U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

72–671 PDF 2012

S. HRG. 112–239 

REVIEW OF MASSACHUSETTS FISHERY 

MANAGEMENT PLANS 

FIELD HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

OCTOBER 3, 2011 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

( 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

MARK WARNER, Virginia 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas, Ranking 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

ELLEN L. DONESKI, Staff Director 

JAMES REID, Deputy Staff Director 

BRUCE H. ANDREWS, General Counsel 

TODD BERTOSON, Republican Staff Director 

JARROD THOMPSON, Republican Deputy Staff Director 

REBECCA SEIDEL, Republican General Counsel and Chief Investigator 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on October 3, 2011 ............................................................................ 1 

Statement of Senator Kerry .................................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Begich .................................................................................. 19 

WITNESSES

Therese Murray, President of the Massachusetts Senate .................................... 1 

Hon. Scott Brown, U.S. Senator from Massachusetts .......................................... 4 

Hon. Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D., Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and 

Atmosphere, and Administrator, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce ...... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6 

Congressman Barney Frank, U.S. Representative from Massachusetts (4th 

District) ................................................................................................................. 29 

Congressman John F. Tierney, U.S. Representative from Massachusetts (6th 

District) ................................................................................................................. 33 

Congressman William R. Keating, U.S. Representative from Massachusetts 

(10th District) ....................................................................................................... 36 

Stephen P. Welch, Fisherman and Board Member, Northeast Seafood Coalition ........................................................................................................................ 41

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 43 

Paul Diodati, Director, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries and CoChair, Massachusetts Marine Fisheries Institute ............................................. 46 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 48 

Colin McAllister ‘‘RIP’’ Cunningham, Jr., Acting Chairman, Northeast Fisheries Management Council .................................................................................. 50 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 51 

Steven X. Cadrin, Associate Professor, Department of Fisheries Oceanography, School for Marine Science and Technology, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth ................................................................................................... 54 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 56 

Brian J. Rothschild, Montgomery Charter Professor of Marine Science and 

Technology and Co-Chair, Massachusetts Marine Fisheries Institute, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth .................................................................. 60 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 62 

APPENDIX

Response to written question submitted by Hon. Mark Begich to Hon. Jane 

Lubchenco, Ph.D. .................................................................................................. 87 

Letter dated October 6, 2011 to Hon. John F. Kerry from Steven A. Baddour, 

State Senator, First Essex District regarding testimony of Herbert Crooks .. 88 

Pew Environment Group and Conservational Law Foundation, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 88 

Maggie Raymond on Behalf of the Associated Fisheries of Maine, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 97 

(1) 

REVIEW OF MASSACHUSETTS FISHERY 

MANAGEMENT PLANS 

MONDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2011 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, Boston, MA. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:02 a.m. in room 

A–1, Massachusetts State House, Hon. John F. Kerry presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN F. KERRY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS 

Senator KERRY. This field hearing of the Commerce Committee 

will come to order. And it’s my privilege to turn the floor over immediately to the President of the Senate, Therese Murray. 

STATEMENT OF THERESE MURRAY, 

PRESIDENT OF THE MASSACHUSETTS SENATE 

Ms. MURRAY. Thank you, Senator. And thank you for holding 

this very important field hearing today. 

I want to thank Senator Brown, Congressman Frank, Congressman Tierney, and I don’t see Congressman Keating yet. But thank 

you all for being here. 

I’d also like to recognize the other Massachusetts elected officials 

who in this area of concern have joined us, and that’s Minority 

Leader Bruce Tarr, Representative Ferrante, and I believe Senator 

McGee will be joining us also. And I want to welcome Senator 

Begich from Alaska and Under Secretary Lubchenco to the Massachusetts State House. 

I hope that, if not today, that at some point you’ll take a few 

minutes to walk around this historic building. And as you do, you 

will notice in almost every corner of this State House, there is a 

reminder of how important the fishing industry is for the Commonwealth—on the chandelier that hangs just under the golden dome 

in the Senate chamber, in the House gallery looking over the 

House floor, and the stained glass throughout the hallways. 

Just as Massachusetts was the foundation for this nation, the 

fishing industry was the foundation of our economy. Sadly, each 

year, our fleet is vanishing. Each year, families who for generations 

have bravely and proudly fished our waters are forced out of their 

livelihoods. In my own district, which stretches along the coast 

from Kingston to Cape Cod, the few fishermen who are left are desperately trying to hold onto their boats, their houses, and to feed 

their families. 

2 

Our larger commercial fleets in Gloucester, New Bedford, and 

Provincetown have been decimated. And instead of trying to find 

solutions we have all been fighting for, we have consistently run 

into road block after road block. And in many cases, our fishermen 

have been seen as guilty until proven innocent. 

Enforcement power by the Federal Government officials has been 

misguided, misused, and abused. And to make matters worse, the 

science used to determine the catch is antiquated and inaccurate, 

unfairly restricting the catch that the fishermen who have been 

able to hang on can rely upon. 

So I say, and I believe I can speak for my colleagues in both the 

Massachusetts Senate and the House of Representatives who represent fishing communities, it is time for the road blocks to come 

down. It’s time for NOAA to begin to work with our fishermen. And 

I hope today’s hearing will shed some light on the continued questions about our fishing industry and that the thoughtful and meaningful dialog will produce positive and constructive steps which will 

help our fishermen maintain their livelihood and stop the erosion 

of a bedrock industry here in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 

Thank you for taking me. 

Senator KERRY. Thank you very much, Madam President. We 

really appreciate your helping us to use the facilities, and we are 

very appreciative for your leadership and friendship. Thank you. 

Appreciate you being here today. 

Ms. MURRAY. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator KERRY. Let me welcome everyone in this room for an opportunity to try to review where we are with respect to the Massachusetts fishing industry. And I am particularly happy today to 

welcome the Chair of the Oceans Subcommittee of the Commerce 

Committee, a good friend of mine, Senator Mark Begich from Alaska, who has taken the time to come up here as the Chair and share 

in this information gathering and exchange of views. 

I’d just say to everybody here that over the now 26 years which 

I’ve been privileged to represent the state and, particularly, this industry in a lot of these struggles through the years, having rewritten the Magnuson bill at least two or three times, this has been 

a long fight. But throughout that fight, there has been a history of 

Alaska-Massachusetts cooperation. 

Senator Ted Stevens and I became very good friends and worked 

diligently together. In fact, we were rewriting the 1994 MagnusonStevens Act when the Senate changed hands, and what was going 

to be the Kerry-Magnuson Act became the Stevens—or MagnusonStevens Act, as it happens in the Senate. 

But we were partners. We were a team. And he was passionate 

about fishing, about the oceans. It is no small irony that he passed 

away going on a fishing expedition, which is what he loved to do 

every summer—took off in Alaska in a small plane, and we lost 

him a couple of years ago now. But it’s really nice for me to have 

this partnership continue with Mark Begich, former Mayor of Anchorage, and who, believe me, is just as passionate and just as 

knowledgeable about the fishing interests and about this relationship that we need to work on. 

So, I want this hearing today to consider the social and economic 

impacts of Federal regulation and discuss how we make improveVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:21 Feb 06, 2012 Jkt 072671 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\DOCS\72671.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
3 

ments, not only in the outcomes for fishermen but in the relationship with the Federal Government. I thank NOAA Administrator 

Jane Lubchenco for taking the time out of her schedule to be here, 

and I welcome all of the other witnesses who are here today. 

I apologize for the elongated nature of this hearing room. But the 

Gardner Auditorium, where we would have perhaps met, was already booked, and we didn’t want to delay the hearing yet again 

simply over location. 

So nobody here needs any lessons about what a critical component of our historic, cultural, economic fabric the fishing industry 

is to us. Gloucester and New Bedford are two of the largest ports 

in the Nation for landing fish. And the commercial fishing industry 

of our state supports over 77,000 jobs in Massachusetts. 

Unfortunately, for many of our fishermen and local businesses, 

they’re all facing an increased difficulty of just staying in business. 

Jim Keding is like any other commercial fisherman in Massachusetts. He understands the rules and he’s tried to live by them. And 

I think all of us can agree that the regulations shouldn’t get in the 

way of common sense or simple efforts to try to provide adequately 

for family and to ply your trade. 

But recent changes in Federal regulations have had an impact, 

a major impact, on the fishing allocation. It’s made it much more 

difficult for Mr. Keding and for many others to make a living doing 

what they love to do and have done for years. 

As a result, Jim has had to sell his boat and his home. Now he’s 

forced to rent another boat just to make ends meet, and, obviously, 

I don’t think anybody believes that’s an acceptable situation. It 

highlights the challenge that we face, some of it just sheer disappointment, some of it economic reality, some of it a mistrust that 

has grown up, and we need to try to understand it better and 

eliminate that mistrust. 

I intend to introduce legislation called the ‘‘Fishery Research and 

Conservation Investment Act,’’ which will focus Federal funding 

under the Kennedy-Saltonstall Act on identifying the critical research, conservation, and management needs in each separate fishery region of the country. And I hope that this will once and for 

all allow the Federal funds to go where they were originally intended, to address the critical problems facing the science and the 

decisionmaking process, which has contributed to the mistrust. 

Under this legislation, the fishery region would develop a 5-year 

fishery investment plan that would specifically address their needs, 

and money from the Kennedy-Saltonstall fund would be used to implement that. Our fishermen will be deeply involved in helping to 

develop these plans, something that I think many feel has not been 

sufficiently attended to. 

I’d just say quickly that in 2009, Senator Kennedy and I, together with our House colleagues, worked to confront the Department of Commerce. And we requested an investigation into the potential abuses and intimidation of certain fishermen. 

And, Dr. Lubchenco, even though you had only just taken office 

at that time, literally—it was 2009. The new administration had 

just come in and you’d just been appointed. The vast majority of 

those abuses took place during past administrations. 

4 

But, nevertheless, I want to thank you for taking our request seriously. You initiated a Department of Commerce Inspector General report. I know it’s not an easy thing to do the moment you 

come into a new job. But I think it was important you did that. It 

helped to stop the abuse, and I think now more than $600,000 has 

been returned in unnecessary fines. I think there’s still more that 

we can do. You and I have talked about it. We can talk about some 

of that today. 

In 2008, I was able to join with our colleagues in the House in 

successfully obtaining disaster funding for Massachusetts, and that 

has been helpful. But—and we’ve expanded the health insurance 

for fishermen. But every one of us knows we’ve got a long way to 

go to try to get this relationship on an even keel. 

Most importantly, in 2010, approximately 80 percent of the gross 

revenues resulted from landings from only 20 percent of active vessels. That clearly threatens the future of small boat fishing in Massachusetts. And small boat fishing is what has been at the center 

of life in our state for generations. So that’s the struggle. That’s 

what we want to focus on. And Senator Brown will make a brief 

opening. 

I need to apologize up front that because of the Super Committee 

requirements, I need to leave here around 11, 11:15. Hopefully, we 

will have been through both panels by then and the hearing will 

be wrapping up. But if not, I ask everybody’s indulgence. If we’re 

going to have any industries left of any kind, we need to be successful in that Super Committee work. So I know you understand 

that. 

Senator Brown? 

STATEMENT OF HON. SCOTT BROWN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS 

Senator BROWN. Thank you, Senator, and thank you for holding 

this hearing. 

As you know, in June, Senator Carper and I held a hearing on 

enforcement abuses and mismanagement of seized assets and lack 

of accountability that you just referenced. And this morning’s hearing is a follow-up to that hearing to explore some of the larger 

issues. 

And, as you noted, and rightly so—first of all, I want to thank 

you for your leadership on this issue, for holding this. We’re obviously—I know we’re working on the Oceans caucus. And I want to 

thank Senator Begich for coming out—he’s working hard on these 

issues—and all the Congressmen and Mayors and elected officials 

who care very deeply about this real issue. 

And you’ve noted the decline in vessels, the ever changing nature 

of fishing in Massachusetts. Gloucester, Fall River, New Bedford, 

and the surrounding New England areas are being—are dealing 

with some overzealous enforcement and a mismanaged transition 

to sector management. And this has combined to decimate the industry to historic lows, and, as you know, the fishermen are battling each and every day to try to just stay in business. 

So we have a lot of real challenges. I’m excited to be here. 

I’m glad, Dr. Lubchenco, you decided to come to this hearing, and 

I look forward to getting started. 

5 

Thank you. 

Senator KERRY. Thank you very much. 

With that, we are going to proceed. Senator Begich has decided— 

did you want to say one quick word? 

Senator BEGICH. No. I want to get right to it at this time. 

Senator KERRY. Dr. Lubchenco, thank you very much for taking 

time to be with us. We look forward to your testimony. If you could 

summarize, as is the norm, we’ll put your full testimony in the 

record as if read in full. And we appreciate your being here. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JANE LUBCHENCO, PH.D., 

UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR OCEANS 

AND ATMOSPHERE, AND ADMINISTRATOR, NOAA, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Begich, Senator Brown, Representative Tierney, Representative Frank. It’s my 

pleasure to be here with all of you today. Thank you very much for 

this opportunity to testify. 

Senator Kerry, I want to thank you in particular for your leadership on fisheries, on oceans, and on climate issues. 

And, Senator Begich, thank you for being here today. I really appreciate that, and I appreciate your leadership as well. 

Let me start by saying that, as Senator Kerry has already noted, 

starting with my first day in office, I have taken fishing issues in 

this region very seriously. And I am firmly committed to many of 

the reforms that have been set in motion and others that are yet 

to come. 

Fishing jobs have been at the heart of this region for decades if 

not centuries. I understand that fishermen here are suffering. Together, I believe we can and will do better. 

The 2006 reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act put into 

motion new catch limits to end overfishing and to rebuild stock. 

Along with the new catch limits, the New England Fishery Management Council worked with NOAA to expand the sector program, 

to put new sector rules in place for New England groundfish which 

give fishermen increasing flexibility in operating their businesses. 

Following decades of problems, there are now glimmers of hope. 

We are finally on track to end overfishing. Stocks are being rebuilt 

and catch limits are up. In addition, revenues are up for some but 

not all fishermen. 

Fishermen are fishing more selectively, benefiting their bottom 

line and the vulnerable stocks. And new entrepreneurial activities 

leading to higher quality fish and higher profits are taking off 

under sector management. A community supported fishery in 

Maine provides weekly shares of local seafood through a cooperative, and a boat-to-table business in Rhode Island links fishermen 

directly to restaurants. 

I believe that, in fact, we are making progress, but not enough, 

and very significant challenges remain. Not all fishermen are reaping these benefits. The costs are still high for implementing the 

sector program. Fishermen aren’t catching the full allotment of 

fish. 

So I pledge to continue working with industry, the Council, other 

stakeholders, and Congress to fix problems and make course correcVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:21 Feb 06, 2012 Jkt 072671 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\DOCS\72671.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
6 

tions to improve the system for all fishermen, including small boat 

fishermen. In the region, we are working aggressively, following up 

on the independent management review report and working with 

the council on a number of management adjustment reforms, including a number of excellent suggestions that you included in the 

July 26 letter from the New England delegation. We are acting on 

observer costs and monitoring approaches, access to unused quota 

in closed areas, excessive quota consolidation, innovative gear, and 

several other important improvements. 

Sustainable fisheries, I believe, are about a better future for fishermen, for families, and for communities. Our goal is to enable 

fishermen to chart their course. We aim to accomplish this by giving fishermen more control over their operations, and to work with 

them continuously to adapt our management efforts. 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss NOAA’s efforts on 

groundfish management in New England. Eric Schwaab, the Director of NOAA Fisheries, and I are here to answer questions. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Lubchenco follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JANE LUBCHENCO, PH.D., UNDER SECRETARY OF

COMMERCE FOR OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE, AND ADMINISTRATOR, NOAA, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Senator Kerry and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Jane Lubchenco, 

and I am the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and the 

Administrator of the Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA). Senator Kerry, I would like to thank you for your leadership over the many years on fisheries, oceans, and climate issues. In your tenure 

in the Senate you worked closely with Senator Stevens to rewrite the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and you 

continually show commitment to building sustainable coastal economies. I appreciate your support of NOAA and our efforts to improve the products and services 

that are vital to supporting America’s businesses, communities, and people. 

Fishing jobs have been at the heart of this region for centuries. I take the challenges in the Northeast region very seriously, as I know you do. Following decades 

of overfishing and decline, including the collapse and closure of this fabled fishery, 

and years of legal battles, the past 10 years have been particularly challenging for 

those who catch cod, haddock, and other groundfish. Court rulings calling for 

science-based catch levels drove the government to implement well intentioned but 

ever tightening regulations under the ‘‘days at sea’’ management system. Under this 

system, individual fishermen were told how many days and when they could fish, 

which often forced them to sea in bad weather. And they were told how much fish 

they could bring back to port on each trip, forcing them to pitch their extra catch 

overboard as wasted by-catch. From 2001–2009, landings dropped by nearly 40 percent, revenues fell by more than one half, and the number of vessels in the fishery 

dwindled to less than half their previous levels. And because these regulations often 

did not succeed in halting overfishing, the rules were always changing. The last decade saw 11 major regulatory overhauls and changes in the rules every 4 months 

on average, including ratcheting down on the number of ‘‘days at sea’’ available. 

Decades of overfishing, failing fish stocks and punishing regulations interacted to 

threaten the region’s most iconic industry. 

That system was not working for fishermen. It was driving them out of business 

and the stocks were not rebuilding to a point where they could sustain a profitable 

industry. In response, the New England Fishery Management Council—with representatives from Massachusetts and other New England state governments, commercial and recreational fishermen, and a representative from NOAA—held more 

than 60 public meetings over 3 years to develop a new approach called ‘‘sector management.’’ This approach revolves around a system of voluntary cooperative fishing 

groups (called ‘‘sectors’’). Most importantly, this approach gives fishermen greater 

flexibility and ownership over the day-to-day management of their businesses. In 

June 2009, the Council voted 14–1 to approve the new program. This new sector 

7 

management program was expanded at the same time that the much lower catch 

limits required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act were implemented. 

The adoption of this new management system and the lower catch limits happened early in my tenure as Administrator. Indeed, sustaining the groundfish fishery and the economic health of the industry has been of paramount importance to 

me since my first day in office. I understand how important it is to the region’s 

economy and culture. I also know that implementing tough measures to end overfishing and to rebuild stocks is not easy for fishermen and fishing communities. 

For those reasons, I have devoted significant energy to take action in three key 

areas that I will talk about today: (1) our work with fishermen and the New England Fishery Management Council to help get this fishery on a pathway to sustainability and long-term profitability; (2) our top-to-bottom overhaul of NOAA operations in the region, including an independent management review and follow-up 

actions we have already taken; and (3) advancing concrete proposals that build on 

your ideas—and those of other partners in New England—to address residual problems faced by fishermen in the region and to build on the progress made. 

Our goals are clear: to be a partner in the success of fishermen, to sustain fishing 

jobs, to create a profitable and healthy future for fishing communities, and to maintain marine fisheries. We appreciate your support in getting there. 

We are working with fishermen and the Council to put the fishery on a path to 

profitability. 

As described in detail later in my testimony (Attachment A), fishing in all its 

forms is a $71 billion per year industry in the United States, generating economic 

activity that creates 1.4 million full and part-time jobs, from the boat captains and 

crews, to people in processing plants, trucks, seafood markets, and restaurants. Rebuilding all U.S. fish stocks would generate an additional $31 billion in sales impacts, support an additional 500,000 jobs and increase dockside revenues to fishermen by $2.2 billion, which is more than a 50 percent increase from the current annual dockside revenues. New England, the region with the most number of overfished species as of this summer, stands to gain significantly as overfishing ends 

and fisheries are rebuilt. A prime example of the benefits of rebuilding is seen in 

the New England sea scallop fishery, where revenues increased five-fold as the fishery rebuilt, from $44 million in 1998 to $265 million in 2010, making New Bedford 

the largest port by value every year since 2000. 

To get the New England groundfish fishery back on track, I embraced new management decisions made by the Council, and I provided resources to speed up the 

transition to a fishery with a more sustainable future. I did this because I realized 

the seriousness of the dire economic situation in New England and because the 

days-at-sea system was not helping the fish or the fishermen. While there are improvements to be made in the sector system and fishermen are still struggling, glimmers of hope are now finally emerging in the fishery after decades of problems. We 

don’t want to return to the past, so we must work together to continue the recent 

progress we’ve seen, address the imperfections of the new system and get this fishery back in the black. The progress we’ve made is due directly to the active engagement of fishermen from throughout the region and our intense efforts to reverse our 

trajectory. Although we still have much more work to do, I believe we are turning 

the corner. 

I want to empower fishermen to chart their course. We will do that by simplifying 

regulations, giving fishermen more control over their operations, and working with 

them on management. For decades, the New England groundfish fishery underperformed both ecologically and economically with not enough fish to support good fishing jobs. The 2006 Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization put into motion two important changes. First, it set annual catch limits to end overfishing and to rebuild 

stocks. Second, the Council worked with NOAA to put new rules in place to give 

fishermen increased flexibility in how they operate their businesses. 

How are we doing after 1 year with new catch limits and with the expanded sector management program? We see both signs of progress and continued room for improvement. 

Signs of progress: 

1. We are finally on track to end overfishing. For the first time ever, we have 

catch limits and accountability measures in place and clear ability to track 

progress. In 2010, fishermen fished within the limits for 18 of the 20 stocks. 

This is excellent news. 

2. Stocks are being rebuilt and therefore catch limits are up. Due to the rebuilding progress already underway, in the 2011 fishing year, catch levels have gone 

up for 12 of the 20 groundfish stocks, which is another indication the MagnuVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:21 Feb 06, 2012 Jkt 072671 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\72671.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
8 

son-Stevens Act and associated management measures are working to improve 

the status of the stocks and the economics of the fishery. 

3. Fishermen are fishing more selectively which benefits their bottom line and 

avoids depleting already low stocks. Despite lower catch limits for many stocks, 

under sector management fishermen were able to fish smarter by more effectively avoiding weaker stocks and by capturing a higher percentage of the allowable catch. Fishermen and sector managers have reported to us how incentives have changed under this cooperative management approach. They have 

noted they have the ability to spend more time offshore, seeking high abundance stocks and avoiding bycatch of weaker stocks. Sectors free fishermen from 

limitations of days at sea management conditions. 

4. We have a better accounting for and less waste of bycatch. Fishermen captured more high-valued species and kept more of the fish that had historically 

been thrown overboard. For example, only 9 percent of Georges Bank yellowtail 

flounder total catch was discarded in 2010 compared to 31 percent in 2009. Adhering to catch limits and reducing discards will hasten rebuilding, yielding increased quotas more quickly. 

5. New England fishermen are beginning to realize new entrepreneurial opportunities under sector management. Here are three examples: (A) A group of smallboat fishermen in Rhode Island has started a new business to market their fish 

directly to local restaurants as ‘‘boat to table.’’ (B) Another new company helps 

fishermen match their supply to consumers’ demands across New England. (C) 

Fishermen in Port Clyde are making the most out of their catch through a Community Supported Fishery program. This program is similar to the Cape Ann 

Fresh Catch program started by the Gloucester Fishermen’s Wives Association 

and supported by NOAA Sea Grant. Customers give the fishing community financial support in advance of the season, and in turn the fishermen provide a 

weekly share of seafood during the harvesting season. This innovative marketing program is leading to higher quality fish and higher profits. In each case, 

the sector program provided fishermen with the flexibility to be entrepreneurial 

and innovative, and to control the destiny of their small businesses. In each 

case, fishermen have been freed from overly burdensome regulations, and they 

can fish more safely. 

6. Revenues are up for some but not all fishermen. For example, the average 

New England groundfish fisherman earned 16 percent more per pound this year 

than last. Revenues for groundfishermen from Portland, Maine, were up by 25 

percent. For those with a homeport in New Bedford, the increase was over 20 

percent. These initial numbers are encouraging, but we need the full balance 

sheet reflecting revenues and costs and particularly changes in number of boats 

to know the full story, and we’ll have that information in the near future. 

Challenges Remaining: 

1. Not all fishermen are reaping these benefits. While we have some promising 

preliminary economic information about the first year of the program in New 

England (above and Attachment B), overall statistics can mask the trouble that 

some fishermen are facing. Some fishermen appear to be having a tough time 

making the transition to sectors. I want to understand why some sectors seem 

to be working well while others do not and identify corrective actions. And I 

want to work with those in Congress and in coastal communities who want to 

help improve the system for all fishermen, including small boat fishermen. 

2. Some fishermen continue to distrust the scientific information used to set 

limits. Moreover, more frequent assessments for some stocks would be desirable. 

And, we are requesting additional resources for stock assessments in our FY 

2012 budget. 

3. Costs of implementing the sector program remain a challenge. 

4. Faster adjustments in response to changing status of stocks and more nimble 

ability to implement innovations are needed. 

5. Better communication among NOAA, fishermen and the Council is desirable. 

6. Improved understanding of and responsiveness to economic challenges faced 

by fishermen is needed. 

In the next section, I lay out a number of specific actions NOAA is advancing to 

help with these and other implementation problems. 

Responsive actions underway. After learning about problems in NOAA’s operations 

in the region, I have overseen a top-to-bottom overhaul of our work in the region, 

including in the areas of enforcement, science, management and engagement. 

9 

In one of our first steps, Eric Schwaab, our Assistant Administrator for fisheries, 

took the initiative to set up a comprehensive, independent review of management 

in the region; that review provides some excellent suggestions that we are now pursuing. Our overhaul is still underway and is bringing long-overdue change. We have 

also committed to seeking industry and regional input as we work to fill the Northeast Regional Administrator and Northeast Science Center Director positions. 

The Management Review, conducted by an independent firm, provided a regional 

analysis and management review of the fishery management process in New England, focusing on the relationships among the New England Fishery Management 

Council, the Northeast Regional Office, and the Northeast Fisheries Science Center. 

The review examined how effective those three entities are at carrying out their responsibilities under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This review included nearly 200 

independent interviews with stakeholders across the region. In April, NOAA released the results and at my direction, immediately began taking actions to address 

management, science, and communications issues identified in the review. 

In tackling the multiple issues identified in the report, NOAA Fisheries began 

with those changes that would bring the greatest benefit: (1) simplify governance; 

(2) simplify communications; (3) improve science collaboration; and (4) maximize 

overall collaboration. Because many of these changes require Council action, NOAA 

Fisheries is working closely with the New England Fishery Management Council on 

many of these efforts. At its meeting on September 26, 2011, the Council and the 

agency reported on progress to date, including: 

1. Fast tracking a mid-term review of the current five-year research strategic 

plan for cooperative research to ensure it is responsive to industry, management, 

and scientific priorities. Our Cooperative Research Program is wrapping up a 

series of outreach meetings with fishermen and scientists to gather input to refine its research strategic plan through 2014. 

2. Overhauling our data collection and management system. We have initiated 

a review and analysis of the regional data systems to better integrate them and 

improve efficiencies. NOAA’s Satellite and Information Services staff, which has 

conducted similar work in the past, has begun this review. 

3. Developing new operating agreements. We are working on new agreements 

with the New England and Mid-Atlantic Councils to clarify roles and responsibilities, strengthen collaboration, simplify the governance structure and process, and highlight opportunities for public input. 

4. Launching a ‘‘plain language’’ campaign; we are striving to make all of our 

written documents more clear and concise. 

5. Establishing a single Communications Team in our regional office—representing the region, the center and the Office of Law Enforcement—to simplify 

and strengthen our outreach and collaboration efforts and streamline and improve our external communications. We host regular meetings with sector managers to identify and resolve issues related to sector management, provide information, and get feedback from the fishing industry. 

6. Hiring a former commercial fisherman in New England to serve as our first 

formal compliance liaison in the country. He is working directly with the fishing 

industry in a non-enforcement capacity to improve communications and ensure 

all can comply with needed conservation measures. 

7. Developing a revised approach for producing stock assessments that we will 

begin transitioning to in 2013. The intent of this new approach is to provide 

managers the information to adjust annual or biennial catch limits in response 

to changing stock conditions, so industry can take quicker advantage of healthy 

stocks and not overfish newly depleted stocks. 

Future actions. Even with the significant progress made, we have much work 

ahead and are open to any good ideas about how to make progress with the fishery 

and our effectiveness. I appreciate the suggestions offered by the July 26 letter from 

the New England Delegation, and intend to pursue aggressively the following actions: 

1. Develop more cost-effective observer and monitoring approaches, and a costtransition plan that recognizes chronic economic challenges facing many segments of the industry. We understand that adaptation to any new management 

system is challenging, and the timing of sector implementation in conjunction 

with the requirement to set annual catch limits to end overfishing created an 

even more difficult transition. In recognition of the hurdles faced by the fishery 

associated with that transition, in Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010, NOAA invested 

over $47 million to assist in many ways, including to offset start-up costs of 

10 

groundfish sectors, conduct at-sea research with industry, and develop permit 

banks. 

In addition, recently, NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) reevaluated the effectiveness of the dockside monitoring program, made a timely 

adjustment to the requirements, and redirected funding for that program to 

make approximately $1 million in additional funds available directly to sectors 

to support their operations. 

While monitoring is critical to the sector management program’s success, I recognize that at-sea monitoring costs are difficult for the fishing industry to assume and I share your desire to reduce these costs; NOAA is working to do so. 

NOAA is also working with the fishing industry to improve the utility of new 

monitoring tools beyond at-sea monitoring, such as electronic catch monitoring, 

which could reduce overall monitoring costs to the industry. Pilot programs are 

currently underway to test the effectiveness of these techniques. Following 

these pilots, we will work with the Council, sector managers, and stakeholders 

to more broadly implement electronic catch monitoring technology, and I am 

committed to nationwide efforts that will reduce the economic burdens associated with monitoring costs. 

2. Evaluate input controls and provide access to unused quota. Following the 

2010 fishing year, two particular issues arose that require agency and Council 

attention. Earlier this summer, we asked the Council to consider action to raise 

the 10 percent unused quota carryover provision. Additionally, the Council is 

considering the continued merits of groundfish closed areas through an Essential Fish Habitat amendment process. We have and will continue to advocate 

that the Council give priority to both issues. 

Underutilization of available catch is an on-going challenge in the groundfish 

fishery. The fishery has under-harvested available quotas for a number of species over the last several years. I embrace the goal of fully exploiting available 

quotas and will continue to support Council and NOAA efforts to help the industry catch the maximum amount of fish allowed across the full range of managed stocks. Continuing evolution of the management program to sectors, as 

well as conservation engineering solutions, such as net design, will result in improvements in the fishery’s ability to catch more of the available fish. Moreover, 

I firmly believe that under the sector program we can and should look for opportunities to expeditiously open closed areas, which will directly benefit fishermen. 

3. Improve understanding, delivery and use of socio-economic data. We have 

worked aggressively to understand the complex economic conditions impacting 

fishermen, and a detailed description of this work is contained in Attachment 

B. 

• We are now completing a more comprehensive annual report on groundfishing 

for year 2010 that will help us to better understand performance at the vessel 

ownership level. The report will analyze vessel operating and sector membership cost and information about quota trading to better evaluate changes in 

fishery and financial performance. 

• We are also in support of the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries 

(DMF) in a study with the University of Massachusetts’ School for Marine 

Science and Technology (SMAST) to better understand the challenges faced 

by the South Shore fishermen of Sector X. This is the work initiated in response to Governor Patrick’s earlier request for a fishery disaster declaration. 

We anxiously await the results. 

• A team of NMFS, DMF, and SMAST is conducting an analysis of how the financial position of vessels was affected by the 2010 transition to catch-share 

and quotas-based management through a ‘‘break-even analysis’’ of the 

groundfish fishery. The team has compiled vessel profiles using statistical 

averages for seven gear and vessel size categories. The analysis was completed in mid-September and is currently undergoing peer review. We understand how important this analysis is and have had our economists working 

closely on this project, have met with this team bi-weekly, and given financial 

support to ensure its completion. Preliminary analysis shows that while a 

number of fleet segments performed better in 2010 relative to 2009, some segments did perform worse, including some of the smaller boat segments. 

4. Address the concerns about excessive accumulation of fishing privileges. Soon 

after the sector program was approved by the Council, NOAA identified consolidation as a potentially serious problem and requested the Council ensure the 

11 

continuation of a diverse fleet. NOAA is working with the New England Council 

to develop an amendment to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management 

Plan. This amendment would set limits on the amount of fishing privileges that 

can be accumulated by a particular individual, business or other entity such as 

a sector. At the Council’s request, we published a ‘‘control date’’ of April 7, 2011, 

to notify the industry that accumulation of fishing privileges after that date 

may be treated differently than those accumulated before the date. Establishing 

a control date also gives the public notice that interested participants should 

locate and preserve records that substantiate and verify their ownership or control of groundfish permits and other fishing privileges in the fishery. 

5. Encourage development of innovative gear. NOAA has provided funding for 

other innovations to improve overall groundfish fishery performance, particularly cooperative research to help the fishing industry develop more selective 

gear and fishing methods to enable fishermen to reduce the bycatch of the more 

vulnerable stocks, allowing the industry to fully utilize quotas for healthy 

groundfish stocks. A few examples of the types of research underway include 

modifying a net to a topless trawl to better target flounder while avoiding cod 

and haddock and creating several additional escape panel designs to promote 

escape of certain species or size classes of fish; increasing the size of codend 

meshes to reduce bycatch of non-cod species while increasing the value of cod 

captured by targeting larger fish; testing tension sensors deployed within the 

meshes at the rear of the net to reduce discarding and allowing operators to 

be more strategic in the capture and marketing of their catch; ongoing testing 

of fuel consumption to determine the overall profitability of using the modified 

gear in comparison to unmodified gear; and developing an inexpensive, underwater-detaching codend to address the problem of catching large amounts of unwanted fish species. I am committed to supporting such innovative approaches 

to fishing and to have NOAA assist in the expeditious deployment of these innovations. 

It is worth noting that in addition to managing fisheries, NOAA provides a wealth 

of services to fishermen in New England. NOAA marine weather reports and navigation charts provide critical information for fishing vessels; NOAA satellites provide 

data for weather reports and receive search and rescue signals; and NOAA scientific 

research informs future management. In summary, implementing a completely new 

fishery management system in New England is challenging and requires close attention to design during this early phase, but the system also holds promise for increasing flexibility and economic returns for fishermen. As I have highlighted in my testimony, the agency is working diligently to address issues together with the Council 

and the industry as they arise. While we are making good progress, we acknowledge 

the system is not perfect and we are committed to continually making improvements. 

We are seeing benefits from the transition to sector management as catches do 

not exceed the annual catch limits, and fishing becomes more efficient and flexible, 

all of which contribute to the common goal of ecological and economic sustainability 

of groundfish stocks. NOAA will continue to work with the fishing industry and the 

New England Council to adapt these programs as needed, and to ensure open and 

productive communication with the New England fishing community. 

These are extremely challenging economic times for the Nation, and that is certainly true for fishermen. There are no easy answers, no silver bullets, and I do not 

come here claiming to have all the answers. But one thing I am sure of is the need 

for all of us to continue to work together toward the shared goal of sustainable fisheries and good fishing jobs. Sustainable fisheries are about a better future—a time 

when fishermen can rely on fishing as a stable income for their families, a time 

when grandparents and grandkids spend a day out on the water fishing, and a time 

when fishing communities can count on fishing to help their local economies recover 

and thrive. I believe fishermen, scientists, environmentalists, processors, chefs, government managers, and others can work together toward these shared goals. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss NOAA’s efforts on groundfish 

management in New England. We are available to answer any questions you may 

have. 

ATTACHMENT A 

The Value of Rebuilding Fisheries Across our Country 

Fishing in all its forms is a $71 billion per year business in the United States, 

and that business is vital to the economies and identities of our coastal commuVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:21 Feb 06, 2012 Jkt 072671 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\72671.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
12 

1 National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011. Fisheries Economics of the United States, 2009. 

U.S. Dept. Commerce, available at http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st5/publication/econ/2009 

/FEUS%202009%20ALL.pdf. 2 Internal analysis using the National Marine Fisheries Service Commercial Fishing & Seafood Industry Input/Output Model. For additional information on this model, see ‘‘The NMFS 

Commercial Fishing & Seafood Industry Input/Output Model.’’ available at https:// 

www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/documents/Commercial%20Fishing%20IO%20Model.pdf. 3 National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011. Fisheries of the United States, 2010. U.S. Dept. 

Commerce, available at http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/fus/fus10/index.html. 4 National unemployment rate data obtained from http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNU04 

000000?yearsloption=alllyears&periodsloption=specificlperiods&periods=Annual+Data. 

Commercial fishing industry job and job impact numbers obtained from the NMFS Commercial 

Fishing Economic Impact Model. 5 National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011. Fisheries Economics of the United States 2010 

(forthcoming). 

nities. The economic activity generated by fisheries creates 1.4 million full- and 

part-time jobs, from the boat captains and crews, from the oyster farmers to the people in processing plants, trucks, seafood markets, and restaurants.1

NOAA economists estimate that rebuilding all U.S. fish stocks would generate an additional $31 billion in sales impacts, support an additional 500,000 jobs and increase the revenue fishermen receive at the dock by $2.2 billion.2 This is more than 

a 50 percent increase from the current annual dockside revenues. 

We are making gains across the country as individual fisheries have recovered, 

which will increase as we finally bring an end to overfishing. One place the benefits 

of rebuilding are most apparent in the New England sea scallop fishery. Since beginning to rebuild in 1999, the scallop fishery has experienced an average annual 

growth in landings revenue of 19 percent (16 percent after adjusting for inflation, 

i.e., real terms), increasing from $44 million in 1998 to $265 million in 2010, a fivefold increase. While there have not been ups and downs, overall the fishery has 

demonstrated sustained growth, with landings revenue increasing relative to the 

previous year in ten of the past 12 years. In Massachusetts alone, the commercial 

harvest of sea scallops generated an increase in jobs in the fishing industry as well 

as across the broader state economy, rising from 4,700 jobs in 1998 to 30,000 in 

2010. The rebuilt sea scallop fishery also contributes to the economic sustainability 

of fishing communities. The port of New Bedford is the largest port in the country 

by value than any other every year since 2000, in large part due to its sea scallop 

landings. Landings revenue in New Bedford has experienced sustained growth since 

rebuilding of scallops, increasing in nine of the last twelve years and 23 percent 

higher in 2010 relative to 2009.3

More generally, in these challenging economic times, during 2010 the commercial 

fishing industry was a strong performer. While unemployment rates more than doubled from 4.6 percent in 2007 to 9.6 percent in 2010, employment and employment 

impacts generated from commercial fishing increased.4 In particular, both jobs and 

job impacts generated by the commercial fishing industry increased 16 percent in 

2010 over the previous year and, indeed, were at their highest levels since 2006. 

In addition, commercial fishermen received $ 4.5 billion for their catch in 2010, a 

10 percent increase over 2009 levels. Overall, the commercial fishing industry—from 

harvest, through the dealer and processing sectors, whole sale sectors, to retail outlets (including seafood markets, grocery stores, and restaurants)—generated $116 

billion in sales impacts, contributed $48 billion to GNP, and supported 1 million jobs 

in the fishing industry and across the broader economy.5

Catch share programs, and, in particular, established catch share programs (those 

implemented prior to 2007), have been a bright spot for U.S. commercial fisheries 

in recent years. Among the established programs that NMFS is able to report on, 

the majority experienced revenue growth from 2007 to 2009, with increases ranging 

from 8 percent to 128 percent, despite the fact that overall landings revenue declined nationally during this timeframe. Although we do not have landings revenues 

for most of the catch share programs for 2010 yet, nationally commercial fishing 

landings revenues increased more than 10 percent from 2009 to 2010. Revenue is 

up even as we are rebuilding stocks and implementing annual catch limits in all 

federally-managed fisheries. These programs give fishermen the ability to work 

around weaker stocks and then focus on the healthier stocks. 

Marine recreational fishing is also widely recognized as a critical economic driver 

of, and contributor to, local and regional economies, as well as the national economy. 

Take for example, the Gulf of Mexico and the Southeast Atlantic regions, where our 

most recent statistics (2009) show combined expenditures on saltwater fishing trips 

and durable fishing equipment of $10.1 billion annually; or the Mid-Atlantic and Pacific regions where expenditures for these items reach $3.5 billion and $2.2 billion 

13 

6Fisheries Economics of the United States, 2009. 

respectively, on an annual basis. This significant economic activity generates local 

jobs that cannot be outsourced, which support communities large and small in our 

Nation’s coastal states, territories, and commonwealths. Businesses directly impacted by recreational fishing range from marinas, boat dealers, and bait shops to 

hotels, restaurants and other service-oriented businesses in coastal communities. In 

those communities where it is common for recreational fishermen to maintain a second home, saltwater anglers can be a factor in the local housing market. Overall, 

saltwater anglers took 74 million fishing trips in 2009, with angler expenditures 

generating $50 billion in sales impacts, contributed $23 billion to GNP, and supported over 327,000 jobs across the broader economy.6

ATTACHMENT B 

Socioeconomic Performance of the Northeast Groundfish Fleet in 2010 

Economists and social scientists at the Northeast Fisheries Science Center recently reported on fishing year 2010 performance of groundfish vessels holding limited access permits—the vessels that rely most on groundfish landings and revenues, and that have been the most affected by the management measures newly in 

effect in 2010. 

Some of the news is positive. Both prices and total gross revenues from all species 

landed by groundfish vessels were up for 2010 in comparison to 2009. This is despite 

the fact that annual catch limits, required for rebuilding, resulted in a decline in 

total landings of groundfish species for the third year. Average revenues per vessel 

were also up for 2010 in comparison to 2009. 

Massachusetts ports have received about $12 million, approximately half of the 

increased revenues during 2010, of which $6.8 million was generated by vessels 

home ported in Massachusetts, with the remaining revenue produced by vessels 

home ported elsewhere but landing their catch in Massachusetts ports. Massachusetts was the only state where revenues from groundfish landed there were higher 

than in 2009. 

Fishermen also captured more higher-valued species and kept more of the fish 

that had historically been thrown overboard. Reducing discards and increasing capture of available quota is an important shared goal of fishermen, the Council and 

NOAA. The sector program led to substantial reduction in the amount of groundfish 

discarded because, unlike the effort control system under ‘‘Days-at-Sea,’’ sectors do 

not limit the amount of fish they may land in a day or on a particular trip, and 

are not permitted to discard legal-sized fish. For example, 31 percent of Georges 

Bank yellowtail flounder total catch was discarded in 2009 compared to only 9 percent in 2010. 

In addition to the 2010 groundfish vessel performance report described above, the 

agency is working on a number of fronts to improve our socioeconomic reporting and 

analyses of fisheries. We are now completing a more comprehensive annual report 

on Groundfishing Year 2010 that will help us to better understand performance at 

the vessel ownership level. The report will analyze vessel operating and sector membership cost and information about quota trading to better evaluate changes in fishery and financial performance. We are also working to support the Massachusetts 

Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) in a study with the University of Massachusetts’ School for Marine Science and Technology (SMAST) to better understand the 

challenges faced by the South Shore fishermen of Sector X. This is the work initiated in response to Governor Patrick’s earlier request for a fishery disaster declaration. 

A separate ‘‘break-even’’ analysis of how the financial position of groundfish vessels was affected by the 2010 transition to catch-share and quotas-based management is also being conducted in a collaborative effort between NMFS, DMF, and 

SMAST. Vessel profiles using statistical averages for seven gear and vessel size categories have been compiled and the analysis was completed in mid-September and 

is currently undergoing peer review. We understand how important this analysis is 

and have had our economists working closely on this project, have met with this 

team bi-weekly, and given financial support to ensure its completion. Preliminary 

analysis shows that while a number of fleet segments performed better in 2010 relative to 2009, some segments did perform worse, including some of the smaller boat 

segments. NMFS is concerned about the impacts on these small boats and will continue to work with the Council to understand the root causes of the negative outcomes and identify corrective actions. 

14 

Senator KERRY. Thanks very, very much, Dr. Lubchenco. I appreciate the directness and brevity of that and it’s helpful to us. 

And we’ll just begin with the question period. I think we’ll do 

what, about a six-minute round? 

Let me begin by asking you this. For years, we have been in the 

Congress ready to respond to agricultural challenges around the 

country. And whether there’s a drought or a flood or, you know, 

some kind of crop problem of one kind or another, billions of dollars 

have been allocated in emergency assistance to various parts of the 

country. 

I often link our fishing folks to the same industry, to farming. 

They live off the sea, live off the land, but they’re really farming 

from the ocean. And when the government steps in and creates a 

dislocation rather than Mother Nature, and people are selling their 

boats or their homes, we have a disaster, an economic disaster. 

I know the Governor has submitted data. We’ve had a number 

of conversations about this. All of us have joined together in trying 

to urge the issuance of a disaster declaration to provide holdover 

assistance to fishing folks so that they can look to the day when 

the stocks are replenished but know that they’re still going to have 

a part of that. And we’re still, you know, locked in on sort of an 

effort to try to get that. 

We talked the other day about it, and you indicated, I think, at 

that time that the key here is, obviously, we have to meet the statutory requirements, we have to meet the standards. It’s our feeling 

that we have, and we’d like to get a sense from you where we stand 

with respect to that. And will the department support our efforts 

to secure that disaster declaration? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Mr. Chairman, I’ve long supported providing assistance to fishermen when the circumstances warrant doing so. 

After the Governor’s request to the secretary to declare a disaster 

for fisheries in the Commonwealth was denied because revenues 

were up, NOAA suggested that the Commonwealth focus on those 

regions that were suffering the most. And we have worked hard to 

assist the Commonwealth in multiple ways to pull together the requisite information to support such a request. We have not yet received that request at a smaller scale, more fine-grained level of 

analysis, which I believe—— 

Senator KERRY. Who do you have to receive that from? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. We are expecting to receive that from the Governor, which is why we have been working with him and with his 

staff to pull together information about changes in the economic 

status focused on those regions that are the most challenged. And 

once that request is in hand, the secretary makes a determination, 

and it needs to be approved by OMB. 

Senator KERRY. Are they aware of specifically what information 

is needed to sort of complete this, to round the circle? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. We have made it abundantly clear multiple 

times. The Governor’s staff, I think, is well aware of what is needed. 

Senator KERRY. So in what—give us a sense of a time frame 

here. What could we anticipate, in your judgment? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. The time frame is up to the Governor. 

Senator KERRY. So if they got that to you—— 

15 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. We are waiting on the Governor. 

Senator KERRY. If you get that within a short period of time, how 

quick is your turnaround? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. I can assure you that we will do everything we 

can to expedite a secretarial decision, which, as I mentioned, needs 

to be approved by OMB. 

Senator KERRY. Can you give me a ball park on that time line? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. We could—as far as I’m concerned, we can turn 

it around quickly. I can’t speak for the secretary, and I can’t speak 

for OMB. But I can assure you we would do everything we can to 

move it as expeditiously as possible. As you are well aware, a disaster declaration does not automatically come with any funds. 

Then it would be up to Congress. 

Senator KERRY. We have to get the money. Look, we understand. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Absolutely. 

Senator KERRY. We know the battle we’re in. But we want the 

ability to go get that, and we need the help in order to do it. But 

you underscore—I mean, what you’ve just said underscores part of 

the problem which I raised in my opening, which is—you said the 

technicality was that revenues were up. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Across the board for the region. 

Senator KERRY. Right. And I accept that. But that represents 80 

percent of landings to—you know, to the 20 percent of vessels. So 

80 percent of the industry, of the vessels, are not seeing revenue 

up. Eighty percent is a pretty high figure to be hurting. And if the 

measurement—if we’re stuck in those kinds of technicalities, I 

think that’s the kind of thing that just drives everybody crazy. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Senator, I agree with you completely, which is 

why we have gone back to the state, to the Commonwealth, and 

said, ‘‘This is what we need. Give us this so that we can move forward.’’ 

Senator KERRY. But what about the actual allocation? I mean, do 

you have an allocation—this is the catch share, so a downstream 

impact. If catch shares result in so much of the landings going to 

so few of the fleet, something is wrong, is it not? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Senator, the data that we have from the last 

year, of the first full year of implementation of the expansion of the 

sector program, shows that the changes that happened in that year 

are a continuation of changes that have been going on for a long 

time. If you look at changes from the year 2001 to 2009, landings 

dropped by 40 percent, revenues fell by over one-half, and the number of vessels dwindled—— 

Senator KERRY. In what—in the whole period? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. From 2001 to 2009, landings dropped by nearly 

40 percent, revenues fell by over one-half, and number of vessels 

dwindled to half their previous levels. So these changes have been 

ongoing for some time. 

Senator KERRY. Is that broken down? Could you get that to us 

on a year-by-year—— 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. I would be happy to give you those data. 

Senator KERRY. On a year-by-year? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. We have those by year. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

16 

1The absolute numbers generated by the Framework 45, and 2010 Year-end analyses cannot 

be directly compared due to a number of different characteristics of the analyses, including but 

not limited to: corrections/updates to the database between the analyses, slight differences in 

definitions of active permits, and revenues adjusted for inflation vs. nominal value. Additionally, 

Kitts et al., (2011) addressed missing data for all 4 years analyzed (2007–2010), such as vessel 

trip reports that did not have accompanying dealer data, by imputing data based on similar 

trips for that vessel. Relative trends between the years can be compared, however, because within each analysis the data were treated the same between years. 

Provide year-by-year breakdown of the downward trends mentioned in Dr. 

Lubchenco’s testimony in regard to landings, revenue, and number of vessels from 

2001–2009. 

Data compiled and presented in the table below are taken from the Environmental Assessment prepared for Framework 45 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan. 

Groundfish landed weight (lbs.), revenues (1999 dollars), and active permits; FY 2001–2009 

Data 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

Weight 103,418,293 83,477,219 81,023,479 77,281,552 64,269,318 48,387,002 58,924,437 66,644,624 63,477,001 

Dollars 98,637,293 95,261,434 80,814,800 71,301,257 72,226,979 62,517,603 64,483,613 62,488,957 57,676,221 

Active 

Permits 1,314 1,137 1,070 954 850 785 727 686 633 

From Tables 55 and 58 in the Environmental Assessment, Regulatory Impact Review, Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

for Framework 45, prepared by the New England Fishery Management Council in consultation with the Mid Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council and the National Marine Fisheries Service; January 21, 2011. 

Below is a graphic of the relative trends in groundfish landings, revenues and active permits between 2001 and 2010, where the values in 2001 are set at a baseline 

of 1.0. The values used to calculate trends between 2001 and 2009 were taken from 

Tables 55 and 58 in the Environmental Assessment, Regulatory Impact Review, Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for Framework 45 (New England Fishery Management Council in consultation with the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council 

and the National Marine Fisheries Service; January 21, 2011). Trends between 2009 

and 2010 were calculated from Tables 1 and 2 in the Report for Fishing Year 2010 

on the Performance of the Northeast Multispecies Groundfish Fishery (May 2010— 

April 2011) 1 (Kitts et al., 2011). 

Reference: Kitts A, Bing-Sawyer E, McPherson M, Olson J, Walden J. 2011. Report for Fishing 

Year 2010 on the Performance of the Northeast Multispecies (Groundfish) Fishery (May 2010– 

April 2011). U.S. Dept Commer, Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref Doc. 11–12; 44 p. 


103NOA1.eps
17 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. And so what we are seeing in the last year is, 

not surprisingly, a continuation of some of those changes. But there 

are also changes that are positive, specifically, that despite lower 

catch limits because of the requirements of Magnuson-Stevens, the 

changes were not as drastic as we would have predicted had they 

continued under the old Days at Sea program. 

So I believe we are beginning to turn the corner. It’s not happening overnight. It won’t happen overnight. And, therefore, the 

importance of addressing those sectors of the fishery that are not 

doing well is paramount. And we would be delighted to receive the 

information that we need to document the declines, to have the secretary declare a disaster. 

Senator KERRY. Thank you. 

Senator Brown? 

Senator BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Well, as you noted, and as you noted, Doctor, the decline of the 

New England fishing fleet from 2007 to 2010 is 17 percent. Onethird of the vessels are inactive by—declared inactive by NOAA in 

2010; a 15 percent decline in crew positions; a 46 percent decline 

in groundfish trips from 2007 to 2010. 

Since I’ve been working on this issue, I’ll tell you what—I’ve 

never seen—and I know Congressman Frank has been working on 

this a lot longer than I have—a complete lack of trust between any 

type of individual business and the Federal Government. It’s, quite 

frankly, I think, beyond repair. 

And I know that we had a hearing back in May, and, you know, 

your office—we had the hearing in June. In May, we asked for documents. No documents were provided until a couple of days before, 

and that was about 15 percent. Most were outdated. And NOAA 

and your office took the last day of the QFR period to return a few 

more documents. In late August, NOAA agreed to provide our staff 

an unredacted copy of the special master report. It was still redacted. So 5 months later, we still only have 50 percent of the documents needed to address a lot of our questions—Senator Carper’s 

and my questions from the hearing. 

And so, once again, the establishment—a reestablishment of 

trust and transparency—am I going to be getting the rest of the 

documents that we requested from our hearing any time soon? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Senator, it’s my understanding that the General 

Counsel for the department is working to set up an appointment 

with you to brief you on the information that we have. 

Senator BROWN. Yes, but that’s not the request. The request was 

to have the documents for the hearing, and it’s 5 months later and 

we still don’t have them. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Senator, he will be discussing that very issue 

with you. That’s not in my authority to do. 

Senator BROWN. OK. I’ll look forward to having that meeting. 

When Mr. Schwaab was here at the last hearing in lieu of you attending, I asked the question, you know, ‘‘What does it take to get 

fired at NOAA?’’ There was a shredding party; we know of the 

abuses at the—of New England fishermen by NOAA; mismanagement of asset forfeiture fund; and a $3,000 luxury yacht that was 

bought with fishermen’s fines. And no one has really been held accountable, and those who broke that public trust are still working 

18 

for NOAA. And since our hearing, have any disciplinary actions for 

these problems taken place? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Senator, there are two laws that—under which 

we operate to deal with disciplinary actions when warranted. One 

is the Federal Personnel Law, and it describes two ways of dealing 

with issues. One is performance based. One is conduct related. The 

second law that is relevant is the Privacy Act. And because of that 

Act, it’s—I cannot talk publicly about disciplinary actions that have 

been taken. 

I can tell you that the people who were involved have been held 

accountable and that they have been dealt with to the extent possible under the authorities under which we operate. 

Senator BROWN. Is that something the Counsel will be able to 

share with us as well? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. What counsel? 

Senator BROWN. The attorney that you were referring to earlier. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Oh. That’s up to him to describe. I don’t know 

what constrains what he can do. I’m telling you what constrains 

me. 

Senator BROWN. I know that Attorney General Coakley made a 

9/28 request for the documents related to these personnel decisions. 

Will you be providing those to her? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Eric, can you answer that? 

Mr. SCHWAAB. Thank you. So, Senator, as you indicated, that 

was just recently that we received that request. We are reviewing 

that. I think many of the same constraints that have challenged 

our response on some of these personnel related issues to date will 

also be in play as we review an appropriate response. 

Senator BROWN. The fishing disaster declaration must be 80 percent revenue decrease for fishing failure, and that’s internal NOAA 

policy guidance. It’s not law or regulation. What’s the basis for that 

80 percent figure? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Senator, that is the determination—the policy 

that was agreed upon or decided by the secretary with OMB’s concurrence. It’s the policy that we operate under to have uniform criteria across all different parts of the country so that there can be 

some uniformity to making decisions instead of just an ad hoc decision, yes here, no there, whatever. 

Senator BROWN. And I know you’ve had meetings with NGO’s in 

Washington and NOAA’s leadership team has met with those folks 

to discuss fisheries policy. Have you held, or are you planning to 

hold meetings of this sort with any industry representatives in 

New England or in Massachusetts, in particular? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Senator, after a report was issued about the 

meeting that I had with environmental groups on this issue, I 

asked my staff to go back through all of my records and pull together information about how many times I’ve met with fishermen 

and fishing groups versus environmental groups or individuals. 

And in the last year and a half, which is as far back as they got, 

I’ve spent 3 hours with environmental groups on fishing issues, and 

I’ve spent 40 hours with fishermen or fishing groups on fishing 

issues. So I think the story is actually quite the opposite—— 

Senator BROWN. I wasn’t aware of a story. I was just wondering 

if you’re going to be meeting with these folks and continue to meet 

19 

with them, because as I said earlier, there’s a complete lack of 

trust between your agency and the fishermen here in Massachusetts, not only based on the finding issues that the special master 

put out, but, you know, the lack of desire to take into consideration 

any additional science on the catch share—maybe modifications in 

Magnuson-Stevens as well. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Senator, I said when I first—in fact, in my very 

first hearing before the Senate Commerce Committee, I indicated 

that I thought the relationship that we had with fishermen in New 

England was pretty dysfunctional, which is why I invited the review by the special—by the Inspector General, and which is why 

we have requested a management review and a number of other 

things. This sounds like Twilight Zone or something here. 

So I think the point is simply that I take the relationship with 

fishermen in the region—— 

Senator KERRY. I didn’t tell you, but this place is haunted today. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. I take that relationship very, very seriously, and 

we have been acting very diligently to turn this relationship 

around and have implemented a large number of actions to do exactly that. I think that we are in a better place than we were, but 

we have a long way to go. I believe that we should be working together collaboratively with fishermen. 

And much of the actions that we have taken, especially with the 

expansion of the sector program, have been explicitly designed to 

simplify regulations, to get rid of unduly burdensome regulations, 

to give fishermen more flexibility and more control over their businesses. And that, we are seeing happen in just this 1 year in the 

expanded sector program. 

Many more fishermen are taking advantage of these opportunities, are much more in control of their businesses. I think that we 

are beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel, but it’s a 

very long tunnel. And I am committed to understanding why some 

portions of the groundfish fishery are doing better than others. We 

are collecting all the information that we can to better understand 

that, and we are committed to helping to make changes in that 

fishery so that it works for as many fishermen as possible. 

Senator KERRY. Thank you. 

Can you all hear back there? You can. Good. All right. Everybody 

keep their voice up. 

Senator Begich? 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARK BEGICH, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Lubchenco, thank you very much for also being here for today’s hearing. Let me—I mean, I don’t have to tell you from Alaska’s perspective, you know, we have, as Senator Kerry said, an 

enormous relationship to the fishing industry across the country. 

We have very abundant, sustainable, and profitable fisheries in 

Alaska. 

About half the fish caught in this country come from Alaska. But 

that didn’t happen overnight. It didn’t happen easily. It was 

through a lot of shared sacrifice and a lot of issues. And why this 

20 

intrigues me a little bit is because the struggle that the eastern 

seaboard is going through, which Alaska probably went through in 

the 1970s, is what I would describe. It wasn’t easy. We walked 

through a lot, and I would say to Senator Brown back then we had 

a lack of NOAA and Federal agencies. 

But I wouldn’t say it is beyond repair, because I can tell you I’ve 

been to many fishermen meetings. And back in those days, I was 

much, much younger, but heard plenty about them, and a lot of 

people thought it was beyond repair back then. But it was time 

that worked out the problems, but also communication and making 

sure that the agencies on a regular basis—and I appreciate the 

quantity of hours you spent. Sometimes quantity of hours is not as 

important as quality of time. 

And so as we experienced in one hour down in Halibut Cove over 

a small little issue over—down in Homer over halibut charter 

issues, that time you spent there, I think, was very valuable, and 

the hour before with commercial fishermen was very valuable. 

Let me ask you, if I can—because I recognize some of the challenges that are here in the New England area. But let me ask you 

some specific—kind of where you’re headed. With the report that 

was done, the New England Fisheries Management Review, what 

is—there are several recommendations that were in that report. 

As you move through that, how are you communicating back to 

the fishermen of this area? I guess that’s—because in order to create that trust, that long-term trust—it is about communicating, at 

times more than you would have ever anticipated, just because of 

the way the industry works and the small boat operators to large 

boat operators. But how are you taking those recommendations 

that you’ve done in that report—and there’s several on resources, 

on a variety of things. How are you communicating those back? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Senator, thank you again for the opportunity to 

be with you in Alaska with fishermen—— 

Senator BEGICH. You say that with such a smile. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. I did actually—you know, that’s—an important 

part of my job is to learn—— 

Senator BEGICH. You did a good job. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO.—and listen by talking to the people who are on 

the ground, who are affected by our decisions, understand what’s 

working and what isn’t working. We heard an ear full, and, you 

know, that’s important, and that flags key issues for us. It’s equally 

important that we hear what’s working, not just what isn’t working, and we got both of those. 

Senator BEGICH. Right. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. But relative to the management report, this report was yet another indication of our commitment to this region 

to better understand what’s working and what isn’t working. Mr. 

Schwaab initiated the request to an independent, neutral, third 

party to give us a very hard-hitting assessment of what’s working 

and what isn’t with respect to management. 

The report flagged a large number of issues that are very serious 

with which we have already begun dealing. And one of them you 

hit squarely on the head, which is the need to significantly improve 

communications. We have initiated a number of efforts that I’m 

21 

going to ask Mr. Schwaab to describe very briefly in terms of the 

communication aspects of our response to this report. 

But I want to simply flag the fact that there were two things: 

one, that we are making concerted efforts to improve communications in the region, to clarify roles and responsibilities, to have our 

regulations be in plain English and to simplify them. But if you 

would like to describe some of those—— 

Senator BEGICH. Go ahead, Eric. I’m watching my time here. So, 

Eric? 

Mr. SCHWAAB. Thank you, Senator. Just then very quickly, one 

of the points that was made very clearly was that stakeholders, 

fishermen, others from industry did not know where to go for communications around various issues. So we stood up a unified communications team under the auspices of our regional office, and 

that team has worked much more aggressively to not only implement some of the steps that Dr. Lubchenco just spoke to, but also 

to provide a more cohesive and more transparent way to reach out 

and be available to the industry. 

Senator BEGICH. Let me try this, if you could. To help me and 

maybe other members here, could you put together a schematic 

that shows me the tools you’re using to communicate, how often 

you’re communicating, and then of the recommendations in that report, what exactly—and time tables—you’re accepting or doing on 

those recommendations? Can you do that for the committee? 

Mr. SCHWAAB. Yes, absolutely. 

Senator BEGICH. OK. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

Provide (a) a Schematic of tools used to communicate with fishermen, (b) information on what, when, and how we are improving communications including (c) how 

NOAA is communicating actions to implement the management review recommendations. 

Over the past 2 years, NMFS expanded outreach and communication initiatives. 

to facilitate the transition of multispecies fishery management to the sector allocation program (Amendment 16 to the Multispecies Fishery Management Plan). The 

‘‘Review of the New England Fishery Management Process’’ (Management Review) 

was issued in April, 2011 at a time when NMFS’s communication efforts had already improved. Outreach and communication initiatives continue to move forward, 

now informed by the findings and specific recommendations of the Management Review. This is an adaptive process and will continue to change as processes are identified, tested and evaluated as successful. Some of these tools were specifically developed for implementation of Amendment 16. However, they are now available and 

applied to other NMFS programs, as appropriate. 

(a) Schematic of tools used to communicate with fishermen (items identified are 

specific to New England per the hearing subject): 

Type on information communicated By whom Tools available and examples 

Regulatory Development 

Notice of meetings (Advisory Panels, Committee Meetings, public 

hearings, Council Meetings) associated with development of regulatory actions for fisheries managed by the Council. 

New England and Mid-Atlantic 

Fishery Management Councils, or 

Northeast Regional Office (Regional Office) for Secretarial and 

protected species actions 

Federal Register, e-mail lists, 

website postings, mailings, press 

releases. 

Requests for comments on regulatory analysis documents and proposed rules. 

Northeast Regional Office Federal Register, e-mail lists, 

press releases, website postings, 

mailings. 

22 

Type on information communicated By whom Tools available and examples 

New England Council Meeting 

presentations and discussions 

New England Fishery Management Council Live streaming video, website with 

links to background and discussion documents. 

Public hearings, scoping meetings New England Fishery Management Council; Northeast Regional 

Office 

Federal Register, e-mail lists, 

press releases, website postings, 

mailings, comments posted on 

website. 

Notification of Final Rules/Regulatory Actions Northeast Regional Office Permit Holder Bulletins (formerly 

called small entity compliance 

guides) distributed by mail, e-mail 

lists, posted on Northeast Regional 

Office website, and press releases. 

As needed, includes compliance 

guides/fact sheets. 

Implementation support and compliance enhancement outreach 

Quota monitoring Northeast Regional Office Fish-On-Line—allows fishermen to 

track landings per vessel trip reports and dealer reports. 

Sector Information Management 

Module to allow sector managers 

to monitor ACE transfers, sector 

allocation usage. 

Website access to quota monitoring information. 

Data Review Northeast Regional Office, Northeast Fisheries Science Center 

(Science Center) 

Targeted data review sessions 

with sector managers. 

Targeted audience informational 

support 

Northeast Regional Office Targeted telephone ‘‘town hall’’ 

meetings by NMFS leadership and 

staff. 

Sector member meetings. 

Sector manager workshops. 

Monthly Sector Manager Calls. 

Implementation procedures Northeast Regional Office Public Informational Meetings. 

Examples: 

Public meetings held for the May 

1, 2010, sector implementation; 

Protected Resources gear modification training workshops. 

Transition training for fishermen, 

dealers, sector managers 

Northeast Regional Office Examples: Training workshops on 

monitoring and reporting for sector managers for implementation 

of Amendment 16 to the Multispecies FMP; 

Dealer meetings with port agents 

regarding new reporting requirements; 

Dockside training for protected 

species gear modifications (eg., 

pingers for porpoise); and, summary outreach guides. 

23 

Type on information communicated By whom Tools available and examples 

Operational training Northeast Regional Office, Office 

of Law Enforcement 

Training for sector managers and 

fishermen: 

Electronic Vessel Trip Reporting 

(eVTR) training workshops, 

webinar, website, and podcasts; 

Vessel Monitoring System training, including onsite support for 

fishermen and port agents; 

webinar for sector managers. 

Written operational guidelines. 

Examples: 

Checklist developed for captains 

on regulatory requirements such 

as monitoring and reporting for 

2010 and 2011 fishing years; 

Electronic Vessel Trip Reporting 

(eVTR) operational summary guidance; 

Operational guidelines for protected resources (marine mammals 

and endangered species) regulations; 

Annual protected resources information sheet summarizing fisheryspecific requirements issued to 

permit holders. 

Frequently Asked Questions Northeast Regional Office, Northeast Fisheries Science Center Question and Answer sheets for 

complicated or controversial regulatory actions, scientific reports, or 

other NMFS products posted on 

Northeast Regional Office website. 

Question and Answer inserts prepared for industry publications 

Specific Information Requests 

Permit histories, vessel upgrade information, quota monitoring information, regulatory requirements 

Northeast Regional Office Designated fisheries staff answer 

questions for sector managers. 

Developing designated staff telephone list for all Northeast Regional Office actions and programs. 

General Information Regarding NMFS Programs 

Descriptions of programs, scientific 

and regulatory documents, educational materials, outreach notices, materials, compliance guides 

Northeast Regional Office, Northeast Fisheries Science Center Website. 

Industry outreach events (e.g., 

New Bedford Working Waterfront 

Festival, Maine Fishermen’s 

Forum). 

Timely program background information, program and regulatory 

context, and notices of ongoing or 

upcoming issues 

Northeast Regional Office, Northeast Fisheries Science Center The NOAA Fisheries Navigator, a 

bi-monthly insert into Commercial 

Fisheries News. 

(b) What, when, and how is NOAA improving communications 

Improving communications and relationships with industry is a priority, and we 

continue to actively find ways to develop a more consistent and focused message. 

We formed a Communications Team and developed an updated communications 

plan to support all Regional Office program staff who work with industry and the 

public, and promote outreach and collaboration between the Northeast Regional Office, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, New England Fishery Management Council and Office of Law Enforcement. Additional specific improvements are listed 

below: 

• Fish-On-Line is a web portal that was introduced in early 2010 to allow fishermen holding a Federal fishing permit to access their vessel data and to track 

their landings information, including information reported by seafood dealers. 

Missing information or inaccuracies in the data submitted can quickly be identified for correction. In September 2011, a ‘‘News’’ feature was added to Fish-OnLine to provide an additional directed mode of communication to vessel owners. 

24 

• Customer Service Training—February 2011. Over 60 Northeast Regional Office 

and Office of Law Enforcement staff were trained in best practices for communicating with stakeholders. 

• Plain Language Campaign—Launched in the spring of 2011, the Plain Language campaign is geared toward developing notices and operational guidelines 

for specific audiences that provide necessary information up front, rather than 

repeating technical and regulatory language in correspondence. Documents are 

more clear, concise, and specific for intended recipients. In September 2011, 

plain language training was provided to over 70 people from the Regional Office, General Counsel for Fisheries, New England and Mid-Atlantic Council 

staffs, and the Office of Law Enforcement. The initiative’s results can be seen 

in recent permit holder bulletins and other outreach materials. 

• We have hired a former commercial fisherman in New England to serve as our 

first formal compliance liaison in the country. He is working directly with the 

fishing industry in a non-enforcement capacity to improve communications and 

ensure all can comply with needed conservation measures. 

• An outreach survey of Sector Managers was conducted in August 2011 to get 

their opinion on outreach tools and methods that NMFS uses to distribute information and obtain feedback from Sector Managers. Best practices for communication with sector managers are being followed based on their response, which 

supported a tailored approach to outreach and assistance, including in-person 

and live venues such as workshops, monthly conference calls, and one on one 

meetings with Northeast Regional Office staff, as well as Sector Vessel Operating Guide and Permit Holder Bulletins. For sector vessels, Sector Managers 

believed that Fish-On-Line and brief messages sent via the Vessel Monitoring 

Systems were the most efficient methods of information distribution to fishermen. 

• Evaluation of communication tools—During September and October, 2011, we 

are informally discussing with fishermen their preferred format and medium for 

receiving information on regulations, the supporting science, notices of meetings, and outreach and training materials. Preliminary industry response suggests that fishermen find the NOAA Fisheries Navigator, a bi-monthly insert 

in a trade publication, informative and accessible. The development and distribution of new outreach materials will be immediately adapted in response to 

feedback from fishermen. 

• A Website Working Group in the Northeast Regional Office is being established 

to redesign the Regional Office website to make posted information more understandable and easier to find. New webpages are being designed for posting as 

soon as NMFS’ new website development system has been launched. In September, 2011, Northeast Regional Office staff were trained in the new system 

in anticipation of its availability in the near future. 

• Northeast Regional Office staff are developing processes to reduce the number 

of duplicate letters sent to industry. A mechanism for determining individual 

preferences is being considered for vessels with multiple owners, owners with 

multiple vessels, and permit holders with multiple addresses. 

• A web page/pamphlet to direct fishermen and other stakeholders to specific 

points of contact within the Regional Office is being developed. The information 

should reduce the number of times that calls are transferred before the appropriate staff person is reached, making it easier for people to get answers to specific questions. 

• A method to document data requests and provide an approximate time-frame for 

a response was developed for use starting in late October, 2011. 

(c) NMFS Communication specific to implementation of the Management Review 

Recommendations. 

Week of April 26, 2011: New England Fishery Management Council meeting in 

Mystic, CT: This meeting kicked off a series of public meetings from Connecticut to 

Maine where NOAA’s Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, Eric Schwaab, announced the specific steps the agency was taking immediately in response to the 

Management Review while a longer term plan was under development. The Review 

was made available for an informal 30-day public comment period, and the 23 comments were also posted online. A press release announcing the Management Review’s availability and requesting comments was issued on the same day. Ongoing 

and short term actions identified by Eric Schwaab included commitments and procedures to: 

25 

• Improve collaboration with partners on science, cooperative research with industry and reviews of science programs: Collaborate with research and academic institutions and fishermen to maximize research funding to address critical questions facing New England fisheries. Prior to making FY12 research funding decisions, conduct an expedited mid-term review of the 2009 Strategic Plan for Cooperative Research involving all regional cooperating agencies and academic institutions. 

• Improve communications efforts: Enhance and integrate communications staff at 

the Northeast Regional Office. Simplify public information explaining NMFS 

programs and regulatory actions through tools such as the Navigator. Investigate opportunities for direct communication with fishermen and other constituents such as Fisheries Information Centers and bi-weekly sector manager 

calls. 

• Clarify roles and responsibilities of NMFS and the Councils: Update the regional office and science center operating agreement to reflect report recommendations. Through the Northeast Region Coordinating Council (made up 

of the region’s fisheries executives from the New England and Mid-Atlantic 

Councils, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, NOAA’s Northeast 

Regional Administrator and Northeast Fisheries Science Center Director) complete efforts to clarify NOAA and Council functions and staff roles through new 

operating agreements. 

• Improve data management systems: Integrate and consolidate fishery dependent 

reporting/collection systems and the underlying data management systems 

within the region. Working initially with voluntary multispecies sector participants to transition from paper to electronic logbooks to speed data processing, 

and reduce errors. 

April 28, 2011: Stakeholder Town Hall Conference Call: NOAA’s Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, Eric Schwaab, presented the same information discussed at 

the New England Fishery Management Council Meeting, along with Preston Pate, 

the primary author of the Management Review, on a Town-Hall style conference 

call.The call included a question and answer period. 

June 23, 2011 Press Release: The NMFS Northeast Regional Administrator, Pat 

Kurkul, and the Acting Director of the Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Frank 

Almeida, issued a joint press release reviewing and lauding the New England Fishery Management Council’s response to the Management Review and identifying 

NMFS ongoing efforts to respond to the Review. 

June 23, 2011 New England Fishery Management Council meeting in Portland, 

Maine: Regional Administrator Pat Kurkul presented the Northeast Region’s preliminary response to the four priority areas, listed above, identified in the Management Review. An overview of the developing regional work plan was discussed. 

September 23, 2011, New England Fishery Management Council meeting in 

Danvers, MA: New England Fishery Management Council staff presented a straw 

man Communications and Outreach proposal to the Council and identified points 

supported by the Council Executive Committee. Regional Administrator, Pat 

Kurkul, presented an overview of the integrated Regional Office and Northeast 

Science Center Draft Work Plan responding to the Management Report. The Work 

Plan was developed by the Northeast Regional Office with input from the Northeast 

Fisheries Science Center and the New England Fishery Management Council. In 

this Work Plan, actions are identified to simplify the management process, improve 

communications with the public, broaden collaboration with stakeholders, consolidate fishery data management and improve communication and collaboration between staff at the Northeast Regional Office, Northeast Fisheries Science Center 

and New England Fishery Management Council. The Draft Work Plan is posted on 

the Northeast Regional Office website and was distributed with a cover letter by Pat 

Kurkul at the New England Fishery Management Council Meeting. 

Provide a detailed summary of how NOAA is implementing the management review’s recommendations. 

NMFS Response to the New England Management Review 

Over the past several months, NMFS and the New England Fishery Management 

Council have been working to address the priority recommendations identified by 

the Management Review: (1) simplify governance; (2) simplify communications; (3) 

improve science collaboration; and (4) maximize collaboration. As part of our response to the review, we have made significant progress toward addressing several 

of the concerns raised by the review, as summarized below, and are tracking 

26 

progress through a detailed action plan. In addition, based on requests for more robust follow up and stakeholder involvement in the reforms, NOAA will contract with 

an independent group to initiate a participatory evaluation process of the management reforms underway. 

Simplify Governance—The report states that the fishery management process can 

be difficult and that in some cases regulations have become overly complicated and 

redundant. To address these concerns, NMFS developed a draft Operating Agreement with the New England Fishery Management Council and NOAA’s Northeast 

Office of General Counsel, to clarify roles and responsibilities, strengthen collaboration, simplify the governance structure and process, and highlight opportunities for 

public input. We are also exploring ways to simplify/clarify regulations through a 

trial ‘‘plain language approach’’ for rulemaking and by addressing regulations that 

are known to need greater clarity. 

Simplify Communications—NMFS has made improving our communications and 

relations with industry a top priority. Please see the response to question 1(b) above 

for further details. 

Improve Science Collaboration—This category covers a range of topics such as 

analysis of our data systems, cooperative research, stock assessments, and social 

sciences and economics. In response to data challenges, NMFS requested a data system review which began on September 26, 2011 to find ways to improve and streamline data management and collection. This review should be completed by the end 

of November, at which time we will assess recommendations and begin making improvements to our systems. We are also seeking ways to improve the accuracy of 

vessel trip reports and speed data processing. To further this goal, in June we made 

electronic vessel trip reports available on a voluntary basis to members of the 

groundfish industry. 

NMFS is working with stakeholders to ensure that our Cooperative Research Program is responsive to industry, management, and scientific priorities. In September, 

we completed a series of outreach meetings with fishermen and scientists to gather 

input and improve the program’s transparency. By the end of November we will update the program website to provide more information to stakeholders on funded 

projects and increase the transparency in the funding process. To improve stock assessments, we are now transitioning to a new assessment review process that has 

already been approved by regional leadership (including both the New England and 

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils). This process will take advantage of 

the expertise available in the Council Scientific and Statistical Committees and result in a more efficient and less redundant review system. We will also ensure that 

NMFS social scientists and economists are an integral part of the fishery management process by engaging them in the earliest discussions of proposed management 

actions. We are conducting new and expanded analyses of the impacts of regulations 

on regional fisheries and coastal communities and staff participated in a National 

Fishery Management Council Scientific and Statistical Committee Workshop during 

October 4–6, where one focus was on improving the integration of social science with 

the Council process. 

Maximize Collaboration (New England Fishery Management Council Lead). The 

Council is making progress on its pledge to take responsibility for findings in the 

report applicable to their process. Issues to be tackled by the Council include redesigning Council meetings to be more open and collaborative and creating a performance management system to track the progress of Council decisions and capture lessons learned. 

Mr. SCHWAAB. And if I could just quickly add one specific enforcement, as we’ve shifted to a compliance strategy, one of the 

breakthrough strategies we’ve employed here is the hiring of a 

compliance liaison within our office of law enforcement in the region to be available up front for fishermen. 

Senator BEGICH. Very good. Let me ask you on your stock assessments issue—I noticed in your testimony you had some challenges 

that—I know in Alaska, we—you know, if it’s 20 or 22—I can’t remember the exact amount of stocks that you assess every single 

year. What’s the stock assessment here—frequency on the different 

stocks? How often do you—because, as you know, without that 

proper stock assessment, you’re not going to have the best numbers, and you’ll take the lowest number in order to be more conVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:21 Feb 06, 2012 Jkt 072671 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\72671.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
27 

servative in the analysis. So help me understand. On the stocks 

that are analyzed here in New England, how often do you do the 

assessments? 

Mr. SCHWAAB. Thank you, Senator. We’re not on the annual cycle 

that they are in Alaska. We do have a relatively good picture to 

paint here in the region—generally, a two to three-year cycle for 

the most important stocks. One of the things that we have been 

working on through the regional office—through the science center 

here is a streamlined assessment process that will allow, for example, the SSC for the council to be engaged up front so that we can 

move through more quickly for some of the higher priority stocks. 

Senator BEGICH. So when you—if I can just take one more second. 

Senator KERRY. Please take extra time. 

Senator BEGICH. If you—in your comments again, under Challenges Remaining, you mention in the fiscal 2012 budget this is one 

of the challenges. So can you again prepare for us here—what are 

those specific requests that are necessary to have the frequency of 

the stock assessment or the additional accuracy that you need? 

Again, I think the reason we’ve been successful—again, I think 

it’s 20 or 22 different stocks that you assess every year. That is 

huge, and that’s why, you know, we take a more—the halibut is the 

big challenge right now. I’m sure we’ll have another challenge tomorrow in Alaska. But that helps us really understand, and it 

brings another trust level to the fishermen that’s critical. 

So can you detail that out at some—obviously, we’re in the middle of that budgetary process now. Could you prepare that, either 

one of you or both of you, for the Committee? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Senator, we’d be happy to do that. I would note 

that there are 20 stocks just in the groundfish fishery in New England, and then there are a lot of other stocks that are fished. So 

it is very complex. It is also, as I think you’re alluding to, resource 

dependent. And so thank you for that invitation, and we will be 

happy to comply. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

Provide information on the amount of resources required to do stock assessments 

in the Northeast at an ideal frequency. 

NOAA has developed a revised approach for producing stock assessments that we 

have begun transitioning to. The new approach aims to provide managers the information to adjust annual or biennial catch limits in response to changing stock conditions, so industry can take advantage of healthy stocks faster and not overfish 

stocks. 

Thanks to additional funds provided by Congress, over the last 4 years NOAA 

Fisheries has almost doubled the number of stocks assessed annually in the Northeast region, conducting an average of 21 stock assessments per year since 2008. At 

present, this means individual stocks are being assessed every 3–4 years. In the preceding 4-year period (2004–2007), the Northeast Fisheries Science Center conducted 

an average of 11 stock assessments per year. Over the past 4 years, the Center has 

received an average of $20.8 million to support stock assessments through surveys, 

at-sea observers, biological sampling, age determination of fish, stock assessment 

scientists, and the peer review process. NOAA Fisheries is continuing to plan for 

increasing the rate of assessments to a frequency of every 1–3 years, for an average 

of about 30 stock assessments per year. Based on the needs of management and the 

biology of the stocks, this is the optimal biological and regulatory frequency at 

which to assess the status of these stocks. To achieve this requirement and to continue to make research advances in the underlying stock assessment science, the 

funding increase proposed in the President’s budget would be required, and this 

28 

would help support the additional scientists necessary to meet both scientific and 

management needs for stock assessments in the New England and Mid-Atlantic. 

Comparisons between the stock assessment process in Alaska and the Northeast 

are instructive. The assessment process in Alaska routinely updates the status of 

all 35 stocks per year. These stocks are managed under three separate Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) and one Council. All stock assessments are ‘‘updates,’’ and 

are prepared annually over a 4–6 months period including 2 sets of meetings of the 

Plan teams and the Scientific and Statistical Committee to peer review the assessments, and then to provide Annual Biological Catch (ABC) advice to the Council. 

A strong and intensive internal review process ensures that the external review 

process is efficient and sufficient to answer the requirements for the Scientific and 

Statistical Committee (SSC) and managers. 

In contrast, the 56 stocks in the Northeast are managed by two Councils and the 

ASMFC under 14 separate FMPs, with the NMFS providing revised assessment advice for up to 21 stocks per year, including both benchmark assessments and assessment updates. The assessment process for benchmark assessments typically requires 2–3 weeklong meetings for each stock, plus a weeklong review by the Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Review Committee over a span of 4–6 months. Each 

benchmark assessment is first followed by meetings of the stock’s Plan Development 

Team, and then by a meeting of the SSC to translate the assessment advice into 

annual ABCs. Only 4 to 6 stocks can be benchmark assessed per year under this 

schedule. An additional 10 to 15 stocks have annual assessment updates prepared, 

with the SSCs acting as a supplemental peer-review body. 

Much of the difference in the assessment schedule between Alaska and the Northeast is a result of the general differences in the status of fishery stocks in the two 

regions. Stocks that are overfished or where overfishing is occurring generally require implementation of different management measures, and the assessments require greater detail and peer review. Such measures increase the amount of time 

needed to conduct assessments to verify that the measures are sufficient or even 

necessary. Overfishing is an uncommon condition for the Alaska stocks; no stocks 

are listed as experiencing overfishing and two are overfished. In New England, on 

the other hand, only 1 groundfish is experiencing overfishing, but 13 of the 20 

groundfish stocks are currently overfished. 

Senator BEGICH. And, I guess, the last quick question on personnel issues—I understand as a former mayor how you have to 

manage that very carefully. But I would ask that, if necessary— 

and I don’t mind doing it, and I’ll just share it with the folks 

here—happy to do a closed meeting just to give us an accounting 

of what happened. And I’ll leave that to your counsel to work 

maybe with the Subcommittee’s counsel to make sure—so everyone 

can be satisfied with accountability issues on that. And I’ll be 

happy to work with you. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. That’s exactly what the General Counsel has offered to do. 

Senator BEGICH. OK. We would be happy to assist the members 

who are interested. 

Thank you. 

Senator KERRY. Thank you very much, Senator Begich. 

Let me just emphasize this stock—and if you want to establish 

trust—nothing has frustrated us more over the last years—I mean, 

decades—than the science. And the fishermen will tell you that, 

that they’re just—you know, they see something different. There’s 

a huge doubt about the basis of some of the decisionmaking. And 

to have a difference of a three-year—or a two-year or three-year, 

but generally three-year—versus every year is a huge deal. And I 

know it’s resource dependent, and that’s something that is—you 

know, we’ve got to join in the fight to get those resources. 

I just want to say—I really want to emphasize how important it 

is that the Chairman of the Subcommittee has come up here. I 

used to chair that committee, and I know it’s critical to Maine, to 

29 

California, to Washington, Alaska, all of—Louisiana, all of our 

coastal areas. It means travel and time out on the schedule of the 

Chair, but I am very, very appreciative to Senator Begich for coming up here to listen to us today. 

Congressman Frank? 

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN BARNEY FRANK, 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM MASSACHUSETTS (4TH DISTRICT) 

Mr. FRANK. Thank you. I want to say that I have to express my 

agreement with Senator Brown, not that I’m reluctant to agree 

with Senator Brown, but I wish it wasn’t on this point—mainly 

that there is a pretty complete sense on the part of the fishermen 

in Massachusetts that they face a hostile administration. And 

that—I have to say I share their view. 

And, Dr. Lubchenco, I want to be honest with you. In our interactions, you have given me the impression that you’re almost resentful and resistant of what we want to do. And I am not the role 

model for warm and cuddly. I understand that. I’m not being— 

when we talked about the investigation into abusive law enforcement, I remember having to argue with you about including after 

a deadline some other people we thought were relevant, and I will 

get back to that at the end. 

But I—part of it has just come from your testimony. You say on 

page four, ‘‘Revenues are up for some but not all fishermen.’’ And 

then you say the average New England ground fishermen earned 

16 percent more per pound. You then say in New Bedford, the increase was 20 percent. Is that per pound? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. No. 

Mr. FRANK. That’s overall? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Overall. 

Mr. FRANK. But in the report NOAA issued—oh, and the ground 

fishermen—is that for groundfish or for all their revenues? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. The 12-month report was for groundfish. 

Mr. FRANK. Because the report that NOAA issued that—commissioned from the Northeast Fisheries Science Center says the total 

catch for groundfish was down to 81 million pounds. The drop in 

catch was partially offset by an average price per pound. So revenues fell 2 percent from $85 million to $83 million. So overall revenues—but that’s not in your testimony. Your testimony cherrypicks what looks good and leaves out what’s not good, and that’s 

not building trust. 

Why would you, in talking about revenue, not have noted, however, that revenues overall were down, and that the per pound increase was in gross offset so that we had a net revenue loss of 2 

percent? Wouldn’t that have been relevant to your part on revenues? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Congressman, the 12-month report has a lot of 

information in it, and it has—you can read it a lot of different 

ways. 

Mr. FRANK. I’m sorry. I have to—this is your report, and it says 

revenues fell 2 percent. That’s not—there are no two ways to read 

that. This is an example of what I mean. You highlight where revenues went up per pound, but the fact that revenues overall went 

down wasn’t there. 

30 

By the way, fishermen may be one of the few people who are prepared to work harder to get less per pound. I mean, I guess if they 

were purely selfish, they would say, ‘‘Good. Cut the catch and we’ll 

raise the price.’’ But these are people who would prefer to be able 

to catch more. 

I also want to get back to the assessment issue, because we have 

an example of that. The one generally successful area of fishing we 

have here is in scallops. And that’s an example where information 

that I was given by the fishing industry, the scallopers in New 

Bedford, Dr. Rothschild and the people at SMAST—we had to overcome resistance within the—you weren’t there at the time—and get 

the Secretary of Commerce to use his authority to give us more 

scallops. And the fishermen were right, and some of the more extreme critics of the fishing industry were wrong. And what I’m hoping is we can try to do for groundfish what we did for them there, 

and that was partly because the science is weak. 

Now, one of the—because I think the catch is the essential issue. 

One of the key points is—in Magnuson-Stevens, which I in the end 

voted against—and part of it was this 10-year fixed rate for rebuilding. Now, with regard to the Canadian boundary, with your 

support, we amended that, right? So we do not have the 10-year 

fixed rate. You have the authority to make exceptions? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Correct. 

Mr. FRANK. Is that working well, do you think, or is it too early 

to tell? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. I haven’t seen the latest information on that. 

Do you know, Eric? 

Mr. SCHWAAB. It did, Mr. Frank, provide us some increased flexibility—— 

Mr. FRANK. I understand. But is it working well? 

Mr. SCHWAAB. It is working well—— 

Mr. FRANK. All right. If that’s working well, why don’t you do it 

for the whole bill? Why do we have that exception, because—well, 

let me ask you—the 10-year with no exception, right—is there scientific justification for that that you can show me somewhere—10 

years, fixed, no exceptions? 

Mr. SCHWAAB. No. 

Mr. FRANK. OK. So we have—and you had previously acknowledged, Dr. Lubchenco, at a hearing we had on the waterfront that 

it’s there because it’s in the statute. In fact, we made an exception. 

We appreciated it. We had a bipartisan agreement—Senator Snowe 

and others in the Senate, Senator Brown, Senator Kerry. We got 

that changed for our Canadian boundary, and you say it’s working 

well. 

Why wouldn’t you then support giving yourself the same flexibility with regard to the 10-year period, in general, in our fishery 

that we have with the Canadian boundary? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Congressman, there are exceptions that are allowed. Those are specifically identified—— 

Mr. FRANK. But not the same as in the Canadian boundary. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. That’s correct. 

Mr. FRANK. Would you support equating the overall with the Canadian boundary, that list of exceptions, which would still be under 

the jurisdiction of—— 

31 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. So I think the exceptions that are warranted 

are ones where the life history of the species—— 

Mr. FRANK. I’m sorry, Doctor. Can I get an answer to a fairly 

straightforward question? Would you support putting into the statute the same exceptions and the same flexibility with regard to 10 

years, in general, that you have and that Mr. Schwaab says is 

working well on the Canadian boundary issue? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Where there is a legitimate biological reason, 

yes. 

Mr. FRANK. No, no. But we have to amend the statute. So then 

you would support amending the statute, because, presumably, in 

the main—in the trans-Canadian boundary situation, are the exceptions appropriately limited? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. I don’t know what the basis is in that. 

Mr. FRANK. You don’t know the basis of the statute that you’re 

administering? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. So I—I do not. But I think Eric does. 

Mr. FRANK. Well, Mr. Schwaab? 

Mr. SCHWAAB. Yes, thank you. So the basis there was not to disadvantage U.S. fishermen where through a transboundary agreement we were dealing with an international partner who was on 

a different rebuilding timeframe. So it was very explicitly intended—— 

Mr. FRANK. Does that time frame—but is doing that—is that 

going to be deleterious to the rebuilding? 

Mr. SCHWAAB. It flattens—— 

Mr. FRANK. No, I didn’t intend—— 

Mr. SCHWAAB. It certainly flattens the rebuilding trajectory—— 

Mr. FRANK. Is that deleterious to the overall preservation of the 

stock? 

Mr. SCHWAAB. It certainly could be deleterious to the ability to 

meet that objective. 

Mr. FRANK. But it’s working well, you say. 

Mr. SCHWAAB. I would say that—and, again, in a place where we 

have an international partner with a different rebuilding trajectory, we certainly did not want to disadvantage U.S. fishermen by 

putting them on a—— 

Mr. FRANK. I understand. But, again—and I’ll give you—I’m trying to ask a fairly straightforward question. You seem to be reluctant to say things that might be advantageous to the fishery. And 

so I’m going to close with this, with a little bit of extra time, if I 

might. There has been some conversation about a task force. There 

were some recommendations that came from Pate and others. 

There is a lack of trust, and let’s just be very clear. There aren’t 

enough law enforcement officials in the world, fortunately, particularly in a free society, to enforce laws over the vehement objection—or not objection, but in the face of such distrust. Law enforcement would be better if we had more cooperation along those lines. 

I’m hoping we will go ahead with getting the Coast Guard ALJs replaced. We were promised that, and, apparently, it hasn’t happened 

yet. 

But I think a task force to work with you of stakeholders would 

be very helpful. Would you be supportive of a task force being appointed of stakeholders who could take some of these areas of 

32 

agreement, improving the science, and have some input into the 

process by which that is done on a regular basis? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. We have consistently been reaching out to fishermen and creating mechanisms to do that. 

Mr. FRANK. That’s a straightforward question. Would you be supportive of a task force? Why can’t you give me a straight answer? 

It could be no. It could be yes. But would you be supportive of a 

task force to do that? That’s not a hard question. You don’t have 

to hire somebody to take the SAT for you to answer it. It’s very 

straightforward. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Congressman, we actually have such a mechanism. 

Mr. FRANK. Is that a yes or a no, Dr. Lubchenco? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. It says we already have it. That’s what the 

Council is. That’s what the Council is supposed to do. 

Mr. FRANK. OK, yes. But there’s some concern that it hasn’t 

worked as well, and they would like to go beyond just this rigid appointment to the Council. So the answer is you would not be supportive of a task force that would be broader in scope to work out 

these—— 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. I believe we have a mechanism. We need to 

make it work better. It’s one that was created by Congress. It’s one 

that works in other parts of the country. One of the things that we 

have committed to doing is to having better clarity about how the 

Council process works, bring even more transparency and openness 

to the Council process. That is the appropriate mechanism, and I’m 

totally supportive of it. 

We do need to make it work better. Fishermen need to have trust 

in it. They need to know exactly what they’re doing. They need to 

participate in it, because that’s the body that is developing the fishery management plans. 

Senator KERRY. Why is it not working? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. The Council process could work better. I believe 

that one of the challenges in New England is how diverse the industry is. And with that diversity, there are always going to be individuals that don’t agree with a particular decision. But I believe 

they need to have more confidence in the process and fully participate in the process. 

One of the challenges in New England has also been the complexity of the regulations, and that was the Council’s doing, and we 

are working with the Council to simplify those regulations. I believe that the sector management program is actually helping significantly to simplify regulations and to give fishermen more control over their businesses. 

There are other arenas in which we need to simplify regulations 

further and make it clear what the regulations say. So some of the 

things that we have set in motion are mechanisms for individuals 

to know where to go to get the information. And Eric just described 

one of those in terms of having one-stop shopping, one easy place 

to go where you can get answers, having fishermen who are knowledgeable be able to help participate in sharing information. 

And these changes don’t happen overnight. These are changes 

that I believe have been a long time in coming. I would much rather be in a situation where we have good collaborative interactions, 

33 

even though I don’t—I’m not naı ̈ve enough to believe that 

everybody’s always going to agree with everything—but if we can 

trust the process, and fishermen can trust the process. 

The fact that the economic situation is so serious, and it has 

been on the decline for so long puts us in a very, very challenging 

position. It’s hard for people to trust a process where the economics 

stink for many of them. And I totally understand that. That’s why 

we are committed to turning things around. And I believe that, finally, we are on a path to do that. 

For the first time ever, we have catch limits and accountability 

measures in place, and we have mechanisms to track those 

changes. And they are beginning to work. The stocks are beginning 

to be rebuilt. We have seen increases in catch limits in 12 of the 

20 groundfish stocks this year because the rebuilding has begun. 

We’re turning the corner, but we have a long, long way to go. And 

I would like us to be moving in a direction that works not just for 

a few, but for all of the fishermen. 

That’s what we are committed to continuing to do, and part of 

that means rebuilding relationships with fishermen. We are on a 

path to do that. We have a long way to go, but we’re committed 

to it. 

Senator KERRY. Congressman Tierney? 

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN JOHN F. TIERNEY, 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM MASSACHUSETTS (6TH DISTRICT) 

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you, Senator. 

Thank you to all the senators, for inviting us here to participate 

in this today and for coming yourselves on that. 

Dr. Lubchenco, I think the issue of lack of trust is foremost in 

the minds of many, particularly in the Gloucester region on that. 

The enforcement programs, the operations, and the way they’ve 

been exercised in the past have led to that. I think the Inspector 

General’s report leaned heavily on the lack of transparency and accountability for the programs. 

It would have gone a long way for our fishermen if there had 

been more of a response in indicating whatever happened to the 

people that were responsible for, as the Inspector General said, 

common abuses and misuses of power, rampant mismanagement 

throughout the agency, specifically in the Office of Law Enforcement in the New England region. When they then turn around to 

find out that the former head of that division still is with NOAA, 

still is pulling down $155,000 of taxpayer money, and seemingly 

people cannot get an answer as to what disciplinary process was 

followed, if any, in that situation and why wasn’t more done in 

terms of holding people accountable—I understand that you want 

to say that the Privacy Act sort of prohibits that. But you have 

been requested time and again by the Oversight and Government 

Reform Committee of the House, then Chairman of the Subcommittee, Dennis Kucinich; the Resources Committee in the 

House, Walter Jones, for that information, either in Executive Session or in documents if you thought they were classified for some 

reason, and there has been nothing forthcoming. 

So can you give us some assurance here today that you’re going 

to accept Senator Begich’s offer to make sure that your Counsel 

34 

produces that information and those answers to the House and to 

the Senate? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Congressman, the information that the General 

Counsel for the department is able to provide by way of a confidential briefing, he will do so. That is not my choice. That’s not my 

decision. This is up to him. And he has offered to do some confidential briefings. 

Mr. TIERNEY. When did he offer to do that? Because he didn’t 

offer to Representative Kucinich, and he apparently hasn’t offered 

it to Representative Jones, and he hasn’t responded to their requests for it. And, obviously, the request through you—you’ve not 

been able to persuade him to do that because we’ve seen no action 

on that. So when is it that he supposedly did that, and when can 

we expect him to follow through? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Congressman, I don’t know. 

Mr. TIERNEY. You know, part of the information issues—it was 

a good thing that you went up and apologized to some of the fishermen and entities that had been involved and the findings had been 

made by the judge as well as the Inspector General on that. But 

there was some disgruntlement, obviously, that they thought that 

you might also answer some of the questions that they presented 

that day, and there was disappointment that you apparently would 

not. I wasn’t there. I only got the feedback from talking to the participants on that. 

But when they wanted to ask questions such as why weren’t 

their legal costs—the fact that they don’t like them, and do they 

get reimbursed for that. They weren’t given the answers and any 

satisfaction. Can you, at least today, say that you will try to work 

to expedite their requests for an answer on whether or not they can 

be compensated for their loss of legal costs during that entire situation where the finding was made that there was mismanagement 

throughout the agency and where there were abuses or misuses of 

power? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Congressman, we will commit to clarifying what 

we can and can’t do. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Well, that’s real helpful. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. TIERNEY. I mean, this is part of it. Let’s be serious on this, 

you know. And you and I have had a thing going back and forth 

here like that and parts of that. That’s not an answer that’s very 

helpful or it doesn’t seem very open. So we talk about openness and 

transparency, and then you give an answer like that. You know, 

you either agree that there ought to be—you know, somebody will 

look into that issue and try to be somewhat sympathetic to the fact 

that huge legal costs were incurred by these people, who in the end 

were found to have been rather poorly treated, and that you’ll see 

and, you know, with affirmative action you’ll try to see that there’s 

some resolve or at least expedite their claims or you won’t. 

So will you try to at least see that their assertions have an answer that’ll be expedited and they’ll get some satisfaction one way 

or the other? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Congressman, you asked if I would commit to— 

if I would find—if I would look into it, and I said yes. That’s what 

I’m saying. 

35 

Mr. TIERNEY. Well, yes is much easier to understand than what 

you said the first time, and I appreciate that, that you will. There’s 

now a question about whether or not the rulemaking process itself 

in some of the agencies—in NOAA, in NMFS, in the New England 

Fishery Management Council—should be reviewed on that. A request has been made by Congressman Frank and by me that the 

Inspector General consider looking into that. 

Will you cooperate with somebody reviewing that situation so 

that we can have further confidence that the process itself is legitimate and is something that can be supported by people so we can 

rebuild some of the trust? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Of course. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Can you—just on the more positive side of the 

issue, you had mentioned that you were in favor of looking into better monitoring approaches and cost-effective ways to do that on the 

monitoring. Can you expand on that a little bit to let us know what 

the fishing community might expect for some relief in that area? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. I think there are two issues with monitoring, 

Congressman. One is what does it cost, and, two, who pays? We 

have paid the first two months of the monitoring costs. We’ve also 

redirected funds to help minimize—to lessen those costs. I am supportive of finding ways to slow down the rate at which the industry 

is covering those costs in a way that is sensitive to the realities of 

the economic situation now. 

I’m also in favor of figuring out ways to lessen the total cost. And 

we have in progress now pilot projects to understand better the 

possibilities of using electronic monitoring, for example, to make 

the monitoring cheaper. This is a pilot that is still underway. I’m 

guessing that it’s going to be easier to utilize approaches like monitoring—electronic monitoring for some fisheries, some gear types 

than others. For gill net, for long line, I think it’s going to be easier 

to have a camera be capturing identity and size of fish as they go 

by than for a trawl where there’s just a whole bunch coming in at 

once. So this has to be somewhat gear specific. 

But we are working to figure out how to bring those costs down, 

and we’ll continue to do so. And this is a collaboration that is underway, and we believe that—we understand the urgency of moving ahead with this judiciously, which is why we’ve initiated these 

pilots. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you. 

Senator KERRY. Just a comment quickly to the Congressman that 

in the conservation act that I’m working on with Senator Begich, 

Senator Snowe, and Senator Mikulski, we have the fee fairness act 

that I introduced a year ago as part of it, which will empower the 

reimbursement of legal fees. So I want people to know that we’re 

trying to do that through the statutory process, and, hopefully, we 

can get that done. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Mr. Chairman, could I add one more quick—— 

Senator KERRY. Yes, please. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO.—item to Congressman Tierney’s question. I 

would note that our ability to help defray costs for monitoring is 

partly a resource issue for us, and the catch share line item in our 

budget is what we use to do that. And so if there is desire on the 

part of the New England delegation to help us cover those costs for 

36 

longer, we need help making sure that we have the resources to do 

that. 

Senator KERRY. And I would remind everybody here that this 

comes into the discretionary portion of the Federal budget, which 

took $1 trillion worth of cuts over the course of the last few weeks. 

So people need to relate as they go out in their communities—this 

hue and cry about chopping away everything that matters to people, which is part of what’s going on down in Washington. 

Congressman Keating? 

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN WILLIAM R. KEATING, 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM MASSACHUSETTS 

(10TH DISTRICT) 

Mr. KEATING. Well, thank you, Senator. And I’ll just say, as 

someone that’s fresh to Washington in respects, it’s extraordinary, 

and I want to thank—there are three senators here, three House 

members. It’s hard to do that in Washington. 

Why is that happening here? Because I don’t think there’s any 

inability from the fishermen communicating to us. We’re hearing 

them, and that’s why we’re here. And that communication is being 

heard, and it’s fundamental. 

Now, I just had a couple of thoughts, and one of them—I was 

just listening to the testimony so I could bring something new to 

the questioning, because when you’re last in line here in talking, 

most everything has been addressed. But, you know, in the larger 

picture, when it deals with international issues, you’re flexible, because you want to do the best for the fishermen that way. So you’ve 

adopted one policy. 

When it comes to the bureaucracy and your funding, well, that 

comes first. So you can’t go to 1 year versus three, and maybe we 

should be dealing with having a hearing on how we get to monitoring every year. 

But one of my committees is the Small Business Committee, and 

what I’m finding, listening to the folks in my district that I represent, a broad array of people, some of them more amenable to the 

rules than others—but the one thing that’s lost is where’s the flexibility for a small business. And most of these people are small businesses. Our growth is going to be—65 percent of our growth has 

been through small businesses. 

And, you know, maybe there are things that can be worked out 

internationally, when you’re working at it. Maybe there’s things 

that could be done with funding to accelerate the monitoring. But 

I’ll tell you what’s gone forever. It’s not just the stocks of certain 

fish have been depleted. Small businesses have gone. 

So the same flexibility that’s there for something else isn’t there 

when the stakes are small businesses going under and it’s never 

coming back. That will be a permanent depletion, and that’s something we can’t afford to have here regionally. It’s something that’s 

going to hurt us economically. 

And I just want to make that point, because you were nodding 

your head when we were saying, well, you used the most conservative figures. Now, is that conservative based on the effect on the 

species, or is it the most conservative as to how it affects these 

small businesses? When you say conservative, are you being conVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:21 Feb 06, 2012 Jkt 072671 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\72671.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
37 

servative to make sure you’re not doing things so these businesses 

are depleted, or is it conservative based on the stock of a certain 

species? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Congressman, thank you for recognizing clearly 

that fishermen are the consummate small businessmen. They really are. And much of our approach in the last few years has been 

explicitly designed to give them more flexibility, to relieve them 

from overly burdensome regulations, so that they can be small 

businessmen without their hands tied. The sector program is designed to do that, and we are beginning to see fishermen respond. 

Mr. KEATING. Could you—because my time is—sorry to interrupt, 

but—— 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. When we—— 

Mr. KEATING.—I’m going to be cut short of time, too, but could 

you answer the conservative question first? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. That’s what I’m—when we set the limits, the 

catch limits, for different species, that is constrained by the legislation, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and it is explicitly designed to ensure that overfishing doesn’t happen. And so the limits are set on 

each stock with the idea of having as much fish as possible to fish 

now without undermining the ability of fish to have for later. So 

it’s a balance between the present and the future. 

Mr. KEATING. A balance. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Correct. 

Mr. KEATING. Then where does the term, conservative, come 

from? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. So I’m not sure in what sense you’re using that. 

We conserve the stocks. 

Mr. KEATING. Well, you were nodding your head when people 

were saying that when you’re looking at the scientific data, you 

look at it with the most conservative lens, for lack of a better term. 

I was listening to that. Maybe I was not—— 

Senator BEGICH. I asked that question, or made that statement. 

Mr. KEATING. Thank you. 

Senator BEGICH. When you do a one to three-year spread—when 

you do assessments every three years, your odds are you’re going 

to take a much more conservative approach because you don’t have 

enough assessments every year. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. That’s correct. 

Mr. KEATING. Well, in the absence of more assessments, couldn’t 

you just be balanced, the way you are with these other factors, just 

more in the middle? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. So we are required to utilize the best available 

information, which—if you have a stock assessment that was done 

2 years ago, that’s what you use, unless there is new information 

to update it. 

Mr. KEATING. So would you support a change in the law that 

gave you more flexibility? Instead of being the most conservative 

in the way you view that data, since there’s such a lag time, and 

it may not be accurate in the first place, would you support something—a language change that would say something akin to, you 

know, a mean test or something in the middle? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Congressman, the law is designed—— 

38 

Mr. KEATING. Would you support that? No, I’m not asking— 

would you tell me—— 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. No. 

Mr. KEATING. You wouldn’t support that. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. No. 

Mr. KEATING. OK. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. The law—— 

Mr. KEATING. That’s almost like I got a yes. 

Mr. FRANK. Congratulations. 

Mr. KEATING. Thank you. I am pretty good for—[Applause.] 

Mr. KEATING. I’m learning fast. Now, the second question I 

have—we’re getting information in the absence of that delay in getting scientific information—I should probably quit while I was 

ahead. What do you think, Senator? Yes? 

But the issue is in terms of collaboration, you know, we’re getting information—if you’re, again, limited in your scientific— 

wouldn’t it be valuable to get some of the information from the 

fishermen themselves about what they see as trends? I’ll give you 

an example. I don’t know how accurate it is myself, but I heard it 

from fishermen. They’re saying that, you know, with the dog fish, 

that they’re becoming so plentiful, and everything’s so slow in dealing with it, and they’re predators, and they’re hurting other species. 

Now, if you were collaborating closely, whether it’s a task force— 

which is something I think would be valuable, where they’re included more in the decisionmaking and don’t have to go through us 

to communicate—wouldn’t it be beneficial to collaborate more 

greatly with them? Are there ways to do that that could also reduce the capital cost, if you’re using their boats, you know, for certain things and—to work in that respect with that? 

Is there a way to alleviate the capital burden and collaborate at 

the same time, using some of their resources, and also trying to 

gage the changes of the scientific data with what you’re hearing 

from them? If they’re telling you that this is what they’re finding 

out, that this trend is there, since you want to help that lag time, 

wouldn’t their input be—is there a mechanism—maybe the task 

force that has been addressed is that mechanism—to get their voice 

in there, what they’re actually seeing firsthand, so that you can 

key in on that first and maybe react to it quicker and get scientific 

information quicker? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. I’m completely supportive of cooperative research programs that allow us to get information jointly with fishermen. When the council develops the management plans, they utilize all the information that’s available in doing so. So there is a 

process for utilizing information and having it feed into those decisions. 

Mr. KEATING. Well, there’s obviously a process. That’s not—could 

the process be better by listening to them and having a mechanism 

where you’re hearing, ‘‘This is where—this is what we’re seeing,’’ 

and certain trends, and having a process, a different process, evidently, that allows you to have them have the input so you’re 

checking the effects of these things more quickly, sort of 

prioritizing what they’re seeing? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. So I think Mr. Schwaab has a comment here. 

39 

Mr. SCHWAAB. Yes, thank you. So one of the advantages, Mr. 

Keating, of the sector based management is much better and more 

timely information on what is being caught, both in directed catch 

and in bycatch. And those—that does present a very significant advantage in responding more quickly to what we’re seeing on the 

water on the dependent side. 

On the fishery—on the survey side, we also do use fishermen as 

platforms in a number of cases to help with the gathering of what 

we call fishery independent data. Now, in those cases, the fishermen aren’t fishing. They’re conducting surveys. But we did, as a result of the management review that we conducted, accelerate a review of our five-year cooperative research plan, and we have had 

a series of meetings all up and down the coast to develop a refined 

cooperative research plan to get information from fishermen and 

from others, partner institutions and the like, to better deploy our 

limited cooperative research dollars more effectively. 

Mr. KEATING. I harken back to having the process change more 

to a task force where that’s formalized, because I’m hearing that 

you’re listening or you’re having that information, but it would be 

interesting to have that in a more formalized way so that the people that are giving that information can better gage a response, if 

they have to come back to us. 

But, frankly, I already feel like a referee in this, much more than 

a lawmaker, and we just have to do better in that. And if there are 

changes legislatively, if you can give us ideas where you think we 

can get revenues, that’s helpful so that we’re speeding up the process. But, clearly, I think one of the things worth looking at is 

maybe changing that statute so that you’re not always forced to 

take the most conservative approach at a time when you don’t 

know if that’s a fact. No one knows with certainty. 

But these small businesses are dealing with certainty, and that 

certainty is the bottom line. And we can’t afford to have them go 

out of business because we’re not doing our job or you’re not doing 

yours. 

So, Senator, I yield back whatever time I have. 

Senator KERRY. Well, actually, you’ve gone double time, and you 

have no time to yield back. But that’s all right. The thought is really appreciated. 

Mr. KEATING. Well, I wish that there were other bureaucracies 

that could give the same flexibility that you gave me, Senator. 

Senator KERRY. I’m delighted, honestly. I think the discussion is 

important, and everybody’s had extra time, and I think that’s been 

important. But the result is we are running a little bit behind. 

There is one last question I just wanted to ask you very quickly, 

if I can, before we—we’re going to leave the record open so that all 

the members can submit any questions they want. There are two 

things I want to ask you very quickly. One, can I get a commitment 

from you today that both of you would come up here as soon as we 

could make the arrangement—I’d like to have a private, closed-door 

meeting with some of the fishermen and key stakeholders and us, 

and just have a discussion about this. 

I think it would be, obviously, a different kind of thing from the 

hearing, but I think a very important point of communication. 

Could we make that happen? 

40 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. I’m sure—I’m happy to do that. 

Mr. SCHWAAB. Yes, sir. 

Senator KERRY. Mr. Schwaab? All right. I think if we can arrange that in short order, I think that could be even more profitable, and we can advance even further here. 

In defense of some of the answers you’ve given—and I’m not here 

to do either, you know, promote one side or the other, except that 

I want the truth and the fishermen want a better relationship. 

There are things statutorily and there are objectives stated by Congress that do have to also be looked at here. And there are constraints. There are constraints on the privacy. There are constraints on other things, and there is law in effect. And maybe 

some of it now has to be changed in order to try to adjust to some 

of this. 

The final thing is, I’ve asked a number of times whether or not 

we could take particular sectors of the fishing industry up here 

which didn’t use their quota under Amendment 16 last year and 

roll over up to 10 percent of that quota into their current catch allowance. And I think if we could do that, that would be an important step forward. Is that doable, Dr. Lubchenco? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Mr. Chairman, I share the desire to roll over as 

much quota as possible. Currently, we can roll over up to 10 percent. The council—— 

Senator KERRY. So the answer is we can. Yes, we could roll 

over——Brian J. Rothschild, Montgomery Charter Professor of Marine Science and Technology and Co-Chair, Massachusetts Marine 

Fisheries Institute, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth 

Mr. FRANK. Senator, would you yield? 

It’s 10 percent now, so you’re saying you would agree to more 

than 10 percent, changing that regulation so more than 10 percent 

could be rolled over? 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. I would like to see more than 10 percent be 

rolled over. The decision is the Council’s, and we have repeatedly 

asked the council to move this up on their list of things, because—— 

Mr. FRANK. If they can set it up, it’s very appreciated. So that 

if the Council were to do it, they would encounter no resistance 

from you. You would—— 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Absolutely. 

Mr. FRANK.—approve what the council did. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. Absolutely. 

Mr. FRANK. Well, that’s a target for—— 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. What needs to be done—they need to do an 

analysis to make sure that rolling over—if you roll over too much, 

then you actually might cause problems down the road. 

Senator KERRY. Sure. We understand. You go backward down 

the road. We understand. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. And nobody wants that to happen. So they need 

to do their analyses. We want them to do it sooner. 

Mr. FRANK. I appreciate it, Senator, for yielding, but for once 

let’s try to look at something that might be good without caveating 

it to death before we do it. 

Senator KERRY. Thank you. I think that’s a positive note. I think 

that that’s encouraging, and it’s good that we can do that rollover, 

41 

and I think we need to try to get that effected as rapidly as we can 

together with the emergency declaration. 

So on that note, Dr. Lubchenco, let’s look forward to this next 

meeting which I will try to convene as rapidly as we can get it together. And if there are particular interested parties here that 

want to make sure they are part of that, you should see John Phillips right here at the—John, raise your hand—or—Senator Begich, 

do you have a staff person here? 

Senator BEGICH. Jeff or Bob. 

Senator KERRY. Just the folks back there, and we’ll make certain 

that we pursue that. 

So, Dr. Lubchenco, thank you. I think—I don’t know if you can 

stay and listen. I think it might be helpful if you can. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. I have another appointment. I will stay as long 

as I can. 

Senator KERRY. Great. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. But I need to get to that appointment. 

Senator KERRY. We really appreciate it. 

Dr. LUBCHENCO. But I think I’ve got some time to stay, and I’m 

anxious to hear what others have to say. 

Senator KERRY. Good. 

So on that note, I call the second panel: Paul Diodati, the Director of the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries; Rip 

Cunningham, the Chairman of the New England Fisheries Management Council; Dr. Steven Cadrin, who is an Associate Professor, 

Department of Fisheries, Oceanography School for Marine Science 

and Technology at UMass Dartmouth; Stephen Welch, Fisherman 

and Board Member of the Northeast Seafood Coalition; and Dr. 

Brian Rothschild, Montgomery Charter Professor within the Department of Fisheries, Oceanography at UMass Dartmouth. 

I hope this panel will help show the effects on our industry. I ask 

that each of the witnesses—I’m going to ask you each to just summarize in 3 minutes. Can you do that? I’m confident you can. You 

can give a pretty solid 3-minute summary of the predicament, what 

you see happening, and your full testimony will be placed in the 

record as if read in full. But I think it would be better, frankly, to 

get to the questions, and we’ll get more out that way. 

So on that note, do you want to begin, Steve? 

Mr. WELCH. Yes, that’s fine. 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN P. WELCH, FISHERMAN AND BOARD 

MEMBER, NORTHEAST SEAFOOD COALITION 

Mr. WELCH. My name is Steve Welch, commercial fisherman 

from Scituate, Mass. I’ve been fishing commercially full time for 33 

years, since a kid, probably about 46 years. I’m a member of Sector 

10 on the South Shore of Massachusetts. Sector 10 is fishermen 

from—basically from Boston south to the Cape Cod Canal. We have 

one member in Chatham and one member in Provincetown. 

I really appreciate you allowing me to speak today. My wife does 

also. We’ve been married 18 years and I finally bought a suit, so— 

and the kids had me wake them up this morning to watch. 

We were once a profitable small business entity in the South 

Shore—all the members of Sector 10. I myself was very profitable 

in 2008, 2009. Catch shares came in. For the first 3 months, I realVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:21 Feb 06, 2012 Jkt 072671 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\72671.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
42 

ized that the way I was operating my business, I was losing money 

on catch shares. 

The ironic part about catch shares—this is a program that was 

supposed to promote economic efficiency, make us more profitable, 

and increase flexibility. It hasn’t done any of those things. Catch 

shares from the beginning—when it was stated that we were going 

to go under catch shares, a significant fraction of the fleet is going 

to go out of business. In my view, catch shares is doing exactly 

what it’s intended to do—is to put us out of business. 

We are fishing under a quota umbrella and disguising it under 

catch shares. Now, if we went to a straight quota system or a lap 

or something like that, there’s checks and balances in the Magnuson Act that have to be followed—social and economic impacts, fair 

and equitable treatment. We are not getting this under catch 

shares. That’s the biggest problem I see right now. 

And the big problem with the South Shore, to begin with—and 

I’d like to say one thing. We’ve been rebuilding the fish stocks the 

last 15 years. They didn’t start rebuilding in 2010. They’ve been rebuilding. But the sacrifices that we’ve made for the last 15 years 

with rolling closures, Days at Sea, large mesh—and I was a part 

of the management council while—a groundfish advisor, and I supported all these actions because I knew it was going to help, and 

it did help. That’s why we have the stocks we’re seeing today. 

We succeeded in achieving our objectives. The problem with the 

South Shore is that we were closed out of the fishery for up to six 

months a year, and during that time, we all found other jobs. When 

we were allowed to go fishing, we had three summer months when 

the dog fish were around and we couldn’t even access our traditional groundfish stocks, and the other months were in the winter. 

So we got out very little. So we had small quotas. 

The guys in the South Shore—we worked together to keep us. 

We’ve learned how to fish sustainably and responsibly. You worked 

in a boat, you ran a boat, you bought a boat. We know all about 

sustainability and responsibility. I don’t need anyone telling me 

how to do this, because it’s in my own best interest and everyone’s 

interest that fishes realizes that. 

You know, the bad side about going to this catch share system 

is the allocation from 1996 to 2006—we had very little allocation. 

Now that the stocks were built, we can’t access them, and we are 

going to go out of business. It’s cheaper for me to stay at home and 

lay off six employees between two boats than to actually go fishing 

under catch shares. And that’s what I did last year, and I felt like 

I was—I’m not doing my responsibility as an American citizen to 

sit at home and lease out my quota. It’s an injustice to the American people. 

The big—another problem with catch shares—— 

Senator KERRY. I need to ask you—does that wrap—— 

Mr. WELCH. OK. Just the cost of sectors, to join them, to develop 

them, to operate them—the sector management staff—vast 

amounts of people—we’re leasing. It’s costing me right now 45 percent of my gross revenues—45 percent is going to leasing. 

When we talk about revenues, let’s not talk about gross revenues. Let’s talk about net revenues. That’s where the problem is. 

Nobody’s netting. We’re losing. We’re going out of business. And if 

43 

we have to pay for monitoring next year out of our own pockets, 

then I’m quitting fishing, and I will stay home and become a welfare armchair captain. 

Thank you. 

[Applause.] 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Welch follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEPHEN P. WELCH, FISHERMAN AND BOARD MEMBER, NORTHEAST SEAFOOD COALITION

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I am Stephen Welch. I own and operate the fishing vessel Holly and Abby, which is a 55 foot gillnet vessel, and Abby 

and Holly, a 45 foot trawl vessel, both of which operating out of Scituate, MA. I 

have been active in the NE groundfish fishery for over 35 years as a boat owner, 

captain and crew on inshore and offshore vessels using all of the major gear types 

including long-line, trawl and gillnet in Southern New England, Georges Bank and 

the Gulf of Maine. 

I am a member of Northeast Sector 10 established under groundfish Amendment 

16 and I am also a Board Member of the Northeast Seafood Coalition. However, I 

want to be clear that my testimony today is on behalf of myself and no other organization. There are many different views within our industry today and so I am very 

grateful for the opportunity to present my own. Thank you. 

Despite my many years of experience and fishing success, today my fishing business is no longer viable under the new sector management system created under 

Amendment 16 to the groundfish plan. I am certainly not alone. Prior to Amendment 16, I had a very profitable and successful small business that employed six 

people full-time. Not anymore. Many other life-long fishermen in Sector 10 and 

other sectors share my plight. 

Three fundamental elements of Amendment 16 changed the world and contributed to the reality I face today. 

First and foremost, Amendment 16 changed the basic currency with which investments in the fishery were previously made. Prior to Amendment 16, investments in 

the fishery were based principally on the value of the permit as measured by its 

allocated Days at Sea. More days, more value—regardless of any catch history. 

Upon implementation, Amendment 16 immediately and completely changed that 

currency to the ‘‘catch history’’ of a permit and made instant winners and losers 

within the fishery. Although there were options available to the Council to mitigate 

the adverse impacts of this change by using a blended currency that accounted for 

both allocated Days At Sea and catch history, the Council chose to make the most 

drastic change possible. Was this arbitrary—or based on some form of insider information? I suppose we’ll never know. But one thing is clear—some folks made out 

extremely well—and some of us didn’t. 

For many like me, this had the dual consequences of stranding considerable investment in Days at Sea and substantially reducing the value and utility of permits 

under the new sector system. The Potential Sector Contributions (PSCs) allocated 

to my permits based on my stock-by-stock catch history under the new sector system 

are simply far below what is needed to support a viable fishing operation under current economic conditions. That’s because when I bought my permits, I wasn’t buying 

them for catch history. This was arbitrary and unfair. The Amendment 16 sector 

system has virtually destroyed my fishing business at no fault of my own. 

The second aspect of Amendment 16 that has contributed to the demise of so 

many small vessel operators along the Gulf of Maine relates to the various closures 

designed to reduce mortality of sensitive stocks including especially Gulf of Maine 

cod. This dramatically and disproportionately reduced our access to certain traditional stocks and, by extension, reduced our catch history relative to those that were 

less directly affected by the closures—and/or who found ways to continue to target 

cod and other stocks and increase their catch history notwithstanding the overfished 

condition of those stocks. In effect, this was double jeopardy. First we were disadvantaged under the old Days at Sea program for lack of access to our nearby traditional stocks—and then this was perpetuated and exacerbated when our lack of 

catch history of those same stocks became the new allocation currency under 

Amendment 16. We were denied access to our nearby stocks—and then punished 

for not having that access. 

Because the Amendment 16 sector system is a catch share, hard TAC ‘‘output control’’ management system, there should be no place for continuing any of the ‘‘input 

controls’’ such as groundfish mortality closures in this new system. Yet, they exist 

44 

in the plan today as a useless, counterproductive artifact of the old Days at Sea 

management system. And they are still hurting us. This needs to be fixed. 

The third aspect of Amendment 16 that threatens small operations like mine are 

the costs associated with the new sector system. Sectors themselves cost money to 

develop and operate—a lot of money we have found out. Sectors need a manager 

and staff to satisfy the vast amount of paperwork and reporting requirements thrust 

on them by Amendment 16. This is no small thing. 

In addition, the sector system has transferred traditional NMFS functions including especially catch monitoring—onto the private sector. Although mandatory requirements for dockside monitoring have recently been eliminated, we face the requirement to pay for At-Sea monitoring costs beginning in fishing year 2012. 

Another substantial constraint is the costs associated with leasing fish, to make 

up for the poor allocations and low ACLs. For me, this cost equates to up to 50 percent of my gross revenues. Small businessmen like me simply do not have access 

to the capital it takes to participate in the leasing market. 

Together, these staff, reporting and monitoring costs, and leasing costs represent 

completely new, unprecedented burdens that our fishermen have never faced—and 

I can assure you that neither the status of the stocks nor the financial condition 

within the fishery are at a level that can support these new costs. Not even close. 

The addition of At-Sea observer fees in 2012 would be absurd. If nothing is done, 

many other fishermen will be financially crippled by these new costs.In fact, I would 

venture that the entire sector system will collapse under the weight of these new 

costs in Fishing Year 2012. 

What can be done? It’s not too late for some of us hanging on to our permits in 

hopes that Congress, NMFS and the Council can makes some serious changes and 

improvements to turn things around. At the same time, some things may not be possible at this point. Here are my views on what can and cannot be done at this point: 

(1) Allocation: 

While the sector system and some of its key elements are greatly detested by 

me and many of my fellow industry members, the system is here to stay for 

the foreseeable future. It could have been done right; but it wasn’t. Magnuson 

mandates are real and now there are no real alternatives available to the existing sector system. Therefore, it is critical to make the existing sector system 

work and not pose unrealistic alternatives that have the potential to strand 

more capital and put more people out of business. Initiating programs that assist fishermen with the capital needed to be active in the fishery are essential 

for the fleet, especially for those that have been adversely impacted by a hasty 

allocation formula adopted by the Council through Amendment 16. 

(2) Access: 

With the strong encouragement of Congress, both the Council and NMFS need 

to maximize fishery access by eliminating all groundfish closures that are not 

critical for habitat protection purposes. Increasing access to stocks in proximity 

to small vessel fleets such as ours in Sector 10 will enhance our cost efficiencies 

given high fuel and other costs and move us toward financial viability. 

In addition, leasing additional quota of stocks in close proximity will make a 

lot more business sense if that quota can be more easily accessed in a cost efficient manner. For those vessels that received very small catch-history based allocations under Amendment 16, leasing is one of the few options they have for 

improving their financial viability—but again, only if that quota can be accessed 

in a more cost efficient manner. Currently, the costs of leased quota coupled 

with the cost of accessing that quota are prohibitive. Re-opening archaic nearshore groundfish mortality closures is a critical step to addressing this problem. 

Finally to this point, please do not allow the Stellwagen Bank Sanctuary staff 

to take yet another needless bite out of our most important small- vessel fishing 

grounds. There are better ways to achieve what they want by tapping into existing habitat closures. They need to listen to the ideas of fishermen who have 

spent generations on this Bank. Let’s not forget Stellwagen was established for 

the purpose of providing a sanctuary for our centuries-old fishery. 

(3) At Sea Monitoring Costs: 

As described above, many groundfish stocks will have to rebuild far more, our 

ability to more fully utilize those stocks will have to increase substantially, and 

the overall financial stability of the sectors will need to improve dramatically 

before we can assume the costs of At-Sea Monitoring. This is NOT going to happen in fishing year 2012. 

45 

Notwithstanding the current requirement in Amendment 16 for the industry to 

assume these costs next year, Congress and the agency need to accept this reality and ensure that these costs are fully funded in FY12 and probably FY13. 

We certainly recognize the difficult budget climate you face in Washington these 

days, but the consequence of not funding A-Sea monitoring next year will be 

a collapse of the sector system and a whole lot of New England fishermen contributing to the unemployment rate. 

Based on findings from a report prepared by Marcus Hartley of Northern Economics titled ‘‘A Review of Observer and Monitoring Programs in the Northeast, 

West Coast and Alaska,’’ presented to the New England Fishery Management 

Council on September 28, 2011, in 2010, the At Sea monitoring program for all 

sectors cost $4.3 million, which equates to an average of 5.3 percent of the exvessel revenue. However, in my vessel class, the average amount was higher; 

9.9 percent of the revenue—and my business costs are even higher, 35 percent 

for one-day trip. On top of all the other new costs associated with sectors, this 

is simply unsustainable. My business can not afford this, nor can any other 

business in the fishery. And, at a total cost of $4.3 million, the At Sea monitoring cost equates to $2.20 per pound of discards—which is completely absurd 

in terms of cost/benefit. 

To this point, we are extremely grateful to Mr. Kerry and other Senators for 

securing language in the Senate’s bill to fund NMFS in FY12 that makes it 

clear that NMFS must fully fund At-Sea monitoring of the groundfish fleet in 

fishing year 2012. We can only hope and urge you to do everything you can to 

ensure that this language will survive the difficult battles that lie ahead in the 

FY12 appropriations process—and that this monitoring is indeed fully funded 

next year. 

(4) ACLs: 

Thanks to you Mr. Kerry, and our other good friends in Congress and the State 

of Massachusetts, an enormous effort was made to get NMFS to adjust the initial ACLs for stocks managed under Amendment 16. Even small upward adjustments to these ACLS that would not have exceeded the overfishing limits could 

have made a huge difference in several ways—— 

• reduce inflated leasing costs that prevent our small vessel fleet from leasing 

our way out of the insufficient initial allocations they received under Amendment 16; 

• thaw the ‘‘frozen’’ sector trading system that is essential for sector viability 

and greater OY utilization; and 

• increase the viability of individual fishermen with very small PSC allocations. 

It seems there were two things that got in the way of the agency using common 

sense. First were the National Standard 1 guidelines that have excess levels of 

precaution built into multi-layers of buffers which results in ACLs being set far 

below the Fmsy—the true overfishing limit. Congress should look into what 

changes can be made to these guidelines—either through statutory changes or 

otherwise—to achieve a greater utilization of OY. We all know that science and 

management have inherent uncertainties and risks, but these guidelines simply 

went too far in trying to address those concerns. 

Second, it seems the agency was stymied by a pointlessly narrow interpretation 

of its own guidelines for using its emergency action authorities under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Congress should very seriously consider re-writing the emergency action provisions in the statute to provide the agency with a more useful 

level of flexibility when common sense dictates. There should be a fail-safe 

mechanism built into the process when the results of Council and/or Scientific 

and Statistical Committee actions simply don’t make sense and undermine the 

overarching purposes of the Act. That is what we thought the emergency actions 

provisions in the Act were meant to do—but clearly they didn’t work in the case 

of the groundfish ACLs. 

(5) Rebuilding: 

The bottom line is that we continue to under-harvest the groundfish stocks at 

an alarming rate. The sector system has not changed that and, in fact, the sector system will not achieve its objectives unless we can fix this. More utilization 

of the OY means more fish in the system—which will mitigate most of the problems discussed at the hearing today. 

46 

The current MSA provisions dictating arbitrary time-frames for achieving a 

fully-rebuilt biomass has no basis in science and has seriously undermined efficient fishery management and caused immeasurable and needless financial 

harm to U.S. fishermen. That is because we are leaving vast quantities of sustainable yield in the ocean in order to rebuild a stock—not according to nature—but according to an arbitrary deadline set in a statute. 

The truth is, the only thing we can control is fishing mortality. But that is only 

one component of what determines if, how and when a stock achieves rebuilding. No one can control the other 3 core components of recruitment, growth and 

natural mortality—not Congress, not scientists and not fishermen. And, as we 

see year after year in groundfish stock assessments—not only are we completely 

unable to control those aspects of population dynamics, we cannot predict them 

with sufficient accuracy either. 

The rebuilding provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act need to be reevaluated 

and revisited if we are ever going to be able to solve this problem. But, even 

the most thoughtful efforts to do this have been treated as if they are radioactive. We need some real leadership in this arena. We are wasting our fish and 

losing our fisheries. It’s pointless. 

We understand that at the request of Congress, the National Research Council 

may begin looking into this. We strongly encourage this and hope that the right 

people will be appointed to do this work, and that it will be a serious effort to 

find improvements. We sincerely hope this will provide the basis for Congress 

to take the difficult political steps needed to improve the statute. 

(6) Financial Assistance: 

As mentioned above, through sectors our fishery has to absorb unprecedented 

costs to establish and operate sectors. While stocks have yet to rebuild and the 

sector system in its infancy, it is extremely difficult if not impossible for sectors 

to generate sufficient funds to meet these initial start-up and operations costs. 

We have received some financial support from the agency to date and frankly 

we could not have made it this far without it. But we are far from solvency— 

at least for my Sector 10. Additional direct financial support for sector startup and operational costs is desperately needed. 

Access to capital that is not readily available to the fleet is also critical. While 

many of us have managed to hold onto our permits this year, we literally cannot 

afford to fish. We cannot afford the inflated quota leasing costs or the cost of 

new permits with higher catch histories. We are stuck in limbo—desperately 

wanting to fish and generate revenue, but unable to buy our way out of port. 

While we hope and wait for Congress or the Council to make changes that will 

improve our circumstances, some form of financial assistance to those most disadvantaged by the change in allocation currency from Days at Sea to ‘‘catch history’’ will be needed to bridge that gap. We ask you to seriously consider what 

Congress can do to help with this. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present my views. I would be pleased to answer 

any questions. 

Senator KERRY. Mr. Diodati? 

STATEMENT OF PAUL DIODATI, DIRECTOR, MASSACHUSETTS 

DIVISION OF MARINE FISHERIES AND CO-CHAIR, 

MASSACHUSETTS MARINE FISHERIES INSTITUTE 

Mr. DIODATI. Thank you, Senator. And I want to thank all of you 

Senators and Congressmen for having me here this morning. And 

I’m going to jump right to it, because 3 minutes is a very short 

time. 

I’m going to talk about a preliminary analysis that the Division 

of Marine Fisheries has conducted on Sector 10, which is the sector 

that Captain Welsh fishes out of. It’s a day boat sector, operating 

out of the Plymouth-Scituate area. And for our gentlemen from 

Alaska, that’s a mid-coast area for us. It’s not only made up of 

small boats, but it could have been disproportionately impacted by 

this new program. 

47 

Amendment 16 did allocate hard catch limits to comply with the 

MSA, to not only comply with MSA mandates but to achieve economic efficiency. Our conclusions from the case study suggest that 

there’s been significant consolidation of revenues among fewer vessels. You’ve already heard that this morning. And it’s caused severe economic strain among the majority of fishermen, most of 

whom are small vessels. 

Sector 10 began the 2010 year with 20 percent lower quota allocation, compared to its 2009 landings. They traded and leased 

quota but could not mitigate this difference. By the end of the year, 

their landings fell 60 percent below the previous year’s level. Sector 

10s reduction in landings contributed to a 53 percent reduction in 

its groundfish revenue and a 23 percent reduction in its overall 

revenue. 

Reduced overall revenue occurred despite a significant shift into 

other non-groundfish fisheries—Steve mentioned dog fish, for instance—and higher prices paid for fish in 2010, the highest prices 

we’ve ever seen. A major point was large amounts of very valuable 

fish were left uncaught at the end of the year. And, Senator Kerry, 

you pointed out the matter of rolling over quota that’s relevant to 

that. Other Massachusetts sectors also ended the year with 

uncaught quota. None, however, exceeded the amount left 

uncaught by Sector 10—nearly 50 percent. 

We also did an analysis to determine that sector’s breakeven 

points, where revenues equal total costs. And it shows an increase 

in number of permits not breaking even in 2010. Nearly 50 percent 

of all active permits fell below the breakeven point. We haven’t 

completed this for the fleet overall outside of Sector 10, but we expect similar results to show. 

So what’s interesting is not only in 2010, but years prior to that, 

2009 for instance, there were significant numbers of vessels not 

breaking even, suggesting that they’re leaving their permits to be 

leased out. They’re drawing on personal income, extending credit, 

shifting fishing costs to the crew, shrinking their crew size or postponing vessel maintenance. None of those are good deals for the 

fishing industry or the Commonwealth. 

A recent performance report that you spent a lot of time talking 

to Dr. Lubchenco about this morning was released by the National 

Marine Fisheries Service six months after the end of the season. 

It did show that one-third fewer boats have been operating in the 

fishery since 2007 every year. That report also increases—or illustrates an increase in the concentration of groundfish revenues 

among the top earning vessels, those over 75 feet. 

So these major shifts in distribution of quota or income into 

fewer fishing permits was noted five months into the fishing year 

by the Commonwealth’s report that Governor Patrick forwarded to 

Secretary Locke back in November of 2010. So there’s nothing new 

there. 

I’d like to offer a few solutions that might be helpful to mitigate 

some of the problems we’re seeing. There’s certainly need for liquidity and certainty in the lease marketplace for quota. A central 

database that tracks trading and provides real-time accounting of 

landings and quota balances would ultimately improve business 

48 

planning for fishermen, and it would help fishermen build and better manage their quota portfolios. 

And while there are economic efficiencies that we’re seeing, these 

benefits are not widespread throughout the industry and generally 

not enough to counter the high cost of monitoring. So we strongly 

recommend that NMFS continues to pay for monitoring of the fishery and administration of sectors beyond the year that they plan 

on stopping. 

A redistribution and concentration of revenue and less capital 

leaves smaller scale vessels disproportionately impacted. So we recommend government-funded loan programs to assist small business 

operators, in particular, with equity and opportunity to lease more 

quota. 

So I’ll stop there, Senator, and answer—— 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Diodati follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PAUL DIODATI, DIRECTOR, MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF

MARINE FISHERIES AND CO-CHAIR, MASSACHUSETTS MARINE FISHERIES INSTITUTE

Good morning Chairman and other members of the Committee. My name is Paul 

Diodati, and I want to thank you all very much for the opportunity to share a few 

thoughts about how catch share management, in general, and sectors, in particular, 

have affected the health of the Massachusetts groundfish fishery. 

I am the Director of the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, and CoChair of the Massachusetts Marine Fisheries Institute. I am the Commonwealth’s 

Administrative Member to the New England Fisheries Management Council and the 

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. For over thirty years I have trained 

and worked in fisheries science and management at the regional and national level. 

With the majority of sectors operating out of Massachusetts ports, the Commonwealth has a strong interest in promoting the effective transition to catch shares 

in New England, while minimizing any potential adverse social-economic impacts to 

fishing communities and businesses that are sometimes attributed to catch share 

programs. We understand the difficulty our industry is having adapting to the cultural change that accompanies sector management. At the same time, we can’t forget the severe hardships endured by our fishermen under the former Days-at-Sea 

Program (DAS) that returned too little in conservation benefit. The Patrick-Murray 

Administration has voiced strong concerns with the sector program’s implementation and urges applying the highest annual catch levels when alternatives are permissible and use of cooperative research to improve stock assessment. 

The Division of Marine Fisheries conducted a case study of Northeast Fishery Sector 10 (a day-boat sector operating out of the Plymouth-Scituate area) in order to 

identify major impacts posed by Amendment 16 (catch shares). I wish to thank the 

Sector 10 members and manager for their willingness to share confidential information with the Division to better enlighten us all about what is occurring within sectors. Amendment 16 initiated this catch share program with hard catch limits 

(quotas) in place of days-at-sea restrictions to meet the 2006 MSA mandate to implement Annual Catch Limits (ACLs) and Accountability Measures (AMs), and to 

achieve economic efficiency. It is our conclusion from this case study that although 

vessel and permit consolidation have created some economic efficiencies it has not 

resulted in greater profitability. 

Our review does not consider the merits of an input vs. output control program 

to manage fisheries or if quota allocation was done in a rational way. Comparing 

fisheries performance between 2009 and 2010 requires much more economic analysis and social research to accurately explain changes occurring in our fishing fleet, 

fishing communities, and seafood markets and to correctly identify the responsible 

causative factors. 

To put this daunting task in context consider some of the variables in play in 

2010: 

• Annual Catch Levels (ACLs) were reduced 30 percent from 2009; 

• Total Allowable Catches (TACs) were enforced; 

• assumed dead discards were newly applied to reduce ACLs; 

• nominal daily trip limits were abandoned; 

49 

• closed areas were reopened; 

• management and monitoring costs were shared by industry; 

• stock areas were off limits to fishermen unless their sector had sufficient 

amount of quota for that stock area; 

• and an unrestricted market for sector Annual Catch Entitlement (ACE) leasing 

was put in place with no central system to track the exchange of quota between 

sectors available to fisheries managers. 

The National Marine Fisheries Service is working to generate more information 

about fishery performance and the Division will continue cooperative efforts to assist in these analyses. The Sector 10 case study on which I will focus only considers 

Amendment 16’s economic outcome. ≥≥ 

Sector 10 began the fishing year with a 20 percent lower landing allocation compared to 2009 landings; reductions for some individual fishermen were even higher. 

Actual 2010 landings fell even lower—60 percent below the previous year’s level. 

Trading and leasing could not mitigate the general insecurity with new sector business practices. For example, there were unknowns about how discard mortality 

would affect an individual’s share of quota, or Percent Sector Contribution (PSC); 

and concerns about lack of certain species in one’s quota portfolio. 

Sector 10’s reduction in groundfish landings contributed to a 53 percent reduction 

($1.5 million) in its groundfish revenue and 23 percent reduction ($1.0 million) in 

its overall revenue. Reduced overall revenue occurred despite a significant shift into 

other non-groundfish fisheries (such as dogfish, lobster, and squid) by some of its 

members and higher average prices paid for all fish than in prior years. A major 

point being, large amounts of valuable fish, including fish that were leased in by 

Sector 10, were left uncaught. Discussions with non-sector 10 fishermen suggest 

other Massachusetts sectors also ended the 2010 fishing year with uncaught ACE; 

but we cannot identify another sector that exceeded Sector 10 in the amount of relative uncaught ACE (50 percent). 

We conducted an analysis to determine break-even points, where total revenues 

equal total costs, which shows an increase in the number of permits that did not 

break-even. In 2010 nearly 50 percent of active permits fell below the break-even 

point. We haven’t been able to complete a direct comparison of this with the entire 

fleet in time for this hearing, although we expect fleet-wide analysis is likely to 

show similar results. We also found a significant number of fishing businesses were 

operating below break-even points in years prior to 2010. Many fishermen are trying 

to survive by drawing on personal income or extended credit, shifting more fishing 

costs to crew or shrinking crew size, or postponing vessel maintenance. 

A recent performance report of the 2010 groundfish fishery issued by NOAA Fisheries’ Northeast Fisheries Science Center demonstrates that fewer boats, about onethird fewer each year since 2007, have been operating in the groundfish fishery. The 

Federal report also illustrates an increasing concentration of groundfish revenues 

among the top earning vessels, vessels greater than 75 feet. Only 20 percent of vessels accounted for about 80 percent of gross groundfish revenues. This sign of consolidation is confirmed by an earlier report prepared by the Massachusetts Marine 

Fisheries Institute (MFI), which Governor Patrick forwarded to Secretary Locke in 

November 2010. The MFI reported major shifts in the distribution of quota (income) 

as noted by as much as two-thirds of fishing permits that were allocated 50 to 60 

percent less than their 2007–2009 average annual harvest levels. 

The transition to catch shares under Amendment 16 has been difficult in terms 

of the program’s allocation determinations and socioeconomic impacts, and many of 

the challenges cannot be measured in a single fisheries science report. Looking to 

the future, I’d like to offer possible solutions to mitigate some of the impacts we 

identified. 

Solution 1—There is need for liquidity and certainty in the lease marketplace for 

ACE and a need for fishermen to have a better understanding of how to succeed 

under sector management. A central database that tracks all ACE trading activity 

and provides real-time accounting of ACE balances would assist in exchanging quota 

between sectors and ultimately improve business planning for individual fishermen. 

Additionally, I believe it would be of benefit for NOAA to implement training programs for sector fishermen to assist in building and managing their quota portfolios. 

Solution 2—While sector management created economic efficiencies for some 

members of the fishery, these opportunities were not widespread and generally not 

enough to counter high costs of monitoring and operating fishing businesses. NOAA 

should work to reduce at-sea monitoring costs while continuing to fund sector monitoring and administration. We believe such assistance will help push the balance 

50 

of break-even points toward the black for more fishermen as they adjust to and 

learn how to prepare and implement annual sector business plans. 

Solution 3—Redistribution and concentration of revenue and less access to capital 

leaves smaller-scale vessels disproportionately impacted by sector management. 

Government assisted loan programs for quota leasing should be established throughout the Northeast to aid small-scale, owner-operated fishing businesses for those 

who lack sufficient valuation to obtain loans from conventional finance institutions. 

Additionally, more work needs to be done to allow a higher percentage of unused 

quota to reach the marketplace. 

Finally, in context of a new management system that presents a steep learning 

curve for both fishermen and managers, I would ask you to urge the Secretary of 

Commerce to instruct his staff to discourage adding large uncertainty buffers that 

may unnecessarily lower annual catch levels and to define overfishing limits from 

direct estimates of FMSY and BMSY when they are available and defensible. Maintaining ACLs at the highest level during the next few years will contribute toward 

economic viability of more segments of the fishery, particularly the small-boat segment. Increased amounts of ACL will become more valuable as fishermen adjust to 

new sector business practices and begin to make full use of their annual quota. 

The Commonwealth is committed to working cooperatively with the Federal agencies, fishermen, our Congressional delegation, and local officials to meet these challenges. I hope my testimony will assist the Committee formulate remedies to improve the operation of our groundfish fishery. I’d be glad to answer any questions. 

Senator KERRY. We’ll get onto it—we’ll get into it in the questioning. 

Mr. DIODATI. OK. 

Senator KERRY. A lot of this will come out. So don’t feel you’re 

being shortchanged because there’s time yet. 

Mr. Cunningham? 

STATEMENT OF COLIN MCALLISTER ‘‘RIP’’ CUNNINGHAM, JR., 

ACTING CHAIRMAN, NORTHEAST FISHERIES MANAGEMENT 

COUNCIL 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Senator, other committee members, and Massachusetts delegation, thank you. 

I have three areas of discussion. First is the management review 

report. The challenges and improvements detailed in the report are 

currently being implemented by the leadership of NOAA Fisheries, 

the Northeast Fisheries Science Center, and the Council. 

The Council agreed to take a lead on improving communication 

and collaboration with stakeholders, creating a regional vision and 

a strategic plan, and designing a cost-effective performance management system. Based on work completed over the summer, the 

full Council approved a series of actions that will accomplish these 

initiatives, all of which we expect to be completed in the near future. 

First years of sectors—concerning NOAA’s recently released sector economic report, the analysis did not include all key data. Additional work will be released later in the fall and will represent a 

more complete and useful picture. One unstated fact is that fewer 

days fishing has meant substantial savings in operating costs and 

benefits from reduced habitat impact. The new system has also allowed a redirection of fishing effort onto robust stocks. 

The report highlights consolidation, but it began well before the 

implementation of sectors. The increases in total revenues for vessels with groundfish permits happened at the same time that Magnuson mandated over 50 percent decreases in allowable catch for 

some species, showing the value of sectors. 

51 

Until May 2010, the much-derided groundfish Days-at-Sea program was in effect, and the program made it very difficult to remain economically viable. There was simply no stability in management regime. In addition to limits on the number of available days 

to fish, there were a myriad of other rules depending on gear type, 

areas fished, species harvested. Management was by mandated inefficiencies. 

With implementation of sectors, many old rules were eliminated. 

Fishermen can respond to market conditions, weather concerns, 

and reduce wasteful discards. With greater flexibility, sectors can 

avoid any race to fish which results in lower prices to the fishermen. 

While sectors have remedied some problems in the fishery, others 

have emerged. So the Council scheduled a 2-day workshop in late 

October to hear directly from the 17 sectors about the performance 

of the system. The Council hopes to include any practicable solutions in follow up actions in 2012. 

Senator Kerry, I realize that you, along with Congressmen Frank 

and Keating, are concerned about the unused rollover. There was 

discussion about it here earlier. We do have the 10 percent provision in there. But recognizing it’s still an issue, we’ve put it back 

on the table because we realize it increases flexibility for fishermen. 

Our New England delegation has advised the Council of their 

concerns about the NOAA-funded, state-operated permit banks. 

The Council agrees that it’s essential to ensure that outcomes 

match their intended purpose to preserve fishing opportunities for 

small owner-operated fishing businesses in the New England communities. Hopefully, we can get to some of the ACL things, but I 

see my time is running out. 

In summary, given the reductions in catch needed to meet the 

Magnuson requirements under National Standard 1, sectors 

emerged as the best viable option to replace the Days-at-Sea management regime that was slowly strangling the New England 

groundfish industry. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cunningham follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF COLIN MCALLISTER ‘‘RIP’’ CUNNINGHAM, JR., ACTING

CHAIRMAN, NORTHEAST FISHERIES MANAGEMENT COUNCIL

Good morning Senator Kerry and other members of the New England Congressional delegation. On behalf of the New England Fishery Management Council, I am 

pleased to respond to your invitation and hope that I can be helpful to you and the 

other members of the Committee, as well as any members of the fishing community 

who are present at this hearing. 

Before I begin, I would like to offer a few details about my background. I have 

served on the Council since 2004 and was just recently elected Chairman. I was 

elected to the Vice Chair position for each of the last 5 years. During this same period I chaired the Council’s Northeast Multispecies or Groundfish Committee, which 

includes the time-frame in which the Council adopted the catch shares program 

known as sectors. I was the former owner, publisher and editor-in-chief of Salt 

Water Sportsman, the world’s largest sport fishing magazine, with approximately 

four million readers. I am privileged to have made a living by advocating for our 

region’s valuable marine fisheries while also enjoying many years of recreational 

fishing. 

I have stated this before, but it I believe it is worth repeating to this committee. 

With 18 voting members on the New England Fishery Council, there often are 18 

52 

different opinions about the problems we face and their solutions. As a result, my 

comments may not represent the opinion of any individual member or the official 

position of the Council, but I will try to convey the sense of the Council as a body 

in this testimony and in my answers to any questions you might have. 

I would like to talk about several broad topics today: 

(1) The report authored by Preston Pate and the Touchstone Consulting Group 

titled A Review of the New England Fishery Management Process; 

(2) My views about the first year of sector management in the New England 

groundfish fishery with some comments about relatively recent and future 

Council actions; and 

(3) Issues identified by Members of Congress, including the inability of vessels 

to harvest the groundfish annual catch limits. 

Touchstone Report—Many of the challenges and needed improvements detailed in 

the report have already been discussed among the leadership of NOAA’s Fisheries 

Service in Gloucester, the Northeast Fisheries Science Center in Woods Hole and 

the Fishery Management Council. During our talks, the Council agreed to take the 

lead on: 

• Improving communication and collaboration with stakeholders, including redesigning Council and other meetings to facilitate this outcome; 

• Creating a regional vision and strategic plan that will incorporate collaboration 

with all stakeholders and set a future direction for the fishery, more on that 

in a moment; and 

• Designing a cost-effective performance management system to track the 

progress of decisions, capture lessons learned and incorporate best practices. 

Based on work completed over the summer, the full Council approved a series of 

actions that will accomplish these initiatives: (1) holding additional, less formal 

types of meetings to promote a more productive dialogue between the Council and 

the fishing industry; (2) establishing an ad hoc committee of stakeholders to advise 

the Council and its staff about the most effective types of outreach; (3) possibly convening listening sessions at which stakeholders will have an opportunity to query 

Council members about fisheries management issues rather than vice-versa; (4) simplifying and coordinating communications with the National Marine Service; (5) developing a vision and strategic plan with a core structure that evolves from an ecosystems-based approach to fisheries management; and finally (6) developing and implementing a system to track and evaluate the development and effectiveness of the 

Council’s decisions, as well as document ‘‘lessons learned.’’ 

Remarks About the First Year of ‘‘Sectors’’—I would like to discuss several of the 

findings in NOAA’s recently released social and economic report, some, but not all 

of which have been covered by the media. First, we know the analysis that formed 

the basis of the report did not include all key data. Additional work scheduled to 

be released later in the fall will likely present a more complete and useful picture. 

Second, we also know that fewer days fishing has meant substantial savings in 

operating costs and benefits from reduced habitat impacts. 

Third, many of the changes that occurred between the earlier years analyzed and 

2010 reflect trends that have been documented since 2007. I believe it is clear that 

consolidation began well before the implementation of sectors. Other changes include declines in the number of active vessels and crew and a gradually increasing 

concentration of revenues among top earning vessels. On the other hand, we also 

see that the most recent trends include increases in total revenues for vessels with 

limited access groundfish permits (generally full-time active vessels), as a result of 

increased prices for both groundfish and non-groundfish species. The new system 

has allowed a redirection of fishing effort, or fishing pressure, onto robust stocks. 

While some of the findings are of concern, I would like to put them in context. 

You may recall that until May 2010, the much-derided groundfish days-at sea program was in effect for three out of the 4-years evaluated in the report. Limited fishing days resulted in measurable stock rebuilding, but the program made it difficult 

for many businesses to remain economically viable. 

In addition to limits on the number of available days to fish, there were restrictions on the quantities of fish that could be harvested (daily or trip limits), the mesh 

sizes in fishing nets, the sizes of fish that could be caught, closed areas and a myriad of other rules, depending on gear type as well as the areas and species harvested. Most were mandated inefficiencies. 

With implementation of the new program, many of the old rules were eliminated. 

Under sectors fishermen could better respond to market conditions, weather concerns and reduce wasteful discards. With greater flexibility, sector members could 

53 

avoid any ‘‘race to fish,’’ a circumstance that frequently produces a temporary oversupply in the marketplace, resulting in lower prices to fish harvesters. The increased economic performance in terms of higher revenues per unit of effort by sector vessels noted in the economic report may be reflection of some of the benefits 

of sector management. 

Even so, the Council remains concerned about the problems confronted by many 

New England groundfish fishermen. According to the NOAA economic report, the 

total groundfish catch, which includes cod, haddock and various flounders, was 

down to about 58 million pounds last year. Landings had ranged from 64 to 72 million pounds annually between 2007 and 2009. 

From my perspective, the situation may have less to do with sectors than is assumed when viewed in the context of the health of our groundfish stocks. More than 

half of the 20 stocks in the groundfish complex are still overfished and therefore 

subject to strict rebuilding programs. Stocks are still required to be rebuilt as quickly as possible and within a period not to exceed 10 years, with few exceptions, according to the reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

While sector management has remedied some problems in the fishery, others have 

emerged. As a step toward making improvements, the Council has scheduled a twoday workshop in late October to hear directly from the 17 sector managers and their 

members about the performance of the sector system and recommended changes 

that would help their businesses. The Council hopes to include any practicable solutions in a follow-up groundfish action in 2012. 

We also are aware that paying for monitoring may be out of reach for the average 

fishermen. Although the Council is not constituted to fund such programs, it has 

supported a new and hopefully constructive dialogue that will help resolve this very 

critical problem. 

Fears concerning the loss of fleet diversity and fleet consolidation have been expressed by many from within and outside the industry. Heeding those concerns, the 

Council has agreed to develop measures that will address both accumulation limits 

and fleet diversity. The Council also may create other incentives to maintain diversity and fishery infrastructure. 

I am also aware of additional issues that merit attention. Senator Kerry, I realize 

that you, along with Congressmen Frank and Keating, are concerned about the unused groundfish quota from fishing year 2010 that otherwise might be rolled over 

into the next fishing year. Some additional information about the existing measure 

might be useful. 

The Council knows that carry-over provisions are common in other catch-share 

systems around the country and adopted a measure that limits the New England 

groundfish fleet to 10 percent of the allocations. This amount is in the mid-range 

of carry-over percentages that are included in other catch share programs that were 

reviewed by the Council. 

The Council is willing to revisit the issue, but must carefully examine the associated problem of increasing the risk of overfishing. As with any roll-over, the same 

number of fish may or may not be available in the following year, either because 

of natural mortality, potential over-harvesting or discarding. These possibilities are 

of particular concern with respect to the stocks in rebuilding programs. Nonetheless, 

the Council has already put the issue on the table, recognizing that carry-overs increase flexibility for fishermen and reduce potentially dangerous fishing practices 

such as a rush to catch all the available fish at the end of the year. 

I also realize that our New England Senators have advised the Service and Council of their concerns about the NOAA-funded, state-operated permit banks. The 

Council agrees that it is essential to ensure that outcomes match their intended 

purpose—to preserve fishing opportunities for small, owner-operated fishing operations in New England communities that might otherwise be struggling with the 

transition to the groundfish sector catch-share program. 

At its Council meeting in June, concerns were raised that these permit banks 

could affect the market for groundfish permits. To enhance coordination with these 

entities, the Council has requested that state-operated permit banks come to the 

Council for approval prior to using funds other than those provided by NOAA. 

Groundfish Annual Catch Limits—The Council has received comments to the effect that groundfish boats have had very limited success in harvesting the annual 

catch limits (ACLs) of the 20 Council-managed groundfish stocks. The biggest impediment is the potential to exceed the catch limits for some stocks, often referred 

to as ‘‘choke stocks,’’ before fishermen can catch the ACLs for other stocks. 

This is a problem common to all multispecies fisheries throughout the world. In 

some cases, weaker stocks have low ACLs because they have been overfished and 

rebuilding is required. Others are simply smaller and less productive than those 

that have traditionally supported the New England groundfish fleet. 

54 

For example, in 2011 the ACL of Georges Bank yellowtail flounder, and to some 

extent cod, limited the fleet’s ability to catch the large ACL of Georges Bank haddock. The uncaught ACL of Georges Bank haddock accounted for 68 percent of the 

total ACL of all stocks not caught. 

Also contributing substantially to the uncaught ACLs were redfish and pollock. 

To some extent the lack of markets and processing capacity limited the catch of 

redfish. As another example, the 2010 pollock ACL was about 36 million pounds, 

or more than twice the five-year average catch from 2005–2009. This very large increase, made available within a relatively short time frame because of a revised 

stock assessment, made it unlikely that the vessels would catch all of the ACL 

under any circumstances. Added together, the uncaught pollock, Georges Bank haddock, and redfish accounted for 93 percent of the total uncaught ACLs of all stocks. 

Another factor contributing to the large amount of uncaught fish may relate to 

the start-up aspects of the sector program. Under similar management systems that 

have been adopted in other fisheries, it has taken several years before the fleets 

land a high percentage of the available fish. The Council is keenly aware of this 

situation and will closely monitor progress toward reaching the groundfish ACLs. 

Current projections indicate that a higher percentage will be caught in this fishing 

year. 

Conclusions—Summarizing some of my earlier comments, given the reductions in 

catch needed to meet the Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements under National 

Standard 1, sectors emerged as the best option to replace the days-at-sea management regime that was slowly strangling the New England groundfish industry. 

This does not mean that the Council has lost sight of National Standard 8. It 

seems clear that one of the keys to sustaining fishing communities is to ensure the 

economic viability of our fishing fleets. Long-term success will not likely be achieved 

by simply raising fishing levels. New England fishermen have already lived through 

that expedient, but not very prudent course of action during the 1980s and early 

90s. 

Based on our experience, sound science and working collaboratively with fishermen, the Council is intent on continuing the important stock rebuilding accomplished to date and maintaining stocks at sustainable levels. We also intend to improve the groundfish sector management program. The Council and many fishermen 

are working hard right now to adjust to changing resource and economic conditions. 

The problems we all confront are difficult but not insurmountable. 

Senator Kerry and members of the Massachusetts delegation, on behalf of the 

New England Council, I hope my comments are helpful to you as you continue to 

engage in discussions about the groundfish fishery. I am available now or in the future to answer any questions. 

Senator KERRY. Thank you very much, Mr. Cunningham. 

Mr. Cadrin? 

STATEMENT OF STEVEN X. CADRIN, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, 

DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES OCEANOGRAPHY, SCHOOL FOR 

MARINE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF 

MASSACHUSETTS DARTMOUTH 

Dr. CADRIN. Thanks for the invitation to testify. I’m Steve 

Cadrin. I’m a Professor of Fisheries Oceanography at the University of Massachusetts School for Marine Science and Technology. I 

was asked to address the scientific aspects of fishery science in 

New England. 

In comparison to other systems throughout the world, fishery 

management in the United States is relatively inclusive, transparent, and science-based. However, the catch limit system and 

NOAA’s catch shares policy are much more demanding than other 

alternatives. And from my perspective, the current fishery science 

system in New England is not meeting those increased demands. 

New England fisheries management has made great strides over 

the last decade to end overfishing and rebuild many stocks. However, there are major deficiencies in the quality and frequency of 

stock assessments and fishery statistics. The fishery management 

55 

strategy needs to be reconsidered so that system requirements are 

more suited to the current scientific capacity. 

Specification of annual catch limits requires frequent assessments and projected catch over one to two years. Catch limits 

based on longer term predictions are based more on assumptions 

than on data. In addition to the need for frequent stock assessments, accuracy is also required to determine appropriate catch 

limits. 

Many assessments are data-poor and not informative enough to 

estimate catch limits that avoid overfishing while achieving optimum yield. Other stock assessments are more informative but still 

have substantial uncertainties that cannot be quantified or used to 

determine catch limits. A troubling feature of many stock assessments is the lack of consistency from one stock assessment to the 

next. 

Beyond the need for frequent and accurate stock assessments, 

scientific support for catch limits involves in-season fishery monitoring that’s timely enough to support catch share policy. Major 

components of total catch, such as commercial fishery discards, recreational fishery catch, and location of fishing effort are not well 

determined, and estimates are not available in a timely fashion. 

Many fisheries harvest a mix of species. When stock size is underestimated, catch limits are lower than they should be. And fishermen have difficulty avoiding the species that have artificially low 

catch limits. Furthermore, when some species are rebuilding, their 

catch limits remain relatively low while the stock rebuilds, thereby 

increasing the challenge of avoiding them while targeting healthy 

stocks. 

These problems are then intensified when accountability measures further reduce catch limits on rebuilding or bycatch stocks, 

thereby increasing the mismatch between the catch limits and the 

mix of species on the fishing grounds. As a result of the mixed 

stock problem, the groundfish fishery caught less than 40 percent 

of the allocated catch in 2010. Landings of haddock, plaice, pollock, 

and redfish in 2010 were less than half their catch limits. 

Ending overfishing is a great accomplishment. But we need to refine our fishery management plans to progress toward the mandated optimum yields. National Standard guidelines suggest that 

catch limits should be based on the council’s desired risk of overfishing. However, risk management decisions require evaluation of 

economic costs and benefits that are not routinely provided. 

There are several potential solutions to help improve the scientific capacity for supporting annual catch limits. Scientific resources can be increased or reprioritized. The peer review process 

can be streamlined. NOAA’s scientific capacity can be expanded by 

partnering with other institutions. And the scientific and statistical 

committee can serve peer review and problem solving roles. 

The demands on fishery science can also be reduced in several 

ways. Exemptions from annual catch limits should be considered 

when catch cannot be reliably monitored. The mixed-stock exemption should be considered for bycatch and rebuilding stocks. And, 

more strategically, alternative management procedures should be 

considered that take advantage of the strengths of fishery science. 

56 

In summary, the positive expectations of the catch limit system 

and NOAA’s catch shares policy depend on greater scientific capacity than is currently being provided. Thanks again for the invitation to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Cadrin follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVEN X. CADRIN, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT

OF FISHERIES OCEANOGRAPHY, SCHOOL FOR MARINE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS DARTMOUTH

I thank the members of the Committee for the invitation to testify before you 

today. My name is Steven Cadrin. I am an Associate Professor of Fisheries Oceanography at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, School for Marine Science and 

Technology. I have over twenty years of experience as a quantitative fisheries scientist with expertise in fish stock assessment and fishery management. I was asked 

to address scientific aspects of fisheries management in New England. 

In comparison to other fisheries management systems throughout the world, the 

system in the United States is relatively inclusive, transparent and science-based. 

However, the catch limit system specified by National Standard Guidelines (NOAA 

2009) and NOAA’s catch shares policy (NOAA 2010) are much more demanding 

than other alternatives, because they require greater transparency in catch monitoring, more extensive inclusiveness in fishery management decisions and more frequent and accurate scientific products. As detailed below, the current fishery science 

and management system in New England is not meeting those increased demands. 

The New England fisheries management system has made great strides over the 

last decade to end overfishing and rebuild many stocks. However, there are several 

major deficiencies in our current fisheries science system that do not adequately 

support the requirements of catch limit and catch shares management policies. 

There are major deficiencies in the quality and frequency of stock assessments and 

fishery statistics, and National Standard Guidelines for implementing the Act pose 

unrealistic demands on the scientific system. The national strategy for fishery management needs to be reconsidered so that demands on the scientific system are more 

practically suited to the current scientific capacity and performance of the management system is more robust to the inherent uncertainties in fisheries science. 

My view is supported by two recent reviews that were commissioned by the National Marine Fisheries Service. A recent national review on scientific institution 

building concluded that ‘‘NMFS needs more national scientific leadership, and better 

management, information systems and organizational structures, to plan and implement national programs,’’ and ‘‘this problem has ramifications with respect to the 

science based roots of the agency and science as the foundation for policy and management’’ (Sissenwine and Rothschild 2011). An independent assessment of the fishery management system in New England identified problems and challenges and 

formed recommendations including ‘‘conduct a comprehensive analysis of all NMFS 

data systems to identify areas that will improve data gathering, data management, 

data analysis and data use’’ (Touchstone Consulting Group 2011). 

New requirements of the 2007 amendment to the Act impose substantially greater 

demands on the fishery science and management system. The current scientific capacity was more adequate for meeting the requirements of the previous version of 

the National Standard Guidelines which focused on status determination (i.e., relative stock size, sustainability of harvest) and general management advice. Even 

state-of-the-art fishery science cannot fully support the risk-based catch limits with 

accountability measures suggested in the current Guidelines. 

Several examples demonstrate that the failure to effectively adapt to new requirements negatively impact fisheries, fishery resources and the Massachusetts communities that depend on them. National Standard Guidelines suggest that catch limits 

should be based on an estimate of the catch associated with overfishing and uncertainty in the estimate of the overfishing limit, or the catch that will allow rebuilding 

of overfished stocks; and fisheries should be held accountable for exceeding catch 

limits. Such implementation of the catch limit mandate requires frequent and accurate stock assessments, comprehensive and real-time fishery monitoring, as well as 

risk analysis for each fishery. Although the Act establishes National Standard 1 so 

that ‘‘Conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing while 

achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery for the United 

States fishing industry,’’ deficiencies in the scientific basis of fishery management 

decisions can result in either foregone yield or overfishing, both of which are costly 

to Massachusetts fisheries and fishing communities. 

57 

As implemented in the National Standard Guidelines, specification of annual 

catch limits requires frequent stock assessments and projected catch over a short 

period (e.g., one to three years). Stock assessment involves an update of the most 

recent fishery statistics and resource surveys to evaluate stock status and provide 

a basis for catch forecasts. Catch limits that are based on recent stock assessments 

and short-term projections take advantage of the strengths of conventional fishery 

science, in which catch forecasts are almost entirely based on a synthesis of updated 

fishery and survey observations. Conversely, catch limits based on longer-term predictions (e.g., greater than 3 years) are based largely on assumed population dynamics rather than on current data. Long-term predictions rely on the ability to predict 

annual recruitment of young fish and their future vital rates, which are the most 

challenging problems in fishery science. 

New England groundfish, our Nation’s oldest commercial fishery resource and one 

of its most productive, serves as an example of the inadequate frequency and quality 

of stock assessments provided by NOAA for fishery management decisions. NOAA 

concluded that it did not have the capacity to provide annual stock assessments for 

all northeast fisheries (Northeast Fisheries Science Center 2009). As a result of this 

deficiency in scientific resources, the planned approach for specifying catch limits for 

the groundfish fishery from 2012 to 2014 was medium-term catch forecasts, five to 

7 years from the 2008 stock assessments. The New England Fisheries Management 

Council’s Scientific and Statistical Committee advised the Fishery Management 

Council that ‘‘Projection of results from GARM III assessments to 2013–2014 were 

deemed to be too unreliable for setting ABCs’’ (Acceptable Biological Catches). The 

Northeast Regional Coordinating Committee is in the process of revising its assessment and peer review process, and groundfish assessments are planned to be updated this winter. However, the process for updating groundfish assessments is still 

under development, and the current scientific basis for groundfish catch limits is insufficient. 

In addition to the need for frequent stock assessments, accuracy is also required 

to determine appropriate catch limits. Only a small portion of stock assessments can 

accurately project catch associated with overfishing and its uncertainty, which is the 

technical basis of the National Standard Guidelines for deriving annual catch limits. 

Many assessments are data-poor, and are not informative enough to reliably evaluate stock size, fishing mortality, maximum sustainable yield reference points or 

catch projections to determine catch associated with overfishing. National Standard 

Guidelines suggest that Councils should be more precautionary in the face of such 

uncertainty, leading to lower catch limits and potential economic impacts as a result 

of scientific uncertainty. Despite the obvious deficiencies of data-poor stock assessments, the National Standard Guidelines require annual catch limits for all stocks, 

with few exceptions. 

The New England skate complex offers an example in which fishery landings cannot be identified by species. Mixed-species catch limits are required to meet separate-species management objectives for ending overfishing and rebuilding overfished 

stocks. In such data-poor situations, catch limits are largely based on expert opinion, and their performance for meeting fishery management objectives is unknown. 

Requiring catch limits for data-poor stocks can result in fisheries constraints that 

are not consistent with the objectives of avoiding overfishing, rebuilding stocks or 

achieving optimum yield. For example, the two targeted species of New England 

skates rebuilt under a 20,000 lb trip limit, but implementation of the catch limit 

system required a reduction to 500 lb per trip after the stocks rebuilt. 

Other stock assessments are more informative than those for data-poor stocks, but 

still have substantial uncertainties that cannot be quantified or used to determine 

catch limits. A troubling feature of many stock assessments in each coastal region 

of the U.S. is the lack of consistency from one stock assessment to the next. Retrospective inconsistency is the change in perception of previous stock size or fishing 

mortality when new data are added to the assessment. Managing a fishery based 

on an assessment with retrospective inconsistency involves setting an apparently 

appropriate catch that in retrospect caused substantial overfishing or foregone yield. 

The fishery for Georges Bank yellowtail flounder, one of the principle groundfish 

stocks off New England, is an example of the frustrating and costly impact of retrospective inconsistency. From 1999 to 2006, the fishery caught less than the catch 

limit advised by the scientific process in each year. However, the 2011 stock assessment indicates that those apparently appropriate catches produced overfishing each 

year, in some years more than five times the overfishing threshold (Transboundary 

Resources Assessment Committee 2011). Despite efforts to correct the stock assessment, the retrospective problem continues to obfuscate perceptions of stock status 

and obstruct attempts to manage the fishery or rebuild the resource. After decades 

of overfishing, in the face of severe restrictions to the fishery, the assessment indiVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:21 Feb 06, 2012 Jkt 072671 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\72671.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
58 

cates that the stock cannot rebuild within the desired timeframe, even with no fishery. 

Beyond the need for frequent and accurate stock assessments, scientific support 

for catch limits involves in-season fishery monitoring that is timely enough to inform future catch limits and support fishery-dependent business decisions in a catch 

share management system. Several transitions to electronic monitoring have improved the timely collection and reporting of landings from commercial fisheries. 

However, other components of total catch such as commercial fishery discards, recreational fishery catch, and location of fishing effort are not well estimated, and estimates are not available in a timely fashion. Uncertainty and slow delivery of catch 

statistics precludes in-season management or adaptive fishing decisions to optimize 

catch allocations, incurring considerable costs to fisheries and fishing communities. 

In addition, accountability for overfishing is being implemented in a way in which 

fisheries ‘‘pay back’’ any catch that exceeds the annual catch limit in the form a reduced catch limit in the subsequent year. Such an implementation requires accurate 

in-season monitoring to allow fisheries to manage their own catch to avoid exceeding 

their catch limits and resulting accountability measures. 

Inadequate catch monitoring is demonstrated by estimates of discarded catch in 

New England. The Northeast Region adopted a Standardized Bycatch Reporting 

Method for commercial discards that is based on data from at-sea observers (Wigley 

et al., 2007). The stratification for observer sampling is stock area and fleet, which 

is too coarse to accurately estimate discards, often inferring ‘phantom discards’ (i.e., 

estimates of discarded catch that are artifacts of the methodology rather than a reflection of actual catch). Many groundfish sectors are charged with discards against 

their allocation based on the Standardized Bycatch Reporting Method, because the 

stock-wide estimators assume that each vessel in the sector has the same discard 

patterns. Some vessels have rare discards that have been documented by NOAA observers and the NOAA study fleet, but these vessels are charged the fleet-wide 

stock-wide discard rate, and the sector is accountable for exceeding its catch allocation, even if the overage is an artifact of an inaccurate discard estimate. Furthermore, the Standardized Bycatch Reporting Method removes any incentive for individual fishermen to reduce their bycatch. 

The Standardized Bycatch Reporting Method for yellowtail flounder bycatch in the 

scallop fishery is both slow and biased. Final estimates of bycatch in the scallop 

fishery were not provided until 7 months after the fishing year ended. The estimate 

of yellowtail discards in the 2010 scallop fishery was biased, because observers were 

more likely to sample off southern New England, where there are more yellowtail, 

than in the Mid Atlantic Bight, where there are fewer yellowtail. The Standardized 

Bycatch Reporting Method, which is more influenced by the southern New England 

bycatch rate, indicated that the scallop fishery had exceeded its yellowtail allocation. 

The accountability for such an overage in bycatch is to close large portions of the 

stock area for the entire year. By contrast, when updated observer data were appropriately stratified by region, the estimate of yellowtail discards was much less and 

led to the conclusion that bycatch was well within the limit. This example shows 

that the slow and biased application of the Standardized Bycatch Reporting Method 

would have falsely triggered costly accountability measures in the Nation’s most valuable fishery. 

Several aspects of scientific uncertainty exacerbate the mixed-stock fishery problem. When stock assessments underestimate stock size, catch limits are lower than 

they should be, and fishermen have difficulty avoiding the species that have artificially low catch limits. Furthermore, when some stocks are rebuilding, their catch 

limits remain relatively low while the stock rebuilds, increasing the challenge to 

avoid rebuilding stocks while targeting healthy stocks. These problems are intensified when accountability measures further reduce the catch limits on rebuilding bycatch stocks, thereby increasing the mismatch between the catch limit and the species mix on the fishing grounds. Therefore, scientific uncertainty and catch limits 

with accountability prohibit mixed-stock fisheries from harvesting their allocated 

catch limits and form a wasteful management strategy with huge economic losses. 

The mixed-stock problem severely limits the New England groundfish fishery 

from landing its total multispecies allocation. For example, southern New England 

winter flounder are behind schedule in the agreed rebuilding plan largely because 

of scientific uncertainties in the stock assessment, and only incidental bycatch is allowed. If rebuilding is successful, the challenge of avoiding winter flounder will be 

exacerbated. Furthermore, if catch limits are exceeded, the fishery will be held accountable in the form of further reductions in catch limits of a rebuilding stock. The 

catch limit for southern New England winter flounder is based on an estimate of 

incidental bycatch, but the 2010 fisheries exceeded the catch limit, and accountability measures are being considered for the overage. The fishery is being held acVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:21 Feb 06, 2012 Jkt 072671 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\72671.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
59 

countable because the observed incidental bycatch exceeded the projected incidental 

bycatch. 

As a result of the mixed-stock problem, the groundfish fishery caught less than 

40 percent of the allocated catch in 2010 (Kitts et al., 2011). If the catch limits were 

accurate, and discards remained low for these species, the groundfish plan appears 

to have successfully ended overfishing. However, preventing overfishing is only half 

the job that management plans are mandated to accomplish. The other half of the 

mandate is to achieve optimum yield. Landings of haddock, plaice, pollock and 

redfish in 2010 were less than half of the catch limit (Kitts et al., 2011b). Ending 

overfishing is a great accomplishment, but we need to refine fishery management 

plans to progress toward optimum yield. 

A recent analysis of groundfish catch limits concluded that scientific information 

is available to support increased catch limits that do not undermine conservation 

mandates of the Magnuson Act (Massachusetts Marine Fisheries Institute 2010). 

The review of scientific analyses used to derive catch limits found that several decisions favored relatively low catch limits, and scientifically valid alternatives are 

available for direct estimates of the maximum sustainable yield reference point, alternative stock assessment models, smaller uncertainty buffers, and revised rebuilding objectives. Alternative scientific decisions support increases in catch limits for 

all New England groundfish stocks, with substantial increases for ‘‘choke stocks.’’ 

Increased catch limits for ‘‘choke stocks’’ would be more consistent with the availability of stocks on the fishing grounds and allow the fleet to achieve more of their 

allocation, thereby substantially increasing mixed-stock economic yield. 

National Standard Guidelines suggest that catch limits should be based on each 

regional Fishery Management Council’s desired risk tolerance for overfishing. However, such risk management decisions require evaluation of economic costs and benefits that are not routinely provided by the scientific process. Although some economic data are collected from fisheries, the information is not comprehensive 

enough to evaluate costs and benefits of alternative catch limits, and economic analyses are limited to impact statements that are completed after management actions 

are decided. A broader approach to informing risk tolerance would be management 

strategy evaluation, which has only been applied to few U.S. fisheries in a cursory 

way. Ignoring economic aspects of alternative catch limits poses unknown costs to 

fisheries. 

Now that catch limit systems have been implemented, their performance should 

be retrospectively evaluated with respect to meeting all ten National Standards for 

fishery management (avoiding overfishing while achieving optimum yield, applying 

best science, managing unit stocks, fair and equitable allocation, considering efficiency, allowing for variations, minimizing costs, minimizing impacts on fishing 

communities, minimizing bycatch, and promoting safety). More specifically, each expectation of NOAA’s catch shares policy (eliminating overfishing, achieving annual 

catch limits, producing more fish at lower costs, improving fishermen’s safety and 

profits, and reducing the negative biological and economic effects) should be confirmed through analysis of fishery and resource monitoring information. 

In the context of inadequate scientific information for supporting New England 

fisheries management, there are several potential solutions to help improve the scientific capacity for supporting annual catch limits. Solutions can address both aspects of the problem: the adequacy of scientific information and the implementation 

of the catch limit mandate. 

(1) Scientific resources can be increased or reprioritized to support more frequent and accurate stock assessments as well as more timely and accurate fishery monitoring data. 

(2) The peer review processes can be streamlined, using external expertise to 

solve scientific problems possibly by applying alternative approaches. 

(3) NOAA’s scientific capacity can be expanded and improved by partnering 

with universities and research institutes that have the human resources and infrastructure to help bear the burden of the new requirements of catch limits. 

(4) Each regional Scientific and Statistical Committee can be empowered to help 

serve the necessary peer review role and more importantly help solve some of 

the major scientific problems in stock assessments. 

The demands on fishery science can also be reduced in several ways. 

(1) Exemptions from annual catch limits should be considered for stocks and 

fisheries for which catch cannot be reliably monitored. 

60 

(2) The mixed-stock exemption from catch limits and accountability measures 

should be considered for bycatch and rebuilding stocks to avoid the wasteful and 

costly consequences of applying those approaches to mixed-stock fisheries. 

(3) More strategically, alternative management procedures, such as data-driven 

catch limits that are regularly reconsidered through management strategy evaluation, should be considered that take advantage of the best of fisheries science 

rather than emphasizing the worst of it (e.g., Butterworth and Punt 1999). 

In summary, I conclude that scientific information is insufficient to meet the 

needs of the catch limit system and catch shares policies in New England. Most 

stock assessments are too infrequent and too inaccurate to derive annual catch limits that avoid overfishing while allowing optimum yield. Major components of total 

catch, such as commercial fishery discards, recreational fishery catch, and location 

of fishing effort are imprecisely estimated and not monitored in a timely way to support in-season management and business decisions. Economic data and analyses are 

insufficient to evaluate risk-based catch limits. The scientific information required 

to support the fishery management system specified in the National Standard 

Guidelines and NOAA’s catch shares policy is much greater than the current scientific capacity. 

References 

Butterworth, DS and AE Punt. 1999. Experiences in the evaluation and implementation of management procedures. ICES Journal of Marine Science 56: 985–998. 

Kitts A, Bing-Sawyer E, McPherson M, Olson J, Walden J . 2011. Report for Fishing Year 2010 on the Performance of the Northeast Multispecies (Groundfish) Fishery (May 2010–April 2011). U.S. Dept Commer, Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref Doc. 

11–12; 44 p. 

Massachusetts Marine Fisheries Institute. 2010. A Report on Economic and Scientific Conditions in the Massachusetts Multispecies Groundfishery. A report submitted to the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and the Environment and 

the Department of Fish and Game. November 10 2010. 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center. 2009. An Evaluation of Scientific and Assessment Needs to Support the Development of Acceptable Biological Catches (ABCs) 

and Annual Catch Limits (ACLs) for Managed Fishery Resources in the Northeast 

Region. A White Paper to the NRCC prepared by ACL Working Group with review 

and consultation with the NEFMC/MAFMC/NERO/NEFSC ACL Working Group, 

October 2009. 

NOAA. 2009. Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Annual Catch Limits; National 

Standard Guidelines; Final Rule. Federal Register 74 (11): 3178–3213. 

NOAA. 2010. NOAA Catch Share Policy (available online at http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/catchshares). 

Sissenwine M and B Rothschild. 2011. Building Capacity of the NMFS Science 

Enterprise. Unpublished report to NMFS, January 2011. 

Touchstone Consulting Group. 2011. A Review of the New England Fishery Management Process. Report to NMFS April 2011 

Transboundary Resources Assessment Committee. 2011. Georges Bank Yellowtail 

Flounder. TRAC Status Report 2011/01. 

Wigley SE, Rago PJ, Sosebee KA, Palka DL. 2007. The Analytic Component to 

the Standardized Bycatch Reporting Methodology Omnibus Amendment: Sampling 

Design, and Estimation of Precision and Accuracy (2nd Edition). U.S. Dep. 

Commer., Northeast Fish. Sci. Cent. Ref. Doc. 07–09; 156 p. 

Senator KERRY. Thank you, Mr. Cadrin. 

Dr. Rothschild? 

STATEMENT OF BRIAN J. ROTHSCHILD, 

MONTOMERY CHARTER PROFESSOR OF MARINE 

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AND CO-CHAIR, 

MASSACHUSETTS MARINE FISHERIES INSTITUTE, 

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS DARTMOUTH 

Dr. ROTHSCHILD. Thank you very much. I’m going to abbreviate 

my testimony. I want to begin by saying that the management system in place has resulted in losses of landings, revenues and jobs, 

a controversial reallocation of wealth, and a failure to eliminate 

costly over and underfishing. To demonstrate this point, I have outVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:21 Feb 06, 2012 Jkt 072671 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\72671.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
61 

lined six metrics. I’m going to review three of them with you to 

save time. 

First of all, gross underfishing that has occurred under the Days 

at Sea system continues under the catch share system. Of the 70 

kilotons that could be caught each year, only 31 kilotons are actually caught owing to restrictive regulations. This underfishing costs 

industry and society nearly $132 million at the dock or $520 million by the time the fish leaves the economy. There might be as 

many as 1,000 jobs that could be created by terminating underfishing. 

My next point involves the quality of information, which was 

touched on earlier. Crucial overfishing indices are questionable. 

The average date of stock assessments is 2008. Many assessments 

are outdated. In other words, it is really unknown whether stocks 

that were at a high level in 2008 are at a low level in 2011 or vice 

versa. 

And my third point of the six is that large overfishing buffers are 

costly and inhibit job creation. Overfishing buffers are set to ensure 

that the actual catches are less than the overfishing level so that 

there is low probability of overfishing. This is a measure of management performance since if the catch level is scientifically certain, then the buffer would be zero. But, in fact, the level of scientific certainty is evidently so low that the difference between the 

overfishing level and the annual catch is about 67 kilotons. This 

foregone yield has a value of $220 million. Is it worth foregoing a 

catch value of $220 million on the catch valued at $97 million to 

prevent overfishing, which isn’t being prevented anyhow? 

In sum, we can see that these negative performance indicators 

cannot be consistent with the intent of Congress, that the cost of 

underfishing and buffers to prevent overfishing are far more important economically than the traditionally used indices such as revenues. The lessons learned is that it is not sustainable to implement 

fishery management plans in a rush, careless, ad hoc, piecemeal 

fashion. 

We need, consistent with the Touchstone-Pate report, a master 

plan that provides time-phased specifics on improved communications, revised data collections, conduct of cooperative research, and 

achieving optimum yield. Anything less than a master plan will 

lead to addressing the wrong questions. 

So let’s, in conclusion, bring this all together. It appears that the 

prosecution of fisheries management is inefficient, is operating at 

a significant cost to the Nation in terms of jobs, food security, and 

welfare. There have been suggestions of ways to get the system 

back on track, but these suggestions have never seen the light of 

day. 

I conclude that the agency, when it does respond, reiterates problems rather than providing solutions. It does not provide a timephased response with a date of completion and a concrete deliverable such as a sorely needed master plan. It is for this reason that 

Congress has to strengthen its oversight by establishing an ad hoc 

commission or task force that can work on a northeast master plan, 

outline the actions that need to be undertaken, establish priorities, 

and review the deliverables. 

62 

It is crucial that this commission is populated with stakeholders, 

particularly the fishing industry. While we all recognize that the 

agency would be opposed to such a commission, we have to ask 

what the agency proposes as an alternative. After all, there is 

much at stake. We are squandering time, resources, and opportunity at a time of national economic stress. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Rothschild follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRIAN J. ROTHSCHILD, MONTGOMERY CHARTER PROFESSOR

OF MARINE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AND CO-CHAIR, MASSACHUSETTS MARINE

FISHERIES INSTITUTE, UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS DARTMOUTH

The catch-share system has been in place for 17 months. NOAA promised that 

the catch-share system would: ‘‘(1) . . . end the race to fish; (2) rebuild fisheries and 

sustain fishermen, communities, and vibrant working waterfronts; (3) increase conservation of species; (4) reduce the management costs; and (5) produce more and 

better data.’’ 

None of these promises have been fulfilled. In fact, the system has resulted in 

losses of landings, revenue, and jobs; a controversial reallocation of wealth; and a 

failure to eliminate chronic costly overfishing or underfishing. 

The problems associated with the catch-share system have been reviewed many 

times. This hearing provides an opportunity to review the problems and fashion a 

better way forward. In my testimony this morning, I would like to consider what 

it takes to move ahead. First, I look at past performance and show that disregard 

of the intent of Congress is associated with limiting fisheries-management performance. Second, I discuss solutions which relate to both substance and implementation. 

It is axiomatic that fishery management must follow the intent of Congress as 

spelled out in the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) and supported by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other legislation. If the fisheries do not follow 

the intent of Congress, then one would expect poor performance metrics. If we were 

from Mars and visited Earth and observed the fishery management system in New 

England, we would have to conclude that Congress intended to 

(1) create a management system in the northeast that wastes 100,000 tons of 

fish per year worth hundreds of millions of dollars, while failing to create hundreds of jobs; 

(2) disregard the economic and social impact of fisheries management; 

(3) unfairly allocate fish to some sectors to the disadvantage of other sectors; 

and 

(4) ignore valid scientific findings, and suppress discussion regarding the magnitude of fish stocks. 

Of course, Congress never intended to generate a fisheries management system 

that wastes huge quantities of fish, disregards fishing communities, is inherently 

unfair, and ignores science. 

If in fact the intent of Congress were followed, we would have a considerable improvement in performance metrics for fisheries management. The fact that management performance needs to be improved is reflected in management-performance 

statistics. These include: (1) magnitude of overfishing and underfishing, (2) quality 

of information necessary for overfishing determination, (3) costs of the overfishing 

buffer, (4) landings and revenues, and (5) vessels and jobs. 

For example, a large number of stocks are subject to overfishing or are overfished. 

In addition, there is gross underfishing. Of the 70KT that could be caught each 

year, only 31KT are actually caught owing to restrictive regulations. This shortfall 

costs industry and society nearly $100M at the dock, or $400M by the time the fish 

leaves the economy. There might be as many as 1000 jobs that could be created by 

terminating underfishing. 

The quality of information on crucial overfishing indices is questionable inasmuch 

as the average date of stock assessments is 2008. In other words, stocks at a high 

level in 2008 could be at a low level now, or vice versa. 

Additional costs are induced by an overfishing buffer. The idea of an overfishing 

buffer is to set the actual catch less than the overfishing level so that there is a 

low probability of overfishing. This is a measure of performance since if the catch 

level was scientifically certain, then the buffer would be zero. But in fact the level 

63 

of scientific certainty is so low that the difference between the overfishing level and 

the annual catch limit (ACL) is about 70KT, which has a value of about $105M. The 

uncertainty is twice the level of the catch and results in forgone yield worth of 

$105M. Is it worth paying $105M to prevent overfishing which isn’t being prevented 

anyhow? 

Important indicators of performance are landings and revenues. Groundfish landings have declined by 12MT under the catch-share system, while revenue has declined by $2M. However, the economic reports are inadequate because economic performance needs to be judged on the basis of revenues less costs. Cost data are not 

generally available and, so contrary to National Standard 8, even at this point in 

time, economic costs are not being monitored. 

The numbers of vessels and crew have been declining for years. The decline continues, and perhaps increases, under catch shares. The problem is that we cannot 

look at only the fishing or producing sector. Declining vessels and crew have a big 

impact on shore side businesses and welfare. 

In sum, we can say that the promises made by the agency have not been fulfilled; 

fisheries management is not consistent with the intent of Congress; and performance metrics are depressing. On top of this, trust has broken down. What can we 

do to move forward? There are substantive issues and implementation issues that 

need to be taken into account. 

A major problem with the implementation of the catch-share system is that its 

implementation was in many ways rushed and careless. A striking example is that 

any elementary economics course would tell us that the catch-share system, if left 

on its own, would result in hyper consolidation. Now, 17 months later, the council 

is dealing with caps to prevent hyper consolidation. 

The lesson learned is that we cannot afford to move into the future in an ad hoc 

piecemeal fashion. We need a master plan to improve communications, revise data 

collection, conduct cooperative research, and achieve optimum yield. Anything less 

than a master plan will lead to addressing the wrong questions. These observations 

are consistent with the Touchstone-Pate Report (TPR). 

There are critical issues that need to be addressed in the master plan. These relate to the measures of performance outlined above. How can we use the shortfalls 

in scientifically permissible landings to create jobs and economically improve our 

fishery output? Examples of critical issues include: 

(1) Reevaluate Closed Areas—Thirty percent (30 percent) of Georges Bank is 

closed to fishing. The benefits of these closures are not clear. Enormous costs 

are involved in keeping the areas closed. An analysis of the efficacy of the closed 

areas along with alternatives is needed. 

(2) Data—The entire data information system needs to be upgraded as specified 

in the TPR. An analysis of the data information system, along with costs and 

timing, is necessary. 

(3) The Bycatch Problem and Mixed Species Problems—Bycatch issues constrain almost all fisheries from taking optimum yield. The yellowtail flounderscallop interaction is a critical example. 

(4) Reevaluate Scallop Management—Scallops are our most important fishery. 

Yet, concerns are voiced regarding whether optimal yield is being taken and 

whether the closed area’s stocks are being effectively managed. 

(5) 2010 Year Class of Haddock—There is a rumor that the 2010 year class of 

haddock is very large. A plan needs to be tabled for efficient utilization of the 

2010 year class, particularly taking into account the fact that poor utilization 

of the 2003 year class resulted in losses of hundreds of millions of dollars. 

(6) Stock Assessments—The stock assessment settings have become much more 

complicated owing to ACLs. In addition, councils have a difficult task in evaluating recommendations because they do not have a fully transparent analysis 

that demonstrates all of the assumptions, assertions, and choices made. This 

crucial topic needs extensive review for incorporation into the master plan. 

(7) Flexibility—Many regulations are unnecessarily rigid. An analysis needs to 

be undertaken to evaluate areas where flexibility can be helpful. 

(8) Ocean Environment—It is becoming clear that environmental variables are 

critical to increasing and decreasing stocks. A white paper needs to be developed to incorporate a national program on the relation of the ocean environment 

to stock dynamics into the master plan. 

It is not enough to just produce a master plan. Management and communication 

skills are required to implement it. There are clearly shortfalls in management and 

communication skills. In fact, these were identified in the TPR. We basically agree 

64 

with the TPR. However, two additional observations are necessary. First, TPR deals 

with interactions among the council, the center, and the regional office. It is striking 

that the industry is not explicitly included in this mix. Second, the response to the 

TPR, as reported to the council, did not fully cover the TPR’s recommendations, particularly omitting a time-phased action plan. 

One of the big difficulties in working with NOAA is its lack of responsiveness. Not 

only is NOAA not responsive to the people with whom it must work, it is also not 

responsive to Congress. 

For example, Congressman Frank met with Administrator Lubchenco and others 

in early October 2009 to discuss critical issues facing the fishing industry. Some 

have been overtaken by events, but others have not really been dealt with. Congressman Frank, in communicating with NOAA, stated that, ‘‘. . . despite the importance of NOAA’s fisheries mission, it seems fraught with a lack of responsiveness 

and a management process that is slow to react.’’ Two years later, outstanding requests for crucial information on the closed areas, 10 year rebuilding schedules, and 

economic data have gone unanswered. In his letter, Congressman Frank said, ‘‘. . . 

the biggest fear I have is the real threat of significant consolidation.’’ Only now, 17 

months after the initiation of the process, fishery managers are beginning to worry 

about consolidation caps. 

So now let us bring this together. It appears that fisheries management is being 

prosecuted at a great cost to the Nation in terms of jobs, food security, and welfare. 

There have been many suggestions of ways to get the system back on track. But 

these suggestions have never seen the light of day. We conclude that the agency, 

when it does respond, reiterates the problems rather than provides solutions; it does 

not provide a time-phased response with a date of completion and a concrete deliverable such as a report or master plan. It is for this reason that Congress has to 

strengthen its oversight by establishing an ad hoc commission or other entity that 

can work on a Northeast master plan, outline the actions that need to be undertaken, establish priorities, and review the deliverables. It is crucial that this entity 

is populated with stakeholders, particularly the fishing industry. While we all recognize that the agency would be opposed to such a commission, we have to ask what 

the agency proposes as an alternative. After all, there is much at stake and we are 

squandering time, our resources, and opportunity at a time of National economic 

stress! 

SUPPORTING MATERIAL

TRENDS IN THE NEW ENGLAND’S FISHERIES

by Brian J. Rothschild and Emily F. Kelley 

I. Stock Status 

According to the 2010 Report, ‘‘The Status of U.S. Fisheries Report to Congress,’’ 

ten stocks in the New England region are subject to overfishing, and sixteen stocks 

are overfished (see Table 1). These status determinations are based on the most recent assessment of each stock, or stock complex. It should be noted that for the 

stocks managed under the New England Fishery Management Council (independently or jointly with the Mid-Atlantic) the average year of the most recent assessment is 2008 (utilizing data through 2007). The most recent assessment occurred 

in 2010 utilizing data through 2009 and the oldest assessment in use is from 2003 

(which utilized data from 2002). 

65 

Table 1. Overfished Stocks and Stocks Subject to Overfishing 

Council FMP Stock 

Overfishing 

condition 

Overfished Condition 

Overfished Approaching 

Atlantic salmon Atlantic salmon * x 

cod—Georges Bank x x 

cod—Gulf of Maine x 

Atlantic halibut x 

Atlantic wolffish x 

ocean pout x 

white hake x x 

New windowpane—GOM/GB x x 

England Northeast Multispecies windowpane—SNE/MA x 

winter flounder—GB x x 

winter flounder—SNE/MA x x 

witch flounder x x 

yellowtail flounder—Cape Cod/GOM x x 

yellowtail flounder—Georges Bank x 

yellowtail flounder—SNE/MA x x 

thorny skate—Gulf of Maine x 

Northeast Skate smooth skate—Gulf of Maine x 

Mid-Atlantic Atlantic Mackerel, 

Squid, and Butterfish 

butterfish x 

* No fishing is allowed in this fishery or incidental harvest is limited to levels necessary to meet Endangered Species Act (ESA) re- quirements. A Final Recovery Plan for the Gulf of Maine District Population Segment of Atlantic Salmon has been developed under the ESA. 

Table 1 (above) depicts fish stocks in the Northeast Region that are subject to 

overfishing, are overfished, or are approaching an overfished condition. This table 

was obtained from the 2010 report; The Status of U.S. Fisheries Report to Congress. 

II. Catch Limits—‘‘A Costly Insurance Policy’’ 

In the United States requirements stipulated in the 2006 reauthorization of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSRA) have made 

the development of annual catch limits a priority. The MSRA strengthened the objectives of National Standard 1, specifically the obligation to prevent overfishing, 

and rebuild overfished stocks. Regional Councils are now required to establish a 

mechanism for determining annual catch limits (ACLs) and accountability measures 

(AMs) for all federally managed fisheries (DOC, pp. 68). Table 2 depicts the catch 

limits associated with the stocks managed under the Northeast Multispecies Fishery 

Management Plan. 

The Overfishing Limit (OFL) is the level of catch that corresponds to Maximum 

Sustainable Yield (MSY), from this reference point the Council is required to set an 

Acceptable Biological Catch Limit (ABC) and Annual Catch Limit (ACL). Between 

each of these levels are buffers to account for scientific and management uncertainty—an ‘‘insurance policy’’ against overfishing. In New England, for most stocks, 

the buffers were not based on any analysis of uncertainty or risk. 

The cost of precaution is significant. The annual catch limit, for groundfish, is 51 

percent of the overfishing limit. The difference, based on the average price of 

groundfish in 2010, is worth approximately 220 million dollars. The actual realized 

catch is even less (about one third of the OFL). 

66 

Table 2. Catch Limits 

Stock OFL (MT) U.S. ABC (MT) Total ACL 

(MT) 

Groundfish Sub-ACL 

(MT) 

2010 Groundfish 

Catch (MT) 

GB Cod 6,272 3,800 3,620 3,430 2,829.7 

GOM Cod 11,089 8,530 8,088 4,567 3,843.1 

GB Haddock 80,007 44,903 42,768 40,440 8,340.2 

GOM Haddock 1,617 1,265 1,197 825 377.7 

GB Yellowtail 5,148 1,200 1,169 999 757.6 

SNE/MA Yellowtail 1,553 493 468 332 171.9 

CC/GOM Yellowtail 1,124 863 822 779 596.7 

Plaice 4,110 3,156 3,006 2,848 1,536.4 

Witch 1,239 944 899 852 725.3 

GB Winter 2,660 2,052 1,955 1,852 1,391.2 

GOM Winter 441 238 230 158 106.1 

SNE/MA Winter 1,568 644 605 520 

Redish 9,899 7,586 7,228 6,846 2,151.2 

White Hake 4,130 2,832 2,697 2,556 2,259.8 

Pollock 5,085 3,293 3,148 2,748 5,601.1 

N. Windowpane 225 169 161 110 

S. Windowpane 317 237 225 154 

Ocean Pout 361 271 253 239 

Halibut 119 71 69 30 

Wolffish 92 83 77 73 

Total 137,056 82,630 78,685 70,358 30,688 

% of OFL 100 60 57 51 37 

Value (USD,$) 435,105,731 262,321,873 249,797,852 223,362,487 97,423,861 

Loss: OFL—X (USD,$) 0 172,783,859 185,307,879 211,743,244 337,681,870 

Table 2 (above) depicts that Overfishing Limit (OFL), U.S. Acceptable Biological 

Catch (ABC), total Annual Catch Limit (ACL), the groundfish sub-component of the 

ACL, and the known groundfish catch. All weights are in units of metric tons (denoted by MT). Blanks in the under groundfish catch are stocks for which catch data 

is not yet publicly available. The value of each category was calculated utilizing the 

average price of groundfish in 2010 ($1.44). Loss is calculated as the difference between the OFL. 

III. Landings and Revenue (Outputs) 

Tables 3 and 4 depict the groundfish landings and revenue from 2007 to 2010. 

Table 3. Groundfish Landings 2007–2010 

Year Groundfish Landings (MT) 

2007 64,003,776 

2008 72,162,445 

2009 70,568,091 

2010 58,492,204 

67 

Table 4. Groundfish Revenue 2007–2010 

Year Groundfish Gross Revenue 

2007 $89,055,085 

2008 $90,131,938 

2009 $85,088,241 

2010 $83,293,667 

Prices increased significantly for all species, including groundfish. The following 

excerpt is from the 2010 Sector Year-end report. ‘‘Nominal yearly average prices of 

combined groundfish species declined from $1.43/lb in 2007 to $1.23/lb in 2009 (Figure 8). In 2010, the combined groundfish average price increased to $1.44/lb. The 

yearly average price for combined non-groundfish species also increased in 2010 to 

$1.20/lb from $1.11/lb in 2007 and $1.00/lb in 2009’’ (NMFS, 2011). 

IV. Industry Indicators 


103ROTH1.eps
68 

Senator KERRY. Well, thank you all very much. I know you felt 

a little squeezed there, but I think we’re going to have a productive 

time in the Q&A so we can get out a few things here. 

Let me kind of go to the core of something here if I can. You 

know, having been struggling with this Magnuson Act since the 

1980s when I arrived there in 1985, we rewrote it in 19—it was 

originally written in 1976. We rewrote it again in a major way in 

1994, passed in 1996. But it’s pretty democratic, folks. It’s one of 

the most democratic regulatory regimes we have in America. 

We created not just protecting the U.S. economic zone, three 

miles and then 200 miles offshore, but, quote—I’m quoting from 

the Act—‘‘we created eight regional fisheries councils to manage 

the living marine resources within that area.’’ And on that marine 

council, there’s the National Marine Fisheries Service designator; 

there’s the principal state official with marine fishery management 

responsibility for Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode 

Island, and Connecticut; and then there are 12 members nominated by the Governors of the New England coastal states with 3- 

year terms; and then there are four non-voting members, stakeholders, the Coast Guard, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife, the U.S. Department of State, and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 

Now, Amendment 16 came from them. The Council manages 

itself, supposedly, and manages the fiscal—you know, the region. 

So I want to ask all of you what’s happening here? I mean, why— 

is it the appointees? Are there too many diverse interests? It seems 

pretty—you know, I mean, I think Congressman Keating asked 

about having a task force to do this. I mean, that is a task force. 

It’s a statutory task force. It’s a management effort. 

So what’s wrong here? Why can’t this democratic, local input, 

managed effort work? And if it can’t work, what will work? 

Mr. Cunningham, you’re in the—— 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. In the hot seat at the moment? 

Senator KERRY.—first seat on that. Well, you’re the beginning 

part of it. But I think everybody’s got to weigh in. 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Thank you, Senator. First of all, I guess—and 

I have stated this. I’m—— 

Senator KERRY. Would you agree it’s meant to be a pretty democratic process? 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It is an extremely democratic process. To some 

extent, it’s one of the reasons it takes us a long time to get things 

done, because of the way the process has to work. As far as Amendment—— 

Senator KERRY. Is it fair to say that sometimes the competing interests actually prevented things from getting done? 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, it—— 

Senator KERRY. Or slowed it down sufficiently that—— 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM —it may have slowed it down. But it’s also the 

process and the things that we have to deal with through NEPA, 

with the APA, with Magnuson, with the Marine Mammals Protection Act. There must be six or seven or eight statutes that we are 

required to adhere to. So, I mean, that whole process is fairly slow. 

Senator KERRY. Well, how do we make it work is the question 

everybody’s asking. 

69 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Well, from my standpoint—— 

Senator KERRY. Do we have to change some of those? Do some 

of those eight guideline laws need to be changed? Does there need 

to be a more streamlined time-frame for decisionmaking? I mean, 

what are the inputs that could improve this? 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Well, I think a more streamlined time frame 

would be good. I think most of that probably comes down on issues, 

taking a serious look at NEPA. 

Senator KERRY. At NEPA. 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. 

Senator KERRY. Anybody else want to weigh in? I know, Captain, 

you’d probably like to weigh in on that. Let me let our practitioner 

speak up. 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you. In my opinion, you know, it took 10 

months—from the time Amendment 16 was voted in, we had 10 

months to get it up and running. It was not enough time to handle 

the issues that are very important to the fishermen, like allocation. 

Around the world, where you go to a quota system, the battle lasts 

three to 5 years. 

We didn’t have the—you know, Amendment 17 after Amendment 

16 was supposed to discuss allocation. It has not been done. It was 

just discussing permit banks. And the allocation issue is not on the 

table. 

Senator KERRY. And is—I mean, is Washington to blame for 

that? 

Mr. WELCH. You want to know what I—I feel that there are 

undue influences that affected the Council, outside sources that 

really controlled—got some control. And it was a person from one 

of these groups that got up and spoke to the fact that they can influence the Council. And that’s—— 

Senator KERRY. So, in effect, what we’ve really got to do is we’ve 

got to look at the functionality of the Council itself. Is that true? 

Mr. WELCH. Yes. 

Senator KERRY. In your judgment. 

Mr. WELCH. And that’s why I like the idea of an independent—— 

Senator KERRY. Mr. Diodati? 

Mr. DIODATI. Thank you. I agree that it is a very highly democratic regulation. I think it’s also very sophisticated and inelegant. 

And we have gone around many times over the years in trying to 

demonstrate intent of the law, and there’s always various opinions 

about what the intent is. But I think it really depends on how the 

legislation is applied. 

I think that the Secretary of Commerce and NOAA Fisheries has 

a tremendous amount of latitude in taking the plans that are developed by the Council, but they approve—they implement them. 

There’s another opportunity there to perfect what perhaps the 

Council didn’t get right the first time around because it’s not possible to do that in one or two boardrooms. It’s not possible to decide 

a very difficult allocation procedure with stakeholders. 

But I think they have an opportunity to come back in. They do 

do the Federal Register Notice. But, you know, very often, I don’t 

see them taking advantage of making—— 

Senator KERRY. So unlike Rick Perry, you think you ought to 

look to Washington to solve the problem. 

70 

Mr. DIODATI. I don’t—I’m not suggesting Washington, but NOAA 

Fisheries and through the Secretary of Commerce. 

Senator KERRY. NOAA Fisheries. Well, that’s Washington, folks. 

Mr. DIODATI. Well—— 

Senator KERRY. Gentlemen, just quickly, do you want to 

wrap—— 

Dr. ROTHSCHILD. Senator, thank you. I think there’s a multiplicity of problems. And so I would pick one and point out that I 

don’t believe that the intent of Congress, as written literally in the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, is being dealt with. And, in particular, 

when you read the 10 National Standards, it tells you to do a 

whole variety of things, but there’s a focus on only one of them, 

which is overfishing. 

And one of the reasons that we’re having so many problems is 

because we ignore, for example, National Standard 8, which is the 

economic and social fabric of the industry. How are we going to 

monitor the performance of fishery management if we don’t take 

into account the social and economic aspects? I could go on and on, 

but I’ll leave it at that. 

Senator KERRY. Well, I understand that, and we’ve wrestled with 

that for a long time. Look, I—we’re kind of going around in a circle, 

which is what bothers me about this entire thing. We don’t have 

adequate science. We can’t do this on a two and three-year basis. 

Senator Begich brought that up. 

But it takes resources to do it otherwise, and not a lot of people 

are adding resources. We’re working these days. So this is a real 

struggle between common sense and day-to-day reality of peoples’ 

lives. You know, if you want to take the socioeconomic—I mean, 

the fact is we almost lost—as many of you know, we almost lost 

the striper 20 years ago. We had a 10-year ban on any fishing at 

all for stripers, correct? And it came back and came back way beyond peoples’ expectations. 

Now, you know, everybody understands the challenge of the overfishing. A lot of it’s from these big fleets that come from elsewhere, 

not here. You know, it used to be they came up the coast from 

North Carolina and places—massive numbers of very large boats 

and so forth. And so if you’re going to have an industry, you have 

to preserve the stocks, correct? 

Dr. ROTHSCHILD. May I respond? 

Senator KERRY. Please. 

Dr. ROTHSCHILD. I’d like to respond, Senator. It’s pretty clear 

that a very high priority is the annual assessment of stocks. So 

what we have to do is not say that we don’t have the resources. 

What we have to do is examine the program and see whether we’re 

applying our resources to the highest priority, which is annual assessment of stock. And it’s not clear that that has been undertaken, 

and so that would be the next step. 

Senator KERRY. Oh, I agree. I agree with that, and I think Senator Begich and I are going to—— 

Dr. ROTHSCHILD. That’s why I wanted to—— 

Senator KERRY.—and Senator Brown—we will do everything in 

our power to move to that as fast as we conceivably can, because 

I think that could be a key that helps to unlock a number of things 

here. 

71 

Let me just take a moment to welcome—we’ve got—I should 

have done this earlier. But our Gloucester mayor, Carolyn Kirk, is 

here. Scott Lang, New Bedford mayor, is here. The former mayor 

is also here—John Bullard, and Angela Sanfilippo of the Fishermen’s Wives sitting over here, Roger Berkowitz of Legal Seafood, 

who hosted our last meeting here. We welcome all of you. And I’m 

sure there are other stakeholders here, but I did notice them when 

they came in afterwards. I want to welcome all of them and, obviously, hope they will attend this next meeting we’re going to have 

also. 

Senator Brown? 

Senator BROWN. Thank you, Senator. You know, since I’ve been 

working on this for a year and a half, we’ve had many meetings. 

I’ve hired somebody from the Council. We’ve gone around and been 

on the boats, met with the fishermen. And, you know, Senator 

Keating and—I’m sorry—Congressman Keating and Congressman 

Frank, you know, hit it right on the head. There’s a complete lack 

of trust. There’s a lack of answering—can’t even answer a simple 

question. 

And, Doctor, you’re one of the foremost experts in this area, and 

you’ve already provided science, new science, to these agencies, and 

they’ve rejected it outright. Isn’t that right? 

Dr. ROTHSCHILD. Well, it’s pretty complicated—something like 

that. 

Senator BROWN. Well—— 

Dr. ROTHSCHILD. I want to be consistent with not providing a direct answer. 

Senator BROWN. Well, based on the things that we’ve spoken 

about, I know that when we—in November, you and Mr. Cadrin 

and others provided Governor Patrick some information and Secretary Locke—evidence supporting increases in catch limits as well 

as fishery disaster declaration. The report showed approximately 

$19 million of fish not being caught as well as $21 million of direct 

economic losses. And you provided that to Secretary Locke and he 

rejected it, correct? 

Dr. ROTHSCHILD. That’s correct. 

Senator BROWN. And, in addition, I have found, just in my dealings with this agency, that, you know, Dr. Lubchenco—you know, 

her lack of attention to the questions, the failure to be honest and 

forthright with us has led to the devastation in the fishing industry 

in this state and making it harder, quite frankly, for fishermen like 

you to do your jobs. And when you hear kind of like all of the political kind of boogie-woogie up here, where they say one thing and 

do the complete other—the complete opposite—they say, ‘‘Well, we 

need to make—the regulations are better. There’s a light at the end 

of the tunnel.’’ 

Listen, the only thing that’s coming at the end of the tunnel is 

a train that’s shutting—that’s going to shut down the industry, because I’ve seen absolutely—has it gotten better? Yes, a little better. 

But the overregulation and the continuous uncertainty and interference, the enforcement, is still there. They’ve hired more enforcement folks, yet we have fewer boats. I don’t know how we—how do 

you justify that? 

72 

But my—saying that, one of my main questions is also with 

the—Mr. Welch—the increased regulations and the regulatory burden. You indicated that if, in fact, certain things happen, you are 

not going to—you’re going to be an armchair fisherman. 

Could you just describe to the Committee, given the law enforcement abuses over the last 10 years—is there significant concern by 

you and others that you know about this increased compliance burden? And, if so, what do you want us to try to do to help you? 

Mr. WELCH. There’s a lot more regulatory paperwork and rules 

to follow under catch shares. As far as compliance and enforcement, the problem, I believe, was not with the agents on the dock. 

I’ve never really had a problem with them. I’m a victim of the enforcement. I got shooken down by the lawyers at NOAA. They 

knew I wasn’t going to hire a lawyer, and they—I’ve had a really 

bad experience with them. 

And the blame shouldn’t go to the enforcement agents. It should 

go to the lawyers that shook people down, the lawyers that are still 

working for them. Dale Jones, who shredded 70 percent of his documents, is still working for the government. That’s insulting to the 

public. But—now I forget the question, but—— 

Senator BROWN. How is the regulatory burden affecting you and 

others in the fleet? 

Mr. WELCH. The regulatory burden is just eliminating the small 

boat fleet. The game with catch shares is you have to have a lot 

of quota to make any amount of money, and a majority of the fleet 

does not have a lot of quota. 

Senator BROWN. And, Dr. Rothschild, you know, I’ve been fascinated, you know, meeting you and understanding everything that 

you’ve been working on since you’ve been involved in this issue, not 

only your efforts with the scallops, but obviously providing the 

science and the information to NOAA and other agencies so they 

can make a better decision. 

In your opinion, is NOAA making fisheries policy based on 

science or something else? 

Dr. ROTHSCHILD. I think the answer to that question is that the 

regulations are based on science. But it’s not generally recognized 

how fuzzy the science is, so that there is a high degree of latitude 

in interpreting the science. 

Senator BROWN. So, I mean, I know that—since we’ve spoken, 

what’s the relationship that you’ve observed between Dr. 

Lubchenco’s office, any of the folks working for NOAA—what is— 

has it been cordial, has it been constructive, has it been antagonistic? Could you please describe to us your personal observations? 

Dr. ROTHSCHILD. Well, I would just reiterate comments that 

many people have made, that the people in the street have a great 

distrust and a feeling for a lack of transparency. And that’s one of 

the reasons why the Preston Pate report was so important, because 

it focused on that. I read the presentations that were made to the 

Council, in terms of the agency’s response to the Pate report, and 

I would have hoped that there would be one response rather than 

three separate ones, and that the response would have focused 

with a time-phased action plan on each one of the recommendations in the Pate report. 

73 

And I would also add that in addition to the kinds of things that 

are discussed in the Pate report, there are scientific issues which 

were raised in the Governor’s report which could stand a joint reexamination. And, of course, the law enforcement—so there’s a threepronged issue. It’s the law enforcement, which I really don’t have 

to go into—that’s beaten to death; the science problem, which is 

very big; and the everyday management communication issues. 

And so there’s really a lot to be done, and I am concerned that 

the agency itself can’t do this by itself. It’s not because anyone in 

the agency is bad or incompetent. It’s just a huge task from within 

a bureaucracy to change the bureaucracy. And that’s why I think 

that this task force or commission or an external group could work 

together with NOAA and end up with a result that we all desire, 

because if we don’t do that, we’ll be trapped in an endless morass 

of the bureaucratic operation. 

Senator BROWN. Well, in closing, Mr. Welch and also Dr. Rothschild, it sounds like NOAA is well aware of how destructive, obviously, their policies have been. And we’ve talked—as you said, we 

beat them to death about the fining and also the lack of trust issue. 

Do you think it’s time, Mr. Welch and Doctor, to turn the fisheries 

duties over to another agency, potentially, Fisheries and Wildlife or 

some other agency? 

Dr. ROTHSCHILD. Well, I’ll turn it over to Mr. Welch, but there 

has always been talk of putting NOAA into Interior, and that has 

been common discussion in Washington for years. And so if—— 

Senator BROWN. Is it time now? Is it time? I mean, it seems 

like—— 

Dr. ROTHSCHILD. Well, if they—— 

Senator BROWN. Well, how much time are we going to use reestablishing that trust? 

Dr. ROTHSCHILD. Well, that’s up—it seems to me that there’s a 

good answer to that, which is it sort of depends on the response 

to this hearing, because there are things that could be done, and 

we have to learn what they are. 

Senator BROWN. Well, if it’s anything like the response to the 

last hearing—we’re still waiting 5 months later for documentation, 

sir. 

Dr. ROTHSCHILD. That’s right. Right. 

Mr. WELCH. Yes, I think that’s an excellent idea. You would gain 

the trust of the fishermen again. I mean, you know how hard it is 

for you to get an answer. Imagine when I went up there. It’s tough. 

Senator BROWN. Well, thank you very much. 

Senator KERRY. Go ahead, Mr. Diodati. 

Mr. DIODATI. I just want to say to the point, Senator, that there 

are many examples of excellent working relationships between 

members of our organization and the National Marine Fisheries 

Service. Our scientists do work very closely together on stock assessments and research projects and other things. But what happens when you come to a meeting like this today, and Dr. 

Lubchenco suggests that it’s the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ 

responsibility to demonstrate the impacts that this Federal program has had on our fisheries—I think that if Microsoft was telling 

their stakeholders, ‘‘Let us know what’s wrong with our products 

74 

and tell us how to fix it,’’ they wouldn’t be as successful as they 

are today. 

Senator KERRY. Senator Begich? 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much. 

Actually, Microsoft does do that. It’s called product improvement. 

That’s what they do. They get input from their customers. That’s 

why they produce such an incredible product and control so much 

of the market. 

But let me go on to the broader issue. First, to the two professors, in your analysis here, did you do extensive analysis of the 

Alaska experience? Because I will tell you, we—well, let me have 

your response first. Either one. 

Dr. CADRIN. I’ll draw on my experiences from the New England 

Scientific and Statistical Committee as well as interactions with all 

regional scientific and statistical committees, including the Alaskan 

one. The current National Standard guidelines were largely tailored to emulate what’s happening in Alaska with the North Pacific 

Council, in which the Scientific and Statistical Committee is the 

peer review process for the annual stock assessments. They are integrated into that process much more so than in New England. 

There are many aspects to Alaska’s—there are some that would 

carry over well here, in which there are annual catch limits that 

are set as defaults. They are modified by scientific information as 

it comes forward, and so what you have is a much more responsive 

system than we have. We’re in the process in this region of retooling to come up with more frequent operational assessments, but 

that’s slow coming. And until those are producing regular science, 

it’s really the fishermen that are paying the price in the form of 

lower catch limits. 

Dr. ROTHSCHILD. I have some experience in Alaska. I worked on 

king crab and salmon in Bristol Bay, and I was also at the University of Washington for a number of years. And the difference between the Alaska experience and the experience here on the East 

Coast is like day and night. There’s a greatly increased trust. People work together in the North Pacific. It’s really a system that 

works well, even though there are problems with the crab rationalization and things like that. 

Senator BEGICH. But I would argue that that was not always the 

case. 

Dr. ROTHSCHILD. That’s true. That’s right. 

Senator BEGICH. I can tell you story after story where, you know, 

we hated Seattle. 

Dr. ROTHSCHILD. That’s right. 

Senator BEGICH. We hated the Japanese that would steal our 

fish. 

Dr. ROTHSCHILD. I was in Seattle then and I felt the heat. Right. 

Senator BEGICH. So I guess here’s my point, and that is—and I’m 

glad I’m here in one aspect to hear a lot of the concerns in New 

England. But also I think there is a model or elements of a model 

that Alaska has that has worked successfully. I mean, that’s why 

we now control over 50-plus percent of the market of this country, 

because sustainability—we’re having other challenges now, not 

overfishing in some cases—in most cases, actually. It is now because of climate change, like I said, a vacation of the waters. 

75 

I mean, Senator Kerry, I can go on a lot on these issues, but I 

won’t. But that’s our challenge. But I guess I want to caution 

here—and I guess, Mr. Cunningham, the North Pacific Fisheries 

Council that we operate under works well. It has some tough spots. 

There’s no question. I’ve been to those 3-day meetings—and the aspect of an issue that takes a year or two or, in some cases, 8 years 

to resolve, because fishermen have such, you know, issues with 

what might happen or the outcome or the fear of what might have 

happened. 

How much do you interact with other councils—and I’ll use our 

council—in finding out best practices in order to succeed? In other 

words, at the end of the day, you know, I’m a believer in the Council process. Now, there are rough spots. Our Council, for example, 

has set up with the halibut issue a stakeholders group that works 

with them. 

What do you do to improve your system? Because it’s clear, at 

least just in my limited time here already, there is—between 

NOAA there’s some distrust, but also between the process, because 

no one would be recommending a task force if you were doing your 

job 100 percent. So help me understand this. 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Well, first of all, to your question about do we 

interact with the other councils, in particular, the North Pacific 

Council, the answer is yes, we do. We have two meetings a year 

with them—essentially all of the councils—— 

Senator BEGICH. All the councils. 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM.—councils getting together. If there are issues 

that we need help on that are something that they’ve already done, 

we’ve gone to them. We had people come from that council for 

workshops before we instituted Amendment 16 and the whole— 

that process. So, yes, we interact on an ongoing basis. 

Senator BEGICH. Do you use stakeholder groups at times set up 

around certain species in order to get input and utilization of that 

in your decisions? 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. And, in fact, we had—it was over 60 

meetings with stakeholders in the process of putting Amendment 

16 together. 

Senator BEGICH. OK. One question that came up in our last 

panel—the rollover issue. You said you were going to move that 

into your agenda somewhere. 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That’s correct. 

Senator BEGICH. When? 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. We have a priority setting for all the actions 

that we will work on in 2012 coming up in November. 

Senator BEGICH. Will this be—when you say priority setting, that 

means you’re setting an agenda. So is this like a December meeting? Is it a quarterly meeting? When will you go after this issue? 

It seems like there’s some strong interest here, and it seems like 

the agency wants to do this. 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. If it comes as a priority, a set priority, we will 

start to work on it immediately after the November—— 

Senator BEGICH. Do you think it’s a high priority? 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, I do. 

Senator BEGICH. OK. 

76 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That’s why we already have the provision, 

but—— 

Senator BEGICH. But you’ve got to move forward with it is what 

I understand. 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, we already have it. It’s a part of the law. 

They get a 10 percent rollover, but we’re looking at the possibility 

of increasing it under certain species. 

Senator BEGICH. Right. 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Because as was indicated, somewhere around 

93 percent of all of the underages are concentrated in three stocks, 

and those are robust stocks. 

Senator BEGICH. And has the Commission taken a position on 

this before? It’s my understanding you have and you rejected it to 

increase the capacity. 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Increasing the rollover? 

Senator BEGICH. Yes. 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It has been discussed and did not move forward. 

Senator BEGICH. So if you put it on the list, and it just goes on 

the list—but, I guess, here’s my point. Let me be more direct here. 

It seems like there is agency support—which for NOAA to support 

something of this nature indicates they feel very confident of the 

science with certain parameters to increase it above 10 percent. 

That gives—should give you a great opportunity to make this happen rather than have it up on the agenda to discuss with no action 

that moves to a positive. Do you think you can move it to a positive? Do you feel confident you can move it to a positive outcome? 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I feel confident that we can move ahead with 

it somehow. I can’t determine 18 different votes on there, and I 

can’t sit here and say to you I can guarantee them. 

Senator BEGICH. But—— 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It is something that will be discussed for certain. 

Senator BEGICH. I’ll pause there. I just—I know the experience 

I’ve had with our Pacific—our council, and, you know, there are 

tough calls you have to make. And, you know, this issue seems so 

easy in a lot of ways—this 10 percent rollover issue, adding additional quota based on certain criteria—that it would be such a positive to the fishermen to help as you move forward to this larger— 

because I am a believer, just so Mr. Welch understands this—we 

have had success around these quotas, around catch shares—hard 

numbers too. 

We have had great success in our fisheries that was being devastated by overfishing. I can tell you the halibut—we had 5,000 

fishermen at one point. We’ve consolidated 2,500. They used to fish 

2 days for 24 hours. That’s it. Now they fish for 10 and a half 

months. We get premium dollar, and it is sold around the world. 

We have to deal with a third element, which is subsistence hunting. So we not only have recreational, we have commercial and subsistence. So we have a complicated process more so than most communities. So I’m a believer in this, so I would just encourage you 

to make some—on this one, it seems such an easy—— 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Could I make one just quick follow up comment? 

77 

Senator BEGICH. Sure. 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Looking at the projections for the second year 

of sector operations, there’s going to be a much smaller percentage 

of leftover tax. The projections look like they’re going to get a lot 

closer to them this year. Some of that has to do with the second 

year of this operation. People are getting used to a new system and 

understanding how to make it work better for them. 

Senator BEGICH. Very good. Thank you. 

Senator KERRY. Thank you. Thank you very much, Senator 

Begich, for an important question. 

Congressman Frank? 

Mr. FRANK. On the question of where this regulation ought to be, 

I am struck by this, and I have to say—and we have a serious 

problem here. Dr. Lubchenco obviously had to leave. But the contrast between her statement of almost self-congratulation and what 

we hear from everybody else is stark. I mean, the industry is hurting, and she’s—she cherry-picked the statistics. And I would have 

said this to her if she had still been here. 

You know, Senator Brown talked about changes. Most Federal 

agencies are somewhat advocates of the people in their name. The 

Veterans Administration, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the 

Small Business Administration, the Department of Agriculture— 

they’re pro-farmer. The Veterans Affairs Department is pro-veteran. The Labor Department, even in a Republican administration, 

would have a good relation with labor. In a Democratic administration, Commerce is supposed to have a good relation with business. 

This is—there are only two regulatory agencies I can think of 

that have a genuinely sort of hostile attitude toward the people 

under their control, the National Marine Fisheries Service and the 

Drug Enforcement Administration, because there’s almost the same 

degree of ‘‘you’re guilty’’ on the part of NMFS toward the fishermen 

as there is in the DEA toward the drug dealers. And it’s really very 

striking and it undermines—again, we’re a free society. You are not 

going to enforce everything. You need to have some cooperation. 

And I will say again we have asked—Congressman Tierney is 

taking a lead in this—that the Coast Guard administrative law 

judges not be the ones adjudicating Coast Guard prosecutions. And 

Commerce promised us they would change that and they haven’t, 

and we have to get back to them. I know you know we have a secretary who moved, but that has to be done. 

Let me now ask Mr. Welch—you suggested a strong question. 

You said one of the agencies got up at the Council and talked about 

the influence over council decisions. What agency? 

Mr. WELCH. Environmental Defense. 

Mr. FRANK. Well, I think that’s a very important point to make. 

Let me ask also—and, by the way, I think they have been wrong 

in the past about some of these issues, including, as I said, the 

scallop issue. Look, the key here is the amount of fish that can be 

caught. And it is overwhelmingly clear to me when we talk about 

every decision that is made—this is why I say that NMFS has the 

same relationship to fishermen as the DEA to drug dealers. 

Every decision is made with the interest of the fishermen almost 

considered to be adversarial. It’s to let’s make sure that there are 

enough fish, so that we get this point where, one, we acknowledge 

78 

that the science isn’t good. But with that, we take, as Mr. Keating 

brought out in his questioning, the most restrictive of the possible 

alternatives, even though it’s probably outdated. 

Second, since that consistently leads to quota not being used, we 

limit the amount of quota we can reuse. I don’t understand that. 

Mr. Cunningham, you said that you stopped with the 10 percent 

at the Council. You didn’t change it, and that next year you expect 

there to be less. Had there been—I’m sorry. I misstated you? 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I don’t expect it to be less than the 10 percent 

rollover. 

Mr. FRANK. No, you expect there to be less unused catch. 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Correct. 

Mr. FRANK. So, yes, I understand that. What that suggests to me 

is that the 10 percent was unnecessary originally. Let me ask you, 

if the 10 percent had been 20 percent last time, would that have 

had any deleterious effect on the fishery? Suppose instead of keeping it at 10 percent, the Council had voted to go to 20 or 25. Would 

that now have had any deleterious effect on the fishery? 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I don’t have the information to make that determination. 

Mr. FRANK. Well, I’m asking you to find out. My impression is 

the answer is obviously no, because if it were going to happen, you 

might have had a worse situation. And we have got to stop putting 

the—the reflex is, ‘‘Let’s say no.’’ The reflex is, ‘‘Let’s not have a 

catch.’’ And that especially indicates—because, look, I—and I am 

proud of my environmental record. We’re not talking about permanently fouling anything. We’re not talking about people dying from 

bad air or being poisoned by bad water. We’re talking about the 

rate at which fish reproduce themselves. 

And we plucked this arbitrary 10-year number out of the air and 

put it into the statute. No one will defend that 10-years as scientifically valid. They say it’s valid because it’s in the statute. We ask 

people like Dr. Lubchenco, ‘‘Will you help us change the statute?’’ 

The answer is no. 

But then with this—and, yes, I agree we—and, by the way, the 

fishermen agree—I don’t know a single fisherman who wants to be 

the last person to fish. I don’t know a single fisherman who doesn’t 

hope that fishing will go on for generations. So they want the fish 

to reproduce. But we take this arbitrary case of—not arbitrary, but 

inexact issue about reproduction, we freeze it at 10 years, and we 

freeze it here and we freeze it there. 

Let me ask all of you—if we were to—and I think this is critical. 

First of all, we say that the quota should not stay at 10 percent. 

Mr. Cunningham, I have to say I hope very much the Council 

will be willing to change that. A council which is going to stick 

with that rigid 10 percent figure, which no one justifies in scientific 

terms, will make me even more skeptical of the process. 

But, second, the 10-year in the Magnuson Act—we changed it in 

the Canadian boundary, and I see no evidence that that’s endangering the fishing up there, or even the Canadians who are not living with the 10-years. My final question—can anyone tell me what 

the scientific justification is for a rigid 10-year with very limited 

exemptions, and if not, would you support giving the same kind of 

79 

flexibility in the basic Magnuson Act that we have with regard to 

the Canadian border? And let me start with Mr. Welch. 

Mr. WELCH. I don’t know where it came from. The conspiracy 

theory in me is that it gives environmental groups the ability to 

continually attack the fishing industry and say we’re overfishing. 

From a harvester—and I really am concerned about the stocks— 

there is no reason we can’t make that 15 or 20 years, as long as 

we’re not going backward and we’re moving forward—— 

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Diodati? 

Mr. DIODATI. Yes, I agree. I agree with that. I think the time line 

is irrelevant and it’s really whether or not we’re sustaining or moving forward. 

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Cunningham? 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I concur. I’ve always said that the 10 years 

does not have any scientific basis. But neither does 15 or 20 years. 

So I think there needs to be some other mechanism for—— 

Mr. FRANK. No one is taking this away from them. See, we’ve 

got—I’d like to put you in the Department of Agriculture. That’s 

where you’d really belong. We should call that the Department of 

Food Production. Maybe we can get them to throw us a subsidy 

every so often. 

But what we would do—no one is talking about taking away the 

discretion of the department to say, ‘‘Wait a minute. There’s too 

much fishing. We’re going to run out of fish, and we’ve got to slow 

it down.’’ 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. And as far as matching the Canadian model, 

those changes were made to keep us on an interactive basis—— 

Mr. FRANK. With the Canadians. 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM.—with the Canadians, rather than have them 

walk away from—— 

Mr. FRANK. I understand that. But with the Canadians not following the 10-year, were they depleting the stock to the point of 

no—non-reproduction? 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. They don’t manage in the same way we do. 

Mr. FRANK. Were they depleting the stock to the point of non-reproduction? 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The stock numbers are down a little bit, 

but—— 

Mr. FRANK. You’re not going to answer it? Were they depleting 

the stock to the point where we were worried about non-replenishment? 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Were they? 

Mr. FRANK. The Canadians, the fishermen. Look, we—— 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I don’t—— 

Mr. FRANK. I’ll give you the answer. 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I don’t believe so. 

Mr. FRANK. It’s clearly no. The argument is we had to catch up 

with the Canadians, so we had to get to a situation where we didn’t 

have the 10-year thing. They didn’t have the 10-year limit, and no 

one has argued to me that because they didn’t have the 10 years, 

they were at the point where they were depleting the stock. 

Mr. Cadrin? 

Dr. CADRIN. I would agree with the rest of the panel that the 10- 

year rebuilding deadline is not only arbitrary, but it’s also auspiVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:21 Feb 06, 2012 Jkt 072671 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\72671.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
80 

cious if—as soon as the fishery management is completely determinant of fishery productivity, and we know that Mother Nature 

has a large role in this as well. 

Mr. FRANK. Dr. Rothschild? 

Dr. ROTHSCHILD. I agree with everyone, particularly Cadrin. 

Mr. FRANK. Well, that’s one of the—what I plan to do—and I 

hope we can get this—is to amend that 10-year thing. That’s the 

key. If we can amend the 10-year—and that’s more flexibility to 

NMFS—I think a large part of this can then be resolved. 

Thank you. 

Senator KERRY. Congressman Tierney? 

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you very much. You know, I don’t really 

think this is an argument about do we regulate or do we not regulate. 

And, Mr. Welch, I’m almost positive that you didn’t mean to infer 

that, that you really think the resource has to be regulated. It’s all 

in the nature of the regulation and the enforcement and the openness that goes around it. Am I right? 

And, Dr. Rothschild, the same thing with you on that. 

So I was impressed, Dr. Rothschild, with three issues. Enforcement—and we’ve certainly been beating that. Somebody said we’re 

beating a dead horse, really. If it was dead, we wouldn’t still be 

beating it. But we’re looking for the answers on that, and we’re 

going to continue to press—I think everybody on this panel is— 

about accountability and about making sure we change the culture 

to one that tries to get civil cooperation before you start hammering down on the criminality aspect of it and treating everybody 

as if they’re guilty before they’re found to be violating. 

The management and communication part of it—Dr. Rothschild, 

I agree with you totally. I happen to be, I guess, maybe the only 

one on here, but I think others may be inclined to think that way— 

that could change rapidly with a change in leadership, and I’ve argued for that for some time. There has to be an urgency to this 

issue, and there has to be a certain empathy. 

I’m struck when you say, Dr. Rothschild and Mr. Welch, that 

maybe you want to change this to the Interior Department. One 

would think that the Department of Commerce would have more 

interest in small businesses and more empathy for them than perhaps you might expect out of Interior. And so that leads me to that 

point that maybe it’s the leadership within NOAA or whatever that 

ought to be changed so that we get somebody in there who really 

does have empathy for it and understanding and wants to put some 

urgency into this and come down on the side of—err on the side 

of small businesses when there’s a reasonable flexibility there, reasonable room to move on that than otherwise. 

And last is the science and the assessments, and I think—you 

know, we’ve all talked about that, the need for resources. Senator 

Kerry is right on the button. You can’t be, you know, whacking 

money out of one end of the discretionary budget, and then say, 

‘‘Gee, I wish we had money for that.’’ 

So the other two things of that are technology and cost. The 

cost—Mr. Welch, you indicated that, you know, the industry is not 

ready to absorb the cost of monitoring, particularly Days-at-Sea or 

whatever. Is there a time period where you think the monitoring 

81 

would rightfully shift over to the industry? Is that a factor of time, 

or is there some other factor involved there? Mr. Welch? 

Mr. WELCH. Based on the allocations that small boats are given, 

we’re very frugal. We’ve always operated—we do our own maintenance, gear work. Everything we do ourselves. We cannot afford 

any more added costs to our business right now the way it is with 

the allocations we have. 

Mr. TIERNEY. And is that an immediate issue, or do you think 

that’ll change over time, or do you think that’s the way it’s going 

to stay? 

Mr. WELCH. It depends on where the science goes and how the 

stocks rebuild and all that. Currently, I don’t see the stocks getting 

to the point where we’re going to be able to catch enough fish to 

pay for this. We’re all going to have to go out and buy bigger boats. 

Mr. TIERNEY. And I might ask, just generally, to the others, 

where is the technology on this, on the assessment issue and monitoring or whatever? Are we at a point where we expect there to be 

new technologies that are going to be helpful on that in the near 

future, or is this long-term? 

Dr. CADRIN. I think there are technologies that are not only 

being developed but are being implemented in other parts of the 

world, British Columbia and Alaska and others, where we’re using 

electronic monitoring and electronic recording, transmission, and 

also getting into the incentive systems of fishermen-reported data. 

So the technologies are definitely there. 

It’s a matter of operationalizing them and a willingness to solve 

problems from not only the Council but also from the regional office 

of NMFS and the Science Center to work together to solve these 

problems, use these technologies, rather than just maintaining status quo. And so there’s no accountability in those parts. It’s really 

the fisheries that are held accountable for lack of progress in implementing these technologies. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Doctor? 

Dr. ROTHSCHILD. One of the reasons that fishery management is 

so expensive is because we’ve created a management scheme that 

requires high technologies. And so what we need to do is go back 

to more simpler management schemes where you wouldn’t need an 

observer on every boat, where you wouldn’t—— 

Mr. TIERNEY. Can you give us an example of that? 

Dr. ROTHSCHILD. Yes. Well, for example, the reason for an observer on a boat is to monitor, of course, what that individual fisherman does, and it would probably most likely have to do with discards. And so one technology that might have to do with discards 

is using a video recording, as people have suggested. 

But, really, the right way to do it is to take a step back, look at 

what our budget is, what the requirements are, and develop a systems engineering approach to coming up with the best system, just 

like Boeing does with an airplane or Lockheed Martin. It’s as complex as putting a man on the moon, and we need to approach it 

from an engineering and cost-effective point of view. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Cadrin? 

Dr. CADRIN. To follow up to your other question about examples 

of simpler, more robust management systems, we’ve talked about 

striped bass here today. That was successfully recovered, not 

82 

through catch shares and catch limits, but through other management implementations that were more suited to the fishery and the 

data collection there. 

And we talked about scallops. That was not rebuilt under a catch 

share system. There was observer coverage that was suited to the 

status determination similar to the 1996 authorization of the act 

and its requirements. Groundfish—we’ve talked about ending overfishing and rebuilding several of the groundfish. That all took place 

under relatively low observer coverage. It’s these catch limits and 

catch share systems that require this more information. We can 

achieve the mandated conservation objectives without this data 

hungry requirement. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you. 

Senator KERRY. Congressman Keating? 

Mr. KEATING. Well, thank you. Thank you, Senator. 

I think it’s clear that if we’re looking at a bumper sticker for 

days here, in part, you know, one of those stickers any ways would 

be the fact that the science and data are slow, and as a result it’s 

not accurate. But I think this, from my perspective, boils down to 

something Senator Kerry said, that we have to incorporate common 

sense here. And I like fish. I really like fish. I hope there’s more 

fish. I like jobs. I really like jobs. 

And my question is to Dr. Rothschild. You said we could create 

1,000 jobs or avoid losing 1,000 jobs. Could you give us a little 

more detail? And can part of that be what I talked about before 

with the—using the most restrictive, the most conservative way of 

looking at this imperfect data? If you just looked at it in the middle, a balanced approach to that, would that help? 

Dr. ROTHSCHILD. You don’t have to look at—I mean, eventually, 

you want to look at imperfect data. But right now, know that 

140,000 tons of fish could be caught without breaking any conservation regulations. But only a small fraction of that is caught 

because of the regulations. It is true that this relates to two or 

three species, like redfish and haddock. 

But if we could come up with some schemes—and we should be 

able to—to catch these fish, they’re worth hundreds of millions of 

dollars and it’s left in the water. And those hundreds of millions 

of dollars translate into a lot of jobs. I don’t know how many, but 

it is a lot of jobs. 

The other issue is in the Governor’s report—and Dr. Cadrin was 

instrumental in this—we pointed out that the catch level could be 

increased by approximately 30 percent. And we’ve never really had 

the kind of discussion we should have on that, but that would 

change 140,000 tons to about 180,000 tons. And so there are a lot 

of fish that are being wasted. 

So if you look at managing fish as if you were managing a department store, you would want to utilize everything, not conserve 

it. So, basically, there are hundreds of millions of dollars a year, 

to summarize, that would be available to the economy, but they 

aren’t because of fishery management. 

And I have in my written testimony the rumor that the 2010 

year class of haddock is bigger than the 2003 year class of haddock, 

and if that’s true, we should be gearing up right now to develop 

mechanisms so that fishermen can catch those, because the 2003 

83 

year class was worth about a billion dollars, and we only utilized 

a small fraction of that. 

Mr. KEATING. OK. With that, Senator, I have time left, and this 

time, I’m going to yield it back while I have some to yield. 

Senator KERRY. Thanks a lot, Congressman. I really appreciate 

it. 

We’re going to wrap up momentarily. Is there any—I want to ask 

Senator Begich to respond for a minute. He was commenting about 

the bycatch issue and the Alaska experience. I think it might be 

worthwhile just to—— 

Senator BEGICH. Just a quick comment to Congressman Tierney—and you mentioned it, actually, Professor Cadrin—that Alaska is experimenting with some new technologies in order to manage the fisheries much better, and some of it is video, some of it 

is electronic. And in some cases, we’ve been able to reduce down 

bycatch. Even net sizes and techniques that we’re utilizing there— 

which, of course, we think these will be helpful, not only, of course, 

for our fisheries, but around the globe. 

So I wanted to echo that and tell the Congressman there are 

some interesting ideas that are being pursued. I will underline this 

by saying one of the organizations within the Federal Government 

which is getting dramatically reduced is the one that expends 

money in this innovation. And we have to be very careful, but this 

innovation is critical for us to manage these fisheries better. But 

part of that play is with our folks in NOAA and within the fisheries. 

Senator KERRY. Thank you very much. As we wrap up, let me 

just make—I want to thank Sam Dallaire from the Senate President’s staff, and I also want to thank Claire Saleski, Shawn 

O’Neal, and Amy Carrigan from my staff. And I want to thank the 

Commerce Committee staff for their cooperation and help in being 

able to come here today. 

Just a couple of comments, if I may, quickly. One, I don’t know 

any fisherman who doesn’t automatically understand—certainly 

the fishermen in Massachusetts, the small fishermen—sometimes 

you wonder about the factory and fleet folks who step out of the 

bounds, I think, sometimes. But I think the fishermen who are 

here, the ones who are struggling and fighting in that small business category that we’re talking about here—there isn’t one of 

them that doesn’t understand the need to preserve the fisheries, to 

keep the stocks, and that isn’t automatically a natural environmentalist. It just goes with the territory. 

As we think about this, we have to reflect on the dynamics of our 

fishery, which is complicated—a lot of different kinds of fishing 

folks with a lot of different competing tensions and interests. I 

know we can do a better job, because as a matter of common sense, 

we can find the sweet spot between preservation and protection 

and the right to fish. And, you know, Barney and others are absolutely correct. I mean, there’s no glory or rectitude in an automatic 

10-year deal, depending on what else you do and how you manage. 

So I look forward to this next meeting, and I’m going to ask Mr. 

Cunningham—I think it would be healthy if we could ask the members of the management council to come, all of them, from other 

states likewise, and I’m going to invite all of them. And I hope that 

84 

we can have—you know, it’s not a speechifying event, but a real 

discussion of how we’re going to break through here and make 

some choices. 

And this delegation, I know, is united in its willingness to fight 

with the Commerce Department, with NOAA, with NMFS, with 

whoever it is that we need to in order to leverage common sense. 

We all understand our obligations to check the fishery, but we also 

just want to make sure we’re basing choices on good science, good 

judgment, good input, good common sense. 

I would remind everybody here some of the biggest challenges 

that we face are not just—are not the overfishing challenge, but 

the pollution/acidification challenge. Nobody here should underestimate it. The levels of heavy metals that are showing up in our fish 

is really alarming. 

Professor, you’re nodding your head. And the danger of acidification to spawning grounds, to crustaceans is gigantic, and it’s already having an impact. So everybody here needs to recommit to 

efforts to deal with the climate change challenge that we’re facing, 

and it is real with respect to our fisheries, enormously important. 

I don’t know if anybody else wants to make a last- minute wrapup comment. 

Senator Begich? 

Senator BEGICH. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And I just 

want to—I like—when I do meetings and participate in meetings 

like this, I will tell you a couple of things I want to do is to take 

away, as Chair of the Oceans Committee, a couple of things I heard 

that we need to make sure occur from the first panel and maybe 

the second panel. 

One from NOAA, we’ve asked for a report on their communication types to fishermen, what they’re going to do, how they do it. 

The personnel issue, we will follow up, and if it’s a required closeddoor meeting, we will do that. The fisheries management process 

recommendations—we’ve asked NOAA to give us a detail of exactly 

how they’re going to implement those and what the process will be, 

or what ones they’re not going to implement. The rollover issue— 

you’ve heard the comments. 

The 10-year issue is interesting because I was just handed something. There are four incidents here that exceed the 10-year, up to 

41 years. So we have to look at why that is, what can we do to improve that so it’s not just an arbitrary number that some have 

mentioned here. And I guess I would extract again, as much as I 

can, because I’m biased, of course, from Alaska, that we think we 

do all these things right up there. But maybe there are some other 

things we can extract out of that and share some more with the 

New England experience. 

But thank you, Senator Kerry, for holding this meeting. Thank 

you for the invitation to attend. It has been enlightening to me, 

and I will do whatever I can to assist in ensuring that as time goes 

on that all the fisheries, no matter what the stocks are, are sustainable. And the last thing I’ll mention is the other piece is a 

budgetary item from NOAA on how do we ensure annual stock assessments. In order to do the assessments—may they be—I’ll use 

the word, annual, but it may be a variation—but to make sure they 

85 

are consistent and ongoing so you have a good way to manage. And 

I’ll leave it at that. 

Senator KERRY. Yes. 

Mr. FRANK. Senator, I’ll pick up from there, and I—this is a pretty—actually, in part to our colleagues here in state government in 

Massachusetts—SMAST is well represented here by Mr. Cadrin 

and Mr. Rothschild. The Federal people acknowledge their good 

work. I have to say that I’m very proud—when we were still allowed to earmark, I will confess that SMAST was very high on my 

list of earmarks, and I think that that was helpful. 

I hope that the members of the legislature—and a lot of this is 

Federal, and I agree with Mr. Diodati that they shouldn’t be bouncing this back to us. But the state, the administration, and the legislature can help us by fully funding SMAST, because we need to 

have science. We need good science to fight what we think is not 

good science, and that means adequate funding for SMAST. So I 

would put in that plea and acknowledge that those of us with a 

Massachusetts base have that responsibility. 

Senator KERRY. Folks, on that note, we thank all of you for coming. We look forward to this next meeting. We’ll get back to you, 

as I said. Please—we’ll put a pad over here. I want you to sign up 

on the pad—e-mails, telephones. We stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:43 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(87) 

A P P E N D I X 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. MARK BEGICH TO

HON. JANE LUBCHENCO, PH.D. 

Question. The Food and Drug Administration is currently considering approval of 

the first genetically engineered animal for human consumption, a transgenic Atlantic salmon created by AquaBounty Technologies. In the past, the escapement of nongenetically engineered farmed salmon and their contamination of wild salmon stocks 

has caused significant ecological and economic harm. Therefore, the prospect of the 

mass production of genetically engineered fish has raised alarm among the fishing 

industry, policymakers, and environmental groups, who are concerned about the potentially greater risks associated with the escapement of genetically engineered fish. 

Have the environmental and economic risks of the escapement of genetically engineered salmon or other marine fish been properly assessed? What are these risks? 

Answer. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has performed a comprehensive assessment of the environmental risks that could arise from the production of AquAdvantage Salmon. This assessment has included consideration of the 

potential environmental risks of AquAdvantage Salmon under the following specific conditions of use: production of eyed eggs in Canada, shipment of eggs to Panama, grow-out of functionally sterile fish in Panama, processing of fish in Panama, 

and shipment of food to the United States. As part of the agency’s evaluation of 

AquaBounty’s application for approval of AquAdvantage Salmon under those conditions of use, FDA has reviewed materials submitted to FDA by AquaBounty, including an Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared by the firm. 

FDA has been collaborating with other government agencies with expertise on 

issues associated with genetically engineered fish since 2002. During the course of 

its review under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, on August 5, 2009, FDA sent a letter inviting NOAA Fisheries 

to consult with FDA regarding environmental issues related to AquAdvantage Salmon. A NOAA Fisheries Aquatic Animal Health Expert, along with FDA’s aquaculture and environmental-risk experts, visited AquaBounty’s grow-out facility in 

Panama on November 10–12, 2009. This site visit by FDA staff and NOAA Fisheries 

was conducted primarily to verify that the conditions of rearing and containment 

at the grow-out facility were as described in the materials submitted to FDA by 

AquaBounty, and to evaluate any other factors which could influence the potential 

for escape. 

The FDA also provided NOAA Fisheries a packet of reports including a draft EA 

prepared by FDA. NOAA Fisheries agreed to continue to work with FDA in providing technical guidance on FDA’s draft Environmental Assessment. In addition to 

the draft Environmental Assessment and supporting documents, FDA also submitted its determination that the approval of the application for AquAdvantage 

Salmon will have no effect on the Gulf of Maine distinct population segment of 

Atlantic salmon listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). Because 

NOAA Fisheries does not review no effect determinations, that letter fulfilled FDA’s 

obligation under section 7 of the ESA. 

It is important to note that if FDA were to approve AquaBounty’s application for 

AquAdvantage Salmon, these fish would be allowed to be produced and raised only 

under the conditions proposed in the application—including the specified locations 

of AquaBounty’s facilities, which are limited to highly contained inland tanks, not 

net pens in the ocean. If, after approval, AquaBounty wanted to change the conditions of use in the application—for example, to add a new grow-out facility—a supplemental application would be required, which would, in most cases, trigger a new 

environmental assessment. 

In September 2010, the FDA convened a Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee 

to review science-based issues associated with AquaBounty’s application. In advance 

of that meeting, FDA publicly released its review of AquaBounty’s EA, as well as 

AquaBounty’s EA itself, on August 25, 2010. FDA stated that there was substantial, 

reliable information available in AquaBounty’s EA to conclude that AquAdvantage 

88 

Salmon are not expected to have a significant impact on the quality of the human 

environment. 

Hon. JOHN F. KERRY, 

United States Senator, 

Boston, MA. 

Dear Senator Kerry, 

Enclosed please find the testimony of Mr. Herbert Crooks of 26 Union Street, 

Newburyport, Massachusetts concerning problems he has encountered with the Federal Government in regards to scallop fishing. Mr. Crooks was unable to attend the 

Commerce Committee’s field hearing at the State House on September 28th and 

asked for my office to submit comments on his behalf. 

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. If you have any questions, 

please feel free to contact my office directly. 

Regards, 

STEVEN A. BADDOUR, 

State Senator, 

First Essex District. 

TESTIMONY OF HERBERT CROOKS

October 2, 2011 

To whom it may concern: 

I have a twenty six foot boat, with this boat I jigged for ground fish (cod-pollack) 

in the Gulf of Maine for a number of years. When I reached retirement age I converted my boat so I could fish for scallops, at the time I had a four hundred pound 

(per day) permit. My scallop dredge was only four and a half feet wide. (the 

N.M.F.S. conciders a 10 Ft. dredge small) N.M.F.S. decided all scallopers would be 

monitored. (There is a monthly charge) In my case I could give up the four hundred 

lb. permit and drop down to forty lbs. a day. This I did because with my small 

dredge I would never catch 400 lbs in a day. 

Two years later they told me I would have to be monitored or loose my 40 lb. permit. I gave up. All I wanted to do is retire and do a little scallop fishing, nothing 

big, catch a few, pay my fuel, have a few to eat. The N.M.F.S. ruined my plans for 

retirement. I’m sixty 9 years old, I’m not a big deal fisherman. The cost to convert 

to scallops has not been met. I’m hoping you can help me. I would like to have my 

40 lbs a day permit back if possible. My health has not been good, shoulder surgery 

2010, hip replacement surgery Oct. 6th, 2011. I just want to be able to catch a few 

scallops without being monitored. 

Thanks, 

HERBERT CROOKS. 

P.S. I know this doesn’t mean much in the ‘‘big picture’’ but, it means a lot to 

me. Again I thank you for your time. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PEW ENVIRONMENT GROUP

AND CONSERVATIONAL LAW FOUNDATION

Chairman Kerry and members of the Committee: 

Pew Environment Group and Conservation Law Foundation submit this written 

statement for the record in today’s hearing of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. The Pew Environment Group, the conservation 

arm of The Pew Charitable Trusts, works throughout the world to foster a better 

understanding of environmental problems through research and to promote sound 

conservation policy. Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) is a New England-based 

conservation organization that works to promote a thriving New England through 

developing and implementing pragmatic, innovative solutions to the region’s most 

challenging environmental problems. The headquarters office for the Pew Environment Group is in Washington, D.C. with regional offices in Boston. The headquarters office of CLF is in Boston, MA. CLF also has state offices in Rhode Island, 

New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine. 

The purpose of this hearing is to examine the first year of implementation of 

Amendment 16 to the Northeast Multispecies (Groundfish) Fishery Management 

Plan, with a specific focus on the sectors program established by Amendment 16, 

89 

1 Amendment 16 FEIS, Table 255. The Days-At-Sea (DAS) program was the indirect control 

management system that was in place before the sector/hard quota program was added to it 

as an option in Amendment 16. 2These calculations are from the data and analysis in the NMFS Report on the 2010 Fishing 

Year. They assume that the NMFS Report presented the revenue data in constant dollars. If 

the report reported the revenue data in nominal numbers, the analysis would show lower results 

for the 2010 fishing year. 3 Additional quota over the 2010 fishing year limits are available in many species in the current 2011 fishing year and significant increases in quota for all but five stocks are projected 

to be available in the 2012 fishing year. 4Margaret Dewar, Industry in Trouble, (1983). 

including its social and economic impacts. The Committee also seeks advice on constructive steps forward for improving Amendment 16’s outcomes. Both the Pew Environment Group and CLF have actively engaged in ending overfishing and developing a sustainable, thriving fishing economy in New England for more than fifteen 

years. We appreciate the opportunity to provide this testimony to the Committee to 

share our perspectives on these critical and timely issues. 

The following testimony comprises four sections: a summary; a brief history of 

groundfish management leading up to Amendment 16; the New England Fishery 

Management Council’s objectives in developing and adopting Amendment 16 and 

the early outcomes of Amendment 16 based on the limited data set currently available from the first fishing year; and our recommendations on critical actions that 

need to be taken now. 

I.Summary 

Amendment 16 has been in effect for 17 months. The amendment was the result 

of a three-year public process and was overwhelmingly approved by the New England Fishery Management Council. Contrary to many predictions and in contrast 

with the estimated $15.4 million in losses that were predicted if the 2010 fishing 

year took place under the existing ‘‘Days-At-Sea’’ management approach alone,1

gross revenues for the groundfish fleet in the 2010 fishing year for all species landed—$297.7 million—were $26.6 million more than gross revenues in the 2009 fishing 

year and only $500,000 lower than the banner 2007 fishing year.2 Groundfish permit sales, an important indicator of consolidation at an organization level, were extremely low. These outcomes show a healthy, adaptive fleet that has diversified to 

target multiple species beyond groundfish, particularly skates and monkfish, and 

that has begun to take advantage of the added flexibility that the sector system in 

New England provides even in the challenging start-up year. As annual catch limits 

available to fishermen increase in the 2011 and 2012 fishing years, an outcome that 

directly reflects the success of the New England Council’s current management decisions,3 the economic picture in the New England groundfish fleet should continue 

to improve, building on these early Amendment 16 successes. There remain important issues with respect to understanding net revenues across vessel classes, the 

loss of crew positions, the failure of the allocation formula to capture the 2007–2009 

fishing years, concerns about sector transparency and potential monopoly practices, 

improving the ability to raise annual catch limits on rebuilding stocks in a timely 

manner, and consolidation. These issues are already being addressed in the appropriate venue—the New England Council. Amendment 16 is an important step in the 

right direction for New England and New England’s fishermen. It should be supported in Washington, D.C., and efforts to improve the system should be spearheaded in New England as intended by Congress. 

II. The Amendment 16 Context 

Amendment 16 was not written on a blank slate. Fishermen, conservationists, 

politicians, coastal municipalities, scientists, and fishery managers in New England 

have struggled with the multiple challenges of achieving the laudable fishery management goals of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

(MSA) since that law first went into effect in December 1976. What followed MSA 

enactment was a series of management actions later called ‘‘an enormous, immensely complicated intervention.’’ 4

Indeed, management chaos was the rule with New England groundfish, both in 

the years leading up to the passage of the MSA, when international fishing factory 

ships were anchored on Georges Bank, and in the years immediately following passage, when the offshore fishery was domesticated under U.S. law. Growing frustration with the ‘‘hard quota’’ groundfish management rules that were in place in New 

England after passage of the MSA led New England managers to introduce a system 

of ‘‘indirect’’ controls to control fishing mortality, such as limiting the numbers of 

days fishermen could be at sea (the days-at-sea, or DAS, program), changing mesh 

90 

5Trip limits limited the amount of a particular fish species that could be landed at the dock, 

but this control did not limit the amount of that species that could be caught at sea. The triplimit control practice produced significant and widespread discarding of dead or mortally injured 

fish that were caught at sea but could not be landed. 6The fishery remained open to all entrants until 1995. 

7The Sustainable Fisheries Act, Pub. L. No. 104–297 (1996) and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management Act Reauthorization Act, Pub. L. 109–479 (2007). 8 In addition to the 15 amendments to New England’s groundfish management plan that preceded Amendment 16, there have been more than 45 less-comprehensive framework adjustments 

to the plan. With one or two non-controversial exceptions, all of these actions were taken on 

the authority of the New England Fishery Management Council. 9The legislation passed the Senate on unanimous consent and passed the House of Representatives under suspension of the rules without a record vote. 10The Council was also locked into making its ‘‘balloon payment’’ on the overfishing it had 

allowed in the early years of the rebuilding programs for a number of the stocks. There was 

general awareness that Amendment 16 could require major catch reductions because of the flexibility that New England had already taken advantage of under Amendment 13. 

sizes and other attributes of fishing gears, closing areas where fish were aggregating, and setting low ‘‘trip limits’’ for landing some stocks.5

The U.S. domestication of groundfishing off New England’s coast post-MSA was 

also marked by a Congressional decision to grow the U.S. groundfish fleet by heavily 

subsidizing capital investments in a fleet of offshore boats through Federal loan, 

guarantee, and tax programs. No regard was paid at the time to how much fishing 

power a New England groundfish fleet could sustainably exert on the groundfish 

stocks, either in the short or long term. This regional capacity bubble that Congress 

was subsidizing was coupled with a policy of open access to the fishery for anyone 

with a boat,6 technological improvements that resulted in a rapid increase in the 

fishing power of each boat in the 1980s and 1990s, poor assessment data that was 

often 4 years out of date by the time managers acted on it, and weak management 

by the New England Council and the National Marine Fisheries Service. These factors inevitably led to this century’s second major collapse of New England’s groundfish, this time accomplished by an overcapitalized, undermanaged U.S. fleet. Between 1994 and 1995, cod and haddock populations plummeted to the lowest estimates ever recorded. 

The next period of groundfish management in New England, from 1995 to the 

present time, reflects a different pattern of ‘‘enormous, immensely complicated intervention,’’ characterized by multiple, successful lawsuits brought by conservation 

groups, two major amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act,7 and multiple revisions to the Northeast Multispecies Groundfish Plan8. All these actions focused on 

the persistent failure to end and prevent overfishing in the Nation’s fisheries more 

than 20 years after Congress first established that important national objective. 

Amendment 16 emerged out of this contentious and costly history and importantly 

reflected a commitment by the New England Council to fully meet its legal and policy objectives to prevent overfishing and produce healthy, thriving fisheries in New 

England. 

The Council began to work formally on Amendment 16 on November 6, 2006, 

roughly at the same time that the 108th Congress was in the process of overwhelmingly approving the Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act.9 The New England 

Council had already made two decisions that served as major drivers of Amendment 

16: first, that groundfish management would shift back to a hard quota, direct control approach and, second, that the New England sector management pilot program 

put in place in 2004 should be expanded as an option to all fishermen.10 Leadership 

at the Council publicly signaled their intention to put the fishery under hard quotas 

during the Amendment 13 approval process, well before the accountability provisions of the 2007 Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act made hard quotas a virtual requirement of any fishery management plan. Moreover, the Council had already launched a sector management/hard quota pilot program in Amendment 13 

with the intention of learning from that experience. 

Notwithstanding efforts by some to rewrite this history to their own narrow purposes, the New England sector-based management program was designed and implemented first by the New England Council in the fall of 2003, almost 7 years before the 2010 fishing year started under Amendment 16 and 6 years before a draft 

NOAA Catch Share Policy was circulated for public comment in December 2009. The 

first groundfish sectors with hard quotas were proposed by smaller-scale, coastal 

boat operators from eastern Cape Cod, who were convinced that their future access 

to the groundfish would be eliminated by the Days-At-Sea management approach 

in effect at the time. That program put these boats in direct competition with the 

larger and more mobile trip boats for a limited amount of groundfish, a competition 

they knew they could not win. In return for accepting hard quotas on their catch, 

91 

11The New England groundfish fishery has always had many more issued permits than active 

fishermen, an artifact of the open access period. Historically, the number of groundfish permits 

has always been more than double the number of actual, active fishermen on the water. Claims 

that only half the permitted vessels were actively fishing is hardly an outcome of Amendment 

16. 

these Cape fishermen were given both protection in terms of having a set amount 

of quota they could catch over the year and some flexibility in terms of how they 

could catch that quota. 

This 2003 Council decision, coupled with the positive experience that the Cape 

fishermen had in their pilot sectors during the initial years, evolved into the more 

expansive sector program the New England Council implemented in Amendment 16. 

Quota-based sector management is a New England idea that was conceived and implemented first in Massachusetts by Massachusetts fishermen. 

III. The Council’s Amendment 16 Objectives 

The New England Council’s major management goals for Amendment 16 were relatively straightforward, albeit ambitious: 

1. Approve a groundfish management plan that could be in place by May 1, 

2010 that met the Council’s objective of creating a hard quota program and that 

also met the accountability and annual catch limit requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act to end and prevent overfishing. 

2. Adjust all fishing catch limits so that the rebuilding dates set by the Council 

in Amendment 13 would be met based on current stock assessments; in several 

cases this required dramatic cutbacks from the 2009 fishing year mortality 

rates. 

3. Make the sector management/hard quota approach widely available to 

groundfish fishermen throughout the region on a voluntary basis so that the 

operational flexibility that was available to Cape Cod fishermen under the pilot 

hard quota/sector approach would be available to others to reduce the expected 

social and economic impacts of the required quota reductions. 

4. Reduce the mortality allowed by indirect control measures in the default program for fishermen not in sectors—the DAS program—so that estimated fishing 

mortality goals would also be met in this so-called ‘‘common pool’’ fishery 

through overall catch limits. 

The New England Council approved Amendment 16 by a vote of 14–1–1 after 

more than 3 years of intense public debate, with positive votes from all Massachusetts representatives on the Council. Amendment 16 went into effect on May 1, 2010 

with approximately 95 percent of the active groundfishermen 11 ultimately electing 

to enter one of the multiple sectors that formed under the auspices of Amendment 

16. Amendment 16 was to a great extent the first groundfish management plan 

since 1976 that could arguably be said to be in full compliance with the MSA’s legal 

requirements. 

Notwithstanding the New England Council’s authorship and strong endorsement 

of the plan, the predictions of social and economic chaos that seem inevitable with 

every management change in New England fisheries resurfaced again for Amendment 16, primarily from some in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. These dire 

predictions as well as the Council’s objectives can now begin to be held up to the 

light of one full year of fishing under Amendment 16. 

IV. Amendment 16 and the 2010 Fishing Year 

Initially, we want to make four observations. First, fisheries management produces ‘‘winners’’ and ‘‘losers’’ in the fishing community, as management actions do 

in any industry. Amendment 16 is no exception. While we believe the data so far 

leads to a conclusion that Amendment 16 was effective in accomplishing its larger 

purposes while minimizing a number of the impacts that managers identified during 

the plan development process, the Pew Environment Group and CLF recognize that 

some fishermen have suffered significant and potentially disproportionate losses as 

a result of Amendment 16. We share the obvious concern and commitment of members of this Committee that these negative outcomes from Amendment 16 should 

be documented, quantified, and taken into account in future management actions. 

Second, it is premature to draw firm conclusions from the preliminary data and 

analysis. Permit numbers, vessel activity shifts, shifts in gear types or active vessel 

sizes, landing port shifts and similar early results may or may not reflect real phenomena and may or may not be directly connected to Amendment 16. Current analyses are limited: they do not accurately reflect changes in economic activity at an 

ownership level; they do not reflect net revenues; they may reflect other regulatory 

92 

12See caution at footnote 2. 

drivers such as the ability to land lobsters from a groundfish boat in some states 

but not in others; they may reflect other relevant state-to-state regulatory or taxation differences; data on crew employment changes have always been notoriously 

difficult to collect and interpret; the 2010 fishing year was a start-up year for an 

entirely new management approach with a steep learning curve for fishermen and 

sector managers alike; and finally, there are a number of future costs associated 

with the observer program that are temporarily being subsidized by the Federal 

Government and are not currently reflected in fleet cost structure. 

Third, critical analytical information is not available to the public or, in some 

cases, this Committee. Legal restraints imposed by Congress on data releases to 

protect proprietary economic fishing data, coupled with the agency’s conservative 

approach to releasing this confidential data, prevent the public from understanding 

a number of economic or social impacts, particularly at the level of a small port or 

individual fisherman. Another set of cost data—the direct or indirect internal costs 

that individual sectors may be imposing on their members through membership 

fees, operating charges, or other indirect internal ‘‘regulatory’’ costs—are not available to the agency, the Council, or this Committee based on our understanding. 

These costs could be very significant to the success or failure of an individual operation. 

Fourth, the 2010 fishing year (FY) cannot be analyzed in isolation. We anticipate 

that the gross 2010 FY groundfish revenues will grow over time for two reasons. 

First, because the Council was successful in virtually eliminating overfishing in the 

fishery, fish stocks continue to rebound in most cases. Accordingly, the specifications 

for the current 2011 FY and the 2012 FY are increasing the allowable catch. In the 

2011 FY, the quota for many species has already been increased; for the 2012 FY 

(which starts May 1, 2012), the science recommendations before the Council for approval this fall in Framework 47 show substantial increases in quota over the 2010 

FY catch for additional species, including a number of the flounder species that 

were in significant trouble previously. The total recommended allowable biological 

catch, which still must be reduced by the Council to account for management uncertainties, shows a total Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) of approximately 98,800 

metric tons available in the 2012 FY. The total 2010 groundfish catch was approximately 58,900 metric tons. 

The second reason we expect continued improvements in gross revenues is that 

we anticipate that sectors will continue to improve their ability to manage their 

member’s fishing activities in real time to target their sector members toward areas 

with a high abundance of available species like haddock, redfish, and Pollock, and 

away from areas with relatively higher concentrations of species that have more 

limited quotas. In addition, the New England Council as part of its habitat protection work is looking at modifying some currently closed areas to allow new entry 

into areas with high haddock concentrations. Although it is too early in the process 

to draw any conclusions, some closed area modifications may make sense and could 

be in place by the 2012 FY. 

Turning then to the social and economics outcomes of Amendment 16 from a 

macro-level, the Amendment 16 outcomes look positive based on currently available 

information. Most active fishermen took advantage of the sector opportunity (some 

98 percent) and the early information is that there may have been overfishing on 

only one sub-component of one stock—an important first for New England 

groundfishermen. For the entire fleet in the 2010 FY, gross all-species revenues 

were $297.7 million on landings of 238 million pounds; groundfish revenues were 

$83.3 million on 58.5 million pounds.12 In 2007, a very strong revenue year in re- cent history, gross revenues were $298.2 million on 259.5 million pounds of fish, of 

which groundfish were $89 million on 64 million pounds of fish. Year-to-year, the fleet grossed $26.6 million more in the 2010 FY than in the 2009 FY on 2.4 million 

fewer pounds of fish. The Massachusetts fleet and large ports were the primary beneficiaries of Amend- ment 16, recording one of the strongest years in memory with $12 million more in 

revenues than 2009 (+7.3 percent) and even $6 million more than the strong 2007 

fishing year. New Bedford landed roughly $10.4 million of that (+12.2 percent from 

2009). Boston also did remarkably well with roughly a $4 million increase over 

2009: a 25.5 percent increase in gross revenues over the prior year. 

Many factors produced and maintained high prices over the course of the 2010 

FY, but it is our view that Amendment 16 was an important one. We heard no reports this past year of the random market gluts that have reduced prices to the 

groundfish boats in New England in the past. The fleet seems to have caught fewer 

fish on fewer trips and made more money. Our view is that the fleet fished smarter 

93 

13 NMFS 2010FY Report at 9 (emphasis in original). 14This intra-fisherman allocation leasing is not new with Amendment 16; fishermen already 

could lease days-at-sea before Amendment 16. Amendment 16 shifted this program to ‘‘pounds 

of fish’’ instead of ‘‘days-at-sea’’ and increased the flexibility available to sector fishermen using 

this existing tool. 15See the Port Clyde Community Groundfish Sector operating plan for example. http:// 

www.nero.noaa.gov/sfd/sectordocs/PortClydeFY10OpsPlan.pdf. The annual membership fees 

and poundage fees are referenced but no amounts are set or identified. See Section 2.06. 

in the 2010 FY by timing their harvests to times of the highest prices, by increasing 

cooperation within sectors, and by diversifying their species catch. Amendment 16 

gave the active fishermen in the sectors the flexibility that allowed them to do that 

without jeopardy of overfishing, excessive regulation, or early closures. 

Active New England fishermen realized $26.6 million more in gross revenues in 

the 2010 FY than the 2009 FY. The NMFS 2010 FY Report concludes that 

‘‘[a]verage all-species [gross] revenue per vessel during the fishing year 2010 was 

greater than that in any of the three prior fishing years across all vessel size categories.’’ 13 That is a significant positive outcome after the first year of Amendment 

16. 

Perhaps even more significantly, some classes of vessels in the fleet appear to 

have landed these fish with only one-half the number of fishing trips that they had 

previously used. Fewer trips result in lower fuel and other variable costs and allowed some fishermen to spend more time in other fisheries without jeopardizing 

their catch limits. Each trip, therefore, was far more efficient and the catch-perunit-effort (CPUE) figure for the fleet, a widely recognized statistic used to measure 

the health of a fishery, is likely to rise significantly in the 2010 fishing year. 

On the flip side, the complete cost picture of Amendment 16 remains unknown 

at this point. Lower fuel costs and other variable operating costs, as well as the new 

revenues some fishermen realized by leasing their fishing privileges to others in 

their sectors, have to be offset against the new one-time and annual costs of joining 

and belonging to a sector, as well as costs associated with leasing fishing privileges 

from other fishermen in their sector.14 Anecdotally, it appears that some of the 

smaller, day boat operations have been disproportionally impacted by new costs and 

limited allocations, although it is impossible for us to attempt to quantify or understand the potential causes for this situation at this time. Variable sector cost structures may contribute significantly to this issue: some sectors seem to charge relatively modest entry charges and operating charges; others have significant up-front 

membership payments and other charges on fish landed through the sector. These 

costs and other sector practices could add considerable expenses to a sector member’s operations that may not be proportionate to a vessel’s size or allocation. As 

noted above, these costs are not controlled by the government and, to our knowledge, there is little information available that allows these costs to be comprehensively examined.15

In terms of the number of active boats and the claims by some that Amendment 

16 has produced ‘‘massive consolidation,’’ there is only anecdotal information at this 

point to support those claims. While we remain concerned that the New England 

Council did not put numerical limits on the fishery that would prevent unintended 

consolidation in Amendment 16, that task is now underway under Amendment 18. 

Moreover, by its own specific terms and the stated intent of the Council, nothing 

in Amendment 16 is irreversible if the Council concludes that consolidation caps, 

new allocation formulas, or other controls are necessary to meet the national standards under the Magnuson-Stevens Act or the policy objectives of the New England 

Council. The Council has also passed a March 2011 control date on the fishery that 

puts the world on notice that fishing history developed after that date may not be 

considered by the Council in the future. 

Reviewing the available data from the 2010 FY, the number of active groundfish 

boats decreased under Amendment 16 at a slightly higher rate than the decreases 

recorded in the prior 3 years. There are a number of possible explanations for this 

result, and perhaps all of these mechanisms were operating together. First, individuals in sectors who owned multiple groundfish permits on separate boats were allowed to consolidate their permit histories onto one boat if their sector rules permitted that. There is little question that a number of the larger operations located 

in the larger ports like New Bedford and Gloucester took advantage of this new ability to re-configure their operational profile down to one or two boats. Such economic 

efficiency is encouraged by National Standard 5 (‘‘consider efficiency in the utilization of fisheries resources’’) in the MSA and not necessarily a negative outcome on 

its own. 

94 

16www.caploggroup.com/publications/html: Memorandum re. Current Level of Consolidation 

of the Northwest Multispecies (Groundfish) Fishery at 3 (May 2010). 

Second, under the older DAS system, the active groundfishermen tended to fish 

as hard as they could during the days they were allowed to fish, and many tended 

to frontload fishing to the earlier part of the season to avoid late season changes 

that could be implemented by NMFS if it looked like there were going to be too 

many landings. This behavior was unsafe, produced market supply gluts with low 

prices, and often resulted in unpredictable early closures or additional regulations 

at the end of a fishing year. Under the Amendment 16 system, this has all changed. 

A fisherman can fish when the weather, prices, his health, and the availability of 

crew, and other factors are optimal for him or her. Or not, as there is no penalty 

for a fisherman who doesn’t fish: it can be leased to someone else in the sector for 

an arm’s-length fee. A number of fishermen undoubtedly took advantage of this new 

leasing opportunity for a variety of reasons: health, age, taking advantage of other 

non-groundfish fishing opportunities, and other personal issues. These vessels might 

choose to become ‘‘inactive’’ during the 2010 FY while still retaining the right to become active again in the future if circumstances change. It is our understanding 

that the numbers of sales of groundfish permits with fishing history dropped significantly during the 2010 FY over prior years, suggesting that permanent shifts in 

fishing activities may not have occurred. 

Third, continued consolidation was one of the Council’s objectives with Amendment 16. The New England Council had been aware for years that the groundfish 

fleet’s fishing power significantly surpassed the ability of fish stocks to provide fish. 

They have been actively approving management plan amendments that reduced the 

fishing power of the New England fleet for some time. Amendment 16 was a continuation of that policy. Congress as well had recognized this overcapacity problem 

in New England and had earlier authorized tens of millions of Federal dollars to 

be spent to reduce fleet size through Federal buy-out programs in New England. 

For decades, the fleet’s groundfish fishing power has been significantly greater 

than made economic or environmental sense, but this capacity bubble was always 

subsidized by overfishing and target quota overruns. The high number of permitted 

but inactive boats in the fleet during the prior DAS program is ample testimony to 

that overcapacity. The boats associated with these inactive permits had no regulatory impediment to fishing under the DAS program, yet the owners still chose not 

to fish those permits. 

More importantly, the current New England groundfish fleet is widely acknowledged as having too much fishing power even with fully rebuilt fish stocks. The economic inefficiency associated with that overcapacity is not consistent with a sustainable fishery, particularly with respect to the larger, commercial operations. A significant amount of the consolidation experienced in Amendment 16 will undoubtedly 

reflect a number of fishing operations moving their fish allocation to their more economically efficient boats. 

In point of fact, the old DAS program was far more brutal with respect to its consolidation effects than Amendment 16, falling most heavily on the coastal day boats 

that lacked the mobility of the larger fishing vessels to re-locate quickly to where 

the fish were congregating or to fish safely offshore year-round. The larger boats 

fished heavily both offshore and near shore, and the DAS program (which charged 

permit holders for steaming time when a boat wasn’t fishing) ensured that the large 

boats fished inshore whenever they could to minimize the charges against the permit. This behavior both drove coastal boats into other fisheries and, by overharvesting inshore stocks, reduced the catch-per-unit effort and fishing history for these 

operations even when they were able to fish. 

In order to put Amendment 16’s first year performance in context, a longer time 

period is necessary because a great deal of consolidation of permits had already occurred by the start of the 2007 FY. Between 1996 and 2007, the number of active 

groundfish boats fell 42 percent from 1450 to about 820, the number of full-time 

groundfish fishermen fell by about 30 percent, and part-time groundfishermen declined by 50 percent.16 Over that same period, overall groundfish landings fell by 

about 10 percent. The NMFS 2010 FY Report only analyzes data between the 2007 

FY and the 2010 FY. 

With respect to the distribution of fishing privileges across the groundfish fleet, 

the data for the 2010 FY indicates that the top 20 percent of the multispecies permitted vessels accounted for 65.1 percent of the fleet’s gross revenues for all species 

landed by those vessels and 80 percent of the fleet’s groundfish stock gross revenues. In 2007, the comparable numbers for the top 20 percent were 61 percent for 

all species and 67 percent for groundfish alone. In 2010, the bottom 40 percent of 

the groundfish vessels accounted for 8.9 percent of all species gross revenues and 

95 

17 Id. at 4. 

1.4 percent of groundfish stock gross revenues and 10 percent and 5.3 percent respectively in 2007. 

Year-to-year between the 2009 and the 2010 fishing years, the top 20 percent of 

vessels increased their all-species revenue by 4.7 percent and their gross groundfish 

revenues by 11.1 percent. The 2009–2010 year-to-year gross revenue change for the 

bottom 40 percent of the groundfish fleet was –1.6 percent change for all species 

and a –1.9 percent change for groundfish revenues. Thus, within this short analytical time period, there are some trends that indicate some consolidation in total revenues and a more significant increase in groundfish revenues in the largest 20 percent of the fleet. Most of this shift appears to have occurred by relative changes in 

the top 60 percent of the groundfish fleet, not the bottom 40 percent. 

With respect to the number of vessels that were earning revenues in the fishery 

in the 2010 FY, there were 28 percent fewer vessels earning the top 50 percent of 

all species gross revenues in 2010 than 2007 (207 from 249), but only a 9.7 percent 

change from 2009 to 2010 in this category. In the bottom 50 percent of active boats, 

all-species revenues decreased 18.9 percent from the 2007 FY to 2010 FY but only 

10.2 percent of that decline occurred after Amendment 16. Notably, none of these 

changes account for the changes at an ownership level, as opposed to a permit level. 

That information is obviously important to understand but will not be available 

until later this fall. 

While some of these fishing privileges distributional ratios may seem startling to 

someone new to fisheries, this ratio is quite consistent with patterns in this fishery 

in the past and in other developed fisheries around the world, which traditionally 

show 20 percent of the boats catching 80 percent of the fish in a particular fishery. 

As the Cap Log Group reported: ‘‘The Northeast Multispecies Fishery has approximately followed the 80–20 rule for over a decade, at least. From 1998–2007, the distribution of landings remaining fairly consistent with about 20 percent of the vessels 

harvesting around 80 percent of the groundfish. In contrast, about half the vessels 

landing more than one pound of groundfish caught under 5 percent of the total 

catch annually across the same period.’’ 17

Amendment 16’s consolidation pressures and effects cannot be analyzed in isolation from either the trends that were already well in place in New England or from 

the Council’s explicit intentions or on the basis of anecdotal or partial information. 

And these outcomes should not be measured on the basis of a single year, a year 

that was widely characterized by an array of start-up challenges in the sectors. 

What can’t be answered quantitatively, and what is rarely, if ever, discussed by opponents of Amendment 16, is what the effects of the lower catch limits available 

in the 2010 FY would have been on the 98 percent of the fleet that went into sectors—day boats and trip boats alike—if the sector program had not been available 

to them 

V. Recommendations to the Committee 

The Committee seeks suggestions for constructive steps forward that improve 

Amendment 16’s outcomes. In that spirit, the Pew Environment Group and CLF 

offer the following thoughts. 

Amendment 16 is an important step forward for groundfish management in New 

England and has a number of promising early results. It is not and cannot be the 

final answer; there is still critical work to be done. The following recommendations 

are not set forth in any particular priority and include items in which Congress may 

have a beneficial role and others where the New England Council should take the 

lead. 

1. Amendment 18, which has been specifically designed to look at a range of social 

and economic and operational aspects of Amendment 16, including its consolidation 

and distributional effects, should be high on the New England Council’s priority actions for the coming year. It is of utmost importance that the Council balance the 

goals of National Standard 5 (improve efficiency) with National Standard 8 (minimize community impacts). Among the issues that PEG and CLF believe the New 

England Council has to analyze and respond to in Amendment 18 are: 

• consolidation caps and stock control caps (percentage of a stock that can or 

should be controlled by one entity), both at an organizational level and at the 

sector level; 

• disproportionate intra-state distributional effects, although these may well be 

completely due to factors that are extrinsic to Amendment 16; 

• the social and economic impacts of the 1996–2006 allocation time period set out 

in Amendment 16, particularly with respect to the question of whether it has 

96 

18 Congressional efforts to amend the Magnuson-Stevens Act to allow higher catch rates or 

overfishing on rebuilding fish populations like cod in order to achieve more of the available yield 

on haddock have failed to consider possible long-term impacts. Haddock is abundant today primarily because of two unusual and disproportionately large year classes of haddock. As those 

fish mature and are caught, the importance of rebuilding cod as rapidly as possible may become 

key to the profitability of future fisheries. A healthy ocean system has abundant populations 

of a mix of species. Such biodiversity of commercial species will become particularly critical as 

average sea temperatures rise and increased stresses are placed on fish species. 19The assessment science and data analysis at NMFS and NOAA can also be improved at 

existing funding levels. Much of that work is already underway and more opportunities to 

streamline, re-prioritize, and re-conceptualize fisheries analyses are being advanced within and 

without the agencies every day. As far as we are aware, U.S. fisheries science is already a match 

for any government system in the world. 20 As just one example, laboratories at Northeastern University and Massachusetts Institute 

of Technology have created an acoustical sensing approach that can quantify the population of 

Atlantic herring within 10,000 square kilometers of the device. The researchers compare their 

approach to ‘‘looking at a whole movie’’ as contrasted with current survey methods that they 

liken to looking a single pixel on a screen. They have no funding to complete their work in the 

Gulf of Maine. Herring harvests, for example, could potentially be set at significantly different 

levels and managed in real-time if data collection to support that were available. 

failed to capture increased landings of some segments of the fleet during the 

2007–2009 fishing years; and 

• sector rules and member charges, with an objective of establishing performance 

standards that ensure that entry and exit rules of sectors are equitable, transparent and reasonable, and that sectors do not operate in an anti-competitive 

or monopolistic manner within the fishery or act unreasonably to bar dissatisfied members from transferring to another sector. Sectors are now the principal 

way that fishermen have to access the groundfish fishery; regulators need more 

explicit oversight of their operations. 

2. Congress should provide targeted research and development funding for gear 

improvements and sector technology that will allow fishermen to catch higher percentages of target rebuilt fish populations without negatively affecting rebuilding 

programs of overfished stocks. The New England Council is already exploring other 

approaches to increasing access to rebuilt stocks without interfering with the trajectory of the stocks that are still being rebuilt. Additional research funding directed 

toward gear technology and sector management improvements would continue to 

pay multiple dividends over time.18

3. Increased funding for data collection (fisheries-dependent and independent data) 

and analysis that could increase the accuracy of stock assessments and give New 

England fishermen the benefit of higher annual catch limits associated with rebuilding stocks on a more timely basis, as occurred with Atlantic sea scallops. Congressional budget lines for these areas remain a small fraction of what is needed and 

what could be used productively and profitably. There is a widespread sense that 

such Federal investments would be more than repaid through higher production in 

commercial fisheries, certainly in the long run but also in the short run for many 

species.19 Funding for research and development for new, more efficient approaches 

to and for data collection for stock estimation is also critical and could reduce longterm fishery costs and support regional research that could generate business opportunities for monitoring technologies around the world.20

4. Congress needs to recognize the critical importance of continued Federal financial support for the monitoring program currently in place for the groundfishery. 

Funding for this monitoring program is currently scheduled to be shifted onto 

groundfishermen at the start of the May 1, 2012 fishing season, which is right 

around the corner. More time is necessary for New England to refine effective, 

lower-cost monitoring programs (including electronic monitoring programs currently 

at a proof-of-concept phase in the region) before the Federal Government curtails 

this monitoring support. 

5. Congress should continue to support and fund permit banks, revolving loan 

funds, and other innovative social programs—including limits on such programs— 

as those programs are being developed in the region at a local or state level. These 

programs can be used to accomplish important social objectives, such as ensuring 

that there is a diversity of fishing operations in a state or creating a state-level 

‘‘new entrants’’ program that would allow young people to gain experience and history in the groundfish fishery without having to mortgage their families and their 

futures by having to buy permits. 

6. Conflicts of interest and data confidentiality requirements continue to be significant issues in the region, particularly with respect to public transparency but also 

for purposes of internal management analyses outside of NMFS. Given the fact that 

97 

these activities occur with a public resource, Congress may want to revisit these 

issues in the next reauthorization to ensure that the national interests and the 

public’s right to know are being served under the existing, highly-protective regime. 

VI. Conclusion 

Amendment 16 is the result of a three-year process; there are over 55,000 pages 

in the administrative record for the amendment. If there are any legal defects with 

Amendment 16, they will be identified and resolved by the First Circuit Court of 

Appeals, where the legal challenges of Amendment 16 by some of the commercial 

fishing interests are currently being processed for decision. With respect to the management policies underlying Amendment 16, those are the New England Fishery 

Management Council’s policy decisions, including the shift to hard quotas and the 

decision to make hard-quota-based sectors available widely to the region’s fishermen. These decisions were the product of extensive and sustained public debate and 

untold hours of analysis. Congress should be careful to harmonize its actions with 

the regional management decisions relating to this complex fishery. No one claims 

that Amendment 16 is perfect. We also acknowledge that Amendment 16 may well 

have impacted some of the region’s best fishermen. However, for most fishermen, 

including all but one of the designated representatives of the fishing industry on the 

New England Council, Amendment 16 is working as designed. This system needs 

to be given a chance to show its promise. 

On behalf of the Pew Environment Group and Conservation Law Foundation, we 

want to thank Chairman Kerry and the members of the Committee for this opportunity to provide a statement on this important subject. 

PETER BAKER, 

Director, Northeast Fisheries Program, 

Pew Environment Group/The Pew Charitable Trusts. 

PETER SHELLEY, 

Senior Counsel, 

Conservation Law Foundation. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MAGGIE RAYMOND ON BEHALF OF THE

ASSOCIATED FISHERIES OF MAINE

Senator Kerry, members of the Committee, thank you for taking the time to read 

this statement by the Associated Fisheries of Maine on the subject of the current 

state of the Massachusetts groundfish industry. 

Associated Fisheries of Maine is a trade association of fishing and fishing dependent businesses. Our membership includes harvesters and processors who land and 

process fish in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Our harvester members land 

over 19 million pounds of groundfish and monkfish annually in the ports of Gloucester, Boston, and New Bedford. 

In the 2010 fishing year, New England fishermen and fisheries managers faced 

mandates of the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to 

set annual catch limits and accountability measures, to immediately end overfishing, and to reduce fishing mortality by 

• 50 percent on Georges Bank cod 

• 46 percent on witch flounder 

• 39 percent on Southern New England yellowtail 

• 37 percent on Gulf of Maine cod, and 

• 34 percent on Gulf of Maine yellowtail 

Amendment 16 imposed the required reductions in fishing mortality, along with 

annual catch limits, with the result of low catch limits for all groundfish fishermen. 

These low catch limits have negatively impacted the ability of fishermen to achieve 

profitability in their harvesting businesses. 

Additionally, overcapacity in the New England groundfish fleet has been a recognized problem for decades, has contributed to overfishing, and has challenged the 

efforts by fisheries managers to reduce fishing mortality as required by law. Fisheries managers have recognized the need for consolidation to address overcapacity 

and have made several attempts to encourage consolidation of the groundfish fleet, 

including a recent letter to the Secretary of Commerce communicating the need for 

a buyout. 

Amendment 16 has dealt another economic blow to New England fishing and fishing dependent businesses. There is also evidence that Amendment 16 has ended 

98 

overfishing and dramatically reduced discards of valuable groundfish, achieving important objectives of the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act and the New England groundfish management plan. 

In January 2011, the New England Fishery Management Council (Council) submitted Framework Adjustment 45 which, among other things, attempted to reverse 

the onerous requirement for the groundfish industry to pay for at-sea monitoring 

in 2012. 

Unfortunately, NOAA disapproved this recommendation by the Council. 

This week, again recognizing the significant financial burden of at-sea monitoring 

costs, the Council initiated a regulatory action to make changes to the requirement 

for the industry to pay for at-sea monitoring. We are not confident that this action 

can or will be approved before the industry is handed a monitoring bill that it cannot pay. 

The Associated Fisheries of Maine appreciates the continued interest you and all 

of our 

New England Senators have paid to the economic difficulties being experienced 

by fishermen. You have penned several letters to NOAA Assistant Administrator 

Schwaab expressing concerns about the significant cost of monitoring that the industry is expected to shoulder and the need for regulatory flexibility to allow fishermen to access healthy groundfish stocks. These are precisely the issues that require 

your continued advocacy on our behalf. 

We urge you to focus your attention on finding solutions to these problems, especially by assuring that NOAA’s budget includes the funding necessary to adequately 

monitor the groundfish management program. 

Æ