Testimony of Penelope "Penny" Dalton, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, on the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, before the Senate Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries, Seattle, January 19, 2000

TESTIMONY OF
PENELOPE DALTON
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
ON
THE MAGNUSON-STEVENS
FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT

SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS AND FISHERIES
SEATTLE FIELD HEARING
JANUARY 19, 2000

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 Fisherries 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 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.