH. Do you think
that such a broad designation was truly intended by the
original definition?
Dr. Fujita. I do not question the concerns of stakeholders
who feel that the EFH provisions have been overly interpreted
or too broadly interpreted. I am sure there are problems on the
ground. I am not aware of any in my region, in the Bay Delta.
EFH is not complicating the Bay Delta process to restore salmon
habitat. But, again, I am not going to question those people
who do have problems.
What I would say is that the narrow interpretation of
Federal and State laws that protect the environment, the
Balkanization of those laws and jurisdictions, has been a major
cause of habitat fragmentation and is one of the reasons we are
in the state we are in today with respect to salmon and, I
think in the future, with respect to marine habitat, if we do
not get our act together. The fact that water and forests and
riparian areas, flood plains, and fish were all under different
jurisdictions is one reason that the ecosystem has collapsed.
There has been a great need, and it has been brought to the
attention of management agencies and the Federal Government for
years by ecosystem scientists, for what we call an ecosystem
approach, in which the jurisdictions are swept aside and
natural systems, or rather human impacts on natural systems,
are managed with respect to ecosystem boundaries, not Federal
agency jurisdictions.
EFH is a first step in that direction. Because of its broad
definition, it enables NMFS to act as a coordinating agent and
bring together these disparate, well-intentioned though they
may be, but disparate efforts. Coordination is the key here.
And because it is a consultative process, I do not see any
inherent problem with that broad definition. I think it is very
helpful.
Now, as Will Stelle said before with respect to ESA
consultations, that is a different matter, because you are
talking about a big hammer and strong regulations that can
cause a lot of economic dislocation. But EFH need not be that
way and, in my view, it is not being implemented or interpreted
that way.
Senator Snowe. Dr. Sampson, you have a different point of
view. Do you think it is possible to narrow the definition,
making a distinction between essential and nonessential fish
habitats, and defining that in law without impairing the
conservation goals?
Dr. Sampson. I work primarily with the groundfish species
off the west coast here. And with most of those species, they
are very wide ranging and their different life stages have very
different requirements that essentially encompass the entire
EEZ. So it is hard for me to see how you could define it except
in very broad terms because of the requirements of these
groundfish species.
It is a different issue with salmon, where there clearly
are terrestrial concerns that are well-defined in space and
time. With many of the marine organisms, though, I do not think
that works.
Senator Snowe. Mr. Leipzig.
Mr. Leipzig. I cannot add much. My involvement is also with
groundfish. And so I echo Dr. Sampson's comments.
This is also an area that we have not, in the Pacific
Council, with the groundfish issue, really delved in deeply. We
have gone through the process of identifying essential fish
habitat, which is everything that is wet and salty. It covers a
broad area. There are certainly very site-specific areas that
should be very much of concern for certain species, where they
tend to aggregate for spawning purposes or where the juveniles
may live.
But, as Dr. Sampson points out, many of these fish, through
their life stages, will be covering a broad area. Many of them
will be pelagic for many, many months, covering the entire
ocean surface, until they settle out to the bottom. So it is
hard to know.
Senator Snowe. Dr. Sampson, you spoke extensively about the
quality of stock assessments and scientific data. What is the
one thing you think we should do to improve the quality of
data? Is it money? Does it simply come down to providing enough
resources to fund the scientific data?
Dr. Sampson. Certainly we do not have very good data. And
we do not have the long-term data series that you really need
to do things the way we have currently structured the system.
There are many types of data that are needed, and it is hard to
say exactly what the best way of going about providing that
data would be. I think we could do a lot more to explore how we
could improve the quality of our assessments from some
relatively inexpensive computer modelling exercises, where we
improved this type of data versus some other type of data, to
see what type of gains we make.
We have not engaged in very much of that at all. Instead,
we have taken a very hit-or-miss approach to providing this bit
of information here, providing some other bit of information
there, without looking comprehensively at what causes a stock
assessment to be imprecise.
But one message that I think is very important is that even
with very good data, we are not going to necessarily get it
right. And there are many examples of that in fisheries
science. So I think throwing money and collecting more data is
not going to fix what fundamentally is a problem of allocation
and too many fishermen chasing a limited number of fish.
Senator Snowe. Dr. Fujita, would you care to comment?
Dr. Fujita. Sure, thank you, Madam Chair.
Money is going to help, but it needs to be well spent. And
certainly research out here on the west coast has been grossly
mismatched to the research need and the scientific enterprise
that is required. I think that there are ways to leverage that
money. If we got more money to spend on research out here, we
could leverage it in many ways. One is through cooperative
research with fishermen, using fishing vessels as research
platforms. I think that the NMFS science team out here is
making great strides in opening that field up. And I think
fishermen are enthusiastic about that.
So it does two things. It puts a lot more eyes and ears out
there on the water collecting data in a scientifically credible
way. And it also increases the credibility of the science I
think, because the fishermen themselves are engaged in
cooperative factfinding.
Another way to do it is to engage academic scientists and
the graduate students and post-docs more effectively. Being a
former graduate student, I know that is an extremely cost-
effective way to do research. It may violate some slave labor
laws, but it is a good way to get science done cheaply.
[Laughter.]
And, third, I think that there has been a lot of emphasis
on data acquisition here. I do not think that is the only
answer, to do surveys all over the place with a big vessel that
cannot even sample rock piles where the rockfish live because
the net snags. That is not the most effective way to do
research. It will help, but it is not the only way to do it.
And submersibles are, I think, a smart way to go.
Also there are some theoretical problems in the basic
theory of marine ecology and how fish work that remain
mysterious. I think things like the National Center for
Ecological Analysis and Synthesis that the National Science
Foundation is funding are really important. Those issues may
seem far removed from our problems here, but one of the reasons
why we got into this mess is that we did not understand the
basic mechanisms that produce fish and how they interact with
each other. We did not know enough about the life histories of
these things. Those are basic scientific questions, and if we
do not start to answer them, we are just going to perpetuate
this problem.
Senator Snowe. Thank you.
Senator Gorton.
Senator Gorton. Dr. Sampson, I have a variant on one of
Senator Snowe's questions with respect to stock assessments.
And you say, and I think I am quoting from your testimony,
``the harvest quota system that has developed as a result of
the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act is unrealistically
complicated given the level of accuracy that we can reasonably
expect from stock assessments, and that we need to develop
fishery control systems that have simple data requirements and
to deal with data errors.''
Now, is that advice to us to amend the Act or advice to
fisheries Councils to change the way in which they do business?
With the three Senators here having to change the Act, do you
have a specific change in the Act that you would recommend in
order to reach that goal that you outlined?
Dr. Sampson. I think my comment there was specifically
directed at the guidelines produced by the National Marine
Fisheries Service with regard to the 1996 amendment. And their
interpretation of what is required for controlling harvest is
what I was complaining about. I think it has very unrealistic
expectations about what we can and cannot say about the size of
fish stocks.
Senator Gorton. Well, then, unless you think, I think
rather unrealistically, that the National Marine Fisheries
Service is going to listen to you, would you have a specific
recommendation to us in the way we instruct the National Marine
Fisheries Service in the statute in order to reach that goal?
Dr. Sampson. I am afraid I do not have a good answer. I
think the original SFA was probably appropriate in general, but
it was interpreted very narrowly. And I think that is what has
caused some problems.
Senator Gorton. Well, personally, I think you are probably
onto something. If you would think seriously about what we
might go through in the next few months to help you reach that
goal and communicate those thoughts with us, it may be of real
help. Otherwise, this is rather purely academic.
Mr. Sam Anderson, for you and for this new and rather
sudden and unexpected set of challenges, let me sort out some
of the concerns that you have. Rank in order, if you will, or
give me a couple of brief comments on it. Do you think too much
water has been defined as essential fish habitat or are you
primarily concerned with the effect of that broad designation
on activities on land? That is number one.
Just the designation, should the geographical designations
be much smaller than they are on the map that you showed us
there? Or is your primary concern with what the consequences of
the designation are? And is it your feeling that the National
Marine Fisheries Service is demanding too much and, therefore,
is going to have an adverse impact on the way in which you
create housing or any other kind of human development?
Mr. Sam Anderson. It is actually both. The first one, what
concerns us is they have so broadened the term ``essential'' as
to be almost all. Anything that is relevant or significant in
the ecosystem as it relates to salmon, we are going to call it
essential. So we have just wrapped our arms around everything.
That is why you see all of these counties in just about every
watershed west of the Cascades is now defined as essential
habitat, or anything that may affect the essential habitat. So
they brought all of that in. They cast a--pardon the pun--but a
fairly wide net, and just hauled in everything they could as
essential.
Why that bothers us is that now, all of a sudden, we have
this superimposed Federal overlay of a consultation process.
And frankly, from our perspective, if it is anything like the
Section 7 consultation processes that are going on now--now,
granted, there is a difference in the ESA--but they cannot
process anything. The National Marine Fisheries Service in this
region has a very difficult time consulting with anyone.
They do not have the people to do it, to get road projects
out now in the Puget Sound, King County, for example, and
Washington Department of Transportation have had to give them
bodies to get through this. So just to work your way through
the mechanisms of a consultation, a required and mandated
consultation process around here, in the context of the
Endangered Species Act is extremely difficult.
If you expand this now, sort of, not quite voluntary,
mandated consultation and you hang up our permits until somehow
NMFS gets through it, talks to the agency, has a right to
respond, comes back, makes more recommendations, our feeling is
that we are going to be waiting a long time to get some of
these permits back.
Senator Gorton. It does sound to me like it is the second
rather than the first. I take it the broad designation of
habitat, along the recommendations of Dr. Fujita, that it would
be an entire ecosystem thing, would be less burdensome if the
mandates were fewer and it were a more truly voluntary
consultation?
Mr. Sam Anderson. I think that is true, Senator.
Senator Gorton. And if great deference were given to the
traditional land use authorities and their decisions?
Mr. Sam Anderson. That is true, yes.
Senator Gorton. Do you think there are going to be many
consultations, the way they are setting it up now, required
under the endangered fisheries habitat that are not required
under the Endangered Species Act?
Mr. Sam Anderson. Yes. Because they have covered all
salmon, not just listed.
Senator Gorton. So it is not pure duplication; they are
going to be just a lot more?
Mr. Sam Anderson. Yes, I believe that.
Senator Gorton. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Snowe. Thank you.
Senator Stevens.
Senator Stevens. I am concerned, Mr. Anderson, about the
interaction of the coastal zone management concept, the
National Environmental Protection Act and the Endangered
Species Act and now the essential fish habitat. It does seem to
me that there ought to be some jurisdictional difference there.
NEPA requires a review for all significant Federal actions. And
the coastal zone management is really designed to give the
coastal communities tools to use in planning, as far as land
development was concerned, in order to protect the coastal
zone, which was in effect to protect the resources of the
oceans.
I do not know how to get a hold of this, but it does seem
to me that we ought to find some way to determine who is in
charge of the shop now. Ms. Dalton mentioned that there is
going to be one-stop shopping. But when I want a screwdriver, I
do not go to a supermarket. And really, when I want some fresh
orange juice, I do not go to a hardware store.
I really think we have got to define this down somewhere
and decide who is in charge, and stop this redundant
consultation concept that is going to be very expensive for
these Federal agencies. And as I said in Anchorage, I think we
are going to be spending money in consultations that we ought
to be spending to protect resources. So I think you have got a
point. But I do not know how we are going to get to it. And it
is another reason why some of these people who say, tell us by
April that you are going to pass this bill by October, had
better get busy. Because if your association is opposed to this
bill, it is not going to pass by October.
Thank you.
Senator Snowe. On that positive note, we thank you very
much.
Now the final segment of this hearing is known as the open
microphone session. If anybody desires to make a comment with
respect to the issues that were discussed here today, you can
sign up with Senator Gorton's staff if you have not done so
already.
Senator Gorton's staff is going to read off the names. We
will allow two minutes each for the 15 people who have signed
up. We will begin.
Mr. Schroeter. The first speaker is Jan Standaert. And
then, next up is Jude Henzler.
STATEMENT OF JAN STANDAERT, CREWMAN AND SKIPPER, DEEP SEA
FISHERMEN'S UNION
Mr. Standaert. Hello. Thank you for coming and inviting us
to testify. My name is Jan Standaert. I am with the Deep Sea
Fishermen's Union. I have been a crewman and a skipper over the
last 25 years. I have not owned a vessel. The whole time has
been spent on the deck.
I would like to say thanks again for inviting us. And I
agree with all of what Tim Henkel said. For years now, the
crewmen has been considered ancillary to the operation. And
with the passage of IFQ's, we have even, as Tim suggested,
become more ancillary.
One problem I have is that in the decisionmaking of the
Council process, crewmen have not been considered as being part
of the decisionmaking. I can recall a number of boat owners who
have been on the Council, but not one crewmen has been
considered to be a part of the Council.
I think that in the near future it will be imperative that
crewmen be used in the consideration, since in Alaska, for
example, in the future, most of the quota I believe will be
owned by crewmen, at least under the current rules. And current
rules are where a corporation cannot own second-generation
IFQ's and the owner of IFQ's has to be aboard a vessel. I
believe that most of the IFQ's will be in the ownership of
labor. And I think they need to be on the Council in order to
make those important decisions that will affect them.
That brings me to defend the crewmen in view of
corporations wanting to come in and own IFQ's. During the early
days of figuring out IFQ's in Alaska, crewmen got together and
were very emphatic about the corporations cannot own IFQ's, the
major reason being that we will be competing with big money.
And that is very difficult for a lot of us crewmen.
I see the red light is on, so thank you.
Senator Snowe. Thank you very much.
Mr. Schroeter. And then Jude Henzler, and then next up
would be Paul MacGregor.
Mr. MacGregor. I am going to pass.
Mr. Schroeter. Okay. Then Laura Deach.
STATEMENT OF JUDE HENZLER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BERING SEA
FISHERMEN'S ASSOCIATION
Mr. Henzler. Thank you, Madam Chairman. My name is Jude
Henzler, and I am the Executive Director of the nonprofit
corporation Bering Sea Fishermen's Association. Our main
membership consists of small boat fishermen and women,
principally Alaska Natives from the Arctic and Yukon and
Koskoquin River regions of Alaska. Our office is located in
Anchorage, Alaska.
I should stop and explain that my oldest daughter is a
firefighter for the City of San Jose, and I am obliged to wear
this jacket. I just came from a visit with her.
I wanted to talk to you today about the two things
regarding data acquisition in congressionally sponsored fishery
programs. The first thing is to inform you of one of the things
that we are doing with some special congressional funding at
BSFA. We think it is valuable and we want to make sure you are
aware of it.
Congress last reauthorized the Magnuson-Stevens Act in
September 1996, and included in that reauthorization the
adoption of the Western Alaska CDQ program, and at the same
time mandated a review and evaluation of that unique Alaska
program by the National Academy of Sciences. The Academy
accomplished this task last year, and its members concluded in
its report:
``More than any previous welfare or development initiative,
more even than the Native corporations, the CDQ program seems
to offer a viable way for local people to gain control over the
means by which they are articulated to the larger economy and
society.''
I point to the fact that in the above quote, the Academy
members say these fine things about the CDQ program, but at the
same time use the flaccid verb ``seems'' to deliver the good
news. What else could they do, though, for there are no hard
data to support the evidence of their eyes and their
experience, which instruct them that the CDQ program really is
a good thing?
I will cut to the chase here with the red light. Our
funding is going to end in August. I just hope that you realize
that a data base which we have established and started is the
only way you are really going to be measuring whether the CDQ
program is working. I do not know who would continue that work.
I would hope it is us, but we do not have the funding. I hope
that you will hear the good word and I will start an itch and
you will figure out some way to scratch it.
Thank you.
Senator Snowe. Thank you.
Mr. Schroeter. Laura Deach, and then Mark Powell.
STATEMENT OF LAURA DEACH,
WEST COAST LONGLINER
Ms. Deach. Madam Chairman, my name is Laura Deach, and I
longline off the Washington coast with my husband, primarily in
the sablefish fisheries. I have sat on the Pacific Fishery
Management Council individual quota, the three tier and the
buyback committees. I am one of the 26 percent of the fixed-
gear sablefish fleet off this coast that is supposed to be able
to catch their quota every year. And I despise the derbies that
I have had to suffer through for nine years.
I believe that the number one problem on this coast is
overcapitalization and the management tools that have been
used, including gear restrictions, time closures, license
limitation or limited entry, buyback programs, and trip limits.
They either lack the capacity to reduce overcapitalization or
they have failed.
I believe that individual quotas can get to the problem of
overcapitalization by allowing one fisherman to purchase
another fisherman out. As such, it is a personal buyback
program.
Mr. Stevens, I would dearly love to pay for my fishery if I
had a fishery anymore. But I do not, basically. We are reduced
to catching about one-sixth of what we caught 10 years ago. In
1991, I and several other people requested from the Pacific
Council an individual quota program that has never been allowed
to be enacted.
I wonder where the concern is for the windfall profit of
limited entry programs. The initial windfall was generated when
they gave licenses on this coast. Senator Snowe, I appreciate
your concern for the economic disaster that has fallen on the
west coast, but I think you people totally lack sometimes the
emotional or mental disaster that is also created. I loved my
fishery. I loved fishing. And I mourn it now like a dead lover.
Thank you.
Senator Snowe. Thank you.
Mr. Schroeter. Mark Powell, and then Mark Lundsten.
STATEMENT OF MARK POWELL, MARINE BIOLOGIST,
CENTER FOR MARINE CONSERVATION
Mr. Powell. Thank you, Madam Chair, Senators, staff, and
panel members. My name is Mark Powell. I am a marine biologist,
and I represent the Center for Marine Conservation. We support
the reauthorization goals of the Marine Fish Conservation
Network. A strong and effective Magnuson-Stevens Act will
rebuild depleted fish populations and rebuild depressed
fisheries.
It took a long time to reach the state we are in, with fish
and fishers hurting. It will take some time to get to recovery.
While dislocation of fishers is a serious problem that deserves
a response, continued overfishing of depleted stocks is not
that viable response.
The key elements of a strong Act are reducing overfishing,
reducing bycatch and reducing the habitat damage caused by
fishing. Regarding damage to fish habitat caused by fishing,
this is an important part of the Act that has not been well
implemented. Almost nothing has been done to reduce habitat
damage caused by fishing gear, such as destruction of bottom
habitats by trawling and other gear. Scientific studies have
shown the value of structure as cover for young fish.
Habitat damage may be a partial cause of observed core
survival of young fish, a problem usually blamed on natural
conditions. This issue is best addressed through the creation
of no-take marine reserves, which would allow habitat recovery
in some areas. Reserves would be good for fish and would
provide unimpacted areas for study.
Regarding the lack of data, the ocean is variable and is
hard to study. It is unlikely we will ever be able to acquire
detailed knowledge of all the elements in current models. We
need to focus on scientific principles that we do understand.
We need to establish protected areas to provide safe havens,
where fish are unimpacted by overfishing and habitat damage.
Then fish can survive natural fluctuations that they have for
millions of years and we will have a better opportunity to
understand which exactly are the human impacts.
Thank you.
Senator Snowe. Thank you.
Next.
Mr. Schroeter. Mark Lundsten, and then Stephen Taufen.
STATEMENT OF MARK LUNDSTEN, OWNER-OPERATOR OF AN ALASKAN
LONGLINER
Mr. Lundsten. My name is Mark Lundsten. I own and operate a
70-foot longliner in Alaska and off the coast and I fish for a
living on my boat. I am an original recipient of an original
allocation of black cod and sablefish and halibut IFQ's.
I would like to make a point about the fees and about
consolidation. First, about the fees, I think that, like our
fishery, other fisheries should support themselves, should be
self-sustaining. IFQ's raise the value of our resource to such
a level that the increase in funds to the U.S. Treasury just
from income taxes from fishermen and so on more than offset the
cost of the program by many times. Now we also have a 3 percent
fee which will more than cover our fees. And it is also funding
a program for loans to small operators and crew members which
has been spoken of quite a bit.
So I would suggest that to fill the lack of money for
scientific surveys and so on, you charge everyone a 3 percent
fee across the board, across the Nation, for all fisheries that
can afford it, that are not distressed. When you do that, you
will have an investment of the users into the science and it
will promote interaction between the scientists and the fleet,
which is probably the main impediment to good science these
days, especially, as I hear it, on the west coast and in New
England.
The other point I would like to make is just about
consolidation. You have heard a lot about overcapacity. We
suffered from it horribly in Alaska. The way you solve
overcapacity is you reduce capacity. When you reduce capacity,
you, of necessity, consolidate. We have done that. Not doing
that is the true path to marginalization and poverty among
fishermen.
If you have a child who is going fishing, you would rather
have them on a boat that is not one of those marginalized,
impoverished boats. You want them to go out, especially in the
Gulf of Alaska or the Bering Sea, on a boat that is well-
maintained, well taken care of, with good safety procedures and
all the equipment it needs to be safe at sea. That is what you
get when you get a reasonably consolidated fishery.
There is only so much product in the ocean you can take out
and process and make money on. And if you try to spread that
out too thin, it is not going to work. That fish can only
support so many reasonable jobs.
Thank you.
Senator Snowe. Thank you.
Mr. Schroeter. Stephen Taufen, Edward Paulsen.
STATEMENT OF STEPHEN TAUFEN,
GROUNDSWELL FISHERIES MOVEMENT
Mr. Taufen. I gave the clerk the two-page item for you.
Madam Chair and fellow taxpayer-paid Senators, my name is
Stephen Taufen, of the Groundswell Fisheries Movement. Let us
cut to the real chase. The most important issue listed in the
Congressional Research Service report on the reauthorization of
the Magnuson-Stevens Act is transfer pricing, the tax cheating
by foreign-controlled corporations in the United States
fisheries of the North Pacific.
In 1993, in self-defense, I became a Federal whistleblower
at the Internal Revenue Service on this issue. By 1997, the
International Branch, in Seattle, had formed a seafood
specialty group to delve further into this problem. During 1997
through 1999, I have lobbied the North Pacific Council, its
advisory and scientific panels on these issues. Many of you are
familiar with my writing in the industry press.
Senator Gorton, as a Washington State representative,
please note there is also a Board of Accounting case still
pending here, where CPA's could be looked at further for their
role as certified public accomplices.
You wonder how you are going to pay for fisheries
management and research costs and disaster assistance. Well, I
say enforce the tax laws against foreign-controlled
corporations. The IRS cannot do it alone. In 1979, abusive
transfer pricing was predicted in a Pacific Rim study on
fisheries investment to become the largest problem. For over
two decades, we have seen the abuse of creative accounting by
foreign-controlled corporations in the North Pacific. In 1992,
President Clinton ran for office on this issue of over-invoiced
imports and under-invoiced exports. In 1993, the House Ways and
Means Committee on Tax Oversight, known as the Pickle
Commission, dealt with it.
The General Accounting Office has produced several reports,
95-101 and 99-39. Overcapitalization is relative to the dollars
returned. We have not Americanized this fishery until we have
effectively dealt with the second-tier legislation on the
economic issues and looked at abusive transfer pricing and the
problems of foreign ownership and what it has meant in this
fishery.
Madam Chair, please see that this issue is adequately
covered and that effective action is taken.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Taufen follows:]
Prepared Statement of Stephen Taufen, Groundswell Fisheries Movement
The Congressional Research Service report #RL30215 on ``The
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act:
Reauthorization Issues for the 106th Congress'' includes the issue of
(ABUSIVE) TRANSFER PRICING.
[Excerpt from Draft Version, believed to be on page 34 in final draft.]
Transfer Pricing
``Commercial fishing interests are concerned about transfer
pricing, especially in North Pacific fisheries. This is not currently
addressed in the MSFCMA. `Transfer price' is the price charged by one
company to a related company, when they allocate income and expenses
among themselves. These `intrafirm transfers' are covered under IRS tax
code section 482. Some U.S. fishing companies allegedly are not
properly reflecting income attributable to their operations within the
United States, while some foreign parent companies may be using pricing
strategies to avoid higher U.S. taxes. In addressing `abusive' transfer
pricing, Congress could consider amending the MSFCMA to require full
disclosure of all financial documents and transfer pricing criteria to
U.S. authorities.''
Groundswell believes that Congress should enact specific
legislation in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Act Reauthorization bill to
enable increased ``Accountability and Transparency'' on this issue.
Fund a new review of the effects of FOREIGN OWNERSHIP
and its extended problems, including WHO NOW OWNS WHAT
COMPANIES AND VESSELS (including closely-held shoreside
vessels), TRANSFER PRICING ABUSES, ANTITRUST CONSIDERATIONS in
the US seafood industry, specifically in North Pacific
Fisheries.
Request/fund a GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE (GAO) REVIEW
OF ABUSIVE TRANSFER PRICING in Fisheries of the North Pacific,
and of CONFLICTS OF INTEREST on National Fishery Councils.
Legislate document and other accessibility clauses
that allow the Council and others to find out what has been
going on with Foreign-Controlled Corporations and their true
level of profitability, i.e. increase ``accountability and
transparency''.
Background:
Transfer Prices--controlled exchange prices between related
affiliates whenever they allocate income and expenses among themselves,
often in international transactions--are different than Arm's Length
Prices. The latter are what the price would have been if the sales or
services were between unrelated parties which literally stand ``at
arm's length'' from each other. The latter are often known as
``comparable, uncontrolled prices'' (CUP).
In the North Pacific seafood industry, one of the major problems
has been widespread abuse of IRS tax codes (e.g. Sec. 482 on Transfer
Pricing, Sec. 263A on capitalized costs, and Sec. 451-454 on
inventories, etc.), primarily by foreign-controlled corporations (FCC).
In large part, this has been by shoreside, Japanese-corporately-owned
fishing subsidiaries and their overseas parent firms. These
transnational firms do not operate in a ``free trade'' environment.
Rather, they are insulated from open market forces by their economic
structures, akin to bureacratic enterprises such as state trading
enterprises, which can avoid arm's length prices altogether, or can
exercise monopolistic powers.
Abusive transfer pricing, or ``over-invoiced imports and under-
invoiced exports'', (also known as ``product laundering'') accounts for
an estimated direct economic loss of over $200 million each year in
North Pacific fisheries. It dovetails with the problems of antitrust
(restraint of trade and price-fixing). For pollock alone, the effect in
one decade, when including economic multiplier effects, was to take
over $2.15 billion away from US fishers and their communities and
suppliers, and tax coffers.
It is imperative that Congress considers its effects within
legislation specifically addressing the industry-segment of fisheries.
(President Reagan asked Michael Porter of Harvard to address issues of
National Competitiveness and Porter concluded that it is within the
industry segment that competition is won. Certain nations become the
hosts for firms that dominate industries.)
The Groundswell Fisheries Movement has lobbied to present these
concerns as part of the Reauthorization issues. This follows up on
efforts before the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council over the
past three years concerning pollock allocations and other issues. The
industry Advisory Panel voted in April of 1998 on this issue, advising
the Council to consider its effects on markets and grounds prices etc.
The Council has been torn by conflicts-of-interest which include
foreign ``agents of influence'' and has failed to take an adequate look
at this problem and the extended concerns in the antitrust arena.
Additional information can be obtained by contacting me through the
Internet by e-mailing [email protected]. In addition, I have a paper
on ``WTO and Fisheries: An Issue of `Accountability and Transparency'
'' posted at the www.wtowatch.org site, under the Documents tab, under
issues such as Agriculture or Business and Industry. It is from a panel
presentation at the University of Washington's School of Marine Affairs
in October of 1998.
Senator Snowe. Thank you.
Mr. Schroeter. Edward Paulsen, and then Chris Doumit.
STATEMENT OF EDWARD PAULSEN,
PAULSEN FISHERIES
Mr. Paulsen. My name is Edward Paulsen, and I represent
three Bering Sea crab fishing vessels and have fished on these
vessels.
The crab industry is now facing an economic disaster, and
it is likely that a third to half of the vessels involved in
the Bering Sea crab fisheries will not be able to stay in
business over the next few years. And there is no relief in
sight for the industry. There is simply too much capacity.
I support both John Yanni's comments and Arnie Thompson's
comments, whom you heard from yesterday in Anchorage regarding
buybacks. I recently graduated from the School of Marine
Affairs at the University of Washington, and finished a thesis
on the feasibility of buybacks for the crab industry. I found
that a $60 million buyback, which at that time could have been
industry funded because the industry had not collapsed yet, but
a $60 million buyback was possible and was beneficial for the
industry. At this point, it seems like a minimum of $60 million
is necessary, and it is unlikely that the industry itself can
support such a buyback, at least in the near term, over the
next few years.
However, the greatest priority for the crab industry is an
individual quota-based system, such as co-ops or ITQ's.
Individual quotas are necessary in the crab industry for two
reasons, for both safety and conservation reasons.
I see the red light.
Senator Snowe. Are you finished?
Mr. Paulsen. I wanted to also say we have heard a lot about
the safety reasons of ITQ's or co-ops. But there is a big
conservation reason for co-ops in the crab industry, because it
slows the race for fish down and it allows the fishing gear to
actually do its job and minimize bycatch. That is the one
industry where you really can minimize bycatch by slowing the
fishery down.
Senator Snowe. Thank you.
Mr. Schroeter. Chris Doumit, and then Todd Hiner.
STATEMENT OF CHRIS DOUMIT, WASHINGTON COAST CRAB FISHERMAN AND
COMMISSIONER, COLUMBIA RIVER CRAB FISHERMEN'S ASSOCIATION, ON
BEHALF OF CHAIRMAN DALE BEASLEY
Mr. Doumit. Madam Chair and Committee, my name is Chris
Doumit. I am a Washington Coast crab fisherman and a
Commissioner with the Columbia River Crab Fishermen's
Association. I also gill net in Bristol Bay, Alaska, and we
tender in Bristol Bay, Alaska, as well as the South Peninsula.
I am here today basically as a courier for our
chairman of the Columbia River Crab Fishermen's
Association, Dale Beaseley, and he has got a written
commentary. I am not going to read his comments, although I
agree with it. It is on sound science and data collection that
was covered earlier.
I just want to make sure it is part of the record.
Senator Snowe. It will be included as part of the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Beaseley follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dale Beaseley, Commissioner, Columbia River Crab
Fishermen's Association
My name is Dale Beasley. I am commissioner of the Columbia River
Crab Fisherman's Association (CRCFA) thirty-five year commercial
fisherman, and strong advocate for a healthy marine environment. Thank
you for the opportunity to appear before you today and welcome to
Seattle, Washington.
My testimony today will address four issues of the Act: l)sound
science, 2) Essential Fish Habitat, 3)cumulative effects on mans'
intervention into the ocean, and 4) extended state management
jurisdiction of the Dungeness crab fishery off Washington, Oregon, and
California.
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, NMFS, and the states. Developing
measures to eliminate over-fishing is relatively easy. Determining
whether a fish stock is overfished or if over-fishing 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 data collection efforts over the years have improved
through state and federal cooperation and fisherman involvement 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 he a high standard, in
practice is difficult if not impossible to achieve. Standards of data
collection need to be developed that adequately protect marine habitat
and resources from anthropogenic adverse invasive impacts. The greatest
threat to our ocean resources is our own ignorance.
A good example of recent failure in data collection for protection
of habitat is in the new deep water dredge disposal site at the Mouth
of the Columbia River. The final environmental impact statement related
to this site does not require any biological monitoring until 50% of
the site is buried by several feet of sediment in a two year time
frame. Do to the excessive size of the site and the projected
quantities of dredge material anticipated for the site, biological
monitoring will never be required. Precious, unique, and irreplaceable
aquatic environment will be irreparably damaged and removed from
commercial production without quantification of losses for mitigation.
Ocean sediment disposal sterilizes the marine environment for
commercial production, Without this important data collection,
mitigation of ecosystem losses is impossible.
Attitudes about our marine environment have to change, becoming
more protective. For fishermen to successfully contribute to coastal
economies, preservation of habitat is essential. I would like to quote
a response the US Army Corps of Engineers made to a comment letter sent
in on the Draft EIS found in the FEIS (Final Environmental Impact
Statement), Volume II: Draft EIS Comments and Responses, Integrated
Feasibility Report for Channel Improvements and Environmental Impact
Statement, Columbia & Lower Willamette River Federal Navigation
Channel, page 18 of the Paul King letter, ``The Corps has no legal
obligation under NEPA to ensure the scientific integrity of its
studies,'' further stating, ``The Corps is entitled to rely upon its
own experts' studies and under no circumstances need it affirmatively
defend those studies scientific integrity'', and if this were not
enough the Corps went on to say ,``Even if the comments had produced
some evidence that the Corps' experts lack proper qualifications or
relied upon flawed scientific methods that evidence would not discredit
or otherwise render the Corps' studies or its EIS legally inadequate.''
This attitude needs fixing, now. The Congress can do the fix by
disallowing any questionable of shaky scientific informational use in
making decisions related to ocean resources. Government agencies like
EPA, US Army Corps of Engineers, and NOAA that make decisions related
to our oceans must be held to the highest standards of scientific
integrity possible. If investigations are not done and done properly,
uninformed decisions will be made that cause resource losses to our
fisheries. Sound science is a must requirement.
Essential Fish Habitat
The Columbia River Crab Fisherman's Association is supportive of
the concepts contained in the 1996 EFH provisions. Proposed habitat
modifications that may significantly impact essential fish habitat must
be scrutinized with the value of these habitats in mind. We further
recommend Our nation's goal should become NO NET LOSS OF HABITAT.
It has been our experience within the last years that existing
procedures of review and consultation have generally been ineffective
off the West Coast. It would seem that the EFH amendment would 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. At the Mouth of the Columbia River (MCR) no
official consideration or consultation occurred between NMFS and the US
Army Corps of Engineers when designating a new deep water ocean dredge
disposal site in the West Coast's premiere flatfish nursery area at MCR
in an area designated EFH by the Pacific Fisheries Management Council.
In our opinion the area should have been designated as an HAPC (Habitat
Area of Particular Concern). This opinion is based on twelve years
trawl experience in the area. CRCFA recommended a disposal site several
miles to the west out of the flatfish nursery area. Dredging economics
took precedence over natural resource degradation. CRCFA is appalled
that EFH was not formally considered in the process by NMFS, especially
in light of the Corps' statements related to scientific integrity of
its' studies when applied to the deep water site. New ocean disposal
sites should be mandatory NMFS consultation that result is mitigation
for lost habitat and natural resources. The old adage of just letting
the coastal communities pay the debt through lost habitat and resources
has got to change, NO NET LOSS Of HABITAT OR RESOURCES must become the
goal.
Essential Fish Habitat needs more protection from ocean dumping
than the Corps and EPA are willing to provide. Sediment testing
standards found in the Dredged Material Evaluation Framework Lower
Columbia River Management Area produced by Corps and EPA will allow
sediments to come to the ocean from thirty miles upriver without any
mandatory contamination testing, citing exclusionary criteria. CRCFA
would like to see the more stringent guidelines of the NOAA National
Status and Trends Program applied. Sampling and Analytical Methods of
the National Status and Trends Program's National Benthic Surveillance
and Mussel Watch Projects should apply to any new ocean disposal sites.
In fact the Columbia area should be placed in the program for
reoccurring national testing. NOAA sampling and analytical methods are
six times more sensitive in indicating contamination in the sediments
than EPA's. Considering that the Columbia River is the number one
ranked river in the entire United States in quantities of carcinogen
material intentionally released into the river under permit, it is
extremely questionable why NMFS would not require consultation in prime
EFH and allow untested sediments complete exclusionary status. Even if
the sediments were found to be 100% clean and acceptable for ocean
disposal, EFH will still be irreparably altered and prime habitat
changed forever by this proposed dumping.
Essential Fish Habitat should be extended to species not under
federal management. A good example is Dungeness crab, the highest
dollar commercial marine species in both Washington and Oregon. This
species is under state management and must have available EFH
considerations to fully manage the species throughout its range.
Degradation of marine habitat without mitigation is totally
unacceptable. Compensatory mitigation of marine habitat loss has to
become the standard by which all new invasions into the ocean are
executed.
Cumulative Effects
The Act should look closer at cumulative effects of actions taken
over a period of years. Again I will use the deep water site at the
Mouth of the Columbia River as example. The recent Environmental Impact
Statement concludes no unacceptable significant effects on other uses
of the ocean would occur. CRCFA analysis of the value of habitat to the
fishery is approximately 122,000 pounds of Dungeness crab per square
mile per year of area fished. The deep water site's projected use is at
least fifty years and includes over fourteen square miles. Potential
loss to the fishery over this time period is estimated at 87,230,000
pounds of crab alone if the entire site is devalued for the fifty year
time frame. Even at half that rate, the cumulative impact is highly
significant and cannot continue to be ignored. Coastal resource
dependant fishing communities can ill afford to lose this kind of
positive fishery production. This loss analysis does not include
entrainment mortality, which could be more significant than disposal
activity. Cumulative effects need more mandatory attention and must he
considered as a real cost to the project in determining cost/benefit
ratios of the overall project. All future WRDA bills must take
cumulative environmental losses into the cost of doing business. When
the fisherman pays, the nation pays.
State Jurisdiction
The 1996 and 1998 amendments to the Act added language to address a
state's authority to manage Dungeness crab resources outside the
boundaries of the states to the limits of the EEZ. At this time there
is no compelling federal need to manage the coastal crab fishery. The
Pacific Fisheries Management Council is over-burdened with current FMP
obligations and is not desirous of additional responsibility or
expense. In fact the Council has on two prior occasions recommended
continued state management of the Dungeness crab resource. Council
authority for this extremely valuable fishery is not usurped, it can
develop an FMP at any time need arises.
The Washington, Oregon, California Coast is a very large diverse
area. State management of the Dungeness crab resource has a long,
successful, cooperative, effective management history which offers
strong conservation measures and maximum sustainable yield. Dungeness
crab is the only successful West Coast fishery that can harvest at
maximum sustainable yield with certainty and guarantee the future of
the resource Basic regulation is the 3-S [size, sex, season]. Other
conservation measures include escape rings for undersized crab and
biodegradable link to prevent ghost fishing of lost gear. Bi-catch
mortality associated with other fisheries is not a problem. Limited
entry is in place in all three states. Other effort reduction is in the
early stages of development with an interim pot limit in Washington and
talks of effort reduction in Oregon and California. Over-capitalization
is starting to be addressed.
Fishermen in all three states still overwhelming support continuing
the Dungeness crab provision in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. State
managers should be able to use all the states laws to manage the
fisheries. The one area that could use stronger and more direct
language for protection and preservation of Dungeness crab is habitat
protection. Without habitat protection, the crab fishery is only
partially managed. Extension of EFH provisions or extending state
habitat protection without question to state managers of the crab
resource will further provide additional conservation protection to a
very valuable resource.
Indian nation treaty obligations are being met because of the Act's
management authority.
Management of the resource throughout it's range can he
accomplished while accommodating regional variation, It is far easier
and economical for stakeholders to interact with state agencies and
commissions than commute to Washington D.C. On a state by state basis
what seems important locally will not get lost in a much larger federal
bureaucracy. Micromanagement is much easier to accomplish at the state
level. Interstate agreements are achievable and in place for variation
in soft-shelled season openings. Federal management of the Dungeness
crab resource will not improve economic returns to the fishery or the
nation.
Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission has acted as a moderator
and consolidator of coastal management in aiding formulation of limited
entry in all three states. These entry requirements have recently been
successful in protecting coastal fishing community structure.
There are no conflicts between the states which require federal
management of the fishery. Boundaries between the states are well
defined and not in dispute.
The crab fishermen in the coastal slates are supportive of
reauthorization of state management of the Dungeness crab resource.
Habitat protection for crab and other state managed species, needs
attention.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment in a regional setting The
Columbia River Crab Fisherman's Association is grateful that you chose
Seattle for one of your national hearing sites. We hope you come back.
Senator Snowe. Thank you.
Mr. Schroeter. Todd Hiner, and then Wade Bassi.
STATEMENT OF TODD HINER, KODIAK, ALASKAN CRAB FISHERMAN AND
OWNER-OPERATOR
Mr. Hiner. Madam Chair, I am Todd Hiner. I have just flown
in from Kodiak. We tried to make the Anchorage meeting, but
with such short notice over there, we flew down to Seattle
here.
I was born and raised in Alaska. I am an owner-operator of
a crab fishing vessel. I am very concerned about how fast the
push for co-ops is in my fishery. I have been crab fishing for
37 years. I have owned and operated a boat for the past 25
years. My dad pioneered crab fishing in Alaska. We have over 45
years of experience in this fishery.
IFQ's were pushed through our community with high
opposition to it. I see the same push going for co-ops that are
not proven. I speak for a lot of fishermen who never have liked
politics. I am very nervous about this process. There are so
many hidden agendas. The independent fishermen's voices need to
be heard. We are the ones who made this fishing industry. We
have been in it for the long haul. Please let us be a part of
this decision process. Let our voices be heard.
Please do not take the free enterprise and competitive
spirit out of fishing. It has worked for us for over 40 years.
Leave it alone. I have made a good living and am raising five
children who want to fish. Every fishery has its ups and downs.
Please do not take drastic measures on ours.
We are Alaskans that have let boats come in from all around
the country to fish our waters. Now a lot of boats in and out
of our State have built big track records. How can we give away
a resource like IFQ's or co-ops to people and companies? How
can you justifiably give someone a resource for the rest of
their life? I do not want a retirement program. We want a
license and a right to fish. It is easy and it works.
Do not force the small boat operators, owners and crews out
of a business with co-ops and IFQ's. That is pretty much it.
Thank you.
Senator Snowe. Thank you. Thank you for coming down.
Mr. Schroeter. Wade Bassi, and then Bart Madison.
STATEMENT OF WADE BASSI, OWNER-OPERATOR
FISHING VESSEL POLARIS
Mr. Bassi. My name is Wade Bassi. I am owner-operator of
the fishing vessel Polaris. And we are currently involved in
the sablefish/halibut fishery in Alaska.
Over the past years that we have been involved, I have
noticed a lot of changes. We have been much safer. There has
not been the big rush for fish. And we have been able to
harvest our fish not easier but a lot more--how do you say it--
we have gotten more fish than--we have not wasted the fishery
like we used to waste it, where it was a big rush for fish.
I would like to have this available for other fisheries
also. So I would like to have the Councils be allowed to use
this as an option. I think that they should have all their
options available to make it the most efficient fishery and
also the best for the fishermen that are involved in it.
I would like to also see that the Councils, the individual
Councils in the region, which are most familiar with the
regions and the way that the fishery is operated, be allowed to
make the decisions on how the different options could be put
into the management system. It is imperative that the industry
itself also be greatly involved in the decisionmaking, because
we are the ones who are affected most by it.
I feel that the way the Council system is run now, me as a
fisherman in the industry myself, I cannot take the time to go
to all these meetings and get my input. And when you attend
these meetings, there is a lot of--they jump around from one
thing to the other and you never know when your particular
issue is going to come up. I would like to see fishermen and
the industry itself more involved in these decisions.
Thank you.
Senator Snowe. Thank you.
Mr. Schroeter. Bart Madison, and then Arnie Lee.
STATEMENT OF BART MADISON, TACOMA, WASHINGTON, RECREATIONAL
FISHERMAN
Mr. Madison. Senator Snowe, members of the Committee, my
name is Bart Madison. I am a recreational fisherman from
Tacoma, Washington. And I would like to speak to you today
about conflict of interest rules that exist in the existing
legislation, and perhaps a need for some help.
First of all, I would like to congratulate Senator Gorton,
yourself and Senator Stevens for the effort that you put into
implementing these conflict of interest and reclusion rules
which had never been in the Act before as far as I understand.
In your opening remarks in Maine, Senator Snowe, you said:
``Today we will be hearing testimony about breakdowns in the
public process that have led to the adoption of less than
adequate management measures.''
One of the testifiers there, Peter Emerson, from the
Environmental Defense Fund, observed that the fishing industry
interests dominate the Councils, the public interest should be
adequately represented, and decisions should be made in the
public interest. He recommended amending the Act to ensure
broader representation of public interests and to require the
Governors to consult with conservationists on their
appointments.
In Texas, Wilma Anderson, of the Texas Shrimp Association,
eloquently described to you how the faulty process in
management had skewed the rules and the advantages away from
Texas recreational and commercial fishermen.
Peter Shelley, Vice President of the Conservation Law
Foundation in Maine, asked the rhetorical question: ``Is the
Congress satisfied with the conflict of interest rules that are
in place?''
Dr. Fujita just testified about certain decisionmaking
processes which appear to be flawed.
I have read the Act, and there is a phrase there which
bothers me, that I would like for you to look at a little more
closely. I think it is Section 302(j) paragraph 7, it says:
``A Council decision shall be considered to have a
significant and predictable effect on a financial interest if
there is a close causal link between the Council decision and
an expected and substantially disproportionate benefit to the
financial interests of the affected individual relative to the
financial interests of other participants''--and here is the
part that bothers me--``in the same gear type and sector of the
fishery.''
Now, I look at that in this manner. In the Network Council,
for example, if we are all at some point or another in our
careers involved in the salmon fishery, and the question comes
to increasing harvest levels on chinook in southeast Alaska,
why should not we all vote for that? Because we all participate
in the same gear type and fishery. We might be inclined to do
that in spite of sound scientific evidence that tells us that
we should not do it because we are damaging the fishery.
So I would like for you to take a look at that. And I will
offer you a draft of this, and then followup with a message.
Thank you.
Senator Snowe. Okay, I appreciate that. We will include it
in the record. Please give it to the Committee.
Senator Snowe. Mr. Schroeter.
Mr. Schroeter. Arnie Lee and then John Bruce.
STATEMENT OF ARNIE LEE, COMMERCIAL FISHERMAN AND OWNER-OPERATOR
Mr. Lee. My name is Arnie Lee. I am a commercial halibut
fisherman and black cod fisherman. I own my own vessel here.
I started fishing in 1964 with my father, through the
present. So I have seen an industry that was slightly
overcapitalized in 1964 go to an extremely overcapitalized
system, and then into an IFQ system. And one issue that
sometimes gets overlooked is the families and the men that work
on these boats and what happens with the systems that develop
when they get highly overcapitalized. We went for two or three
months at a time away from home, because that was just the way
the seasons were set up and we had to do it.
And it was tough on the families and the people, and
especially with families being home and knowing that we are
pushing things to the limit because there is only so much time
and so much fish, and we have to get it when it is available.
So there is stress on the families back home, worrying about
their husbands, or their wives, if they are out there fishing.
And it was tough on the kids.
With the system we have now, we can slow things now if we
need to. And we all have slowed things down. If we were still
under open access fisheries, my crew--I have been very
fortunate, they have been with me for 11 to 24 years, and my
son is the most recent, in just the last couple of years, but
the rest of them have been with me a long time, so they are
family--and I would have to let go some of those people,
because they would not be as productive. I could not operate in
that competition system.
And I remember, as a 17-year-old, when I first started
fishing, after my second year, I was standing on board with the
crew of the fishing vessel Tongas, and the crew there was the
average age of 68. And I thought, as a 17-year-old, how can
they do that?
Well, I hope, as I grow older and my crew grows older, I
can slow it down a little bit so they do not have to be
displaced in their mid-forties. Because I have friends now who
are in the crab fishery, and they say, ``I cannot do it any
more,'' and they are in their forties. And they say, ``I have
to quit.''
We have to be concerned about people and families and how
our management decisions affect them also.
Thank you.
Senator Snowe. Thank you.
Mr. Schroeter. John Bruce, and then Mike Barrow.
STATEMENT OF JOHN BRUCE
Mr. Bruce. Madam Chairman and panel members, thank you for
being here today.
You have heard a lot today about IFQ's. And most of it has
been positive. I fished for 30 years in the Gulf of Alaska and
the Bering Sea in the small longline fleet out of Seattle. I
have a son that is up there now. And I am interested in seeing
this positive program, that has been developed continue on in
other fisheries.
We spent 10 years developing that program. We did not do it
in Washington, D.C. We did it in the region. And we dotted most
of the i's and crossed the t's. And we did not run to
Washington, D.C. and ask for a fix, like has been done recently
in the other groundfish fisheries.
And the reason that this IFQ program is working so well is
because it was developed in the region and it was thought out
clearly. And I find it amazing myself that after a few years
with this program, we have not had major changes to the
program. We are doing some fixing, but it is very minor in
comparison to the huge change in management philosophy with
IFQ's.
So I think it is important that we think about what we are
doing with IFQ's. If the crab fleet would have gotten on the
bandwagon and piggy-backed with the longline fleet, I doubt
that we would have the problem today. A lot of those crabbers
are my friends, and I have fished with them, worked for them
and with them, and the position that they are in is appalling.
And had they had the opportunity five years ago to do what we
did, you would not face the problems that you are facing today
with that opilio and that crab fleet out west.
So the IFQ program is working. You have heard lots of
positive things. And I would like that opportunity extended to
other fisheries in the U.S.
Thank you.
Senator Snowe. Thank you.
Mr. Schroeter. Mike Barrow, and then Larry Hendricks.
STATEMENT OF MIKE BARROW,
BRISTOL BAY DRIFT NET ASSOCIATION
Mr. Barrow. Senator Snowe, members, thank you for the
opportunity to speak.
I am here representing the Bristol Bay Drift Net
Association on the issue of Russian interception of salmon
stocks. I have worked in both the government sector and in the
fishing industry over the years with projects and operations in
Alaska, Canada, Russia, and China. My clients and I believe
that large quantities of Alaskan and other North American
salmon are being intercepted at sea by catching efforts
operating within and near the area of the Russian EEZ 200-mile
zone.
The interception is believed to be causing great economic
losses to the Yukon-Koskoquin and the Bristol Bay fisheries and
the local and extended economies. The primary document of
fishery efforts impacting these high sea runs are the Japanese
factory gill net fleet, who pay large fees to the Russians.
Additionally, the Russians are gearing up in this area both
with licensed fisheries and renegade fishery fleet.
Additionally, it is our understanding currently the
Russians have no serious monitoring enforcement systems in
place for this fishery or a comprehensive management plan in
place. The negative economic impacts on Alaska communities and
the Alaskan fish industry are very serious. First, millions of
returning salmon that are unavailable to the fishers and the
processing industry, as well as the declines in pricing from
cheap Russian fish that is hitting the market.
Due to the urgency of the situation and having talked to
Representative Young on this, he is very concerned about this,
and urged us to come forward to this Committee to see if we
could find areas where we could begin to see some relief for
this area. We understand that long-term solutions will require
the Russians have in place monitoring and enforcement
management systems and agreements between Russia and the North
Americans for protecting the salmon runs.
Currently there are steps we feel that can be taken in the
fairly immediate future to start addressing this problem. One
is to put in place a gill net and trawl survey along the
Russian maritime border, following the fishing effort. This can
document the origin of the salmon caught migrating through the
Russian EEZ.
Secondly, increase the capabilities and efforts of the U.S.
Coast Guard to monitor the fishing activities and offloading at
sea of the fleet in and near the Russian 200-mile EEZ, working
with the Defense Department, Coast Guard, NASA, and using more
sophisticated techniques, such as acoustics and satellite
systems to monitor the activities. It is our understanding
currently that the Russians do not have the capabilities to
monitor their own fleet in this area. And if they cannot, we
should.
Increase funding and focus from NMFS and the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game to prioritize this area. Currently,
out of the $2 million in disaster funds that are being used in
Bristol Bay and the $6 million for Yukon-Koskoquin, no monies
are being used for identifying and documenting this problem.
And that should be corrected.
Have NMFS sample products being offloaded at the ports of
destination to determine the fish of origin and the quantities,
as well as put someone in NMFS to focus in on this, to
coordinate this effort. This was done in the seventies and the
eighties for the high sea pirate fish and it needs to be done
for the Russian interception problem.
And finally, establish a salmon genetic data base for fish,
for the salmon from origins in North America and Russia. If we
get the samples, we get the fish in the surveys, we need quick
and cost-effective ways to genetically identify the origin of
these fish. My interest is to explore with you ways to find
additional solutions to this problem. You are well aware of the
economic impacts that are being felt in western Alaska. And if
nothing is done, it is going to get much worse.
Thank you.
Senator Snowe. Thank you.
Ms. Bumpus. Next we have Larry Hendricks, and then John
Crowley.
STATEMENT OF LARRY O. HENDRICKS, ALASKAN CRAB FISHERMAN
Mr. Hendricks. Good afternoon, Senator Stevens and Senator
Snowe. My name is Larry Hendricks, and I currently fish in
Alaska, and I have fished there for the last 38 years. I would
like to submit this letter of recommendations for changes in
the Magnuson-Stevens Act Fisheries Act. Our Alaska crab
fisheries have been decimated with State and Federal restraints
on how to conduct our business.
My past history of fishing crab for 38 years include all
species of king and snow crab. I have witnessed the decline of
all major fisheries in the Kodiak, Southern Alaska Peninsula,
Bering Sea, Pribiloff Islands, Saint Matthew, and the Aleutian
Chain areas under the current open access system. With the open
access race to harvest our resources, many of the existing laws
are causing the fishermen to contribute to the decline of our
own crab resources. Many safety and environmental issues could
be addressed with a quota or share system for the crab fishing
vessels.
As for the processing sector, possibly a limited number of
processing licenses could be issued. Currently we have
competition between them, and I do not see many problems other
than maybe a shift in the vessels to the most efficient plant.
For the entire group of crab fishermen, we need help in
creating a quota or share system to protect our fishermen and
slow our fisheries down.
Just as the land in the 1800's was divided up during the
homesteading era, the days of our open ocean are over. And we
are in need of similar help to rebuild and protect the
resources in the new millennium. We have some serious problems
here and we have to slow the fisheries down. And we cannot do
it with the existing laws. All our laws do now is cause us to
decimate our own resource. If we can have control over our own
fisheries, fish them during sane current periods, when we can
be safe, and then we can harvest them and let our gear work
efficiently instead of competing and racing against each other,
we would be a heck of a lot better off.
Thank you.
[Correspondence of Mr. Hendricks follows:]
Letter of Recommendations of Larry O. Hendricks
F/V SEA STAR
Larry O. Hendricks
GOT YAS LLC.
1110 N.W. 50th
Seattle, Washington 98107
Senator Olympia Snowe
U.S. Senate Committee
Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Dear Senator Snowe,
I would like to submit this letter of recommendations for changes
in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Act. Our Alaskan crab fisheries have
been decimated with state and federal restraints on how to conduct our
fisheries.
My past history fishing crab, thirty-eight years, includes all
species of king and snow crab. I have witnessed the decline of all
major crab fisheries in the Kodiak, Southern Alaska Peninsula, Bering
Sea, Pribilof Islands, St. Matthew, and Aleutian Chain areas under the
current open access system.
With the open access race to harvest our resources, many of the
existing laws are creating the fisherman to contribute to the decline
of our crab resources. Many of the safety and environmental issues
could be addressed with a quota or share system for the crab fishing
vessels.
As for the processing sector, possibly a limited number of
processing licenses could be issued. Currently we have competition
between them and I do not see many problems other then maybe a shift in
vessels to the most efficient plant.
For the entire group of crab fisherman, we need help in creating a
quota or share system to protect our fisherman and slow down our
fisheries. Just as the land in the 1800's was divided up during the
homesteading era, the days of the open oceans are over, and we are in
need of similar help to rebuild and protect our resources in the new
millennium.
Thank you,
Larry Hendricks
Senator Snowe. Thank you.
Ms. Bumpus. John Crowley, then Jack Crowley.
STATEMENT OF JOHN CROWLEY, LONGLINE FISHERMAN AND VESSEL OWNER
Mr. John Crowley. Thank you, Madam Chair, for this great
privilege of being able to come before this Committee and make
these public comments to members of the most important and
powerful lawmaking body in the world.
My name is John Crowley. I own a 69-foot longliner out of
Seattle, and I am the third generation longline fisherman. I
started at 11 years old, in the year of 1959, with my father. I
was the dishwasher. I learned to wash dishes real good.
My grandfather came to Alaska in 1911, and entered the
longline fishery in 1916. We have been a longline family and
vessel owners since that year. This year we marked 84 years of
family involvement in that fishery.
The last several years before the dawn of the IFQ system
were probably the worst that I recall due to overcapitalization
and the race for fish. The quality was way down, safety was way
down, people were dying, and vessels were being lost. And the
public was eating mostly frozen halibut.
In 1995, which signalled the big change when the IFQ came
in, the dawn of the IFQ fisheries, stability finally reached
our fisheries. As a family, we received an initial allocation
of IFQ's. We bought some and we leased some. Safety went way
up. Quality went way up. And consumers now get halibut eight
months out of the year. It is especially pleasing to go to a
restaurant like Chinook's in Seattle and sit and watch four or
five or six or eight people order fresh halibut on the menu
there eight months out of that year.
Further, we go to visit our in-laws down in Gridley,
California--most people have never heard of Gridley,
California--they have one restaurant there, and they have fresh
halibut on their menu. It is certainly pleasing to be able to
know that we are a part of that.
Overcapitalization has changed and gone down. And that is
because of the IFQ program. We as an industry have funded our
own buyback by just buying out other people in the fishery who
want out. There are hundreds of fishery loans now, totaling
over millions of dollars, and many fishermen, individually,
including myself, have borrowed over a million dollars to
improve our position in the IFQ fishery. We have not burdened
the public with government loans. We have done it on our own.
Through the IFQ's we have been able to accomplish this
buyback and also reduce overcapitalization, on our own. Last
year on our vessel, we sold 100 percent of our product in the
State of Alaska, where I was born and raised and where my heart
is. Generally, we sell well over 90 percent of our product
there, bringing home only the last trip to Seattle.
The halibut and the black cod fishery of the North Pacific
are world-class models of the best managed fisheries in the
world. At a time when many fisheries around the world are being
depleted, these two healthy fisheries are certainly in a
wonderful position, and due mostly because of the IFQ system.
I urge you to reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Act and hold
intact our program as it is. I also urge you to lift the
prohibition of future IFQ's. They have certainly proven their
wealth as one of the best management tools available to you
folks.
Thank you.
Senator Snowe. Thank you.
Next.
Ms. Bumpus. Jack Crowley, then Darrell Knudson.
STATEMENT OF JACK CROWLEY, LONGLINE FISHERMAN AND VESSEL OWNER
Mr. Jack Crowley. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Senator
Stevens. I certainly have been in the industry a long time.
Like my son just said, our family has been in it--I thought 85
years--he said 84. I will not argue with one year. But I have
50-some years in the fishery, too.
I am not going to bother you with all of the benefits of
the program, because you have heard so much about it this
morning and you are very familiar with that. But I am going to
urge you to do not let that Magnuson-Stevens Act go. And please
lift the moratorium. It would not benefit me, but it would
benefit a lot of people that need it.
I am going to take a minute to relate a little story.
During the time we were putting the IFQ program together, 10
years, relatives of my family that were born and raised in
Juneau and grew up there and knew what fresh halibut tasted
like because our family supplied them, had moved to San
Francisco. And when I was telling them about this program we
were working on--it took 10 years, you know--I sensed that they
did not really approve of it. They thought this was a giving
away of a resource.
Well, in the second year of our program, I got a phone call
from Sylvia. And she said, you know, I really appreciate all
the fresh halibut, good fresh halibut, I am able to buy here in
San Francisco. She said, your program is a success.
Thank you.
Ms. Bumpus. Darrell Knudson, and then Charlie Noggle.
STATEMENT OF DARRELL KNUDSON, LONGLINE FISHERMAN
Mr. Knudson. Hello. I have been a longline fisherman for
over 20 years. I am a third generation, too. And my family has
been fishing for a long time.
And the IFQ program, I have been running boats for 10
years, and the IFQ program has been working very well. It has
made the industry, as you have heard, a lot safer. We do not
have to go out in as bad weather, feeling like we have to
compete and if we do not go out, we are going to miss out on
some fish. We are able to compete a lot better with the fresh
fish market. Before the Canadians would, just before opening,
say, would go out and catch a bunch of fish, get them on the
market, and we were not able to--you know, most of our fish
were going for frozen.
I had a lot of things to say before I got up here, but
basically it works. That is it.
Senator Snowe. Okay. You can submit it in writing if you
want to.
Mr. Knudson. Thank you.
Ms. Bumpus. Charlie Noggle, and then the last witness is
Mandy Merklein.
STATEMENT OF CHARLIE NOGGLE, LONGLINE FISHERMAN
Mr. Noggle. Hi. My name is Charlie Noggle. I have a 47-foot
longliner, and I have fished black cod in Washington and Alaska
for the past 21 years.
An IFQ program for the west coast black cod would be a huge
improvement for a small-boat fisherman like myself. It would
allow me to be more efficient, increase the price of black cod
that we receive down here, and reduce the cost of catching it.
An IFQ program would enable me to move my gear to avoid
halibut bycatch, which was something that always kind of
bothered me off the west coast here, where it is a derby
fishery, and all the grounds are covered. Fishermen are forced
to set back pretty much where you start and it causes a fairly
high halibut bycatch. It would allow me to operate considerably
more safely if we got rid of the derby fishery.
And the last thing that Arnie had mentioned about the
family time--well, last summer, for example, I figured I was
working every day from mid-June until the end of August, when
the derby fishery out here was over with. And to turn this into
an IFQ fishery and allow us to schedule it whenever we want,
schedule the fishing off the west coast, it would allow me to
spend some time with the family before they return to school in
the fall.
Thank you.
Senator Snowe. Thank you.
Ms. Bumpus. The last witness is Mandy Merklein.
STATEMENT OF MANDY MERKLEIN, BOARD MEMBER,
PACIFIC MARINE CONSERVATION COUNCIL
Ms. Merklein. I really appreciate you staying here through
the bitter end to hear my last comments.
My name is Mandy Merklein. I am a marine fishery scientist.
I have been working up in Alaska and down here in Washington
for over 15 years on all kinds of boats--little longliners, big
factory trawlers--and it has given me an appreciation of the
trials in both management and operating a fishing business, and
I appreciate a lot of the comments you have heard today.
I am here primarily in the capacity as a Board Member of
the Pacific Marine Conservation Council, and I would like to
give longer testimony here as part of the record. I will just
make this short for you.
Primarily, the Pacific Marine Conservation Council is a 17-
board member nonprofit, and we have environmentalists,
fishermen and scientists on our board. We are pretty new. We
are just about two years old. We have about roughly 260 members
right now.
We believe that the Magnuson-Stevens Act should stay intact
and it should stay strong. We really appreciate it. We think it
needs time to develop, and we believe that the essential fish
habitat language in the Act should also remain strong and
broad. I think the comments that you heard from Rod were good
about that--that the ecosystem is a chain and all the links
need to be protected. Although it can be interpreted and
improved upon, we want the language to stay strong.
We also are very concerned about funding, particularly the
Council staff itself is understaffed. And we would like to see
good funding for the Councils so that they can operate
effectively. We also are of course concerned about the stock
assessment surveys not having enough funding to fulfill their
duties. And particularly we are very concerned about the lack
of an observer program off the west coast. Alaska has had many
observer programs for over 14 years in their groundfish
fisheries. We need them in our marine mammal gill net programs,
although that is not covered in your Act.
And I think that I have been aghast to come down here off
the west coast and see the lack of at-sea data. There is no
data available on bycatch and discards at sea, which makes it
very difficult to manage this fishery properly. So I am very
concerned about total catch, as is PMCC.
So I ask you to support a strong observer program. And
there are ways you can do that in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. In
particular, there are funding mechanisms that you can borrow
from Alaska and apply down on the west coast. And I think they
could be very well adopted down here despite some of the
problems that Alaska sees.
Thanks for your time.
Senator Snowe. Thank you.
Well, that concludes our hearing. Before we leave, I want
to ask unanimous consent to keep the record open for 10
legislative days for any additional statements, comments, or
other information that the Subcommittee may want to include in
the hearing record.
I want to thank all of you for being here today, for
presenting your thoughts and your concerns, for being an
attentive audience, and for being very responsive to all of the
issues as witnesses. The Subcommittee and I appreciate all the
work that you did in order to make your presentations here
today on what is a very significant issue to all of you, to our
respective states, and to the Nation as a whole.
I also want to thank Senator Gorton for extending an
invitation to this Subcommittee to host this field hearing here
in Seattle. I want to thank Senator Stevens for hosting us in
Anchorage yesterday, it was a very valuable hearing. I also
want to thank him for all of the knowledge that he brings to
bear on this issue, as he has for a long time.
So, again, thank you all very much. This concludes the
hearing.
[Whereupon, at 12:22 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. NMFS has been criticized for its lack of compliance with
National Standard 8 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act which requires
NMFS to consider the economic impacts of regulations on small
businesses. These regulations can be quite complex and they can have a
tremendous effect on the day-to-day life of fishermen--the vast
majority of which are indeed small, family-run businesses.
Explain what the Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee could do to
ensure that National Standard 8 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act are
properly considered?
THE WITNESS DID NOT PROVIDE A RESPONSE.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Olympia J. Snowe to
Rod Fujita
Question 1. It appears that the current groundfish crisis in the
Pacific has been caused in large part due to a lack of basic scientific
information. Only six of the 83 groundfish stocks are assessed each
year, and only 26 of the 83 have ever had some form of stock assessment
analysis done at all.
Do these ``unknown'' stocks make up a significant portion of the
total groundfish catch? If so, which fish need to have basic scientific
information about them?
Obviously, funds are limited at NMFS, is this an area--the
``unknown'' groundfish stocks--which needs more dedicated funding, or
is there a more effective way to spend money in the groundfish fishery
than by doing 57 additional stock assessments?
Answer. The groundfish crisis was caused by almost equal parts of
lack of information and lack of precautionary approach. The prudent
management response to the fact that only a small portion of all the
species have been assessed, and even those assessed were of uncertain
status (except that for many, landings showed rapid and fairly steady
declines for many years before the ``crisis'') should have been to stop
fishing them so hard, set up some research reserves, and collect some
better data to inform management. Instead, the Council and NMFS chose
in most cases to continue the status quo, despite the arguments of many
scientists, environmentalists, and even some managers that this was
going to result in a fishery collapse down the road.
It's hard to say what fraction of total groundfish landings are
made up of ``unassessed'' stocks, due to the lack of data. Even if it's
a relatively small fraction, however, it will be important to somehow
limit fishing mortality on them because they could (and will) constrain
fishing on more productive stocks that they are mixed with if they
become depleted. For example, bocaccio contributed very little to
commercial landings, but the fact that it has been depleted through
sport catch, habitat damage, and bycatch in commercial fisheries has
constrained a very large and valuable multispecies groundfish fishery
due to mandated efforts to rebuild bocaccio.
This is not to say that we must assess every single groundfish
species. This would be prohibitively expensive. The alternative, it
seems to me, is to set aside representative habitats that offer safe
havens for all of these species to maintain their populations as no-
take marine reserves. Another, perhaps complementary approach, would be
to conduct some basic life history research (short of a full
assessment) on each species to determine (if possible) things like the
intrinsic rate of increase, von Bertalanffy growth parameters, age at
first reproduction, and fecundity at first reproduction in order to
classify each species as to its relative vulnerability to overfishing.
This is the approach advocated by the American Fisheries Society, the
nation's premier association for fishery biologists. Management
measures and data collection could then be targeted toward protecting
the most vulnerable species, saving time, energy, and money.
Question 2. The Congress has been critical of NMFS for not
sufficiently considering the socio-economic impacts of its fishing
regulations. The Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries has heard that
NMFS does not take into account effects that their regulations have on
actual fishermen and does not use the best or even sometimes,
legitimate science as the basis of these decisions. There seems to be a
gap between available scientific information and fisheries management
decisions.
Do you believe that considering the socio-economic impacts of
potential regulations would reduce the ability of fisheries managers to
make sound, science-based decisions?
Do you believe that there is a lack of basic science in fisheries
management decisions making?
Answer. In an ideal world, socio-economic analyses would be truly
comprehensive, taking account not only of impacts of regulations on the
fishing industry, but also of impacts of inaction or overly aggressive
fishing policies to biodiversity, ecosystems, future generations, and
existence values held by most Americans. In this ideal world,
consideration of socio-economic impacts would help managers make the
right decisions.
Unfortunately, socio-economic impact analyses focus almost
exclusively on economic impacts on the fishing industry and fishing
communities. Very little attention is given to non-economic values, or
economic impacts on other sectors of the public. Thus, these kinds of
analyses offer only a very skewed perspective on the real impacts of
regulation. So, considering these kinds of analyses actually hampers
decision-making. Socioeconomic impacts should be considered AFTER
science-based recommendations are made and vetted, in a very
transparent forum, so that the very subjective assumptions that
underlie most socieoeconomic analyses can be critically evaluated and
so that non-market values can be expressed. The decision-making forum
should also make crystal clear WHY decisionmakers are deviating from a
science-based recommendation, and they should be held accountable to
such decisions. Such decisions should be guided by MFCMA definition of
Optimum Yield, which clearly states that OY is to be based on MSY as
REDUCED to account for a variety of factors.
Question 3. In 1998, the Pacific Coast groundfish industry suffered
from its lowest annual revenues in the last 18 years, about $68
million. An observer program, similar to observer programs in fisheries
off of Alaska, would go a long way towards improving the supply of
basic scientific information on groundfish stocks. Obviously, observers
have been useful in the past to document bycatch. In a mixed-stock
fishery, which has some stocks that are overfished, some that are not,
and some that have an unknown status, like groundfish with its 83
stocks, identifying bycatch and other information is needed to better
manage the fishery.
How would you design an effective observer program?
There are a limited number of qualified candidates who are eligible
to be observers under a NMFS program. How could recruitment of
observers be addressed?
Answer. To save money and to account for the fact that not all west
coast groundfish vessels can safely carry observers, I would design a
program that would take a representative sample of the fleet. The
sample must be large enough to result in statistically valid estimates
of discard and bycatch rates. Another approach would be to conduct a
scientific survey of discard, bycatch, and discard survival every
couple of years, again using a representative sample. Tamper-proof
video recorders may also provide a cost-effective way to document
bycatch and discard rates, but require lots of time to analyze.
Videotape could be sampled randomly by trained samplers/recorders to
save time. Results could be verified and calibrated by fully sampling
some tapes and comparing the results to subsample variation.
If a scientific survey approach were applied, observers could
consist of scientists and graduate students. I would think that ex-
fishermen would make excellent observers if trained in sampling and
data entry.
I hope these answers are helpful. Please don't hesitate to contact
me if I can be of further assistance.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Olympia J. Snowe to
Phil Anderson
Question. NMFS has been criticized for its lack of compliance with
National Standard 8 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act which requires
NMFS to consider the economic impacts of regulations on small
businesses. These regulations can be quite complex and they can have a
tremendous effect on the day-to-day life of fishermen--the vast
majority of which are indeed small, family-run businesses.
Do you believe that National Standard 8 has been properly
considered, or do you feel that more emphasis should be placed on the
socio-economic impacts of fisheries regulations?
Answer. I believe that National Standard 8 has been properly
considered within the Pacific Fishery Management Council forum. The
Pacific Council reviews and considers the potential economic impacts to
small businesses which may result from fishery regulations. The Pacific
Council is currently in the process of documenting descriptions of west
coast fishing communities to assist in assessing economic impacts.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Olympia J. Snowe to
Peter Leipzig
Question 1. 1995 you testified that the Pacific groundfish stocks
were healthy and not overfished. In 2000 we hear of the Pacific
groundfish collapse and the need for disaster assistance.
Please explain what has changed in five years. Is this
environmental, overcapitalization, poor science, or an additional
factor?
What action do you feel is necessary to deal with the current state
of the Pacific groundfish fisheries?
Question 1a. Please explain, what has changed in five years?
Answer. This is the BIG question and there is no one single, simple
answer. Several events have occurred and this has provided much
opportunity for ``finger pointing''. One point that I would like to
stress is that the record is clear, the amount of fish harvested has
been very close to or below the quotas for each species since the early
1980's, when the Groundfish Plan was adopted. NMFS and the Council were
not pressured to set quotas higher than the recommendations coming from
the scientific community. The following are comments about some of the
issues that have contributed to our current situation.
Survey information. The west coast groundfish resource
has very little ``fishery independent'' data. NMFS has
conducted a continental shelf trawl survey once every three
years since 1977. This survey is conducted to a depth of 250
fathoms, while the fishery operates out to depths of 600-700
fathoms. The southern extent of the survey is Central
California, while fishing continues to the Mexican border.
There are very few tows made during this survey and many
species of groundfish are highly aggregated. This results in
biomass estimates with a very high variance (plus or minus
100%).
NMFS began conducting surveys on the continental slope in the
late 1970's. These surveys were not synoptic. Any one year only
a small portion of the coast was sampled. In 1994 (?) it was
determined that the trawl gear being used was not functioning
properly. A NMFS appointed independent review of these surveys
concluded that the data that had been collected should not be
used in stock assessments.
Fish ages. In the mid- to late 1980's, scientists
concluded that the old techniques used for aging fish were
inaccurate. It was believed that many species were older than
formerly believed. This new information took time to be
incorporated into stock assessments. However, if the fish were
older, that meant that they grew slower and were less
productive than we had believed. The rate of natural mortality
was less. For some species this has translated into harvest
levels being lower than they had been in the past.
Harvest policy. In the early 1990's the Pacific
Council adopted a default harvest policy of F35%. This is the
fishing mortality rate that would reduce a population to the
level that would produce 35% of the unfished spawning output.
By the late 1990's, scientists were recommending that this
policy be changed for rockfish species to F40%-F45%. These new
harvest policies meant in some cases that the quota needed to
be reduced in order to increase the biomass. Recent analysis of
stock assessment output suggests that the current level of
recruitment for some species is insufficient to maintain the
current population, and harvest policy targets should be
increased once again, in some cases to F65%.
Sustainable Fisheries Act. In 1996 Congress passed the
SFA. The implementing rules adopted by NMFS have employed a
``risk adverse'' approach to establishing quotas. For species
where assessments have not been conducted, these rules require
the harvest level be set at levels that are in some cases 50%
of the recent catches. In multi-species fisheries, the species
with the lowest quota in relation to the way fish are caught
becomes the ``weak stock'' and controls the harvest of the
remaining species.
Discards. The Pacific groundfish fishery imposes a
limit on the amount of fish that can be landed for a given
period of time. These are referred to as ``trip limits''. The
purpose is to stretch the landings of fish over time, thus
maintaining a higher exvessel value and greater economic yield
from the fishery. On the down side, trip limits create
regulatory discards. When a fisherman catches more than the
limit the fish must be discarded at sea. Discards have been
estimated based on dated observer work. These discards are
subtracted from the quota. When quotas are reduced, the trip
limits is reduced, and this causes more discards. We are caught
in this cycle. [Note: an observer program will not eliminate
discards, it will only estimate them better].
Environment. There is very strong evidence that the
ocean began changing in the late 1970's to a condition that was
not conducive for the survival of young rockfish. Data
collected from Southern California power plants dramatically
shows the drop in young fish that are entrapped in the cooling
water intakes. The impact of this type of environmental change
has been well documented for other species of fish. For
rockfish that are long lived and slow to recruit into the
fishery the change was difficult to detect at first. But the
impact is real.
Over capacity. The groundfish fishery has had excess
capacity for many years and a management system that is slow to
react and slow to support change. The trawl fleet first
proposed limited entry in 1985. In 1987 the PFMC set a control
date to restrict new entrants. This date slipped to 1988, and
it took until 1994 before limited entry was implemented. The
west coast groundfish industry lobbied for the industry funded
buy-back provisions in Section 312 of the SFA, only to have
NMFS drag their collective feet in publishing implementing
regulations. Now it is too late for an industry program to
reduce sufficient capacity alone; there is the need for
government assistance.
Question 1b. What action do you feel is necessary to deal with the
current state of the Pacific groundfish fisheries?
Answer. Certainly we need to know more about the groundfish stocks.
We need to know more about their actual age and rate of growth. Better,
more precise estimates of population size and population trends are
needed. But ``more and better'' science is a cop-out and will not solve
the current problem in the groundfish fishery. If we begin new surveys
today the information from those surveys will not be useful for stock
assessments for 10 years. If funding were to be made available for such
work and the funding were to cease in several years, all of the money
would have been wasted. The fishery needs long-term continuous data
series to be useful for stock assessment work.
This fishery is in a state of crisis. The amount of fish available
to harvest is much less than once occurred. A serious fleet reduction
program is the only solution. The current situation is not going to end
for many years. We have rebuilding plans with time frames that range
from 10 to 40 years. Without assistance to reduce the fleet, some
operators will fall into bankruptcy and their boats and permits will
recycle into the fishery without solving the problem of too much
capacity.
Question 2. It appears that the current groundfish crisis in the
Pacific has been caused in large part due to a lack of basic scientific
information. Only six of the 83 groundfish stocks are assessed each
year, and only 26 of the 83 have ever had some form of stock assessment
analysis done at all.
Do these ``unknown'' stocks make-up a significant portion of the
total groundfish catch? If so, which fish need to have basic scientific
information available about them?
Obviously, funds are limited at NMFS, is this an area--the
``unknown'' groundfish stocks--which needs more dedicated funding, or
is there a more effective way to spend money in the groundfish fishery
than by doing 57 additional stock assessments?
Answer. Some of the species in the groundfish plan for which there
are no stock assessments are rarely encountered. While others may be
common, they do not comprise a significant component of the total
landings. The question here is where best to spend money. Basic
scientific questions related to aging of fish apply to nearly all
groundfish. Age validation needs to occur for almost every species.
This involves chemically tagging fish and releasing them to be caught
years later. This type of work could be combined with other fishery
independent surveys. These surveys if properly designed can provide
abundance data simultaneously for many species.
A stock assessment requires data on catch, age, weight, sex, trend
indices, growth, etc. Surveys provide some of this information. Port
sampling programs, logbooks, etc. can also supply some of this
information. However, personnel to prepare a stock assessment require a
biologist with expertise in population dynamics. There are only a few
such biologists on the west coast. More stock assessments are limited
to the number of these people.
Question 3. The Congress has been critical of NMFS for not
sufficiently considering the socio-economic impacts of its fishing
regulations. The Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries has heard that
NMFS does not take into account effects that their regulations have on
actual fishermen and does not use the best or even sometimes,
legitimate science as the basis of these decisions. There seems to be a
gap between available scientific information and fisheries management
decisions.
Do you believe that considering the socio-economic impacts of
potential regulations would reduce the ability of fisheries managers to
make sound, science-based decisions?
Do you believe there is a lack of basic science in fisheries
management decisions making?
Question 3a. Would considering the socio-economic impacts reduce
the ability of managers to make sound decisions?
Answer. In the short-term, NO. In the long-term, YES. A fishery
resource is only able to produce a certain amount of surplus stock.
What we harvest is this surplus and this is where the value of the
fishery comes from. If a regulation is needed to protect the long-term
productivity of the stock then eventually that regulation will be
necessary. But if that regulation which is necessary to protect the
long-term productivity of the stock is causing socio-economic hardship
on fishermen if imposed today, then that same hardship will likely
occur in future if the regulation is not imposed.
Many fishery managers would view this situation and conclude that
the hardship is coming one way or another. It might as well be now.
These managers tend to think of fisheries management with concern only
for the fish and little concern for the fishery, when in reality they
are managing people. The solution is to find someway as a manager to
lessen the hardship. This can be accomplished by reducing the capacity
of the fleet or increasing the value from the resource. Fewer people
fishing for the resource or the same number deriving more money for
what they catch.
In the short term, if a management action is taken that provides a
transition through the hardship, imposing the long-term regulation can
be delayed.
Question 3b. Do you believe there is a lack of basic science in
fisheries management decision making?
Answer. Fishery science is a science in its infancy. It relies
heavily on other disciplines such as biology and mathematics. Fishery
science has few opportunities to test a hypothesis that are necessary
to develop principles and laws such as are found in physics or
chemistry. Untested concepts are often taken as truths when in fact
they may have begun as a ``rule of thumb''. And to make things worse,
we have written some of them into legal terms that form the political
body of fisheries management. There is very little science in fisheries
management.
Question 4. In 1998, the Pacific Coast groundfish industry suffered
from its lowest annual revenues in the last 18 years, about $68
million. An observer program, similar to observer programs in fisheries
off of Alaska, would go a long way toward improving the supply of basic
scientific information on groundfish stocks. Obviously, observers have
been useful in the past to document bycatch. In a mixed-stock fishery,
which has some stocks that are overfished, some that are not, and some
that have an unknown status, like groundfish with its 83 stocks,
identifying bycatch and other information is needed to better manage
the fishery.
How would you design an effective observer program?
There are a limited number of qualified candidates who are eligible
to be observers under a NMFS program. How could recruitment of
observers be addressed?
Question 4a. How would you design an effective observer program?
Answer. In the introduction to these questions the term bycatch was
used. I realize that there is a legal definition in the Act for
bycatch, but in reality everyone seems to have his or her own also. To
me a fisherman catches fish. Some of the catch he keeps. Some of the
catch is thrown overboard. Of the catch that goes overboard, some was
thrown back because it is not desirable (low value), and some is tossed
because the law says it must be tossed.
In the groundfish trawl fishery, the major component of fish that
is not retained is tossed due to the regulations. In the longline
fishery it is tossed because of low value and regulations. In the
recreational fishery the fish are not desirable. Every sector of the
fishery has bycatch. The reason for bycatch (discards) differs from
sector to sector; just as the species that are landed varies, the
species that are discarded vary.
The purpose of an observer program must be identified before the
program can be developed. Questions such as--Is the program for
monitoring or is it for law enforcement? The program must identify what
information needs to be collected, how it will be used, and who will
collect and manage the database. The cost of collecting the identified
needed data versus other ways of collecting the data should be
analyzed. Once these types of questions have been addressed then a
sampling protocol can be developed that provides coverage of all
vessels that encounter groundfish, including recreational boats and
commercial vessels that take groundfish incidentally while fishing in
other fisheries. Sampling that provides statistically reliable
estimates from every sector should be the goal of an observer program.
Of course cost is a big issue. User funded programs that have been
used elsewhere, do not appear to be realistic in the Pacific groundfish
fishery. The trawl fishery has the highest gross revenue of all
sectors, with a mean gross revenue around $160,000 per year. Other
sectors are substantially lower. The size of boats is an additional
problem. Again, the trawl sector has the larger average size boat; this
is around 60 feet. These are older boats with often two bunks and no
toilet facilities.
Again, an observer program will not eliminate discards; it will
only estimate them better.
Question 4b. How could recruitment of observers be addressed?
Answer. This is a very tough personnel question. The type of
individual that is hired should reflect the purpose of the observer
program. A different sort of person could be hired if the program
thrust is law enforcement as opposed to biological data collection.
Either way the people hired will likely be younger and looking to the
program as a ``first step'' in a career. If the Federal and State
governments are not expanding their fisheries programs there is little
career path for observers. Therefore private observer companies will
likely have high turn over and high associated costs as a result.
On the west coast, when poor working conditions (small boats with
little amenities) and little opportunity for advancement are coupled
with the fact there are well over 2000 boats that either fish for or
encounter groundfish while fishing for other species; the creation of
an observer program is a major undertaking.
Given the above, it is clear that creative ways will be required to
place observers in the west coast groundfish fishery. Ideas such as
college credit for students that participate in such a program and
training commercial fishermen to collect data would need to be
explored. Alternative ways to gather the same information can not be
overlooked, such as full retention or charter fishing contracts.
Question 5. Senator Kerry's questions: . . . what is a ``non-
quota'' approach? How would it work and in what fisheries?
Answer. On the west coast there are several major well managed
State fisheries that do not used quotas. If these fisheries were to be
brought under the Federal system, they would die.
Examples are Dungeness crab and Pacific pink shrimp. They both use
seasons, gear restrictions, and (animal) size as the primary management
tools. The crab fishery is also for males only. These fisheries have
variable landings with wide swings in abundance that are
environmentally driven.
Other ideas for ``non-quota'' approaches could be based in the
biological characteristics of the animals. Some fish, because of size
or behavior, are not caught until they have attained a size or age by
which they have multiple opportunities to spawn. Such fish could be
fished extremely hard with no impact on the productivity of the stock.
Pacific sanddabs and many of the ``small'' rockfish species are
examples of this type of fish.
Another approach would be to monitor the fishery for ``change''. As
a university professor recently commented to me--``We should think of
ourselves as being in an airplane. We should not be concerned about how
high we are, but rather are we going up or down?'' Dramatic changes in
the size of fish, sex ratio, or CPUE are all indicators that something
has changed in the population. These changes may simply be part of the
natural process of fishing down, indicators of strong year classes, or
changing ocean conditions. On the other hand these types of changes may
also indicate that a stock has been overharvested. To be able to sort
out what is occurring requires that fisheries biologists once again
become fisheries biologists rather than function as simply computer
jockeys. Before NMFS, fishery biologists were part of the fishing
community, down on the docks looking at fish and talking with
fishermen. They learned a great deal from fishermen, and fishermen
learn a great deal from them. Through mutual respect interpretation of
information used to occur.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Olympia J. Snowe to
David Sampson
Question 1a. It appears that the current groundfish crisis in the
Pacific has been caused in large part by a lack of basic scientific
information. Only six of the 83 groundfish stocks are assessed each
year, and only 26 of the 83 have ever had some form of stock assessment
analysis done at all.
Do these ``unknown'' stocks make up a significant portion of the
total groundfish catch? If so, which fish need to have basic scientific
information available about them?
Answer. Tabulated below are annual commercial landings statistics
(in metric tons) for the 15 different U.S. west coast groundfish stocks
for which formal stock assessments were prepared and reviewed by the
Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) during 1997-99. The data
shown were taken directly from the groundfish ``Stock Assessment and
Fishery Evaluation'' documents published annually by the PFMC. For some
species (e.g., petrale sole) the assessments did not cover the entire
range for the species, whereas the landings statistics are for the
entire U.S. west coast.
These 15 ``assessed'' stocks accounted for about 85% of the
commercial harvest of groundfish along the U.S. west coast. The
``unassessed'' stocks made up a bit less than the remaining 15% of the
landings. Some would argue that these unassessed stocks have
``ecological significance'' but they do not have much ``economic
significance''.
Question 1b. Obviously, funds are limited at NMFS. Is this an
area--the ``unknown'' groundfish stocks--which needs more dedicated
funding, or is there a more effective way to spend money in the
groundfish fishery than by doing 57 additional stock assessments?
Answer. It is very likely that many of the fishers who have been
displaced by restrictive catch quotas from harvesting their traditional
target species will instead increase their harvests of these minor
unassessed stocks. More information on the status of these stocks would
be beneficial for setting reasonable harvest quotas, which currently
are based on historical landings for many of the unassessed stocks.
Even more beneficial would be a reduction in the harvesting capacity of
the fishing fleet. The fundamental problem in the west coast groundfish
fishery is not lack of information about fish stock status; it is lack
of any effective control over fishing capacity. We have allowed (and
even encouraged) the fishing industry to increase, and now there are
too many fishers chasing after a limited supply of fish.
Question 2a. The Congress has been critical of NMFS for not
sufficiently considering the socioeconomic impacts of its fishing
regulations. The Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries has heard that
NMFS does not take into account effects that their regulations have on
actual fishermen and does not use the best or even sometimes legitimate
science as the basis of these decisions. There seems to be a gap
between available scientific information and fisheries management
decisions.
Do you believe that considering the socio-economic impacts of
potential regulations would reduce the ability of fisheries managers to
make sound, science-based decisions?
Answer. No. It is important to distinguish between two kinds of
fishery management decisions: decisions about how much of the fish
resource to harvest, versus decisions about who should be allowed to
make the harvests and how much they should be allowed to take. Most
fishery regulations (catch quotas, season limits, gear restrictions)
are not uniformly beneficial or harmful to all interest groups.
Managers can use socio-economic information to help weigh the costs,
benefits, and harvest-allocation implications of different management
actions. Fishery managers should not try to use fisheries science to
adjudicate between different possible uses of our fish resources.
Fisheries scientists can provide advice to fishery managers about the
likely consequences of particular harvest quotas or fishing seasons,
but fisheries science CANNOT answer the question ``What should we be
doing with our fish resources?'' The political process needs to define
the objectives of fishery management policy. Once the policy is set and
the objectives are clear, the fishery scientists can give scientific
advice on appropriate methods for achieving the objectives.
Question 2b. Do you believe there is a lack of basic science in
fisheries management decision making?
Answer. No. In my experience as a member for six years of the
Pacific Fishery Management Council's Scientific and Statistical
Committee the Council almost always heeded the recommendations of the
stock assessment scientists regarding appropriate harvest levels. That
is not to say, however, that fisheries science has been, or ever will
be able to accurately estimate the sizes of the fish stocks or
accurately predict whether or not the condition of the stocks will
improve to a certain level in the future. Fisheries scientists have in
general done a poor job at explaining or quantifying the uncertainty
about the stock size estimates and catch projections that appear in
most fish stock assessments. Also, it seems that many fishery managers
would prefer the assessment scientists to provide a single best
estimate for a catch quota rather than a range of values, perhaps
because the managers do not know how to pick a ``best'' number from a
range. Collectively we have not agreed on what is ``best'', whether to
catch the fish or leave them in the water, whether to have a large
fleet of small boats or a small fleet of big vessels.
Question 3a. In 1998, the Pacific Coast groundfish industry
suffered from its lowest annual revenues in the last 18 years, about
$68 million. An observer program, similar to observer programs in
fisheries off of Alaska, would go a big way toward improving the supply
of basic scientific information on groundfish stocks. Obviously,
observers have been useful in the past to document bycatch. In a mixed-
stock fishery, which has some stocks that are overfished, some that are
not, and some that have an unknown status, like groundfish with its 83
stocks, identifying bycatch and other information is needed to better
manage the fishery.
How would you design an effective observer program ?
Answer. I disagree with the fundamental premise of the question,
that an observer program is needed to improve ``the supply of basic
scientific information on groundfish stocks.'' There are alternative
ways to acquire much of the basic scientific information.
Unfortunately, the debate has focused on having an observer program
rather than on the data that is needed for stock assessment and
fisheries management.
In the groundfish fisheries in Alaska much of the harvest is caught
and processed at sea, so that the only method for documenting the size
of the catch and its biological characteristics (species composition
and length, age, and sex compositions) is to have samplers aboard the
fishing vessels. Off the U.S. west coast there is significant at-sea
processing only in the at-sea component of the fishery for whiting
(Pacific hake). There were U.S. observers aboard the foreign vessels
that harvested whiting during the 1970s and early 1980s, and there have
been observers aboard the U.S. factory trawlers that have been
harvesting whiting off the U.S. west coast since 1990.
Other than the catches of whiting that are processed at sea, the
groundfish caught off the U.S. west coast are landed at a relatively
small number of ports that are routinely monitored by agents from the
states of California, Oregon, and Washington. An observer program would
certainly supplement the data collected by the State fishery agencies,
but it would be much more cost-effective to simply provide more fishery
agents to collect the data where the fish are landed. Most of the
variability associated with the biological characteristics of the
harvested fish is due to trip-to-trip variation. That is, the fish
caught during a trip tend to have similar characteristics, whereas
there are large differences in the characteristics between fish caught
on different fishing trips. (Presumably different fishing boats harvest
from different fish schools and the fish in a school tend to have
similar characteristics.) An observer during a four-day fishing trip
will be able to record sample data from a single trip, whereas that
same person could take sample data on shore from three or four trips
each day when the vessels land their catches.
A shore-side sampler, however, only has access to the landed catch
and not to any fish that are discarded at sea. With regard to discards,
it is important to distinguish between at-sea discards of marketable
fish versus discards of unmarketable fish. The discards of marketable
fish largely occur because of fishery regulations. For example, trawl
vessels are legally prohibited from landing salmon and halibut and must
discard those fish at sea. Also, the Pacific Council imposes trip
limits that restrict how much fish any given vessel can land during a
given time period. Any catches above the limits must be dumped at sea.
These regulations are extremely costly, in terms of wasted fish, wasted
fishing effort, and distorted harvest data. Adding an observer program
to monitor these discards adds further to the costs but does nothing to
eliminate the problem. Surely there must be ways to modify the
regulations to fix the problem of at-sea discards of marketable fish,
for example, by allowing the fishers to land their overages but not
receive the full market price. The fish would not be wasted and they
would be accounted for by the usual shoreside monitoring systems.
With regard to discards of unmarketable fish, we need a modest at-
sea observer program to obtain information on the magnitude and
biological characteristics of these discards. The program, however,
would only need to monitor a very small fraction of the fishing trips
to obtain reasonable data on the level and characteristics of the
discards.
Question 3b. There are a limited number of qualified candidates who
are eligible to be observers under a NMFS program. How could
recruitment of observers be addressed?
Answer. If sufficient funds were made available, I'm certain that
the existing observer companies would be able to find and train
observers.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Senator John F. Kerry to
Jim Lone
I saw the letter you submitted to Dr. Bill Hogarth and Mr. Will
Stelle regarding budget initiatives necessary to obtain adequate data
in the fisheries under your jurisdiction. I understand that in your
region in particular, there has been a serious problem with obtaining
adequate data upon which to make sound management decisions.
Question 1a. How does the Council and/or the Scientific and
Statistical Committee prioritize research needs?
Answer. The Council reviews its research and data needs every two
years. This review includes consultation with the SSC, Groundfish
Management Team, Groundfish Advisory Subpanel, other advisory groups
and the public. The Council sets priorities for research and data needs
based on the following ranked criteria.
1. Projects that address long term fundamental problems of
west coast fisheries.
2. Projects that improve the quality of information, models,
and analytical tools used for biological assessment and
management.
3. Projects that increase the long run market competitiveness
and economic profitability of the industry.
4. Projects that contribute to the understanding by decision
makers of social and economic implications in meeting
biological and conservation objectives.
5. Projects that provide data and/or information to meet the
requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, and other applicable laws.
The list of research and data needs is made available to NMFS and
various research institutions (universities, etc.).
Question 1b. Once these needs are prioritized, is there adequate
funding available to do the necessary research? Is a lack of adequate
funding the reason for the poor information we have on rockfish?
Answer. There is a severe shortage of basic information about many
west coast groundfish species, and this is particularly true of
rockfish. There are over 50 species of rockfish listed in the
groundfish fishery management plan, and we have comprehensive stock
assessments on fewer than ten of them. Rockfish typically grow and
mature more slowly than many other types of fish, and many species live
50-75 years and even longer. Most rockfish species are not distributed
evenly, but rather have patchy distributions that are often associated
with rockpiles, pinnacles, reefs, and ridges along the ocean floor.
These areas are difficult to survey because trawl nets (which are the
primary sampling gear) tend to snag on rocks and other obstacles. In
addition, the NMFS research surveys do not go shallow enough to sample
many species. This leaves many areas neglected. Within the survey
areas, the patchy distribution of rockfish requires that many more
samples be taken in order to accurately assess how many fish are
present. NMFS does not have the personnel, equipment and technology to
survey these areas, nor the funds to develop the technology and acquire
the equipment. Given the current level of survey activity, NMFS is
doing a good job; but more survey activity is needed, which will
require additional funds and personnel.
While stock assessment is one of the Council's highest priorities,
information on economic and social conditions is also essential for
informed decision making. There has not been adequate funding for
development of biological, economic and social data collection and
research on a number of fronts. Improved estimates of the total
rockfish catch will require additional funding for observer programs
and other data collection activities. This is because commercial
vessels typically land a mix of species in a single load, and often
record the amounts under broad categories such as ``small red
rockfish''. The west coast data system relies on port samplers to
sample representative catches to determine the ratios of various
species that are caught. Fishers and fish buyers generally record the
landed amounts by species group rather than individual species receipts
because (1) a substantial sorting and paperwork burden would be placed
on fishers and processors to identify and weigh each species of
rockfish in a landing, and (2) it is often extremely difficult and time
consuming to differentiate among the 60+ species of rockfish on the
coast, and not all fishers have the necessary expertise to identify
every species. Trawl vessels take the large majority of the catch,
therefore much of the port sampling effort has been focused on trawl
vessels. The number and size of trawl landings have declined with
declining stocks and more stringent regulations, and it has become more
difficult to get adequate sampling of the trawl catch. Additionally, as
the importance and concern over species taken by non-trawl vessels have
increased, the inadequacies of the sampling efforts for these non-trawl
species has become more apparent. More port samplers are needed to
collect species composition and collect the biological data needed for
stock assessments. This information is also needed for addressing
allocation issues. While port sampling is important, it does not reveal
the amount of catch that may have been discarded at sea. For that an
at-sea observer program is needed. An observer program could offset to
a certain degree the amount of port sampling needed.
Question 1c. Could you explain the different sorts of data and
research necessary to improve management (i.e. life history
information, population dynamics, surveys, etc.)?
Answer. In order to set appropriate target harvest levels, the
Council needs accurate estimates of current biomass of the various fish
populations, the age structure and distribution, how fast they grow,
how old they are when they start breeding, how long they live, and
other basic information. In addition, it is important to know the total
amount of fish caught and killed, including the size and age of those
fish, and size of incoming year classes. Some of this information comes
from scientific resource assessment surveys, and some from the
commercial and recreational fisheries.
Resource Assessment Surveys. The current west coast groundfish survey
strategy is primarily based on a triennial schedule that includes a
bottom trawl survey of the continental shelf resources and a combined
acoustic and midwater trawl survey for Pacific whiting. The bottom
trawl survey design is inadequate for estimating many of the nearshore
flatfish, does not extend deeper than the shelf, and has too few
stations to estimate shelf rockfish with the desired level of
precision. Annual plankton and larvae surveys off California have been
used for coastal pelagic stocks and can be used for some groundfish
stocks such as nearshore flatfish. An annual trawl survey of the
continental slope groundfish resources has not had sufficient number of
days to adequately cover the entire coast line. With the expanding
emphasis to improve the stock assessments for the groundfish, new
opportunities and sampling technologies are needed to expand the survey
frequency, areas and species.
Fishery Monitoring and Data Collection. One of the most important
Council needs is accurate assessment of total removals to estimate
fishing mortality and accurate tally of fishery landings in-season. The
benefits of fishing regulations cannot be evaluated unless there is
good information on the effects of the regulation on harvest. In-season
monitoring of catch rates is necessary to ensure that harvests do not
substantially deviate from target levels. Currently, the greatest
concerns are accurate estimates of amounts of fish discarded in multi-
species fisheries and unreported or under reported landings.
Fishery and Productivity Parameters. Assessment models of the
productivity of the various groundfish stocks depend on good estimates
of fishery catch by age, current estimates of biomass and recruitment,
and also reliable estimates of growth in length and weight, fecundity
and sexual maturity, natural mortality, and differential location/
movement by size, age, and sex. The data for these come from sampling
fish in commercial and recreational catches and from scientific
surveys. Expansion of survey activities and increased fishery sampling
would improve fishery and biological parameters and result in better
stock assessments.
Stock Assessment Modeling. Development of reliable stock assessment
models of the dynamics of the important fish stocks is critical to
evaluating optimum yield and MSY control rules for species or species
groups for managing annual fisheries. These model results are usually
presented as updated stock assessment reports. Typically, models are
more complex when little information is available, or when there is
conflicting information.
Habitat. The Sustainable Fisheries Act established new priorities for
the consideration of impacts on habitat. More information is needed to
understand the impacts of different fishing gears on habitat and the
importance of different habitats and/or refugia for maintaining the
fishery.
In summary, the following data collection and research activities
need additional support.
Fishery independent surveys--estimate total biomass,
estimate year class sizes, better understand the influence of
environmental factors. All major fish assemblages and habitats
need to be covered as well as various life stages.
Port sampling--to determine the species composition
of landings and collect the biological data needed for stock
assessments.
Observer program--to determine the composition of
catch and better account for total mortalities; and to increase
the understanding of stock aggregations by gathering tow by tow
or set-by-set information rather than aggregate trip
information. This information would improve stock assessments
and provide managers with a better understanding of how
regulations influence discards.
Recreational fishery surveys--estimate effort,
species composition, catch rates, and intended target species
in order to conduct stock assessments; estimate local income
impacts and net economic values; predict effects of regulatory
changes. More precise information is needed for smaller
geographic areas, particularly with respect to management of
the rockfish fisheries, assessment of community impacts, and
assessment of the potential conservation benefits and impacts
of marine reserves.
Habitat studies--determine gear impacts on habitat
and identify habitat areas of particular concern in order to
develop management recommendations that take better account of
habitat.
Economic data collection and an economic and social
science program on the west coast--project effects of
regulations on fisher behavioral response and hence fishing
mortality, in addition to meeting the regulatory requirements
and facilitating more socially acceptable management decisions.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Senator Olympia J. Snowe to
Jim Lone
Question. NMFS has been criticized for its lack of compliance with
National Standard 8 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, which requires
NMFS to consider the economic impacts of regulations on small
businesses. These regulations can be quite complex and they can have a
tremendous effect on the day-to-day life of fishermen--the vast
majority of which are indeed small, family-run businesses.
Do you believe that National Standard 8 has been properly
considered or do you feel that more emphasis should be placed on the
socio-economic impacts of fisheries regulations?
Answer. I believe NMFS and the Council have tried to comply with
National Standard 8 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and they have
done a credible job with the available information. However, there is
definitely a need for improvement in the information available on
socio-economic impacts of fisheries regulations on businesses and
communities. The Council is in the process of completing a profile of
west coast fishing businesses and communities that will help predict
the economic impacts on businesses and communities. However, we are
facing declining stocks and more stringent requirements to prevent
overfishing and practice risk-averse management. Increased emphasis on
socio-economic impacts should not come at the expense of resource
conservation.
______
Prepared Statement of W.F. ``Zeke'' Grader, Jr., Executive Director,
Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Association
Members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to provide
written testimony on the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation & Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
(``Magnuson Act''). I have served as the Executive Director and counsel
to the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations (PCFFA)
since the organization's founding in 1976, shortly before the passage
of HR 200, the Fishery Conservation & Management Act (FCMA). PCFFA
represents working men and women in the west coast commercial fishing
fleet--mainly owner/operators in the small to mid-size vessel fleet,
the ``family fishermen.'' It is the largest commercial fishermen's
organization on the U.S. west coast.
PCFFA is intimately familiar with the Magnuson Act. As you know,
some of the first efforts at extending U.S. fisheries jurisdiction
started here on the west coast in the late 1940's and in 1969, some of
PCFFA's member organizations worked with former California Congressman
Don Clausen when he introduced the first 200 mile limit bill in the
Congress. PCFFA member organizations also worked to convince another
former California Congressman, Robert Leggett, of the need for extended
fisheries jurisdiction. Leggett's support, as chair of the old House
Merchant Marine & Fisheries Committee's Fisheries & Wildlife
Subcommittee, was crucial to the House passage of Congressman Studds'
bill, HR 200. The newly-formed PCFFA was one of numerous fishery groups
throughout the nation urging President Ford to sign the bill when the
FCMA arrived on his desk that spring. The FCMA was to be the
``renaissance of America's fisheries.''
In the years since, PCFFA has tried to work with the Pacific
Fishery Management Council, and has been involved in developing
legislative language in most of the reauthorizations of the FCMA (e.g.,
see PCFFA's 22 July 1985 testimony to the Commerce, Science &
Transportation Committee). Some of our issues have included: (1) a
requirement that fishery habitat language be included in the act; (2) a
requirement that Council members know something about fisheries before
being appointed; (3) a requirement that Council's consider fleet safety
and fishing community impacts in their decision making; and (4) a
requirement that fisheries be managed sustainably. Indeed, PCFFA was
probably the first fishery organization in the nation to argue for the
fishery Councils and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to
address fish habitat issues in fishery management plans. In the late
1970's it was clear to us that unless something was done to protect the
in-river spawning and nursery habitat of salmon, no amount of
regulation of the fishing fleet was going to conserve these fish.
I was one of the original members of the PFMC's Salmon Advisory
Subpanel and served as a commercial troll representative on that body
before stepping down in the mid-1980's and being succeeded by PCFFA's
then-president, Nat Bingham. Two of PCFFA's officers--Dave Danbom and
Nat Bingham--subsequently served on the Pacific Council, although it
was a real struggle to get Commerce and NMFS to appoint anyone from the
salmon fisheries or committed to sustainable fisheries. A number of
PCFFA's other officers and board members have also served on various
PFMC committees over the years. All of this is to say that our
organization is as well-qualified as any, given its history and
participation, to comment on regional Council operations and Magnuson
Act reauthorization.
We wish to thank Senator Wyden's office for their assistance in
allowing us to provide written testimony to this reauthorization
hearing, although we would have preferred to have testified in person.
The Committee is to be complimented, however, for its witness list and
having brought many of those responsible for the current situation in
the Pacific Coast fisheries together to offer their oral statements and
be questioned by members. We are not content to do nothing in this
reauthorization round, to simply give the Sustainable Fisheries Act
time for implementation. It is clear to us that some legislative
changes are needed now to the Magnuson Act to assure protection of fish
stocks and working fishing men and women. It is unfortunate that there
is a need to keep amending the Magnuson Act; the original FCMA was a
well-crafted statute. The problem is it was handed over to those who
either did not care about, or were incapable of, assuring America's
oldest industry was sustainable. We are resigned to the fact that we
will have to keep amending the Magnuson Act until, as former
Congressman Studds' has stated, ``they finally get it right.'' PCFFA is
a member of the Marine Fish Conservation Network (MFCN) and is working
with that coalition on proposed Magnuson Act amendments for this
reauthorization round.
PCFFA's testimony here will focus on five issues: (1) essential
fish habitat; (2) fishing effort reduction; (3) regional Council
membership; (4) the moratorium on individual transferrable quotas
(ITQs); and (5) the marine protected areas (MPAs) in fisheries
management. The positions taken here are PCFFA's own and do not
necessarily include all of the issues that will be raised by MFCN. We
believe, however, they are consistent with most of the positions that
have been developed by the coalition.
Essential Fish Habitat
From the PFMC's earliest days, PCFFA's warnings on habitat were
largely ignored, ``blown-off,'' by that Council, NMFS and the state
agencies until at least 1993. It was during the coho crisis of 1993
(the PFMC ordered a closure of both commercial and ocean sport fishing
of coho that year) when it finally dawned on some that even complete
fishery closures would not save the salmon if dam operations continued
``business as usual,'' if there were not adequate flows instream, and
if something was not done to protect forested watersheds--particularly
from the impacts of egregious logging practices.
The salmon fisheries now left under the PFMC's jurisdiction are
largely a result of the efforts of a coalition of commercial and sport
fishermen, tribes and conservation groups working tirelessly to protect
and restore salmon habitat. In fact, the salmon fishery that remains
offshore the three Pacific states, exists despite the actions of the
PFMC and NMFS, not because of them.
Prior to the enactment of the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA), the
Pacific Council appointed a ``Habitat Steering Group,'' largely at the
insistence of the late Nat Bingham, and this committee has begun
aggressively addressing salmon habitat issues. The PFMC has, with some
reluctance, been willing to follow the advice of the experts on the
salmon issue. The problem we have encountered has been NMFS failure,
largely under the Endangered Species Act, to take effective action,
particularly in the Pacific Northwest, to protect remaining salmon
stocks. Initially the agency was reluctant to list, after it and the
Pacific Council allowed salmon stocks to decline precipitously as a
result of habitat destruction. Now the agency has taken more of a
``list and run'' attitude, still focused mainly on what little fishing
effort is even allowed rather than the clear and obvious losses
occurring in the rivers and watersheds from habitat destruction.
In the groundfish fishery, the Pacific Council has failed to date,
more than three years after SFA passage, to put in place effective
measures aimed at eliminating fishing gear impacts on groundfish
habitat; i.e., prohibiting the use of ``roller'' trawl gear on hard and
rocky bottoms. Perhaps the Pacific Council can be excused somewhat by
its reluctance to put in place hard measures aimed at reducing the
impact of fishing gear on essential fish habitat (EFH) given NMFS delay
in implementation of EFH provisions enacted in 1996 SFA. Habitat
damaging fishing practices (e.g., roller trawl gear) as well as coastal
development and the resultant pollution continue to threaten the
sustainability of our fish stocks and fishing industry. Yet, the
continuing delay in finalizing EFH regulations and the approval of FMPs
that do not address the EFH mandate raise serious questions about NMFS
and the regional Councils' commitment to implementing the EFH
requirements of the law. Indeed, it raises serious questions about
their commitment to sustainable fisheries or to the future of this
nation's fishing industry.
It is clear to us that stronger language will be needed on EFH in
the Magnuson Act to get NMFS and the regional Councils to do what they
should be doing.
Reducing Fleet Capacity
The west coast groundfish fishery is a disaster. This one, however,
unlike past fishery disasters caused by El Ninos, hurricanes and other
natural occurrences, was of our own making and clearly foreseeable. As
early as the late 1970's while the Pacific Council was actively
pursuing its ``weak stock' management policy for salmon (while blithely
ignoring habitat impacts) severely restricting the ocean fisheries, it
was pursuing a policy of knowingly allowing the overfishing of certain
species of the groundfish complex to allow the industrial trawlers
maximum harvests. It failed to act in a timely manner to enact a
limited entry program for groundfish. Mostly, the groundfish limited
entry program merely secured a place in the fishery for a trawl fleet
that was far too large for the existing resource. That program,
incidentally, was enacted not only at the expense of the resource but
to the detriment of the smaller hook-and-line groundfish fishermen and
small trawl operators. While the Pacific Council has allowed itself to
get sidetracked on recreational fishing closures and restrictions on
the small-boat (and small) live-fish fishery, remember, it is the large
trawl fleet that is taking the lion's share of the groundfish resource
and responsible for most of the bycatch (discards) in this fishery.
To us, one of the first steps needed to be taken to begin reversing
the groundfish disaster is to reduce the trawl fleet capacity on the
west coast by fifty percent or more. Whether it is done under the
Magnuson Act or some other action, the trawl fleet needs to be reduced
by at least half of its fishing capacity and half of the active fleet
of boats. There is, too, we believe, a clear federal responsibility
here. First, this disaster occurred under federal management. Second,
the trawl fleet was encouraged to expand and increase in capacity under
the ``Americanization'' of the U.S. fisheries following FCMA passage.
Third, much of the trawl fleet expansion was funded by federal dollars
in the form of loan guarantees.
A buy-back or retirement from the fishery program for the large
trawlers cannot simply be a buy-out of the groundfish permit, it must
be a complete retirement of the vessel from fishing (e.g., scrapping).
Unless this excess capacity and excess fleet is taken out of the
fisheries altogether, it will simply mean ex-groundfish vessels going
into other fisheries and creating problems in those fisheries--a kind
of ``serial depletion.'' We need, as one representative of the trawl
fleet testified, ``to find a way where they can leave the fishery with
dignity.'' This is no time for Congress to be cheap. The quicker the
excess trawl capacity issue is dealt with in the groundfish fishery,
the sooner that fishery will be on its road to recovery, providing jobs
for small trawlers, longliners, hook-and-liners, and putting dollars
back into the economy.
Regional Council Membership
In 1985 and 1986, PCFFA was actively involved with the National
Wildlife Federation working on Magnuson Act amendments. One of the
amendments we sought was to tighten up the qualifications for
membership on the regional Councils, aimed at eliminating the
``dabbling dilettantes'' being nominated by the governors and appointed
by Commerce that knew next to nothing about fisheries. That amendment
did help the Council process by at least requiring some fishery
expertise of Council members. The problem that exists today, is the
language: (1) may have been drafted so tightly (although we do not
believe it was) as to eliminate consideration and appointment of
knowledgeable representatives of the conservation community; and (2)
may not fully eliminate potential conflict of interest problems.
In 1985, there was little interest on the part of the conservation
community in fisheries or the Magnuson Act. All that has changed in the
past 15 years and PCFFA finds itself working closely with conservation
organizations on fishery issues much the same as it worked with many of
the same organizations on wetland, forest practice, and offshore oil
issues two decades ago. If the governors or Commerce are reluctant to
nominate or appoint conservation representatives because of current
Magnuson language, then the Act should be amended, making it explicit
that knowledgeable conservation representatives are eligible for
membership.
PCFFA is dismayed that some regional Council members have used
their position for their personal financial benefit. But before rushing
to eliminate commercial fishermen from the regional Councils, and the
expertise and knowledge they bring to the process, Congress needs to
consider the potential conflicts of interest of all Council members and
deal with that as a package. Clearly, representatives of organizations,
who are staff, whether they be commercial fishing, sport fishing,
processor, or conservation, will have a direct and financial conflict
if they are forced to vote on an issue where commitments have been made
to members or funding groups and the position of that individual could
be in jeopardy as a result of his/her vote or votes on an issue. If the
problem of having an organization's executive or staff member sit on a
regional Council, and their potential conflict of interest is not
addressed, the regional Councils are likely to end up being filled with
association executives--at least from the fishing industry--with no
practical fishing experience or expertise. They will sit on the
Councils earning their association pay placating the most extreme
elements within their groups. This is the worst kind of conflict,
because such members will be hesitant to take any position that any of
their members might not agree with out of fear of losing their jobs.
An even more insidious conflict of interest problem exists with the
state fishery directors sitting on the regional Councils. The conflict
of interest that helped destroy the salmon fishery was not from
fishermen sitting on the Pacific Council but from state fishery
directors carrying out their Governors policies of protecting the big
dam operators, irrigation operators and timber corporations at the
expense of the fish and fishing men and women. Congress has to come to
grips with this very real conflict of interest that often exists with
the state fishery directors sitting on the regional Councils. At the
very least, where a state Administration policy is in conflict with
fishery conservation, the state fishery director should be required to
recuse themselves and not vote.
Finally, although this is not a Council membership conflict of
interest issue, it is a clear conflict of interest. It is the
continuing problem of having the supposedly ``independent'' regional
Councils reliant on being represented by attorneys from the office of
NOAA General Counsel. It is my experience that the regional Councils
would be far better served and make better decisions were they advised
and represented by their own legal counsel and not attorneys bought and
paid for by NMFS. How can we expect the regional Councils to exercise
any type of independent judgement if they are being advised by NOAA
Counsel?
Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQs)
There are always some looking for a ``magic bullet'' that will cure
all that ails a problem, despite the complexity. No doubt there are
some that have testified before the Committee that if only we allow the
regional Councils to go to ITQ management or establish no-take marine
protected areas (MPAs) all will be solved in the fishery. We're here to
tell you there is no magic solution for our fisheries and some of the
bullets that have been proposed can be downright deadly in the wrong
hands or with a shotgun approach.
First of all, ITQs can only work for fisheries that are under quota
management, which many are not under. Therefore, they are not much good
for fisheries such as many salmon fisheries that are managed by seasons
and area closures, not quotas. Second, ITQs do not necessarily work as
proponents claim, nor do they necessarily promote conservation. In some
instances, ITQs have made fishermen into sharecroppers. Their lot has
not been improved by ITQs, but worsened.
ITQs are not and should not exist, as many have, for the benefit of
processors, banks or lending institutions. Unless they clearly promote
conservation and unless they can help fishing men and women and the
fishing communities, they should continue to be banned. Unless they are
uniformly endorsed by the fishing men and women who will be subject to
them (not some magic bullet idea from a conservation group now seeing
blue) they should not even be considered. You should note the Icelandic
courts, to the relief of many of its fishermen, have thrown out that
nation's ITQ program.
Prior to any lifting of the ITQ moratorium, NMFS should be directed
to prepare guidelines for the region Councils to follow in any ITQ
scheme and then allow for a national debate to determine once and for
all whether this is the course that should be followed for some
fisheries and, if so, what should the ITQ programs look like?
Marine Protected Areas (MPAs)
The other ``magic bullet'' now being thrown around to solve our
fishery problems are marine protected areas or MPAs. Marine protected
areas or reserves are hardly a new thing and have existed in coastal
ocean areas of the world, including the U.S. for years. Within those
where most human activities are precluded, they may be useful for
baseline scientific research. In other instances, even where certain
types of fishing and other activities are allowed, these areas can help
to protect special habitats or certain resident species of fish or
shellfish. What is important here, to note, however, is that they are
not a useful management or conservation tool for all fisheries, nor do
they necessarily have to preclude take, if their purpose is not solely
for research.
We would hope that in the discussion over MPAs, Congress allow the
regional Councils to proceed with exploring this issue, neither
limiting the debate, nor directing the Councils or NMFS to take actions
without thorough scientific and fishing industry input and review. MPAs
may serve a useful purpose in providing us baseline information, or
protecting certain habitats or resident species, but they are not a
substitute for other fishery management measures or tough EFH
protections. And, if not carefully selected and implemented, MPAs could
actually exacerbate some fishery problems by unnecessarily closing some
fishing areas or forcing fishing into areas not capable of sustaining
high effort levels.
Again, PCFFA wishes to thank the Committee for the opportunity to
provide these written comments. If members or staff have any questions,
please contact our San Francisco office. Thank you.