TESTIMONY OF
WILLIAM T.
HOGARTH, PH.D.
ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR FOR FISHERIES
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
ON
S. 2066
“FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2004”
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, FISHERIES, AND COAST GUARD
COMMERCE, SCIENCE,
AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
SEPTEMBER 14, 2004
Good morning, Madame Chair and members of the
Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me
to this hearing on reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
I am Dr. William T. Hogarth, Assistant Administrator for the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS), Department of Commerce. Today, I
will testify on legislation introduced by Senator
I believe that we have come a long way in the discussion over the last several years on reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Many Congressional hearings have been held; various bills and discussion drafts have been produced on both the Senate and House sides of Congress; and, just recently, the draft of the U.S. Ocean Commission’s report highlighted a number of the associated Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization issues. In my testimony, I will compare and contrast the most important provisions in S. 2066 with the corresponding proposals in the Administration’s Magnuson-Stevens Act bill, which was transmitted to Congress in 2003. I will also discuss a handful of the major issues addressed in S. 2066.
Last year, after several years of internal deliberation, the Administration transmitted to Congress its proposal on reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. While some of the proposed changes were technical in nature, others addressed issues that we believe will contribute significantly to improved operations of our fishery management programs.
Some of the most important of these proposals include the following:
· Statutory Definitions: Our proposals clarify the definitions of “overfishing” and “overfished.”
· Streamlining the Council Process: We recommend changes that will better enable the Councils to do their jobs. For example, our proposals on notifying the public of Council meetings are more cost effective than the current requirement.
· Individual Fishing Quotas (IFQs): We propose standards for new IFQs that strike a reasonable balance between the need for improved economic efficiency and the concerns about the social and environmental impacts of IFQs.
· Fishing Capacity Reduction Program: Overcapacity is a major concern in many federally managed fisheries. Our proposals modestly streamline the current capacity reduction procedures.
· Economic Information: NMFS and the Councils need improved economic and social information to adequately address management objectives. Our proposals provide needed access to processor data and to proprietary and confidential business information.
· Fisheries Law Enforcement: We recommend several legislative changes that would improve the ability of our agents to enforce fisheries regulations.
I would also like to comment on an important issue that is not in the Administration bill, but I want to bring to your attention—the issue of confidentiality of information. We support the addition of a provision authorizing the release and use of vessel monitoring system (VMS) data collected under the Act to federal agencies for the purpose of national security.
S. 2066 addresses a variety of difficult issues. A large portion of S. 2066 is similar to or compatible with the Administration’s Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization proposals. However, there are a few provisions about which we have questions and, in some cases, substantive concerns. These provisions raise issues about how best to manage our Nation=s marine fisheries. I hope that we can continue the discussion on how to legislatively address these matters beyond this hearing today.
The six areas where NOAA has concerns with S. 2066 are: (1) rebuilding overfished fisheries, (2) individual fishing quotas, (3) ecosystem approaches to management, (4) fishery habitat issues, (5) fisheries science, and (6) revisions to National Standards 4 and 8.
1. REBUILDING OVERFISHED STOCKS
The current statutory time-frame for
rebuilding an overfished fishery is “as short as possible” but “not to exceed
10 years, except in cases where the biology of the stock of fish, other
environmental conditions, or management measures under an international
agreement dictate otherwise.” S. 2066
would remove the 10-year rebuilding requirement and replace it with variable
fishing mortality targets. For fisheries
subject to overfishing (defined in S. 2066 as “a rate or level of fishing
mortality that jeopardizes the capacity of a fishery to produce the maximum
sustainable yield on a continuing basis”), rebuilding plans must limit fishing
mortality to a rate not greater than the rate expected to produce maximum
sustainable yield (MSY). For depleted (overfished) fisheries, (in S. 2066,
“when used with respect to a stock of fish, means that the stock is of a size
that is below the natural range of fluctuation associated with the production
of maximum sustainable yield”) the rate of fishing mortality must be reduced to
80 percent of the rate that would be expected to produce MSY, but no
lower.
In
addition, S. 2066 requires that “fishing restrictions and recovery benefits” be
allocated “fairly and equitably among gear sectors and communities in the
fishery, taking into account the long-run historical participation in the
fishery.”
Finally,
S. 2066 also amends the Magnuson-Stevens Act to require that fishery management
plans “specify a biomass target below which the stock must not be allowed to
fall and a threshold below which the fishing mortality must be reduced.”
We have no
objection to the use of different fishing mortality targets for (1) fisheries
subject to overfishing and (2) overfished stocks. In principle, we are not opposed to using
fishing mortality-based targets as thresholds in rebuilding plans. Indeed, an ongoing NMFS review of National
Standard 1 guidelines has pointed to the need for increased flexibility in
determining the pace of rebuilding.
On the
other hand, the most conservative mortality target in S. 2066 for depleted
(overfished) fisheries would be 80 percent of the fishing mortality rate that
would be expected to produce MSY. In
certain situations, deeper reductions may be called for in order to rebuild
within a reasonable timeframe those stocks that are severely depleted. However, this bill seems to mandate
reductions in fishing mortality to 80 percent, a target that may not always be
appropriate, given the diverse objectives of management measures in recovering
fisheries. We have learned that
different depleted (overfished) fisheries may require distinct recovery
strategies and timetables, depending on the unique biological features of the
species, such as growth and natural mortality rates, the causes of the decline,
and environmental factors beyond the control of fishery managers. As a result,
reductions in fishing mortality that go below 80 percent of MSY may be called
for in some circumstances. In other situations, less restrictive cuts to some
level between 80 and 100 percent of the MSY rate may be appropriate. In
summary, our major concern is that a fixed and nationally applicable reduction
to 80 percent of the MSY rate is excessively rigid and places unnecessary
constraints on the Regional Fishery Management Councils and NMFS.
In
addition, we are concerned that the complete elimination of rebuilding
time-frames may reduce the sense of urgency in the selection of rebuilding
options. Ideally, we would like to see
additional flexibility, without sacrificing the discipline currently provided
by mandatory rebuilding time-frames.
2. INDIVIDUAL FISHING QUOTAS (IFQs)
S. 2066
proposes IFQ standards and other requirements that are significantly more
restrictive than those in the Administration=s bill. We have
particular concerns regarding the following provisions:
·
“Use or lose”
requirement: S. 2066 provides that
“quota shares will be revoked if the owner ceases to substantially participate
in the fishery.” The Administration’s
IFQ proposal contains no such “use or lose” provision, and we believe that a quota
owner should be entitled to elect not to use the quota, depending on the
economic conditions in the fishery, without the revocation of the unused quota
shares.
·
Sunsets: S. 2066 limits “fishing quota systems” to 10
years, after which the Council must formally extend them. This limit is a disincentive to participants,
because it limits the ability of investors to make business plans beyond the
sunset limit, and, therefore, we do not think it is necessary. For example, with a sunset provision in effect,
an owner of quota shares in an IFQ program may have a more difficult time
getting a commercial loan on favorable terms.
For this reason, the Administration’s bill includes no sunset
provision.
·
Petition/referendum: S. 2066 requires approval by 2/3 of eligible
voters in a referendum, while the Administration’s bill proposes that 1/3 of
fishermen may submit a petition and that an IFQ program must be approved by a
“majority” in referendum. NOAA believes
that the 2/3 threshold would present an unreasonable barrier to implementation
of IFQ programs, and favors a simple majority vote for approval.
·
IFQ fees and
auction: S. 2066 effectively caps fees
at 3 percent (the current limit), while the Administration’s bill calls for
three categories of IFQ fees (annual administration, initial allocation, and
transfer fees) that may total as much as 5 percent. The annual administration fee is designed to cover the
additional costs of management and enforcement of the IFQ program; the initial
allocation fee covers start-up costs associated with establishing the program,
in particular determining initial distribution of quota shares; and the
transfer fee covers the administrative costs associated with the lease and/or
sale of quota shares. We believe that
the improved economic performance of IFQ-managed fisheries justifies the higher
fees. Government costs of developing and administering IFQ
programs will tend to be higher than the costs associated with other federally
managed fisheries, while the participants in IFQ programs should earn greater
profits. Therefore, we believe that
these participants should pay for some fair share of these additional
costs. In addition, S. 2066 does not
address the sale of quota shares by means of auctions, while this possibility
is included in the Administration’s bill.
An IFQ auction should at least be available if a Council chooses this
option.
·
Program review and
reports to Congress: S. 2066 requires an
independent review of IFQ programs every five years by the National Research
Council (NRC). The Administration’s bill
provides for “formal and detailed reviews” every five years, but does not
stipulate who will conduct these reviews.
We believe that the Councils and NMFS are capable of carrying out these
program reviews.
3. ECOSYSTEM APPROACHES TO MANAGEMENT
S. 2066
amends Section 406 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, adding a new paragraph (f),
requiring that each Council=s Scientific and Statistical Committee report to the
Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) on “prioritized information or research needs
to support ecosystem-based management.”
S. 2066 also directs that, within 18 months after the passage of the
Act, the Secretary, in consultation with the 8 Council Chairs and affected
stakeholders, “shall identify at least one fishery or complex of interacting
fisheries suitable for the development of a pilot Fishery Ecosystem Plan.” Within another 30 months, the appropriate
Council must submit for Secretarial approval a Fishery Ecosystem Plan.
NOAA
agrees in principle with the concept of ecosystem approaches to fisheries
management. S. 2066 is consistent with
the recommendations of the NMFS Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management Panel
(“Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management: A
Report to Congress by the Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panel,” as mandated by
the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act; U.S.
Department of Commerce, April 1999).
S. 2066 is
also consistent with the National Research Council’s report on Sustaining
Marine Fisheries (1999). Ecosystem
approaches to management is not a new idea, and has been gaining increasing
attention in recent years. In fact, NOAA
is presently working on guidelines for the application of ecosystem principles
in fisheries conservation and management.
During the current fiscal year, Congress has also provided funding for
four regional pilot projects in the Atlantic and the
Finally, NOAA notes that S. 2066 would contemplate a
largely Council-directed process for developing fisheries ecosystem plans. However, ecosystems cover many more oceanic
features than just living marine resources.
While NOAA certainly recognizes that the Regional Fishery Management
Councils need to be essential partners in ecosystem management planning, many other
relevant federal, state and other partners are important as well. The Councils need to continue to pursue their
statutory role of planning ecosystem approaches to management, and providing
for sustainable fisheries and where necessary, rebuilding. NOAA believes, however, that responsibility
for ecosystem approaches to management should be located at a broader level
within the agency, with coordination from relevant federal, state and other
partners. Ecosystem approaches to
management require knowledge of the ecosystem gathered by interagency
scientific research carried out by NOAA, the National Science Foundation, the
U.S. Geological Survey, the National Aeronautic and Space Administration, and
other government agencies.
4. HABITAT ISSUES
S. 2066
makes a number of changes to the current requirements relating to essential
fish habitat (EFH). First, the bill
would amend Section 303(a)(7) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to require FMPs to
identify and describe habitat areas of particular concern (HAPC), in addition
to identifying and describing EFH.
Second, S.
2066 would also amend Sections 305(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act
to require that the Secretary establish guidelines to assist the Councils in
the description and identification of HAPCs.
To further this goal, S. 2066 defines a HAPC as follows:
“The term
‘habitat area of particular concern’ means those waters and submerged substrate
that form a discrete vulnerable subunit of essential fish habitat that is
required for a stock to sustain itself and which is designated through a
specified set of national criteria which includes, at a minimum, a requirement
that designation be based on the best scientific information available
regarding habitat-specific density of that fish stock, growth, reproduction,
and survival rates of that stock within the designated area.”
We recommend a HAPC definition that incorporates language
that already exists in our regulations, which considers the ecological
importance of the habitat, its sensitivity to human-induced threats, the extent
development activities are, or will be, stressing the habitat, and/or the
rarity of the habitat. The
considerations identified in the regulatory definition are sufficient and
provide the Councils the necessary flexibility to identify HAPCs. We are concerned, however, that requirements
to limit HAPC identification to areas where we have specific data on the
relationship of the habitat to stock productivity may be too restrictive. This level of data is often not available and
would be extremely costly to collect.
Finally, the bill would further amend Section 303(a)(7) to
require that FMPs “give priority to minimizing to the extent practicable
adverse effects on HAPCs caused by fishing and identify other actions to
encourage the conservation and enhancement of such habitat.”
5. FISHERIES
SCIENCE
S. 2066 addresses the use of fisheries science, in
particular stock assessments, in several ways.
First, the bill adds a new title to the Magnuson-Stevens
Act establishing a cooperative research and management program, involving
“fishing industry participants, the affected States and NMFS.” NOAA supports the cooperative research
program contained in S. 2066, but has questions about one of its components,
the
Second, S. 2066 mandates independent peer review of NMFS
data collection procedures, with special emphasis on ensuring data quality in
the information collection phase of the stock assessment program. However, this review was effectively done in
2000, when the NRC issued a study on this same topic. Therefore, NOAA sees no special need for this
review but has no objection to another NRC review of this issue.
Third, the Senate bill would add a new Council
function: “to the extent practicable,
conduct a peer review of any stock assessment and economic and social analyses”
in FMPs and plan amendments. All the
Councils and NMFS have established formal and rigorous peer review fora and
procedures, including the use of outside reviewers. Therefore, NOAA sees no need for this
amendment, but has no objection to it.
6. REVISIONS TO
NATIONAL STANDARDS 4 AND 8
S. 2066 changes National Standards 4 and 8 to require that
management measures take into account, respectively, “steaming time” and
“cumulative impacts.” Both of the
proposed changes address the impacts of fishery regulations on fishermen and
fishing communities, a matter of major concern.
NOAA agrees that management regulations must take into account their
social impacts, but has questions about both of these new requirements.
(A) National Standard 4:
Steaming Time
S. 2066 makes a key change to National Standard 4 (NS4), adding
the requirement that, when making allocations, management measures “shall take
into account the differences in distances to fishing grounds from different
ports.”
We are not convinced that differences in steaming time are
of such widespread significance that this issue merits an amendment to
NS4. NS4 addresses fairness in
allocations, and, in our view, steaming time is not necessarily an allocation
issue. In addition, steaming time is
already considered under NS7 (cost minimization) and NS10 (safety at sea), and
in the Regulatory Impact Review and Regulatory Flexibility Act impact
analyses. Finally, in the event that
steaming time is an especially important issue, it is probably best addressed
through regulations in that fishery. For
all of the above reasons, NOAA does not believe that steaming time should be
added to the issues addressed under NS4.
(B) National Standard 8:
Cumulative and Social Impacts
S. 2066 would amend NS8 to require that NMFS and the
Councils take into account “the individual and cumulative economic and social
impacts of fishery conservation and management measures on ...
communities.” The Senate bill also adds
“social impacts” to Part B of NS8, with the result that NS8 would require that
management measures minimize adverse social impacts (as well as adverse
economic impacts) on fishing communities.
If the intent is to more fully describe the individual and
cumulative impacts of measures, these proposed changes to NS8 are not necessary
because they are consistent with current practice, to the extent that these
impacts can be quantified. In this
connection, NOAA notes that the existing guidelines for conducting social
impact assessments under the National Environmental Policy Act require a
consideration of cumulative impacts. In
our judgment, NMFS and the Councils have made considerable progress in recent
years, especially in
Finally, I would like to note another category of proposed
amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act that is addressed in detail in the
Administration’s reauthorization package, but is absent in S. 2066. I refer to fisheries law enforcement, and in
particular the need to improve compliance with regulations through appropriate
fines and penalties. As more fisheries
fall under federal management and as management measures become more refined
and detailed, the Councils and NMFS will have to be able to effectively enforce
these measures. This is an important
matter, and we would like to see Congress address this issue more forthrightly
in Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization.
In conclusion, while we have questions and some differences
with certain provisions of S. 2066, we also think that this is a good bill that
moves the debate on Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization in a constructive
direction. I would like to suggest that
we continue to discuss all these issues so that we can more precisely identify each
other’s intent and the most appropriate and practical means of achieving those
objectives.
Thank you, and I would be happy to answer any questions.