Transcripts For CSPAN3 Hearing Examines Fishery Laws Ahead Of Reauthorization 20170802

This laws impact on managing our nations fisheries, its successes to date and possibly areas of improvement. The committee has already announced a field hearing in alaska later this month and i look forward to hearing from stakeholders at additional hearings throughout the country this fall. I would like to first welcome both of our witnesses, dr. John quinn, the chair of the Council Coordination committee, the ccc, and mr. Chris oliver, noaas assistant administrator for fisheries. The last reauthorization of msa was 11 years ago and it created the ccc. The ccc has the leadership of eight Regional Councils to discuss areas of common interest and im pleased to have dr. Quinn here today to discuss consensus views of the eight counsels on the msa reauthorization. Im also pleased to introduce chris oliver, firstever alaska on the hold the position of the assistant administrator for fisheries before becoming director, chris spent 27 years working at the North Pacific Fisheries Management council the last 17 as its executive director. As an alaskan, we are thrilled to have you in this important position. Based on his work at the gulf of mexico and his extensive experience overseeing the largest and bestmanaged fishery in the country i have confidence that under his leadership alaska and americas interests will be well represented and the concerns and perspectives of commercial charter recreational fishermen alike will be valued. For so many alaskans and their families around so many throughout the country fishing is a way of life. As i mentioned at this Committee Many times, our fisheries are by far the largest in the nation. Id like to say alaska is the superpower of seafood, constituting over 50, almost close to 60 of all domestic landings in the country and tens of thousands of jobs. In many communities our fisheries are the backbone of their economy. Its my intention to ensure the next msa reauthorization guarantees continued strong coastal communities not only in alaska but throughout the country. As Congress Considers whether or not the msa is in need of changes, its important that we simply not rest on previous gains. In the last time since the msa was authorized, technology has rapidly advanced, yet legislation able to support that technology has not, specifically as it relates to Data Collection, stock assessments and other analytical tools to help improve the accuracy of fish stock information. Better understanding the health of the stocks and how technology can assist in that regard as well as reducing administrative burdens on our fishing industry are topics ripe for discussion and possible elements of a reauthorization. In addition, as we continue to responsibly manage the fishery resources across the United States, we must ensure our nations Fisheries Management system supports a stable food supply, recreational opportunities and plentiful fishing and processing jobs that provide for vibrant coastal communities. With that, i want to thank witnesses again for being here. I recognize the Ranking Member for any Opening Statement he may have. Senator peters . Well, thank you, mr. Chairman, and thanks to our witnesses for being here this morning to discuss the important issue of reauthorizing magnussonstevens act. As you know, the original 1976 act helped reduce exploitive fishing by foreign fleets in u. S. Water and protect our countrys important fishery resources. Since that time, we have come to understand the importance of sustainably managing our fisheries and preserving these incredibly important natural resources. The most recent authorizations have successfully rebuilt several fish populations to healthy sustainable levels to the benefit of coastal communities. But we still have overfishing and overfished populations and we should always seek out ways to improve the Management Systems that we create. The need to determine what is working, what needs improvement and ways to improve fishery management is why we are all here today. I regret that i cant spend as much time at this hearing as i would like due to a scheduling conflict but thats why we have a hearing record and i look forward to learning what our expert witnesses have to share with us. Michigan, like much of the rest of the country is full of hunters and anglers. Every year, nearly 1. 8 million anglers fish on the great lakes and there are roughly 1900 charter boats operating there. This active di is estimated to have a 7 billion impact on the surrounding economy and directly supports about 50,000 jobs. While we michiganers are typically targeting wall eye, trout perch and muskies, there are many of us who travel to states like florida and alaska to enjoy salt Water Fishing opportunities. Michigan also has a very robust marine Product Manufacturing industry that depends on vibrant coastal communities and wellmanaged federal fisheries. Finally, michigan, like much of the rest of the country is full of seafood lovers. We want to be assured that the fin fish and shellfish that we purchase at markets and in restaurants, much of which comes from states like alaska and florida, is imported or is imported from other countries is responsibly harvested. So how we manage our federal fisheries matters to the folks in michigan. What we do about the scourge of illegal unreported or unregulated fishing occurring in the waters of other countries and on the high seas also matters a great deal to us. Conserving these resources through Sustainable Management so they can continue to support the businesses and communities that rely on them matters to folks in michigan e. Key to Sustainable Management is making sure we are using sciencedriven process. Fisheries management is complex and needs to account for the interactions between different species, between species and their habitat. Understanding those many interactions takes a lot of study and a lot of data which requires a lot of monitoring. It is important to look for ways to leverage developments in technology and science to do the critical job of managing our federal fisheries better. Only by gathering and utilizing all of the environmental information necessary can we understand the ocean, the coastal ecosystems that provide us with this important and delicious natural resource. Mr. Chairman, i also want to mention that while i understand that most fresh Water Fishery issues are not within the purview of this committee, i have introduced a bill called the Great Lakes Fishery Research Authorization actover 2017. This legislation, which was referred to the committee on environment and public works will solidify the scientific basis upon which fisheries in the great lakes are managed by augmenting current data methods and utilizing new cuttingedge technologies. Its my hope that as part of this important msa reauthorization process we might have some cross pollenization of ideas and approaches to conservation and management between Great Lakes Fisheries and federal salt water fisheries. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, senator peters. Now i ask senator nelson, the Ranking Member of the commerce committee, if hed like to make an Opening Statement as well. Thank you, mr. Chairman, just a couple of comments. One of the great things about this committee is the broad jurisdiction that it has in areas that are so important to the country as a whole. You think about this. The 1970s, theres senator magnussen from washington, theres senator stephens from alaska and they knew that there was a problem in new england, in senator markeys area, because it was getting overfished so they set about to do something about it and thats more than three decades ago and we are the beneficiaries of that kind of bipartisan effort, clearly, mr. Chairman, your state of alaska is one of the most fertile fisheries around. By the way, thats one of the reasons we have one of the most Important Reasons of why we have the u. S. Coast guard up there. It not only is given the task from the United States navy of protecting our National Protect that big, big fishing fleet. And then as its interesting that the members of the committee we have a number of members that represent landlocked states. They dont have a direct outlet to the ocean yes, you are the great lakes. But yet they participate and understand the importance of the magnussen stephens act and so thank you for having this hearing and, of course, my state, when it comes to down right recreational, charter boats as well as commercial fishing, were known as the capital of the fishing world. And i can speak that sounds more impressive than the superpower of seafood. [ laughter ] and i can speak for senator wicker that there is a great deal that comes from the livelihoods of the people along the gulf and, of course, in the case of the atlantic when senator markey comes back all up and down the atlantic that comes from the commercial fishing. The gulf is such an important resource and of all types and we know that we have to protect it. Interestingly, also, the gulf happens to be off of florida, the largest testing and Training Range for the United States military in the world and so we have for our National Security sake like wide reasons to protect that gulf. Ill just close by saying that one of the greatest challenges that i saw was when five Million Barrels of oil were spilled in the gulf and. That immediately affected the livelihoods of a lot of people, not only in the fishing industry but also it cut out an entire season of our Tourism Industry on the gulf coast because people thought that the beaches were covered with oil. It is a unique environment and this committee is particularly suited to protect this kind of ocean environment. So i am very grateful that youre bringing up for discussion the magnussen stephens act. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, senator nelson. I want to again welcome our witnesses today, mr. Chris oliver, assistant administrator for the National Marine fisheries service, nmfs. I want to exprison my appreciation to secretary ross for the selection of chris. Dr. John quinn, the chair of the Council Coordination committee in northeast Fisheries Management council. You will each have five minutes to deliver an oral statement, a longer written statement will be included in the record if you so desire. Mr. Oliver, the floor is yours. Is that on . Thank you for the dunt to testify today. I participated in both the 1996 and 2006 reauthorization processes in my previous role and while im wearing a different hat today and this administration has yet to take formal position on specific issues, my fundamental perspectives remain built upon the success of the act as evidenced by Sustainable Management in the North Pacific fisheries and the successes weve achieved in fisheries across the United States. I would like to describe some of the agencys successes under the act but i want to focus on some of the challenges that remain. The act has been an outstanding success, in partnership with the councils, commissions and other stakeholders, weve effectively ended overfishing in this country and are rebuilding fish stocks across the board, thereby ensuring a sustainable supply of seafood for the nation in the future. The magnussenstephens act created broad goals for u. S. Fisheries in the a unique structure centered around Regional Councils. I can attest to the value of that system which encourages a collaborative bottomup process where input and decisions include fishermen, other fishery stakeholders, affected states, tribes and the federal government. Working together fishermen scientists and managers brought back numerous resources in fisheries across our country. Im proud of the accomplishment ins alaska where our approaches have led them to be widely recognized as one of the most successfully managed fisheries in the world yet we have challenges remaining. As an example, while our west coast ground fish species are have built several important stocks, in recent years, fishermen are leaving significant portions of the available harvest in the water due to outdated regulations and also by catch constraints. We have to find ways to maximize the allowable harvest in our fisheries but do so within our overall longterm conservation goals. I think this is a case for some of our commercial fisheries and Recreational Fisheries as well. Salt water reck dre united nationsal fishing is among the nations favorite past times and a major contributor to the economies at all levels. We are pleased to announce we are partnering with the Atlantic States marines Fisheries Commission to hold a summit in march of 2018. While annual catch limits are a cornerstone of Sustainable Management, we have to recognize that managing under acls and accountability measure has been a major change and new challenge for many fisheries and thats the case for commercial as well as correRecreational Fisheries our management goals may differ from commercial fisheries. Additional flexibility in how we apply those Accountability Measures and annual catch limits as well as rebuilding schedules could expand our collective tool box and our ability to address issues which have been raised in reauthorization discussions. I can assure you we stand ready to assist in any way we can as those approaches are being considered. Americas seafood industry sets a global standard for sustainability. However the majority of seafood we consume is imported. While there are some opportunities to enhance wild stock harvest, we believe significant head room lies in expanded aqua culture production and we are making marine Aqua Culture Development a renewed Priority Development within the agency through operational and budgetary incentives. Coordination of the regulatory and permitting process is a key area where we can be more effective. With more efficient regulation of our wild stock fisheries, we can position the nation to make inroads on the seafood deficit. The current act works very well for most fisheries, however, i believe there are opportunities to provide additional flexibility to allow us to more effectively manage those fisheries, particularly those that have different catch accounting challenges or could benefit generally from alternative management approaches. Although challenges remain in some of those fisheries in the near term, overall the benefits for the resources, the industries it supports and our economy in general can be realized as fish populations grow and catch limits increase in the longer term. In that sense i believe we can have it both ways. I believe that we can maximize opportunities take opportunities to maximize our domestic harvest potential without compromising the longterm sustainability of the resources we manage. I and noaa fisheries are committed to working with congress throughout this reauthorization process to achieve just that goal. And that really concludes my opening comments, mr. Chairman, and, again i know there will be questions and ill be happy to try to answer them. Thank you director oliver, dr. Quinn . Thank you very much, chairman sullivan and Ranking Member peters, my name is john quinn and im here to testify on behalf of the council coordinating committee. By way of background, im the director of Public Interest law programs at the university of Massachusetts School of law in dartmouth which is right next door to the port of new bedford, one of the leading fishing ports in the nation. Ive been involved in tischrys issues for the last 30 years as a lawyer, a state legislator and for the last five years as a member of the new england Fisheries Management council. Commercial, recreational and subsistence fisheries are key contributors to our nations economy. The councils are the cornerstone of the regional system created by the act and as a group we are strong believers in its benefits. Today ill highlight a few issues detailed in my written statement grouping the three themes a need for management flexibility, the importance of our public process and a need for adequate resources, ill begin with management flexibility. The wide variety of fisheries in our country means no single solution to management challenges will work in all cases. Our strategy should be to create a flexibility Legal Framework that allows for a wide range of management solutions. This is particularly true when it comes to promoting Sustainable Fisheries. To that end, the act requires a stock in Poor Condition must be rebuilt within 10 years. This arbitrary timeline can cause problems. Imagine every homeowner could only choose a tenyear mortgage when purchasing a home. Well, that would work for some, it would not work for all. I want to make it clear that we do not seek eliminating rebuilding requirements but we believe that targeted changes to the law would enable the development of better rebuilding plans. Theres not just the councils that reach this conclusion, the issue is highlighted in the report by the National Research council in 2014. There is also a need for flexibility at the tactical level, councils need to be able to consider a wide variety of management tools without burden some requirements. Acls and ams may not be the best tools to managing all fisheries. Finally most regions have used exempted fishing permits for research that leads to management solutions. Requirements for the efp process would reduce the ability to get them approved in a timely man r manner. Fishermen in their communities would suffer as a result. As to the public process, clearly a transparent process is critical to maintaining public trust. This need can be met in a variety of ways but defining specific web cast requirements will lead to additional expense and ignore the technical difficulties encountered when Holding Meetings in isolated fishing ports. All proposed actions are carefully examined before implementati implementation. We believe that alternative analysis should be done within the framework of the act rather than nepa. With 40 years of experience, the council provides a wellknown timetested forum for resolving fisheries issues. When other statutes are used to develop fishing, that public process is sidestepped. If all regulations are promulgated under section 302 of the act it would ensure management of our resources throughout the range. As to resources, in order to effectively manage fisheries, a significant investment is needed at all steps of the process. We currently rely heavily on data and analysis provided by nmfs. Reducing stock assessment funds will reduce harvest by u. S. Fishermen which will increase imports of foreign seafood. Increasing stock assessment funding including that needed to collect the necessary data is one of the best investments an administration can make in u. S. Fisheries. Changes have done little to increase the catch assessments. That i dont provide the data needed for reliable monitoring of acls and ams. Addressing this problem will require increased sampling rate which is can occur with increased funding. While we recognize Strategic Planning is necessary there are concerns it creates unfunded mandates. We should fulfill existing regulatory and management requirements before new mandates are required. Finally i believe its important to acknowledge the support of relationship between the councils and Marine Fisheries services. The Science Centers are critical to our process. Its unfortunate mr. Oliver decided to transfer to the secondbest part of the partnership but we look forward to working with him in the futu future. Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee. Im happy to answer questions. Thank you, dr. Quinn, and i like the little rivalry between the witnesses here. Thats helpful. Let me begin by asking to build on what senator nelson said. He made an important point about the bipartisan history with regard to the or gins of this act and thats certainly my goal as a chairman to bring together members on both sides of the aisle when were looking at reauthorization of the msa. So given that id like to ask both of you starting with mr. Oliver, what would you see in the msa what would you hope to see in msa reauthorizations, the issues that you think its important to address and what areas of consensus do you think exists between commercial interests, recreational interests, conservation groups. However you want to answer that question, both of you, i think thats a key issue to get your views on that high level but important issue. Thank you, mr. Chairman, ill take a shot at that. In my previous role you probably have heard me testify on behalf of the North Pacific council when i was in a that role that the current act is working very well and we didnt see the need for substantive changes. Im in a new role now and i as look at the issue more broadly and ive heard from constituents around the country ive heard the dialogues that have occurred with regard to the ideas that have been committed or discussed over the past year or two in various reauthorization discussions. And i have come to believe that there is room in many a lot of the measures in the act that are designed around commercial fisheries and i think there is possibility that additional flexibilities that are being considered, whether it be regard to annual catch limits for rebuilding plans, for the Accountability Measures particularly to enforce the annual catch limits. I think this is particularly true in data and fisheries commercial fisheries where we dont a quite the stock assessment or Data Collection catch Accounting Systems that im used to in my previous role. Very robust and accurate. So youre saying those dont exist evenly throughout Different Councils and different regions . I think thats correct, sir and across different fisheries. Many Recreational Fisheries are of a nature that they dont lend themselves to stricter Accountability Measures and i think theres probably room for us the more tools we have in our tool box, and i think this is i wont speak for dr. Quinn but i know speaking from my own experience and, again, our administration hasnt taken positions on these specific actions so i have to be careful how i answer without ive got well, i can ask you n your personal view then. In my personal experience i think if more tools that we have, the better job we can do in these fisheries that dont have the robust stock assessment and particularly in Recreational Fisheries that have a different set of goals and objectives in many cases for management so i think theres a lot of room for that flexibility that i think is being considered through this reauthorization process. Dr. Quinn, would you like to address that broad topic . Sure and i think by the nature of the hearing were hear to reauthorization the magnussen act not repeal it so much of the aspects are working well. Were here to tweak it and a couple things, just like mr. Oliver, the issue of Data Availability and stock assessment ins the recreational side is something we have work to do. Also this level of uncertainty in the stock assessments is something and can be solved or at least shrunk through the purpose of getting mar data. So i think data needs a very important and the uncertainty. Recreational, the commercial, these acls and ams work for the commercial, not necessarily for the recreational. Let me follow up on that point, mr. Oliver. How does nmfs view Recreational Fishing and commercial fishing in terms of their similarities and differences from each other and, again, are there flexibility provisions that exist in the msa that can address that or do we need to look at that as an area of possible reform . I think many of the challenges are similar but there are some fundamental differences. We recently had rekrigss to the National Standard one guidelines that have been in place for a few months and i think some of the councils have been able to take advantage of those revisions to the National Standard one guidelines but i dont think they necessarily fully address some of the problems and some of the regions and i think those exist for both commercial and Recreational Fisheries. In many cases we lack the fundamental information on in terms of stock assessment whats in the water where and the ability through realtime accounting to know whats precisely coming out of the water and some of those are internal challenges that we need to deal with within the existing structure of the act and within the existing structure of our own regulations. Some of them could benefit from additional flexibility that might be provided through the reauthorization process. Great. Thank you. Senator markey . Thank you, mr. Chairman, very much, dr. Quinn, thank you for coming down from the bay state. We very much appreciate it. We appreciate your work of chairing the new england fishery Management Council and the regional fishery Management Council coordinating committee and from your research at umassdartmouth, youre a master of maritime. So i thank you for all of your wor work. You know as well as anybody knows in our country that noaas data shows that Climate Change will have a profound impact on our oceans and marine life with many species moving north into new areas or deeper waters. Ocean acidification impedes the development of shellfish, lobster populations are moving north while southern species like black sea bass are appearing in greater numbers off the coast of massachusetts, Ocean Acidification would be devastating to shellfisheries like we have in massachusetts. New bedford is the highestgrossing port in the United States and 78 of landings are scallops. In fact, a noaa report determined new bedford was the port most at risk in the nation due to Ocean Acidification from Climate Change. What tools do, dr. Quinn, Regional Councils have to ensure we can respond to fish stocks that are moving or changing due to Climate Change . I first want to add that new bedford has been the highest grossing port for the last 15 years in a row. So very good news. I think unfortunately we do not have a switch that we can flip and lower the water temperature or decrease the Ocean Acidification. I think what we can do is continue to collect more and more data to try and identify trends, as you said, that tor markey, of if i recollect moving or Ocean Acidification impacting shellfish beds. I think some councils have a lot of data on this, i think others dont so increasing monitoring is very important for us to plan for the future of Climate Change. Do you have the tools that you need in new england in order to do the mop or thing adequately . I think weve got the structure. I think additional monitoring comes with a financial cost to do additional monitoring outside of what we are doing now so that would be a good tool for us to have to expand monitoring on the Climate Change area. The gulf of maine where massachusetts is and where we do our fishing is the fastestwarming body of water on the planet so this is just warming up very, very fast and cod need cold water, lobster need cold water so as this water heats up ever more rapidly, theyre just moving, the lobster and cod, further to the north and impacting the fishing community. Absolutely. The southern new england lobster industry has all moved north because of the warming temperatures and certainly coming up in massachusetts, fishermens nets are dishing feces that arent caught up there usually so its certainly reflected in the landings. And Ocean Acidification does have a profound impact, especially on shellfish. Can you talk a little bit about your feeling about the need for more basic research so that we can understand the impact which Ocean Acidification is having on the fishing industry . Sure. Absolutely, we need as Much Research as possible in the Climate Change area, in the Ocean Acidification. Weve got great programs of Collaborative Research and cooperative research, which industry is involved and the fishermen doing research so its important that data, data, data, the more data we can get on this, the more data we can get on other aspects this act that are helpful for planning purposes. Thank you. And dr. Oliver, on the question of illegal, unreported, unregulated fishing in the United States, noaa issued its final rule in december of 2016, can you give us a little bit of an update as to the implementation of the rule and what the pace is for its scheduled implementation in january of 2018 . [ inaudible ] are you speaking specifically on the yes. On the iuu theres different things. The seafood fraud question is what im trying to get at. The heart of the seafood fraud issue and the rules that youre going to put on the base. The traceability rules. Oh, the traceablity in the seafood. Yes, sir, im not an expert on that. Ill be honest with you, i can try to get you more information on exactly where we are with that but that rule is really meant to balance the Playing Field, if you will, between imposing requirements that are already imposed on our own fishermen for exporting, to impose that same requirement on imports to simply ensure that those fisheries are adhering to a similar standards so its really a leveling the Playing Field as i best understand it but i know theres been a lot of interest in that rule and the additional requirements it puts on our producers. I know theres been a lot of interest in other aspects of that rule such as including shrimp, for example, because so many of our imports and our trade deficit based on those imports is from imported farmed shrimp. For a variety of reasons we were not able to do that. Thats something were going to be pursuing in the future but i dont have any, i guess, more to say on that. If there are more specific questions that you have id be glad to follow up with you. I think for the record the it would be important for us to understand what noaa believes the state of play is with regard to illegal fishing, seafood fra fraud, it does harm our domestic fishermen in a significant way so if you could provide that information to the council and this committee as well. , absolutely, sir. Senator wicker, mr. Oliver, let me pick up on a line of questioning that chairman sullivan was pursuing during his time and thats salt water Recreational Fishing. You mentioned on page two of your testimony that noaa fisheries is going to partner with Atlantic States marines fisheries to host a National Summit in charge of next year on salt water Recreational Fisheries. Ive introduced a bill called the modernizing recreational Fisheries Management act which would amend magnussen stephens to improve Recreational Fishing. Its cosponsored by Ranking Member nelson and senator blunt, inhofe, schotz and klobuchar of this committee. Will you work with congress as we explore magnussen stevens reauthorizations reauthorization while helping to fix the problems at hand, especially those with Recreational Fishing and i would mention specifically the Marine Recreational Information Program which our recreational fishermen believe lacks timeliness and accuracy. They believe the program is not designed to monitor short seasons like red snapper and have you looked at my bill and also have you looked at the ideas of innovations such as mississippis tails and scales electronic reporting system for red snapper landings by using smartphone snaps . So its sort of a twopart question that ill wrap into one there. Thank you, senator, mr. Sullivan, senator sullivan. Yes, i thank you for the question. We absolutely want to work within whatever construct you have to improve those types of information. I have become acutely aware in the short month that i have been here of some of the issues surrounding not just red snapper but certainly a lot of focus on red snapper. Particularly with regard to some of our some lessthanperfection satisfaction with some of our own stock assessment information, less than perfect satisfaction with our programs. Thats a gentle way to say that. Yes, sir. And we, of course have pend ago baseline benchmark stock assessment for red snapper thanks to funding thats been provided. It will be a couple years before we get the results but that will be an important piece of information. On the Data Collection side whats coming out of the water i have heard from a number of constitue constituents, from a number of people ive had discussions amongst my own staff leadership over the past two yeex about so about the dissatisfaction with the program and the speed with which its progressing. That program is a work in progress and i understand some of the frustrations, i think we have improvements pending on it going from the Telephone Survey to a mail survey will be an improvement. Ive also heard that its not enough, not fast enough and were not taking great enough advantage of state Data Collection programs as the one you referenced and a couple thoughts on that is i have made it a priority based on discussions over the past two weeks to prioritize and expedite the certification of those state data programs. We are using data from many of those programs and a lot are supports but i have heard loud and clear that we need to expedite the certification of those programs and the use of the data in those programs and i personally believe when you look around at the technology we have today and cell phone, Smartphone Technology there that there have to be we have to find a way to utilize those technologies to get that information quickly, more quickly and more accurately and i know that there have been concerns about using that information as the apples and oranges problem tying it to data from other programs in terms of stock assessments but i think we are going to make it a priority to do that. We that. I also believe that regardless of the implications for stock assessment, if we have a way to get better information today about what fish is coming out of the water, we darn well need to be using that, and i absolutely agree with the provisions and the points that youre making. Ive had a chance to briefly look at the legislation youve introduced, and i think its consistent with the it seems to be consistent with what we intend to do and certainly any help and direction that you want to provide for us we look forward to working with you, sir. My time as expired, but ill ask you on the record about something i was going to explore in this hearing. That thats aquaculture and federal waters and there were rules and so far we havent had any bites on applications because of the expensive permitting process and other regulatory challenges, so, mr. Chairman, i think ill just ask mr. Oliver to comment on the record since were pressed for time here about why he thinks we havent had anybody apply now that we have a program for agriculture. Great, if you can take that question for the record for senator wicker, we would appreciate that very much. Senator inhofe . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Back when i enjoyed life i was a voter and developer. That was yesterday. That was several years ago. That was today, i hope. In South Padre Island, texas, and i know youre in a different area, however, youre familiar with the different regions. Did i understand from the introduction we got from our chairman, mr. Oliver, that you were from the gulf area . Yes, mr. Chairman. I grew up in rockport, texas, on the gulf coast not far from padre island. We claim him as an alaskan, though. No, i claim him as a texan, hows that . No, its interesting that you are familiar with the interest that i have in that down there and its really just to clear some things up. First of all, down in texas, and there is a lot of interest, i have to say. My state of oklahoma with people, thats the closest coast we go to and there are a lot of industries that are very active down there, so were interested in the coast. They went and we go out and a number of miles we go out thats under state jurisdiction, it was three miles and its now nine miles, is that correct . Texas is ninemile territorial. Yeah, but at one time it was only three miles . Not in my lifetime, sir . I see. My staff is wrong on that then. My interest is when things that are unforeseen come up, how do you handle that and do you have the jurisdiction that were talking about right now, both of you are talking about, is that just the federal jurisdiction were talking about or do you also oversee the state jurisdiction . In this its texas, but im sure it would be true in other states. We do not manage inside territorial waters and we only manage, for example, red snapper outside the state waters. We have to take into account what the stateses do in their state water seasons in order to which is why we were only originally able to set a threeday season for the waters for red snapper in 2017. Obviously, weve immraemented regulations that have changed that and relaxed that for the remainder of the summer, but whether and to what extent we can do that in the future remains to be seen. I think it depends on pending stock assessments and theres pending litigation on the measures we implemented this year. Theres potential legislation that you could introduce that could affect what we may do and what may be the situation at 17, but the short answer to your question the states essentially manage what happens within their waters, whether it be three or nine miles or otherwise and we have to react and make up the difference on the federal side and thats where that adjustment and federal seasons comes in, and were not enthusiastically about publishing a threeday federal season and that was where the math left you, sir. We had a threeday season for the entire year . For federal waters that was the original season for 2017. We have since published a subsequent regulation that is extending that season for some 39 days, i believe, now. That is being litigated or challenged, but i dont know what the outcome of that will ultimately be. It may be litigated or challenged, but theyre doing it right now . Yes, sir. Dr. Quinn, i know youre in a different region, but a lot of the same principles apply. When you are making the assessments that mr. Oliver talked about, you use there are a lot of sources for that. How much do you depend on in terms of the recreational users reporting data and how do you see that . The reason im asking this is my exposure is the recreational people and theyre the ones receiving the short end of the stick, and i wanted to see how you view them and their input . I think the recreational fisherman is very important on the east coast, in particular in new england. We use data that they gather in our assessments and every Regional Science Center has a way to plug in this recreational data into the stock assessments. The question is were going to make sure that its highquality data that we plug in and where it gets plugged into the stock assessment process and our counsel has a great relationship with the recreational industry and well with them closely to get additional data. Again, im talking about South Padre Island and the south coast of texas. Every once in a while with no warning and mow predictability there comes red tide and it changes the populations of fish and all of that. How do the unknown factors and how do you address those in making the assessments there necessary . Over time, the impacts of that will not be seen every day and the day the red tide comeses in or catastrophic situation and over the long term, and see what happens if there is a trend created that will be the decline in stock. So at the point in time that the red tide comes in, you cant really make the assessment and its moreover, a longer term. My time has expired and im very interested in how this works out in terms of the federal versus the state and i appreciate it. Thank you, senator inhofe and senator blumenthal. Thank you, mr. Chairman and thank you for having this hearing. Mr. Oliver, welcome. I want to express my respect for your long history of involvement in this issue both academically and in public service. Im sure youve talked to the fishing fleets in new england, the men who go out in the water and who do this incredibly hard work. The fleets of connecticut, massachusetts have a proud history as a key element in our economy and they are angry and frustrated beyond words, at least beyond words that i can repeat in these chambers and youve heard the very earthy and direct epithets that are used to describe the system we have now, and in my view with profound justification because it has failed the fishermen of new england. That fishing fleet is struggling. The effects of Climate Change have driven the fish that they customarily catch north and it has driven other fish from southern areas into our area, but the catch limits have wanot changed and what theyve seen is they haul a catch beyond their permissible quota of certain fish. They have to throw them back. Theres a waste, billions of dollars are trashed in our oceans annually and meanwhile, fishermen from other Southern States come into their waters and catch their fish. There is something profoundly unfair and intolerable about this situation and in my view, it violates the present law, the act which says and i quote, any management plan, quote, shall not discriminate between residents of different state, end quote, and must allow quotas that are, quote, fair and equitable, end quote. Youve said in your testimony that we need more flexibility, but the fishing fleets of new england have run out of patience and i think there is a need for sweeping, radical, immediate change to accommodate the dwindling and dying industry which is essential to our economy. Would you agree . I would agree in part. I would like to call the new england fishing industry a tale of two industries. Parts of it, the scallop industry is booming. Its in bedford, one of the major ports and often times one of the major port as far down south as North Carolina come to fish into bedford. On the down fish side, youre correct. Its been a struggling industry over time and some of the catch limits in the acls were put in place were based on stock assessments that were performed with industry involved and with the Science Center involved and its a very difficult challenge for the ground fish fleet and not necessarily for the scallop industry. Well, for all industries and for our fishermen, our new england fishermen, the prosperity for the South Carolina or North Carolina fishing industry we wish them well, but theyre not doing us any good, very simply and thats the anger and frustration that i feel on their behalf and they feel it even more directly. Ive been on the dockses and in their towns and we need better answers for them, would you agree . I dont disagree and the counsels process is to collect as much data as we could get to have accurate stock assessments, and i think with the u. S. State of connecticut, theres been this northerly move of fishing stock, lobsters and other species have moved north. So we dont have a simple solution to that, yet temperature raising or the Ocean Acidification. It is due to Climate Change, i agree, but i also would respectfully suggest that the data is there. The facts are known and theres clearly a need to change this system, and my time is going to expire. I have a question for mr. Oliver, but i would, again, respectfully suggest that the present system is far from satisfactory, its a downright failure and i would like to talk to you about further ways we can improve it. I would be happy to, senator. Mr. Oliver, my question to you concerns the budget submitted by the president of the United States. Were here to discuss fisheries including shell fish. Shell fish have a rich history in connecticut and rich in our culture and rich in our economy, and im working hard to preserve and sustain opportunities that sector in our fishing economy and thats why im so concerned about president trumps proposed budget among other reasons that im concerned. That budget slashes funding for programs like sea grant and funding for the millford lab and millford, connecticut. They are doing halfbreaking research in areas that concern our fishing industry. These federal Research Efforts to help grow and expand certain forms of agriculture. In effect, aquaculture are very, very promising for the entire country. So as a representative of this administration, how do you justify these proposed cuts in noaa programs that you are responsible for administering . Well, senator, i dont know that im in a position to comment very extensively on the president s budget. I do know that they placed a revised emphasis on the department of defense and National Security. Well, im on the Arms Services committee, sir, and i very much support that emphasis and its incorporated in the ndaa which i have helped to approve lieu the Arms Services committee. It will come to the floor of the senate probably next month and i support it. It was passed unanimously, but this kind of slashing and trashing of programs that are essential to the programs you administer that are vital to our Economic Future in aquaculture and agriculture i consider a mockery of the mission of your agency, and if youre not in a position to justify it, who would be . And i just want to say to you that im not being personal about is. You are here as a representative of the administration, and i want to know how you can possibly justify it. What i can say, sir, is well do our best to operate within the budget that we have, and i know that a lot of the programs that were slated to be cut involve cooperative agreements or pass Grant Funding through the Sea Grant Program and grants to the coastal states. Ill do my best. Are you going to commit to me that you can make up those cuts to the Sea Grant Program and the millford lab and the university of connecticut that are essential to those programs . I cant commit that were specifically going to be able to make those up from our baseline budget. I think were facing tough decisions, too. Ive said on many occasions that i feel that this agency may be in a position to refocus on some of its very core missions. You would agree that those are valid and important programs . Of course, sir, i really do. Well, my time has expired so i want to continue this questioning with you because if you agree these programs are valid and there can be no question that they are, i think your agency has a responsibility to fight for them and to make sure they are fully funded. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, senator blumenthal. With regard to the budget, i think well be taking a hard look at some of these programs and you know, my own view is some of them are critical and im not sure theyre going to survive. The cuts will survive what we in congress do. I think well add back to the ones that we think are vital, but i know, mr. Oliver, you are only four weeks on the job, so i know every element of the budget is probably not at your fingertips so we recognize that. Im going to ask just a few more questions. We have a distinguished panel here, and i want to take advantage of the opportunity to get your thoughts and views on the record. Both of you have talked about and dr. Quinn, you talked about it in your testimony the issue of how we need to look at the nipa process as it intersects with the nsa authorities. For example, mr. Oliver, many in the North Pacific have support within the nsa to reduce redundancy and burden. Do you have a personal view on that and does the agency have a personal view, and related, dr. Quinn, can you elaborate a little bit more on the ccc concern over the application of nipa requirements to the analysis of Fisheries Management actions . These are kind of related questions. You both have highlighted them, and id like to get your views on them. Its an important issue. Go ahead, mr. Oliver, why dont you be in . Ill start, mr. Chairman, senator. I have a long history in my previous life dealing with the reconciliation of nipa and magges inno. I participated in the working group of the ccc following the 2006 reauthorization where there was a directive provision in the act for the secretary working with ceq and the councils to reconcile and streamline. I forget the exact wording of the statute and reconcile magneson and nipa to try to achieve that goal and while this Current Administration that i am now representing does not have a position on this, i can tell you from my experience in that process that we did not, in my opinion, address the directive and the provision in that act. We essentially ended up in a place where we largely cemented, if you will, the existing nipa process. I dont think we imdont think we can satisfy the provisions and that leaves us with the potential opportunity to look at that again. I will say on the other hand, however, that over the intervening years, we have gotten very good through the counsel process and through the agency and the fishery service. Weve gotten really good with your nipa compliance and using nipa for the fishery management actions and were not losing lawsuits very good and ive thought that the stephenson act would be the dwellicing vehicle for fishermen actions and i still believe that to be the case. I think its an area when we look at reauthorization, we should entertain ideas away that the North Pacific fisheries, Management Council was looking at as you mentioned previously. Dr. Quinn, you touched on this in your written testimony. Do you care to elaborate a little bit more . Sure, ill add a few things, mr. Chairman. The ccc believes that the following nipa adds complexity to the process after the Council Takes action all of the way to implementation and it lengthens out the process. In addition, it confuses the public because were going down two tracks of Public Comment and you two different statutes and rather that encourage more participation, it may discourage it. On occasion the nips has put the nipa process to put an alternative in place. Oftentimes the ccc position is mes interfredded or being Additional Information with a republican, and nothing could be further from the truth and the magnus stephens act, full participation by citizens, by grouping and we dont need to follow the nepa. Particularly given your your role on the ccc and that that is a broadbased Consensus Organization among all of the counsels, if that is one of the views in an area that we think is right for consensus, i think it should be what were looking at. Let me ask more broad question for you, mr. Oliver. Given secretary ross focus on growing the domestic fishing industry and fishing production from the United States which i think all of us welcome. How do you think nips can promote u. S. Fisheries. You and i talk about the export issue and were able to get language in the trade Promotion Authority that for the first time focuses on fishing exports and you know, unfair subsidies for foreign fleets. What are other things it can be doing to promote a goal that most of us certainly agree with . This may sound repetitive, senator, to some of my earlier comments. There is some headroom, andor domestic harvest potential where theyre leaving fish in the water partly due to some lingering regulatory constraints that may or may not be any longer necessary and there are data port fisheries when we talk about flexibility in our annual catch limits and rebuilding schedules and some of the Accountability Measures and again, particularly for datapoor stocks, i think there is there are some opportunities for us to maximize that, and again, im a Firm Believer in science based and ive been in the cornerstone for over 40 years and with the overarching construct, i think there are opportunities. I think and again, in the area of marine aquaculture, thats where i think thats where more headroom is, if you will, in terms of growing our production and competing more in the world market in terms of this whole import export unbalance that were currently on the short end of. I think those are probably a great deal of potential there in the marine aquaculture area. Thank you. Senator booker. Thank you very much, senator. Im here not only because of the important issues were discussing today and also to keep you company, sir. I really appreciate that. Im here for you. I have your back, sir. I know that. Thank you very much for being here for this very important issue and mr. Oliver, you said something about bycatch restraints that has me make this be my first question. About 10 of the worlds fish catch excuse me, is discarded as bycatch and more than more than 22 billion pounds of fish a year is what they estimate that is of just bycatch. This is fish that are not intended to be caught, but end up being killed as a result of our methods. In recent years in the United States we discarded 6 Million Pounds of fish annually and some discard over 60 of their catch as bycatch. I find those numbers astonishing and even unacceptable, and think we can do better than doing that kind of damage to the wild life in our oceans, and im wondering if youll commit to focusing on the issue of bycatch more so in your new role to see if theres anything that we can do any bring forth any ideas about strengthening existing bycatch provisions in the magnus and stephens . I do senator, the bycatch and bycatch reduction has been a focus and a goal of the agency. Its also a goal thats supported by the councils and the council system. Many of the councils have taken Great Strides to reduce bycatch. Some of the bycatch is economic discards are too small and for whatever reason or thrown over. A lot of the bycatch that occurs are regulatory discards in that there are season regulations in place that prohibit people from retaining or selling bycatch and the reason primarily for that is to keep them from targeting it when theyre not supposed to be targeting it, and then you get to the question of, well, but theres bycatch and then theres waste. Part of the point of your question was waste, and i know in my own experience, several years ago we implemented what was originally called a full retention and full utilization requirement for several of our trout fish where the premise was you keep it, you catch it, you keep it and it counts against the quota and it counts against the quota when you throw it away or not, but its still waste. We didnt like the waste of all that fish, and we backed off the 100 for a variety of practicality reasons, but the essence of that is we reduce discards through that program by millions of pounds a year. Hundreds of thousands of tons a year of discards, and i think other councils have done similar things and there are still regulatory discards that i think shouldnt be in place or need to be carefully reevaluated. Mr. Oliver, youre filibustering me and im about to be out of time. A simple question. Can we do better . Yes. And will you focus on trying to do better . Yes. Thank you very much, sir. Im going to try to get another question in. The chairman is pretty tough and strict with time limits, but in 1996 the Sustainable Fisheries act established rebuilding requirements and shortly thereafter 92 fish stocks were identified as overfished, but by 2006, only three of those fish stocks had been rebuilt. The 2006 magnus and reauthorization act responded by having annual catch limb thes and by requiring the plans and overfishing immediately. The United States had rebuilt an additional 38 stocks and something we should be proud of and we now have the lowest level of overfished stocks in the entire history since weve been recording this. In light of the success, do you agree that the annual catch limits are a critical tool for fisheries and how do you respond to calls for even more flexibility on catch limits and rebuilding timelines and i hear that call from great folks in my state who are calling for more flexibility. Im wondering how you how you how you balance that . Senator, i think it is a balancing act as i explained it previously. I am a Firm Believer in annual catch limits and its been a cornerstone for successful management, but i also believe there are opportunities where we can have it both ways. I think there are opportunities for additional flexibility in how we apply annual catch limits to subsequent Accountability Measures and in those rebuilding plans where we can achieve some flexibility that people are seeking without rolling back our Conservation Successes and without resulting in additional overfish stocks, i think we can balance that. Mr. Chairman. You can go on as long as you want. Thank you very much for being so generous and kind to your fellow senator. Last question, sir. Its just another one of my concerns about the larger ecological challenges we have. As we go forward trying to sustain what is a critical industry for my state that provides a tremendous source of Economic Development as well as jobs, but to sustain the managers, managers must consider that balance between the ecological needs and also the recreational value of fishing and that includes managing forage fish that larger species depend upon. New jersey in the mid Atlantic Region as a whole have made considerable strides for the sustainability of the important fish. Nationwide, i feel that we need to be doing more. In many instances there are no management plans for foraged species. What can noaa fisheries and the councils do to improve foraged Fish Management so that fishermen and coastal communities can continue to enjoy the benefits of healthy foraged fish stocks . I totally agree with you the importance of foraged fish in the ecological picture and we talk about the management and thats a critical aspect of that and i would keep falling back on my North Pacific experience, but we banned fishing for a number of foraged fish species nearly two decades ago for those very reasons. I think there are probably different regions that i dont fully understand. There are probably fisheries on those stocks for good reasons, but i think it goes back to that balancing act, and i guess i very much appreciate and understand your comments and its an importance of foraged fish and i think its up to each Council Working with the agency to make sure that were protecting those to the extent we need to be doing for the larger ecological processes. We cant maintain long term sustainability of our target fisheries unless they have unless we manage them properly in and of themselves and unless they have an adequate forage base. Theyre very important. Just another commitment i would love to get from you, but you know shark finning was first outlawed in u. S. Waters in 2000 and the loophole in that original law was closed by the shark conservation act of 2009. I recently asked your office how many shark finning investigations noaa has opened since january 1, 2010. I was shocked to find out that since 2010 noaa has investigated over 500 incidences of alleged shark finning. As of april there were seven shark finning cases that were open, but not yet charged and i guess i might ask for assurances was that would you keep me informed on the process and can you assure me that you and your agencies will take this seriously . Because to me, its a horrific act and shark fins have no nutritional value whatsoever and they do serious damage to that species and i hope to get from you the assurances that the agency tanked with investigating these that theyll continue to make progress and you can keep me informed of that progress. Yes and yes. Thank you very much, sir. I just want to note for the record the grace and generosity of the presiding member senator sullivan. As always, senator booker, ive got your back. Im going to wrap up the hearing with two more questions and i want to take advantage that we have two outstanding witnesses here. Dr. Quinn, what are some of the problems, and along the lines of senator bookers questioning, what are, and what is the position on the use of catch. Mr. Oliver, if you want to weigh in on this question, wed welcome that, as well. Ill start with the second question first, if thats okay, mr. Chairman . Sure. The catch has been very successful in some parts of the country and Different Councils and others, including mine have been far more controversial. Its the cccs position that it should be a tool in the tool box for the Regional Council to determine if that works best for them. Theres the old saying, one size does not fit all and i think this is quite appropriate with the catch phrase. It may work with some, and it may not work in others, and it should work as an option and not a mandate. The first question i asked about some of the challenges that2 a the council faces they catch a number of different stocks . Particularly in new england its a very big challenge because you have the fish swimming together or the scallops and the fish are together and one stock may be much more valuable not just financially, but ecological, but the act streets all species the same. So you cannot pick winners and losers. So its important that we collect a lot of data on it. This turn that mr. Oliver says is a choke species and particularly as we move into the ecosystembased Fisheries Management, it will exacerbate as a problem, as well because were trying to manage a stock, not just one individual species. Mr. Oliver, do you have any comments on those questions . I think my comments are fairly similar to dr. Quinns. When you have a mixed stock fishery, sometimes its problem attic and sometimes its not if all of the species you happen to be catching and the species are currently open and you have markets for them its not a problem. The problem comes into play when youre targeting one specie or catching another when you see it as a discard species or particularly when youre catching a species thats a target species or perhaps a choked target species and thats where the difficulties and management come into play. To briefly address your question about catch shares. I know catch shares is were a huge priority for the previous administration. I dont this administration hasnt taken a formal position on catch shares personally. My personal experience is very similar to dr. Quinns, and an incredibly important tool used to most of the major fisheries in alaska, for example. I think two things. Its not necessarily an appropriate tool for all fisheries, and i do believe that whatever legislation occurs or we have current legislation, if theres new legislation. I think it really needs to maintain the maximum regional flexibility we can, because so many of our fisheries are so different and the way you construct these different catch share programs is very dependent on the specific characteristics and nuances of each fishery, and i would just urge that the maximum flexibility and first of all, whether or not we use the catch share program, but in how we design the catch share program. Thanks. Let me wrap up with one final question, and i do want to compliment both of you on both not only your emphasis on the importance of data and science and were going to back you up with that. We need that and thats critical to wellmanaged fisheries and i know thats been the experience to both of you. I think that thats an area where we will see bipartisan agreement on. But a final question, and ive certainly heard about this in alaska and other hearings and i know thats an issue in different regions of the country and its treated differently in terms of how its funded or subsidized, but as you know, fishermen in some regions have complained about the costs of onboard observers, and have questioned whether emerging technologies such as electronic monitoring might be less expensive and provide comparable or even possibly better information for fisheries managers. Does the nsa provide counselors with the flexibility to provide alternative technologies such as electronic monitoring and again, a question for both of you. What additional tools can congress provide to speed up their use, and i think its again, an important question. Ive met fishermen, you know, in my state where they barely have room to have an additional person onboard and you have to have to do that, and its it can be burdensome, but we want the correct data, but there are much more efficient ways of doing that. Do you have a different view of doing that . Both of you . Sure. Ill lead off. Very similar answer as to catch shares. I mean, the authorities in the act to put electronic monitoring in place, and again, one size does not fit all. Regions have specific industries or specific fisheries that it may or may not depending on the size of the boat and a whole host of other things. There are a lot of pilot programs and a lot of work being done with electronic monitoring and we have the flexibility to have them as one of the tools in the tool box to make it region by region if thats the best way to go. I would just echo the importance of electronic monitoring options, as an option for different fisheries. Does Congress Need to do more to make that clear that thats a viable option . I dont know that theres more that has to be done. I know that we have successfully implementing electronic monitoring options in a number of fisheries and i just signed a rule last week that formally brings electronic monitoring into our North Pacific Observer Program for the fisheries in alaska as an option to a human observer as you point out, senator, and many of the small boat fisheries that we want information on, theyre simply physically unable to accommodate a human observer. While cameras may not be free or even as a cost less costly as many people thought they might be, they probably still are less costly than a human observer and certainly can perform functions that we have cameras in some of the large offshore factory boats, as well, inside the Processing Plant for different reasons, but the importance of being able to use them particularly on the smaller boat fleet is absolutely critical. Listen, i want to thank both the witnesses for your past experience and service to our country and this critical area and certainly, theres a strong interest, i think, a bipartisan interest to work closely with the two of you as you move forward on ideas and consensus for msa reauthorization. I think this is an important start, and if there are, we will keep the record of this hearing open for two more weeks if there are additional questions from members who cannot make the hearing and still have questions for both of you. With that, our hearing is adjourned. Thank you again for attending