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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

77–585 PDF 2003

S. HRG. 106–1086

REAUTHORIZATION OF THE MAGNUSONSTEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND

MANAGEMENT ACT

FIELD HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS AND FISHERIES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JANUARY 19, 2000

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

(

(II)

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

SLADE GORTON, Washington 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri 

BILL FRIST, Tennessee 

SPENCER ABRAHAM, Michigan 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana 

RICHARD H. BRYAN, Nevada 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

MAX CLELAND, Georgia 

MARK BUSE, Republican Staff Director 

MARTHA P. ALLBRIGHT, Republican General Counsel 

KEVIN D. KAYES, Democratic Staff Director 

MOSES BOYD, Democratic Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS AND FISHERIES 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

SLADE GORTON, Washington 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on January 19, 2000 ......................................................................... 1

Statement of Senator Gorton .................................................................................. 4

Statement of Senator Snowe ................................................................................... 1

Statement of Senator Stevens ................................................................................ 6

WITNESSES

Alverson, Robert, manager, Fishing Vessel Owners Association ......................... 40

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 42

Anderson, Phil, Special Assistant to the Director of Washington Department 

of Fish and Wildlife .............................................................................................. 29

Anderson, Sam, Executive Director, Master Builders Association of King and 

Snohomish Counties, Washington ...................................................................... 98

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 101

Barrow, Mike, Bristol Bay Drift Net Association ................................................. 124

Bassi, Wade, Owner-Operator, Fishing Vessel Polaris ......................................... 121

Brown, Ralph, Member, Pacific Fisheries Management Council ......................... 57

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 58

Bruce, John .............................................................................................................. 124

Crowley, John, Longline Fisherman and Vessel Owner ....................................... 127

Crowley, Jack, Longline Fisherman and Vessel Owner ....................................... 128

Dalton, Penelope, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration; accompanied by Will Stelle, Assistant 

Administrator, Northwest Region ....................................................................... 8

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 10

Deach, Laura, West Coast Longliner ..................................................................... 113

Doumit, Chris, Commissioner, Columbia River Crab Fishermen’s Association 

for Dale Beaseley, Chairman of the Columbia River Crab Fishermen’s Association .................................................................................................................... 118

Prepared statement of Dale Beaseley ............................................................. 118

Fujita, Rod, Senior Scientist, Environmental Defense ......................................... 81

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 85

Harp, Jim, Tribal Representative, Pacific Fishery Management Council .......... 30

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 32

Hendricks, Larry O., Alaskan Crab Fisherman .................................................... 126

Letter of Recommendations ............................................................................. 127

Henkel, Tim, President, Deep Sea Fishermen’s Union of the Pacific ................. 66

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 68

Henzler, Jude, Executive Director, Bering Sea Fishermen’s Association ........... 112

Hiner, Todd, Kodiak, Alaskan Crab Fisherman and Owner Operator ............... 121

Knudson, Darrell, Longline Fisherman ................................................................. 126

Lee, Arnie, Commercial Fisherman and Owner Operator ................................... 123

Leipzig, Peter, Executive Director, Fishermen’s Marketing Association ............ 94

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 96

Lone, Jim, Chairman, Pacific Fishery Management Council ............................... 16

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 18

Lundsten, Mark, Owner-Operator of an Alaskan Longliner ................................ 114

Madison, Bart, Tacoma, Washington Recreational Fisherman ........................... 122

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 120

Merklein, Mandy, Board Member, Pacific Marine Conservation Council ........... 130

Moore, Rod, Executive Director, West Coast Seafood Processors Association .... 61

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

Noggle, Charlie, Longline Fisherman .................................................................... 129

Paulsen, Edward, Paulsen Fisheries ...................................................................... 117

Powell, Mark, Marine Biologist, Center for Marine Conservation ...................... 113

Page

IV

Sampson, David, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Fisheries, Oregon State University ................................................................................................................... 89

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 91

Standaert, Jan, Crewman and Skipper, Deep Sea Fishermen’s Union .............. 111

Taufen, Stephen, Groundswell Fisheries Movement ............................................ 115

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 116

APPENDIX

Grader, Jr., W.F. ‘‘Zeke’’ Executive Director, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Association, prepared statement 144

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. John F. Kerry: 

Jim Lone ............................................................................................................ 137

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Olympia J. Snowe: 

Phil Anderson ................................................................................................... 134

Penelope Dalton ................................................................................................ 133

Peter Leipzig ..................................................................................................... 135

Jim Jone ............................................................................................................ 143

Rod Fujita ......................................................................................................... 133

David Sampson ................................................................................................. 138

(1)

REAUTHORIZATION OF THE MAGNUSONSTEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND 

MANAGEMENT ACT 

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 19, 2000

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS AND FISHERIES, 

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, 

Seattle, WA 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 8:15 a.m., in the 

Seattle SEATAC Airport Auditorium, Hon. Olympia J. Snowe, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE,

U.S. SENATOR FROM MAINE 

Senator SNOWE. Good morning. The hearing will come to order. 

I want to welcome everybody to this hearing on the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. I want to express my appreciation and gratitude to Senator Gorton for inviting me and the subcommittee to Seattle to discuss the issues important to the future 

of our Nation’s fisheries. 

It has been a privilege of mine to work with Senator Gorton over 

the last five years on the Commerce Committee and in the U.S. 

Senate. I can tell you, having seen firsthand his efforts on the 

Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee, he is working very hard. I do 

not know anybody more tenacious when it comes to fighting for 

their state’s interests in Washington. Certainly that is the case 

with respect to fisheries policy that affects the well-being of the industry in the State of Washington, as well as on the west coast. 

Slade is not afraid to tempt fate, either. Just to prove that the 

friendly skies of America were Y2K ready, Slade flew around on 

New Year’s Eve with the FAA, as chair of the Subcommittee on 

Aviation. Now, I call that a hands-on approach, Slade. 

[Laughter.] 

I also want to thank Senator Stevens for being with us. When 

it comes to the issues that we will be discussing this morning, Senator Stevens quite literally helped write the book. As one of the 

driving forces behind the Magnuson-Stevens Act, along with the 

late Warren Magnuson of Washington, Ted was the first chairman 

of the Subcommittee. His institutional knowledge and depth of concern are unparalleled. 

I also want to welcome all the witnesses who will testify this 

morning. I see some familiar faces, such as Ms. Dalton, of the National Marine Fisheries Service, who has been on the road show 

2

with me around the country. We think it is very important that 

your voice is heard in this process. Feedback from you is indispensable as we consider the most significant issue to come before the 

Subcommittee: the reauthorization of this Act. 

Today we hope to hear answers to some very important questions 

that have arisen as a result of the 1996 changes to the Act. We 

want to know what has worked, what has not worked, and what 

your concerns are. You are on the front lines. What do you see as 

important for the future of your fisheries? 

In our States, whether it is Washington, Alaska, Maine, Oregon, 

or California, fishing has been important to many generations who 

have been fortunate enough to work on the water. Yesterday, the 

subcommittee held a hearing in Anchorage, with Senator Stevens, 

and we discussed the many pressing issues facing the fishing communities in Alaska. 

Today we will hear from those of you who live and fish in the 

great Pacific Northwest. Now, I am sure I do not have to tell you 

that the Magnuson-Stevens Act, enacted in 1976, is the principal 

law governing our fisheries in this country. It is administered by 

the National Marine Fisheries Service, as well as the eight regional 

fisheries management Councils, which establish the rules under 

which the fishing industry operates. They determine the harvest 

quota, season length, gear restrictions, and license limitations—decisions which have serious implications for those of you who fish 

and work in the Northwest. 

That is why these difficult management decisions cannot be 

made in a vacuum. Your livelihoods are at stake. Your perspective 

must be incorporated in the decisionmaking process and in the 

final decisions that are made. It is critical that all sectors of the 

fishing community receive a fair and balanced representation. 

In July, we began this process with an initial hearing in Washington, D.C., to examine a broad array of issues. Dr. Dave 

Fluharty, a professor at the University of Washington and a member of the North Pacific Council, discussed several major areas of 

concern. We will have the opportunity to explore these further 

today. 

The Subcommittee has held hearings in my own State of Maine, 

in New Orleans, and as I said, in Anchorage yesterday. We will be 

holding another field hearing in Massachusetts later in the year. 

The intent and purpose of these hearings are to hear from as many 

people as possible, so that we can obtain a consensus on how to ensure a healthy future for our Nation’s fisheries. 

While many regions are dependent on having commercial and 

recreational fisheries that are strong and robust, others have not 

fared as well. I know this is particularly true here with the groundfish industry and the decline of fish stocks. Communities in this region are feeling the weight of the economic burden. Throughout 

this reauthorization process, we will be attentive to the most efficient, effective, and responsive ways to help bring about healthy 

fisheries as well as healthy fishing communities. 

One of the overall goals of the Act was to provide a mechanism 

to determine the appropriate level of catch to maximize benefits to 

the Nation, while still protecting the long-term sustainability of the 

fisheries. It is a balancing act among competing interests. We will 

3

hear about the need for participation from non-fishing interests 

when managing public resources. 

The Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 also reflected significant 

changes to the goals of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Proper implementation of these provisions is of great concern to many different 

groups. That is why there will be considerable interest in the activities of the regional Councils, as well as the National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

The most substantial change under the 1996 Act was the mandate to stop overfishing and restore overfished stocks. The Councils 

were given a timetable to achieve this goal. Today’s witnesses will 

be able to give firsthand reports about the level of success the Pacific Council has had in meeting this requirement. The Councils 

and NMFS were also told to emphasize the socioeconomic impacts 

that regulations have had on fishing communities. Clearly, Congress intended to preserve the fishermen as well as the fish. 

Because of my concern, I asked about National Standard 8, regarding the socioeconomic impacts, and the way in which it was 

being implemented. Senator Breaux and I asked for an investigation by GAO, to examine the ways in which NMFS has administered this provision of law. The Sustainable Fisheries Act also imposed a moratorium on the creation of new individual fishing 

quotas, or IFQ’s. The moratorium will expire on October 1st of this 

year, so I would encourage witnesses to offer recommendations 

today on how the subcommittee should address this issue in the future. 

The final policy shifts in the Sustainable Fisheries Act are the 

provisions to minimize bycatch and protect fish habitat. Based on 

the concerns that certain fish stock have declined due to their loss 

of surrounding habitat, the Act established a national program to 

facilitate the long-term protection of essential fish habitat. 

Many argue that these provisions have not been properly implemented. We will discuss that problem with our witnesses here 

today. 

Finally, from my own discussions with the fishing industry and 

those who represent it in my State of Maine, I have heard time and 

again that they feel the law is too rigid, that it’s not being implemented properly, and that—contrary to its mandate—the best 

science is not being used in management. From reviewing your testimony, I know that some of these same concerns will be expressed 

by many of you. 

As we move forward in this process, we must make sure that 

sustainable fishing and good management become the norm and 

not the exception. Clearly, this reauthorization will have major implications for the future of marine fisheries in the United States. 

I should say that I view this as a unique opportunity to take what 

we have learned and to craft a sensible and balanced approach to 

fisheries resources, which are so important to the states that we all 

represent and to the Nation as a whole. 

I would appreciate hearing your views as to whether or not we 

should overhaul the legislation or fine-tune it, in order to make significant improvements for the future. 

Some people say that it will take a very long time to implement 

the provisions that are already in place from the 1996 Act. We 

4

have also been cautioned not to take too long, because it erodes 

confidence when the policies do not work efficiently and effectively. 

So, again, I thank all of you for being here today. Now, it is my 

pleasure to turn to Senator Gorton. Thank you again, Senator Gorton, for having us here in the beautiful State of Washington. 

STATEMENT OF HON. SLADE GORTON,

U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON 

Senator GORTON. Senator Snowe has certainly gone well above 

and beyond her duty in going from coast to coast, to Alaska, and 

late back here this evening, to evidence the proposition that she is 

interested in the fishery not only in her own State of Maine, where 

it is obviously a vital natural resource, but on the other coast, as 

well. And it is only through the kind of cooperation that her willingness to do this hard work illustrates that I think we are likely 

to solve some of the very real challenges that face us here in this 

reauthorization of Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

Senator Stevens is also welcome. I hardly need to welcome Senator Stevens to Seattle. He seems to be here almost as frequently 

as I am, and has always shown a great interest not just in fisheries, but in all of the other many issues that bind our States so 

closely together. 

All of you in this room know as well as Senator Snowe and I do 

that Senator Stevens occasionally has strong views on certain subjects. And I must say that those strong views, to me, have created 

both a friendship and an association which is one that I value more 

than almost any other in my career and in my life. And he is particularly welcome here, not just as a colleague, but as a friend. 

For those of you in the audience, I wish that we could have accommodated more formal witnesses. We are going to try to hear 

from some of you in an open microphone session that will come 

after the three panels. 

The life of a fisherman has never been easy, but it has been particularly difficult during the last couple of decades here on the west 

coast. In the past 20 years, the harvest of groundfish, except for 

whiting, off the west coast has been reduced by 70 percent, but little has been done to reduce fishing capacity. 

In 1996, when we last reauthorized the Federal law that governs 

fishing in the exclusive economic zone, we adopted a series of stringent conservation measures to facilitate the rebuilding of fish 

stocks. In response to these changes, the Pacific Fisheries Management Council has imposed significant cuts in many groundfish 

quotas, and made life for today’s fishermen even harder. 

West coast fishermen have accepted extraordinary sacrifices for 

the long-term health of the resource. This willingness to embark on 

the long path to recovery, in the hopes that perhaps for some overfished species, such as bocaccio, their children’s children’s children, 

many uncontrollable environmental conditions permitting, will see 

a healthy fishery—that is laudable. 

I recognize the inadequacy, however, of praise alone. The sacrifices of west coast fishermen have imposed serious economic hardships, particularly for small operations. I hope that Congress will 

respond to the Pacific Council’s warning that the groundfish fishery 

5

is facing an economic disaster by providing economic relief, just as 

it responded to fishery disasters on the East Coast. 

In 1996, we amended the Magnuson-Stevens Act to authorize disaster relief for fishermen and vessel and license buyout programs. 

We need to ensure that these provisions do not remain dormant 

and unfunded at a time at which the need is so great. 

In helping to put together today’s hearing, I felt it was critical 

to have one panel address the issue of data collection and analysis. 

In the absence of more accurate information, many have advocated 

a precautionary approach that, while generally appropriate in the 

face of uncertainty, is not an acceptable long-term management 

method. It is unfair both to the fishermen and to the resource. 

I understand that of the more than 80 species in the groundfish 

complex managed by the Pacific Council, 75 percent have never 

been formally assessed. And those species that are assessed are 

evaluated only every third year. Unfortunately, however, the problem caused by inadequate data is not easily resolved. We can, however, start making some headway. And I strongly believe that we 

should do so. 

There are many stocks for which we will not have enough information for decades to manage in a fully informed manner. Not only 

do we not know the current stock size for many species, we do not 

know what the stock size would be in the absence of fishing, or 

even how much stock is being taken by fishermen. The expanse of 

the scientific chasm that faces our managers should not cause us, 

however, simply to turn around and walk away. We need to start 

getting a better idea of what is in our oceans and what we are 

catching if we expect the regional Councils and the National Marine Fisheries Service to manage the fisheries responsibly and fairly. 

For years, I have attempted, with limited success, to increase the 

President’s budget for data collection and stock assessments of west 

coast groundfish. Today, I appeal to the administration to make 

this uphill battle easier by increasing the funds allocated for west 

coast groundfish stock assessments in the President’s 2001 budget. 

But while I hold the administration responsible in part for inadequately funding groundfish stock assessments, Congress bears the 

blame for not retaining the $2 million included in the President’s 

budget for a much needed west coast observer program. I strongly 

supported this request, but was unable to retain it in the face of 

opposition from the House of Representatives. 

I agree that an observer program should be implemented on the 

west coast, and pledge to try to amend the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

to authorize the Pacific Council to impose a broad-based fee to pay 

for these observers. In recognition of the economic hardship that is 

being suffered in so many of our fisheries, however, I will also attempt again to obtain Federal funding to help pay for such a program on the west coast, and hope that the administration will continue its support for this program. 

While the need for additional resources, and perhaps better use 

of existing resources, for data collection is generally noncontroversial, there are other issues we must deal with in this reauthorization that are far more controversial. One of these is individual fishing quotas, or IFQ’s. The 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act imposed 

6

a moratorium until October 2000 on the adoption of new IFQ’s. 

Since then, all eight regional Councils have recommended to Congress that the moratorium on IFQ’s be allowed to expire and that 

Councils be permitted to include IFQ’s in their management tool 

boxes. 

The National Research Council, which Congress asked to conduct 

a comprehensive study of IFQ’s, made the same recommendation. 

Recognizing the difficulty of many of these policy concerns, including the equity of the original allocations, the fear of excessive corporate consolidation and the effect of IFQ’s on the relative power 

of processors versus catchers, I nevertheless concur with the Councils and hope that Congress will not categorically extend the moratorium. 

That said, I look forward to working with my colleagues and all 

interested parties to determine what, if any, IFQ guidelines should 

be codified in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

Another issue of the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act that we need 

carefully to reconsider is the provision regarding essential fish 

habitat and its impact on non-fishery interests. While we have repeatedly been assured by the National Marine Fisheries Service 

that the potential designation of much of the States of Washington, 

Oregon and California as essential fish habitat under MagnusonStevens will not unduly burden non-fishery interests because the 

consultation requirements required for Federal activity in these 

areas will overlap with numerous other consultation requirements, 

National Marine Fisheries Service regulations regarding essential 

fish habitat suggests otherwise. 

I look forward to hearing the testimony on this topic. The issues, 

of course, are many and are complex. I look forward to hearing 

from each of you how best you feel that we should address them. 

Thank you. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you very much, Senator Gorton. 

I would now like to recognize the distinguished Senator from 

Alaska, Senator Stevens. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS,

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much, Madam Chairperson. I 

am very pleased to be back here again to have an opportunity to 

hear the views of the people of this area concerning the problems 

we face in the fishing industry. 

Yesterday, we had a very good hearing, I think, in Alaska. It was 

a very extensive one. And we have heard a great many ideas. 

Slade, you will be happy to know that there seems to be a change 

of opinion in Alaska concerning IFQ’s, at least to a certain extent, 

with many of the people who, in the past opposed IFQ’s appearing 

before us yesterday, and suggesting that this is a valuable tool for 

the regional Councils. But they also suggested some other tools 

that might be considered by the Councils and not mandate just one 

single new management concept. 

I do believe, though, that the most significant part of the hearing 

yesterday was the portion that covered the crash of the opilio fleet. 

And I think that is a very significant problem. It certainly comes 

7

within the area of the disaster provisions that you have referred 

to. 

As Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and you are a 

member also, Senator Gorton, and I do not know how many of you 

realize, we provided $8 billion more than the Administration requested last year for agricultural disasters. Well, we had a severe 

problem in getting a small amount—I think it was about $65 million before we were through—for a fisheries disaster. That attitude 

has to change, because the effects of El Nino and La Nina on fisheries resources is not different than the effect of the tornadoes and 

extreme storms that the agricultural areas have faced in the last 

few years. 

I do hope that we can come to an agreement about how to handle 

the disaster type of funding. And clearly the opilio issue is going 

to be in the forefront of my mind as we try to approach that issue 

this year. 

I agree with what Senator Gorton said about the basic problem 

of the habitat issues. And I was happy, and I think you will be 

happy to hear, some of the comments made by the agency representatives on that issue. It truly is, I think, a problem that we 

have to avoid. We have to avoid making the essential fish habitat 

concept into an Endangered Species Act, in terms of the type of 

intercession that the courts could have on fisheries management if 

we are not careful. And I hope that everyone will agree on that. 

There are a great many issues that we will cover today that I 

think that we heard testimony on yesterday. And as I said, I am 

looking forward to the comments that you all will make on those 

issues. 

I appreciate what Senator Snowe is doing. She also went to Louisiana. She has been all over the country. And I have got to, without tooting my own horn, say that I have been there and I have 

done that. 

[Laughter.] 

And it takes time to do that and it takes really a commitment 

of staff and of the Chairman’s office to make these hearings into 

what Senator Snowe has made them. They are very informative 

hearings, and I think they are going to be essential to convincing 

our colleagues who are not from coastal States of the need for action this year to try to deal with these issues. 

I agree with you; I hope we can get the bill passed this year. It 

is going to be a difficult thing to do because of all of the problems 

of a Presidential election year. But if we can come to a consensus 

and not have battles between areas of the country or battles with 

those who are in charge with enforcing the laws that we have 

passed, I do think we can come to an agreement on what to do and 

get set about making the changes to the existing laws that should 

be made because of the developments we have seen in the last year 

or two. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you, Senator Stevens. Thank you very 

much. 

Before I welcome the first panel, I would like to introduce our 

staff: Sloan Rappoport and Stephanie Bailenson, from my Subcommittee staff, and Margaret Spring, from the minority SubVerDate Apr 24 2002 09:41 Jul 25, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\77585.TXT SCOM2 PsN: JACKF
8

committee staff, have travelled from Washington, D.C. to be here. 

Jeanne Bumpus from Senator Gorton’s D.C. staff is here as well, 

in addition to Dave Russell from Senator Stevens’s office, and Bill 

Woolf from Senator Murkowski’s office. 

I would like to welcome the first panel members. Ms. Penny Dalton is the Assistant Administrator of the National Marine Fisheries 

Service, and I am grateful for her considerable effort to travel 

around the country and attend all of the field hearings that I have 

held. I really want to express my appreciation to you, Ms. Dalton, 

for your willingness to testify and be part of this process. 

She is accompanied by Mr. Will Stelle, who, by the way, has 

Maine roots. Good to have you here, and thank you very much for 

being here. 

We also have Mr. Jim Lone, Chairman of the Pacific Council. 

The next witness is Mr. Phil Anderson, of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Our final witness will be Mr. Jim Harp, 

a member of the Pacific Council. 

I thank you all for being here. Ms. Dalton, we will start with you. 

STATEMENT OF PENELOPE DALTON, ASSISTANT

ADMINISTRATOR FOR FISHERIES, NATIONAL OCEANIC

ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, ACCOMPANIED BY WILL 

STELLE, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, NORTHWEST REGION 

Ms. DALTON. Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to 

testify. It actually has been a great learning experience for me to 

participate in these hearings. 

I am Penny Dalton, NOAA Assistant Administrator for Fisheries. 

Accompanying me is Will Stelle, our Northwest Regional Administrator. 

As you know, marine fisheries make a significant contribution to 

coastal economies in California, Oregon and Washington. West 

coast fishermen harvested close to a billion pounds of seafood in 

1998, producing over $280 million in dockside revenues. In addition, 1.7 million saltwater anglers in the region took 7 million trips 

and caught 28 million fish. While these figures are substantial, 

they have declined noticeably in important fisheries like Pacific 

groundfish and salmon. 

On the west coast, NOAA Fisheries and the Pacific Fishery Management Council manage 83 species of groundfish, five species of 

salmon, and five coastal pelagic species under three fishery management plans. Development of a fourth plan for highly migratory 

species also is underway. 

Other west coast fisheries, such as pink shrimp and dungeness 

crab, are managed by the States, with coordination through the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. 

The 1993 report to Congress on the status of U.S. fishery resources designates three Pacific groundfish species as overfished: 

bocaccio, ling cod, and Pacific Ocean perch. For each of these species, the Pacific Council adopted, and NOAA Fisheries approved, 

rebuilding plans that went into effect at the beginning of the year. 

At the same time, two other Pacific groundfish species—cowcod 

and canary rockfish—were designated as overfished. Catch levels 

for these species have been reduced to address overfishing, while 

rebuilding plans are being developed and implemented. It is now 

9

clear the Pacific groundfish stocks are not as productive or as resilient as previously thought, and the reduced quotas reflect this 

lower productivity. 

The result has been much more restrictive management, not only 

for the overfished species, but also for fisheries that target other 

healthier stocks but incidentally take overfished species. We expect 

commercial west coast ground fishermen to incur a loss of at least 

$9 million to $11 million in the year 2000 relative to 1999. This 

loss might be greater if one considers processing and support industries and coastal communities. 

The Governors of California, Oregon and Washington have requested the Secretary of Commerce to determine that a commercial 

fishery failure has occurred due to a fishery resource disaster. 

Today, Secretary Daley is announcing that he would make such an 

affirmative determination. His decision was based on our scientists’ assessment that an unusually low level of recruitment of young 

fish into the fishery has resulted in a resource disaster of undetermined but probably natural causes. 

Among possible causes are an ocean regime shift, El Nino, and 

low stock productivity. Because many of these stocks are long-lived 

and slow-growing, rebuilding efforts are likely to be lengthy. In addition, the groundfish fishery is composed of several dozen stocks, 

and we still lack basic scientific information for stock assessments 

in setting harvests at sustainable levels. 

If Congress appropriates funds to mitigate the fishery failure, 

NOAA Fisheries will work with affected States, fishermen and 

communities to develop an assistance program. We are particularly 

interested in improving our scientific understanding, addressing 

the needs of fishermen and their families, and reducing overcapacity. 

Regulations to implement an industry-funded buyback program 

have been prepared and are under review by the Department and 

OMB. We expect an interim final rule to be published soon. Our 

challenge now is to protect and rebuilt depleted stocks while minimizing, to the extent possible, economic and social impacts on fishing communities. 

Turning to Pacific salmon, the ocean salmon fishery has been severely curtailed due to the listing under the Endangered Species 

Act of 26 populations of salmon and steelhead trout. The Council 

is working to limit impacts of marine fisheries on these populations, reducing Snake River fall chinook harvests by at least 30 

percent and Puget Sound chinook harvests by up to 45 percent. 

One recent effort was to fin-mark hatchery fish to allow their continued harvest without jeopardizing the recovery of wild stocks. 

On a positive note, we successfully completed the final steps to 

fully implement the new Pacific salmon agreement between the 

United States and Canada. We look forward to the conservation 

benefits and international stability that this agreement will bring 

to our salmon recovery efforts. 

The increased emphasis of the Magnuson-Stevens Act on conserving and enhancing essential fish habitat remains an issue in 

the region. Past management measures have included restrictions 

on the use of certain gear in sensitive marine habitat. EFH has 

been designated for nearly 100 west coast species. And because of 

10

their large number and diversity, designated areas range from 

freshwater streams and estuaries to open ocean. In addition, the 

Council is evaluating the potential of marine reserves for protecting habitat and reducing overfishing in the groundfish fishery. 

NOAA Fisheries has conducted close to 2,500 consultations with 

Federal agencies whose non-fishing activities may adversely affect 

EFH. The process integrates EFH consultations into existing environmental reviews to minimize impacts on Federal agencies and 

the public. 

And to just digress for a minute, one of the things that I thought 

might be helpful was to talk a little bit about the background of 

this issue. We came out with a proposed rule after the 1996 amendments that I think was criticized a fair amount because it was too 

expansive. We looked at all of the comments that we got and we 

published an interim final rule that the basic purpose of it was to 

integrate this process into our existing reviews that we conduct 

under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the Clean Water Act, 

ESA, and the Federal Power Act. 

At this point, it is an interim final rule. We just reopened the 

comment period. And we are hoping to be able to publish a final 

rule sometime in the near future. What we are hoping is a lot of 

the concerns that are being expressed now have also been given to 

us during the comment period and that a lot of our revisions 

should address those concerns as much as we can. 

Another thing that we have done, in California, we have begun 

a process that is called one stop shopping, where we have actually 

begun to integrate the permitting process for ESA, EFH, essential 

fish habitat, also for the National Ocean Service programs, like marine sanctuaries and coastal zone management. And what we are 

hoping—that is a pilot program now—is that that can be expanded 

to other parts of the country, to reduce the regulatory burden on 

industries that have activities in coastal areas. 

We want to work with you, I think, to refine the statute and the 

process. One of the things that we are a little concerned of is not 

to lose sight of the goal that these provisions were put in the Act 

for. And that is that good U.S. fisheries, sustained U.S. fisheries 

rely on a healthy habitat. So we need to deal with these problems. 

In closing, NOAA Fisheries is still working to implement the 

amendments made to the Magnuson-Stevens Act in 1996 and will 

propose no major changes at this time. However, we have identified 

revisions that may improve management process and resolve some 

relatively minor problems. These are discussed in my written statement. 

In addition, we look forward to working with congressional members on high-priority issues, such as observer programs, individual 

fishing quotas, and funding of the authorities. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Dalton follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PENELOPE DALTON, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR

FISHERIES, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATOR

Madame Chair and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to 

Seattle to testify on the implementation and reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), and to 

speak on issues of concern to west coast fishermen. I am Penny Dalton, Assistant 

11

Administrator for Fisheries for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

BUILDING A FOUNDATION FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES—WEST COAST FISHERIES

Commercial and recreational fisheries off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and 

California are important national resources. In 1998, west coast commercial fishermen harvested over 980 million pounds of fish, shellfish, and crustaceans in marine 

waters (including Puget Sound), producing over $280 million in dockside revenue 

from the commercial fishery. 

In addition, in 1998, 1.7 million marine recreational fishing participants took 7 

million trips and caught a total of 28 million fish off the west coast. Seventy percent 

of the trips were made in California, followed by 21 percent in Washington, and 9 

percent in Oregon. Although the recreational harvest on the west coast is much 

smaller than the commercial harvest, this fishery is an important component of the 

west coast fishing industry and way of life. 

While the seafood and marine recreational fishing industries make substantial 

contributions to coastal communities, current harvest levels have declined noticeably in some key fisheries, notably Pacific groundfish and Pacific salmon. Current 

harvest yields are substantially lower than the long-term potential yield. 

From a regional perspective, over 80 species of Pacific groundfish, three species 

of Pacific salmon and five coastal pelagic species are managed under three fishery 

management plans (FMPs) developed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council 

(Pacific Council). The Pacific Council is currently in the process of developing a 

fourth FMP for highly migratory species. Other major west coast fisheries such as 

pink shrimp and Dungeness crab are managed under State jurisdiction in coordination with the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. In the 1999 Report to 

Congress, three Pacific groundfish species managed by the Pacific Council were declared overfished. NOAA Fisheries notified the Pacific Council in March of last year 

that bocaccio rockfish, ling cod and Pacific ocean perch were overfished. The Pacific 

Council has adopted rebuilding plans for each of the three species with the goal of 

rebuilding these stocks and increasing long-term yield. NOAA Fisheries has approved regulations to implement the rebuilding plans that became effective on January 1, 2000. Concurrent with the publication of the year 2000 fishing regulations 

in the Federal Register, NOAA Fisheries has notified the Pacific Council that two 

additional species of Pacific groundfish, cowcod and canary rockfish, are overfished 

bringing the total number of overfished species to five. Although no salmon species 

currently meet the Pacific Salmon Fishery Management Plan’s definition of ‘‘overfished,’’ ocean salmon fishing has been severely curtailed due to the listing under 

the Endangered Species Act of 26 different populations of salmon, steelhead, and 

cutthroat trout. 

The Pacific groundfish fishery is an important commercial and recreational fishery. Indeed, the flow of various products throughout the year from the groundfish 

fishery is often what keeps many processors and fishery participants in business. 

However, it has become apparent that Pacific groundfish stocks are not as productive or resilient as previously thought. We have reduced quotas to reflect this lower 

productivity. In addition, the new provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act necessitate more conservative management for the five species that we have determined 

are overfished. This has resulted in much more restrictive management not only for 

fisheries on the overfished species, but also for fisheries that target on other, 

healthier stocks that incidentally encounter overfished species. 

We expect commercial west coast groundfish fishermen to incur a loss of at least 

$3–$15 million in 2000 relative to 1999. This loss might be greater if one considers 

processing and support industries in the coastal communities. This assumes also 

that the quotas of all managed species will be entirely harvested, which may not 

happen. Some healthy stocks will not be fully harvested because their harvest will 

be constrained by regulations designed to protect co-occurring overfished species. 

These declines are particularly painful when added to losses experienced in previous years. Between 1997–1998, fishermen’s revenue from Pacific groundfish was 

just under $68 million, the lowest level in 18 years. This was in part due to instability in Asian economies, but also due to reduced fishing quotas and other management actions for some species. Moreover, because rebuilding plans on most overfished groundfish species are expected to continue for about 30 years, the prognosis 

for rapid economic recovery for the west coast groundfish industry in the absence 

of some form of industry restructuring is not good. 

The Governors of California and Oregon have requested that the Secretary of 

Commerce make a disaster declaration based upon a commercial fisheries failure. 

We are currently in the process of evaluating the causes for the fishery resource deVerDate Apr 24 2002 09:41 Jul 25, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\77585.TXT SCOM2 PsN: JACKF
12

cline and its economic impacts, and hope to make a determination very soon. If Congress appropriates funds to mitigate a west coast groundfish fishery disaster, NOAA 

Fisheries intends to work with the affected States to consult with the fishing industry and affected communities to determine the best use of disaster funding. Areas 

of particular interest are finding ways to improve our understanding of the ecology 

of the fishery, address the needs of displaced fishermen and their families, and reduce significant overcapacity in the fishery. 

Several fundamental issues still exist that complicate the conservation and management of Pacific groundfish resources. A major underlying reason for the current 

situation is the lack of basic scientific data to conduct stock assessments and to set 

harvest limits that will maintain groundfish stocks at sustainable levels. Although 

NOAA Fisheries has improved its capability to collect scientific information through 

a number of cooperative projects with the fishing industry and with the academic 

community, we are far short of what we need to improve our fishery management 

decisions. Typically, only six of the over 80 groundfish stocks are assessed each year, 

and only 26 have had some form of stock assessment analysis. Only 16 of the assessments have had enough data and analysis to allow determination of the species 

status. Of these 16 species, five are listed as overfished. Basic research needs include increasing the frequency and scope of surveys; accounting for discarded bycatch through an at-sea observer program; increasing research on essential fish 

habitat; and improving the capability to assess social and economic impacts of fishery management on fishery participants and fishing communities. 

Turning now to Pacific salmon, you are all well aware that the majority of native 

west coast salmon stocks are seriously depleted as evidenced by the listing of 26 distinct populations from Central California north to Puget Sound, Washington as 

threatened or endangered. Factors in this decline can be categorized into the nowfamiliar ‘‘Hs’’—habitat degradation, harvest overages, hydropower development, and 

hatchery practices. The Pacific Council has made significant progress in reducing 

the impacts of overharvest in marine areas, including reducing the ocean harvest 

rate on Snake River fall chinook by 30 percent or more. Although the harvest rate 

on Puget Sound chinook in the ocean fishery is low (only 1 to 3 percent), commercial 

chinook catches in Puget Sound have been reduced by 60 percent and the total 

Puget Sound chinook harvest has been reduced by up to 45 percent. In some areas, 

we have fin-marked 100 percent of our hatchery fish and have started to implement 

‘‘fin-marked only’’ selective fisheries, where hatchery fish can be safely harvested, 

while unmarked wild fish are returned to the water. We are proceeding cautiously 

in this area, but believe that conservatively designed selective fisheries for marked 

hatchery fish can be compatible with the recovery of our wild salmon stocks. Also, 

we recently completed the final steps to fully implement the new Pacific Salmon 

Treaty agreement with Canada, which should contribute significant stability and coordination to our salmon recovery efforts. 

In spite of the fact that Pacific groundfish and salmon fishing mortality has been 

reduced through state and federal management efforts, we still have a long way to 

go. New stock assessments on previously unassessed groundfish species are likely 

to result in the need for further harvest reductions given what we now know about 

stock productivity and other factors. Our challenge will be to protect and rebuild 

those stocks most seriously depleted, while minimizing to the extent possible adverse economic and social impacts on fishing communities. 

Recognizing that serious problems remain with some fishery resources, we are 

cautiously optimistic about the future of west coast marine fisheries. We must continue to protect overfished fish stocks, focus on improving yields over the long term, 

and identify additional measures that would move depleted stocks toward recovery. 

It is clear that fishery management can work. When we reduce mortality, biomass 

increases; and at some point, when nature cooperates, good year classes enter the 

fishery. However, we remain cautious as we face the challenges before us. We must 

work with the Council, States, and fishermen to maintain management plans that 

work, adjust our course where plans are not effective, and minimize to the extent 

possible the impacts on communities and the fishing industry as we make the transition to sustainable fisheries. I appreciate the commitment of members of the west 

coast delegation, industry, and fishing communities to this transition. I look forward 

with you to restoring fish stocks that support a vibrant fishing industry and healthy 

coastal economies. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES ACT

As we enter the 21st Century, we are at a crucial point in fisheries management, 

with considerable work ahead of us. In the 23 years since the enactment of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, we have seen the complete Americanization of fisheries in fedVerDate Apr 24 2002 09:41 Jul 25, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\77585.TXT SCOM2 PsN: JACKF
13

eral waters, the expansion of the domestic fishing industry, declines in many fishery 

resources, and the rise of public interest in fisheries issues. We have seen some successes from our management actions, including rebuilding of Spanish mackerel, the 

initial rebound of a few depleted stocks like Gulf of Mexico red snapper and Georges 

Bank haddock, and the continued strong production of fish stocks off Alaska. However, as of 1999, 11 percent of U.S. living marine resources are overfished or are 

approaching overfished, 14 percent are not overfished, and there is another 75 percent whose status is unknown. On the west coast, about 5 percent of Federally managed living marine resources are overfished or are approaching the overfished status, 12 percent are not overfished, and there is another 83 percent whose status is 

unknown. We at NOAA Fisheries are working to rebuild fish stocks to levels that 

could sustain fisheries of greater economic value. From a national perspective, scientists estimate that we could increase U.S. fishery landings up to 6.8 billion 

pounds by rebuilding all fisheries and maintaining harvests at optimal yields. 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the national framework for conserving and 

managing the wealth of fishery resources found within the 197-mile-wide zone of 

Federal waters contiguous to the United States (except for the coastal waters for 

Texas and the Gulf of Mexico coast of Florida where state waters extend out to 9 

nautical miles). In 1996, Congress ushered in a new era in fisheries management, 

making significant revisions to the Magnuson-Stevens Act in the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA). The SFA addresses a number of conservation issues. First, to prevent overfishing and rebuild depleted fisheries, the SFA caps fishery harvests at the 

maximum sustainable level and requires fishery management plans to rebuild any 

overfished fishery. NOAA Fisheries now reports annually on the health of marine 

fisheries and identifies fisheries that are overfished or approaching an overfished 

condition. Second, the SFA refocused fisheries management by emphasizing the 

need to protect fisheries habitat. To enhance this goal, the SFA requires that management plans identify habitat that is necessary to fish for spawning, feeding, or 

growth. The new law also clarifies our existing authority to comment on Federal actions that affect essential fish habitat. Third, to reduce bycatch and waste, the SFA 

adds a new National Standard requiring that conservation and management measures minimize bycatch and the mortality of bycatch that cannot be avoided. It also 

calls for management plans to assess bycatch and to take steps to reduce it. 

The new conservation requirements may have far-reaching effects on recreational 

and commercial fishing and on fishermen, their families and communities. To address this concern, the SFA establishes a new National Standard 8 that requires, 

consistent with conservation objectives, that fishery management plans provide for 

the sustained participation of fishing communities and minimize adverse impacts to 

the extent practicable. In addition, a national standard has been added to promote 

the safety of human life at sea. Finally, the SFA provides a number of new tools 

for addressing problems relating to the transition to sustainable fisheries, including 

amendments to provide for fisheries disaster relief, fishing capacity reduction programs, vessel financing, and grants and other financial assistance. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES ACT

NOAA Fisheries takes seriously its new mandates under the SFA. We are continuing to work to ensure that SFA requirements are implemented, and that conservation and management measures fully protect the resource and provide for the 

needs of fishing communities and the Nation. A great deal of work remains to be 

done. We are laying a better foundation for future fisheries management, yet the 

benefits of the changes made by Congress in 1996 will take years, perhaps decades, 

to realize. In addition, the management decisions that we face are becoming ever 

more complex and contentious, and good solutions are hard to come by. We need 

to direct resources and effort to the scientific and technical aspects of our work. We 

also must build consensus with the public and among various stakeholders to facilitate progress in developing management programs that will move us toward the 

goal of healthy and sustainable marine resources. 

The SFA imposed a deadline of October 11, 1998 for amendments to each of the 

39 existing fishery management plans to implement its changes. Despite the Councils’ best efforts, there were some proposed amendments that did not satisfy the requirements, for which the analyses were inadequate, or that did not minimize socioeconomic or environmental impacts to the extent possible and achieve management 

objectives. NOAA Fisheries disapproved or partially approved those amendments 

and is working closely with the Councils to improve them, particularly in the areas 

of assessing social and economic impacts, rebuilding overfished stocks, minimizing 

bycatch, identifying and protecting fish habitat, and improving the scientific basis 

for management. I will outline some of the work we are doing in each of these areas:

14

Social and economic analysis: One of NOAA Fisheries’ highest priorities is to improve our social and economic analyses. These analyses are required by a number 

of laws in addition to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, including the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and Executive Order 

12866. The requirement of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to include a fishery impact 

statement, and the new standard on fishing communities, also make clear our mandate to consider the social and economic impacts of any management program. This 

consistently has been an important part of the decision-making process and has affected our choice of fisheries conservation and management actions. For instance, 

the Pacific groundfish fishing regulations use varying trip limits that are designed 

to keep the fishing season open during the majority of the year and stabilize product 

flow and prices. In addition, new fishing regulations this year offer higher trip limits to vessel operators willing to use fishing gear that results in less bycatch of depleted species. Similarly, selective fisheries for fin-marked hatchery salmon allow 

both recreational and commercial fishermen continued access to healthy hatchery 

salmon stocks without jeopardizing the recovery of wild stocks. 

To strengthen our social and economic analysis capabilities, we are issuing revised Regulatory Flexibility Act guidelines to our employees, hiring more economists, sociologists, and anthropologists, and working with other Federal agencies 

and states to improve our data collection. As a result, economic, social, and biological considerations will be better integrated to assist fisheries managers in making 

the best possible decisions to balance conservation, the fishing industry, and community needs.

Rebuilding overfished stocks: NOAA Fisheries is committed to ending overfishing 

and rebuilding stocks. This has proven to be a very difficult task, in part because 

of the complex biological structure of fisheries and complicated calculations of maximum sustainable yield and other fishery parameters. 

Along the west coast, the five overfished species of Pacific groundfish have become 

the focal point for both overfishing and bycatch. The management of Pacific groundfish, particularly rockfish species, is complicated, because the species are very longlived, and require lengthy rebuilding programs. To stop overfishing in the groundfish fishery, we have reduced quotas, redefined stock aggregates to better manage 

stocks found in the same habitats, implemented seasonal closures, and limited the 

landings taken with certain gear types in the commercial sector, and we have reduced bag limits and implemented similar seasonal closures in the recreational sector.

Minimizing bycatch: Minimizing bycatch continues to be a very high priority for 

NOAA Fisheries on the west coast. We disapproved the bycatch amendments in both 

the Pacific Groundfish and Coastal Pelagic FMPs and returned the amendments to 

the Pacific Council for further work, including developing more specific plans for determining bycatch levels in the fishery and for minimizing bycatch. We are also 

working with the Pacific Council to develop the parameters of an at-sea observer 

program that will accurately assess the level of bycatch in the Pacific groundfish 

fishery, and to find funding for the observer program.

Essential Fish Habitat: I am well aware of your constituents’ concerns over the increased emphasis of the Magnuson-Stevens Act on conserving and enhancing essential fish habitat (EFH). I wish to emphasize the agency’s intention to minimize impacts on fishermen and non-fishing industries, while ensuring the long-term viability of the fish stocks. On the west coast, EFH was designated for nearly 100 marine 

species. Where data were available, EFH was identified for each individual species 

and life stage using the best available scientific information. Because of the great 

number of managed species and the wide diversity of habitats utilized by the various life stages of those species, habitats identified as EFH range from freshwater 

stream and estuarine habitats to the limits of the EEZ. 

The EFH provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act address impacts from both fishing and non-fishing activities. In response to fishing gear threats, the Council has 

considered measures to reduce the adverse impacts of fishing activities to EFH. Past 

management measures have included prohibitions in the use of certain or all gear 

types in areas of sensitive marine habitats or restrictions to size and number of 

some gear types in selected habitats. The Council is actively evaluating the concept 

of marine reserves within which fishing activities would be either prohibited or 

greatly restricted to protect marine habitat and the ecosystems they support. 

To address non-fishing activities, NOAA Fisheries has conducted close to 2,500 

consultations to date with Federal agencies whose actions may adversely affect 

EFH. These reviews have been accomplished by integrating EFH consultations 

largely into existing environmental review processes as a way to minimize reguVerDate Apr 24 2002 09:41 Jul 25, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\77585.TXT SCOM2 PsN: JACKF
15

latory impacts on Federal action agencies and the public. We expect the number of 

consultations to increase as outreach efforts with Federal agencies continue to build 

awareness of the EFH statutory requirements. However, it is important to remember that even prior to the designation of EFH, most Federal actions affecting the 

habitat of marine and anadromous species were subject to review by NOAA Fisheries under other legal authorities. EFH has provided more emphasis and structure 

to these reviews, and we are working closely with affected agencies and industries 

to ensure that the EFH consultation process is efficiently implemented. For example, once the Pacific salmon EFH designations are approved by the Secretary, we 

anticipate that the vast majority of salmon EFH reviews will be accomplished in 

conjunction with Endangered Species Act consultations to ensure that no duplicative 

analyses are required.

Improving technical and scientific information and analyses: NOAA Fisheries is 

committed to using the best possible science in the decision-making process, and to 

incorporating biological, social, and economic research findings into fisheries conservation and management measures. Meeting our responsibilities under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws requires collection of a considerable 

amount of data. We will continue to support a precautionary approach in the face 

of scientific uncertainty. At the same time, we are expanding our own collection efforts and our partnerships with the states, interstate commissions, industry and 

others to collect and analyze critical data. On the west coast, NOAA Fisheries is active in several partnerships to improve the quality and quantity of information for 

marine resource stewardship. One of these partnerships is the Pacific Fisheries Information Network (PacFin), a cooperative state and federal data collection and 

management program coordinated by the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission for the entire west coast. A second example is the use of new Magnuson-Stevens Act provisions to compensate vessel operators with fish for participating in the 

conduct of cooperative marine resource surveys. Just this last year, our Northwest 

Fisheries Science Center expanded its ability to collect basic data necessary for 

stock assessments by contracting with four private fishing vessels to conduct the annual slope species groundfish trawl survey with as much as one half of their financial compensation coming from the guaranteed opportunity to take a special allocation of fish. Such federal-state partnerships are an important mechanism for providing reliable fisheries statistics while sharing resources and reducing duplicative 

efforts. Reliable fisheries statistics will allow the management process to work successfully, increasing commercial and recreational fishing opportunities and ensuring 

jobs for fishermen—not only for today, but for years to come. 

REAUTHORIZATION ISSUES

We are still working to understand and effectively implement the changes to fishery management policies and procedures made by the SFA. Consequently, we would 

not propose major changes to the Magnuson-Stevens Act at this time. However, we 

have identified some revisions of existing provisions that may be useful to make the 

management process more efficient and to resolve some relatively minor problems. 

We currently are reviewing various issues raised by the task force, the Councils, 

and some of our stakeholders. Among the issues identified are the following:

Review process for fishery management plans, amendments, and regulations: The 

SFA attempted to simplify and tighten the approval process for management plans 

and regulations. However, one result of that effort has been two distinct review and 

implementation processes—one for plans and amendments and another for implementing regulations. This essentially uncouples the review of plans and amendments from the process for regulations, and as a result, the decision to approve or 

disapprove a plan or amendment may be necessary before the end of the public comment period on the implementing regulations. We are considering amendments that 

would modify the process to address this issue. 

In addition, the Committee may wish to consider reinstating the initial review of 

fishery management plans and amendments by the Secretary. Considerable energy 

and staff resources are expended on plans or amendments that are ultimately disapproved because of serious omissions and other problems. At present, two to three 

months must elapse before the Secretary makes his determination, and if the 

amendment is then disapproved, it can be months or longer before the Council can 

modify and resubmit the plan or amendment. While the initial review was eliminated by the SFA to shorten the review process, reinstating Secretarial review may 

actually provide a mechanism to shorten the time it takes to get a plan or amendment approved and implemented.

16

Restrictions on data collection and confidentiality: The Magnuson-Stevens Act currently restricts the collection of economic data from processors. Removal of this restriction could improve the quantity and quality of information available to meet the 

requirements of the laws requiring social and economic analysis. In addition, the 

SFA changed the term ‘‘statistics’’ to ‘‘information’’ in the provisions dealing with 

data confidentiality. The change has raised questions about the intended application 

of those provisions, particularly with respect to observer information, and Congressional clarification would be useful.

Coral reef protection: Special management areas, including those designated to protect coral reefs, hard bottoms, and precious corals, are important commercial resources and valuable habitats for many species. Currently, the federal government 

has the authority to regulate anchoring and other activities of fishing vessels that 

affect fish habitat. However, we remain concerned with threats to those resources 

from non-fishing vessels. We intend to work with other federal agencies to suggest 

amendments to the Act to clarify, consolidate, and strengthen the federal government’s authority to regulate the actions of any recreational or commercial vessel 

that is directly impacting resources being managed under the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act.

Caribbean Council jurisdiction: The current description of the Caribbean Council 

limits its jurisdiction to Federal waters off Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

As a result, the Council cannot develop fishery management plans governing fishing 

in Federal waters around Navassa Island or any other U.S. possession in the Caribbean. Jurisdiction of the Caribbean Council could be expanded to cover Navassa Island, by including ‘‘commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United 

States’’ within the description of that Council’s authority.

Council meeting notification: To meet the notification requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, Councils spend tens of thousands of dollars a year to publish meeting notices in local newspapers in major and/or affected fishing ports in the region. 

By contrast, fax networks, mailings, public service announcements, and notices included with marine weather forecasts are much less expensive and could be more 

effective in reaching fishery participants and stakeholders. The Committee may 

wish to consider modifying notification requirements to allow Council use of any 

means that will result in wide publicity. 

We look forward to working with Congressional members on high-priority policy 

issues such as observer programs, individual fishing quotas, and funding and fee authorities, although, at this time, we have no specific recommendations for changes 

in the Magnuson-Stevens Act to address these issues. We will continue to work 

closely with the west coast delegation; the Pacific Fishery Management Council; and 

our stakeholders to resolve problems affecting west coast fisheries. Madame Chair, 

this concludes my testimony. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the implementation and reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. I am prepared to respond to any questions you and members of the audience may have.

Senator SNOWE. Thank you, Ms. Dalton. 

Mr. Lone. 

STATEMENT OF JIM LONE, CHAIRMAN, PACIFIC FISHERY 

MANAGEMENT COUNCIL 

Mr. LONE. Good morning, Madam Chair and Committee members. My name is Jim Lone. I chair the Pacific Fishery Management Council. 

This is a challenging time for fisheries management on the west 

coast. Several important salmon and groundfish stocks are depressed or overfished, and our fishing industry is severely overcapitalized. Recently, this Council sent letters to the Governors of the 

three west coast States, warning them of a potential disaster in the 

groundfish fishing industry. 

On July 29th of 1999, you received the joint recommendations of 

the eight Regional Councils for the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act as an attachment to the testimony of Mr. Rick 

Lauber, Chairman of the North Pacific Council. The Pacific Council 

fully endorses those recommendations. 

17

In particular, we want to emphasize our support of the recommendations to rescind the moratorium on individual fishing 

quotas and provide discretionary authority to establish fees for observer programs. The Pacific Council has fishery management 

plans for three fisheries: groundfish, salmon, and coastal pelagic 

species. Work is progressing on development of a fourth plan for 

highly migratory species. 

The Pacific Council and NMFS have completed and implemented 

amendments to the groundfish and coastal pelagic species FMP’s to 

meet the requirements of the SFA. Amendments to the salmon 

FMP were delayed due to an existing commitment to update the 

entire plan and its environmental impact statement. The Council 

approved the salmon plan amendment in March 1999, and they 

should be implemented this year. 

Regarding groundfish, overcapitalization is the single most important issue challenging the west coast fishing industry and this 

Council. For years, national policy encouraged industry growth and 

development as we Americanized the groundfish fishery. The Pacific Council took steps to reduce capitalization by establishing a 

groundfish license limitation program that took effect in 1994. 

We also took steps toward better management of the sablefish 

fishery by developing an individual fishing quota program. We delayed action on the IFQ program in response to strong signals from 

Congress. With the 1996 reauthorization, we lost the ability to implement an IFQ program. We strongly support an end to the moratorium on IFQ’s. We believe we need this management tool as a 

means to stabilize the industry and rebuild stocks. 

On the west coast, we are now facing the results of years of inadequate funding for research and data collection. There is widespread concern about the quality and quantity of scientific information on current stock conditions. The decisions we make based on 

this information are vigorously questioned. 

And I have appended three letters to my testimony which document the funding issues in more detail. 

Regarding future reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 

it is our opinion that if NMFS and the Councils cannot conduct the 

basic stock assessments and collect the necessary fishery information, the system will not be able to make good management decisions regardless of how the law is constituted. 

Turning to salmon, over the last several years, many salmon 

stocks have been at chronic low levels, and several have been listed 

under the Endangered Species Act. The ongoing low stock levels 

are currently more the result of longstanding and continued degradation of freshwater habitat and unfavorable marine survival 

than of any continuing impacts of fisheries. Despite some draconian 

fishery reductions by the Council, beginning in the early 1990’s, little or no recovery is evident for most of the salmon stocks listed 

as overfished. 

Turning to coastal pelagic species, spurred by requirements of 

the SFA, increased abundance of Pacific sardine, and high demand 

for market squid, the Pacific Council greatly expanded the scope 

and authority of the FMP. Of particular interest in the Pacific 

Northwest is the expansion of effort in Pacific sardine fisheries off 

Oregon and Washington. Favorable oceanic and climatic conditions 

18

1The collective recommendations were presented on July 22, 1999 to the House Subcommittee 

on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife, and Oceans by Mr. Joseph Brancaleone, Chairman of the 

New England Fishery Management Council. 

have caused an increase in both biomass and geographic range of 

Pacific sardine. 

In response, fishers and processors have become interested in 

these new fishing opportunities, which may compensate for reductions in groundfish optimum yields. However, any expansion in capacity will have to be managed carefully, so as to avoid the problem of another overcapitalized fishery in the future, as sardine 

abundance will naturally decrease in response to changing oceanic 

conditions. 

In summary, Madam Chair, the Pacific Council fully supports 

the intent of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and, with certain exceptions previously noted, has developed workable plan amendments 

to implement it. Moreover, the Council has begun development of 

a strategic plan to address the major groundfish issues and to help 

move the fisheries toward recovery and prosperity. 

To implement the strategic plan, we will likely need legislation 

and financial support to help reduce the number of fishing vessels 

that harvest fish off the west coast and to collect the necessary 

data for competent management. We appreciate the efforts and attention Congress has given to improve and guide our management 

through passage of the SFA and in your current efforts to make 

further beneficial changes in our fishery management. 

We hope that our comments to you today have been helpful, and 

we thank you again for this opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lone follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JIM LONE, CHAIRMAN, PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT

COUNCIL

Madame Chairman and Committee members:

My name is Jim Lone. I chair the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific 

Council). Thank you for this opportunity to offer comments related to implementation of the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA) and the reauthorization of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens 

Act). 

This is a challenging time for fishery management on the west coast. Several important salmon and groundfish stocks are depressed or overfished and our fishing 

industry is severely overcapitalized. Recently, this Council sent letters to the governors of the three west coast states, warning them of a potential disaster in the 

groundfish fishing industry. Many small fishing businesses are in danger of failing 

this year, or in the near future. It is likely the crisis comes from the combined effects of a change in the ocean environment, inadequate scientific data collection and 

analysis, and a national policy that encouraged capital infusion into the fishing industry. 

On July 29, 1999, you received the joint recommendations of the eight regional 

Councils for the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act as an attachment to 

the testimony of Mr. Richard Lauber, Chairman of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council.1 The Pacific Council fully endorses those recommendations. In 

particular, we want to emphasize our support of the recommendations to rescind the 

moratorium on individual fishing quotas and provide discretionary authority to establish fees for observer programs. The rest of my comments will be specific to the 

management experience and recommendations of the Pacific Council. 

The Pacific Council has fishery management plans (FMP) for three fisheries—

groundfish, salmon, and coastal pelagic species (CPS; e.g., anchovy, sardines, and 

mackeral). Work is progressing on development of a fourth plan for highly migratory 

species (tunas and billfish). The Pacific Council and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) have completed and implemented amendments to the groundfish and 

19

2The section on bycatch in the groundfish FMP, and the sections on bycatch and maximum 

sustainable yield for squid in the coastal pelagic FMP were not approved and are being modified 

by the Council at this time. 3The following three letters are appended to this testimony to document recent and future 

Council funding needs: 

(1) Letter of December 22, 1998 from Mr. Lawrence D. Six, Executive Director, Pacific Fishery 

Management Council, to Dr. William Hogarth and Mr. Will Stelle, NMFS. 

(2) Letter of December 14, 1999 from Mr. Robert K. Mahood, Executive Director, South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, to Mr. Alan Risenhoover, NMFS. 

(3) Letter of December 17, 1999 from Mr. Pete Moffitt, Chairman of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, on behalf of the Regional Council Chairmen, to Ms. Penny Dalton, 

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NMFS. 

coastal pelagic species FMPs to meet the requirements of the SFA.2 Amendments 

to the salmon FMP were delayed due to an existing commitment to update the entire salmon FMP and its environmental impact statement. The Council approved the 

salmon plan amendments in March 1999 and they should be implemented this year. 

GROUNDFISH

Overcapitalization is the single most important issue challenging the west coast 

fishing industry and this Council. For years, national policy encouraged industry 

growth and development as we ‘‘Americanized’’ the groundfish fishery. We didn’t 

recognize quickly enough that we had achieved that goal. The Pacific Council took 

steps to stem the tide by establishing a groundfish license limitation program that 

took effect in 1994. We also took steps toward better management of the sablefish 

fishery by developing an individual fishing quota (IFQ) program. We delayed action 

on the IFQ program in response to strong signals from Congress. With the 1996 reauthorization, we lost the ability to implement an IFQ program. We strongly support an end to the moratorium on IFQs. We believe we need this management tool 

as a means to stabilize the industry and rebuild stocks. 

On the west coast, we are now facing the results of years of inadequate funding 

for research and data collection. There is widespread concern about the quality and 

quantity of scientific information on current stock conditions. The decisions we make 

based on this information are vigorously questioned. Some believe on-the-water observations by fishermen indicate the Pacific Council’s harvest restrictions are not 

justified. Others believe the Council should be even more restrictive until the 

science supports greater exploitation. We are also required to assess the social and 

economic impacts of management on the fishing industry and communities, yet we 

are not provided adequate funds. We are required to reduce bycatch, yet we have 

no funds for an observer program to collect bycatch data. I have appended three letters to my testimony which document the funding issue in more detail.3

Regarding future reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, it is our opinion 

that if NMFS and the Councils cannot conduct the basic stock assessments and collect the necessary fishery information, the system won’t be able to make good management decisions regardless of how the law is constituted. Simply put, we cannot 

do the job you want us to do, and the job we want to do, without the necessary resources. 

In line with our need for more and better information, the Council needs discretionary authority to establish fees to help fund observer programs. This authority 

would be the same as granted to the North Pacific Council under Section 313 of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act. In the long term, the fishing industry may be able to shoulder more of the costs to reduce overcapitalization and monitor the catch. In the 

short term, however, our industry cannot afford these additional burdens. 

SALMON

The SFA required little substantive change in the way we manage salmon. Over 

the last several years, many coho and some chinook salmon stocks have been at 

chronic low levels and several have been listed under the Endangered Species Act. 

However, for the most part, the management of salmon under the current FMP already met the more conservative definition of optimum yield contained in the SFA. 

The ongoing low stock levels are currently much more the result of long-standing 

and continued degradation of freshwater habitat and unfavorable marine survival 

than of any continuing impacts of fisheries. Despite some draconian fishery reductions by the Council beginning in the early 1990s, little or no recovery is evident 

for most of the salmon stocks listed as overfished. The numerous variables affecting 

abundance make it impossible to specify a time period in which an overfished salmon stock will be rebuilt. 

20

The biggest change in salmon management under the SFA has been the inclusion 

of the description and identification of essential fish habitat and the consultation 

requirements it includes. Since Amendment 14 to the salmon FMP has not yet been 

implemented, it is not possible to determine the impacts of the essential fish habitat 

requirements. However, considerable public input during the amendment process indicates opposition among the general business community to the breadth of the essential salmon habitat description. There is a fear of additional permit requirements 

and delays in land use or development projects. This is especially pertinent for 

salmon due to the inclusion of thousands of miles of freshwater streams. Conversely, 

we have received numerous comments deploring the lack of teeth in the essential 

fish habitat measures to require compliance with NMFS or Council recommendations. The extent of increased workload for the Councils and NMFS remains in 

question. We view the SFA essential fish habitat requirements as a logical, though 

controversial, step in increasing the recognition of the importance of salmon habitat 

and ensuring its protection and restoration, which is vital to long-term salmon recovery. 

COASTAL PELAGIC SPECIES

The most significant impact of the SFA on coastal pelagic species (CPS) fisheries 

was expansion of the FMP. Spurred by requirements of the SFA, increased abundance of Pacific sardine, and high demand for market squid, the Pacific Council 

greatly expanded the scope and authority of the FMP. Of particular interest in the 

Pacific Northwest, is the expansion of effort in Pacific sardine fisheries off Oregon 

and Washington. Favorable oceanic and climatic conditions have caused an increase 

in both biomass and geographic range of Pacific sardine. In response, fishers and 

processors have become interested in these new fishing opportunities which may 

compensate for reductions in groundfish optimum yields by providing opportunity to 

use idle fishing and processing capacity. There is also potential for increased investment in fishing and processing capacity. With any expansion in capacity, it is likely 

the Council will have to grapple with an overcapitalized fishery in the future, as 

sardine abundance will naturally decrease in response to changing oceanic conditions. There is also concern that expanding sardine fisheries in Oregon and Washington could catch significant numbers of Pacific salmon (as bycatch). Preliminary 

data and information from fishers indicate that incidental catch of salmon is minimal, and the industry is working with the states to develop ways to minimize salmon bycatch and bycatch mortality. 

SUMMARY

In summary, Madame Chairperson, the Pacific Council fully supports the intent 

of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and, with certain exceptions previously noted, has developed workable plan amendments to implement it. Moreover, the Council has 

begun development of a strategic plan to address the major groundfish issues and 

to help move the fisheries towards recovery and prosperity. To implement the strategic plan, we will likely need legislation and financial support to help reduce the 

number of fishing vessels that harvest fish off the west coast and to collect the necessary data for competent management. We appreciate the efforts and attention 

Congress has given to improve and guide our management through the passage of 

the SFA and in your current efforts to make further beneficial changes in our fishery management. We know that there are many other interests throughout the nation competing for your attention and funding. We hope that our comments to you 

today have been helpful and will try to be responsive to any other information or 

input you may need. Thank you again for this opportunity. I will be happy to answer any questions you or the other Senators may have.

21

Pacific Fishery Management Council

2130 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 224

Portland, Oregon 97201

Jerry Mallet, Chairman 

Lawrence D. Six, Executive Director 

December 22, 1998

Dr. William Hogarth, Regional Administrator 

Southwest Region 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

501 W Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200

Long Beach, CA 90802–4213

and

Mr. Will Stelle, Regional Administrator 

Northwest Region 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

7600 Sand Point Way NE, BIN C15700

Seattle, WA 98115–0070

Dear Bill and Will:

Representatives of the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and Pacific 

States Marine Fisheries Commission met December 10, 1998, with representatives 

of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Northwest Region (NWR) and 

Southwest Region (SWR); and Alaska Fisheries Science Center (AFSC), Northwest 

Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC), and Southwest Fisheries Science Center 

(SWFSC) to develop a consensus package of budget initiatives to meet Council information needs for fiscal year (FY) 2001. We agreed on nine major initiatives, which 

are described below. We recommend this package be submitted to NMFS headquarters by mid January as input into formulation of the President’s FY 2001 budget request. These initiatives are not presented in priority order. They represent the 

highest priority needs, which were boiled down from a long list of needed projects 

identified by the Council and participants at the December 10 meeting. This package addresses Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) mandates only. We did not attempt to address marine mammals, protected species, or other NMFS mandates. 

In addition, the group expressed support for seven other activities, most of which 

are national in scope and critically important to successful implementation of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act. These efforts are described after the west coast initiatives. 

Finally, as a result of our discussion of FY 2001 needs, it became apparent there 

are significant shortfalls in funding for critical west coast programs in FY 1999 and 

potentially for FY 2000. These shortfalls are described herein. 

West Coast Initiatives Implementing Magnuson-Stevens Act in FY 2001

1. Maintain and Enhance the Pacific Fishery Information Network (PacFIN)—

$1,166,000

This initiative has two components: improving economic data collection and increased port sampling of groundfish landings. The augmentations are in addition to 

the base program of $3.0 million for PacFIN. With enhancements, the total amount 

needed is $4,166,000.

• Economic Data Collection—$700,000

Economic data is needed to develop and implement fishery management plans, assess the effects of those plans, and fairly allocate limited resources among competing 

users. Further, the courts in two recent cases have overturned management decisions, because the accompanying economic analysis was insufficient. This initiative 

will implement the Economic Data Plan, which was developed by Council, NMFS, 

and other economists and then adopted by the Council. Funds are needed to implement the plan beginning in FY 2000 and annually thereafter.

• Increased Port Sampling—$466,000

Current funding is not adequate to sample nontrawl groundfish fisheries, including the open access fishery and the live-fish landings. Additional samplers in California, Oregon, and Washington would provide the necessary coverage at a cost of 

$466,000. 

22

2. Maintain and Enhance the Recreational Fishery Information Network—$1,082,000

As the Council more actively manages the recreational fishery for groundfish, it 

is apparent the current marine recreational fishery statistics program on the west 

coast is not providing adequate information for management purposes. There is a 

need for more reliable estimates by species, time, and area on a finer scale. Sampling of anglers needs to be increased, and the method of estimating effort needs 

to be improved. The current funding allocation for the west coast intercept survey 

is $918,000, which does not even provide for a 12-month effort. An additional 

$1,082,000 is needed to bring the total to $2,000,000.

3. Improve and Expand Groundfish Surveys and Stock Assessments—$3,500,000

GOAL: Build a scientifically sound resource survey and stock assessment program 

in the NWFSC and SWFSC and transition to allow redirection of the AFSC resources to critical stock assessment problems off Alaska. 

BACKGROUND: Commercial, recreational, and tribal harvest of the 83 species of 

west coast groundfish is important to communities along California, Oregon, and 

Washington. An investment in improved monitoring of these species is necessary to 

guard against inadvertent overharvest due to lack of adequate scientific information 

and to reduce the need for precautionary harvest reductions. The scientific basis for 

safe harvest levels typically comes from stock assessment models which incorporate 

resource survey and fishery data. The critical need for fishery-independent resource 

survey data is one of the primary recommendations in the National Research Council’s review of stock assessment methods. A scientifically sound stock assessment 

program will conduct frequent and timely assessments for all species groups; will 

include relevant ecological, social, and economic information in these assessments; 

and will engage in sufficient outreach to build public understanding and trust in 

assessment results. The resource survey program would conduct frequent standardized surveys of each major fish assemblage, including adult and prerecruit life 

stages and would engage in research to understand how environmental factors affect 

survey results and to improve the calibration of the survey methods. A combination 

of acoustic, trawl, egg/larval, hook-and-line, and new advanced technologies is needed to cover the complexity of life stages and habitats for groundfish. The program 

requires both a Fisheries Research Vessel (FRV) and chartered vessels to deploy appropriate survey methods over the entire west coast range of the species. The FRV 

would focus on studies that require specialized equipment, high levels of standardization, and multi-sampler projects. Multiple charter vessels would be used for surveys that must cover broad geographic areas in short time periods. 

PROPOSAL: The expanded west coast survey and stock assessment program will 

be able to provide critical information for management of west coast groundfish. The 

program will conduct an annual bottom trawl survey covering the depth range of 

nearshore flatfish, shelf rockfish, and deep slope species. Such a survey was broadly 

endorsed by a science/industry workshop in 1998. The program will conduct a 

hydroacoustic survey for whiting, develop and deploy new survey methodology for 

nearshore rockfish, and conduct specialized surveys such as fixed gear surveys for 

sablefish and recruitment surveys for key species. The enhanced stock assessment 

program will be able to turn these expanded survey results into timely, comprehensive, and well-understood recommendations on safe harvest levels for west coast 

groundfish. 

New Funding Need: $3,500,000, plus access to a FRV, plus use of an allocation 

of the annual quota to partially compensate chartered vessels.

4. Groundfish Observer Program—$4,700,000

Reliable estimates of total catch of west coast groundfish are not available because of unknown amounts of discard at sea caused by regulations and markets. 

Current estimates of discards are based on old and very limited studies. A comprehensive observer program covering all gears and areas is required to obtain reliable estimates of total catch. This information is needed before the Council can adequately address the mandate to minimize bycatch. Given the economic condition of 

the industry as a result of reduced optimum yields, an industry-funded program is 

not feasible. Federal funding is required. The estimated annual cost of an observer 

program, including NMFS infrastructure, is $4,700,000.

5. Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)—$1,000,000

There are three components to this initiative: marine reserves, gear impacts, and 

habitat areas of particular concern. Total annual long-term costs are $1,000,000.

23

• Marine Reserves

Areas closed to fishing are widely viewed as having potential to protect EFH and 

marine ecosystems and to serve as important tools for fishery management. There 

is a pressing need to gather the socioeconomic and scientific data required to rigorously evaluate marine reserves as a fishery management tool on the west coast. 

This will require research to identify the management needs that may be achievable 

through marine reserves (e.g., which species and life stages), design optimal reserves through modeling, and implement these designs through field testing to 

evaluate the potential benefits. A major component of this initiative will involve socioeconomic studies of interested parties from potentially affected groups (e.g., tribal, other governmental, recreational, commercial, community, and environmental) to 

improve consideration of social needs and desires and to foster acceptance of results 

and potential designation of marine reserves for fishery management purposes.

• Gear Impacts on Habitat

The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the regional fishery management Councils to 

minimize to the extent practicable adverse effects on habitat caused by fishing. Information on the effects of fishing gear on west coast habitat is inadequate. There 

is a need to (1) evaluate the effects of trawl, longline, and pot gears on a variety 

of bottom habitats on the west coast; (2) conduct experiments to identify the shortterm and long-term effects of gear deployment and of repetitive deployment (e.g., 

in situ studies of trawling and other gear impacts on the benthos); (3) as feasible, 

implement a program to obtain longline effort information; and (4) conduct experiments (e.g., with modifications to gear or fishing practices, areas, or times) to test 

ways to reduce adverse effects and develop recommendations that may be implemented.

• Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPCs)

To support the evaluation of marine reserves and EFH consultation efforts, NMFS 

should (1) identify marine HAPCs for groundfish, salmon, and coastal pelagic species (CPS) off the west coast; (2) inventory and increase accessibility to available 

data from state, federal, tribal, and private sources and include the information in 

a global information system (GIS); (3) identify data gaps and research needs; and 

(4) evaluate the condition of these HAPCs, if known, and recommend necessary conservation measures. 

6. Salmon Encounter Rates and Hooking Mortality—$100,000

The ability to harvest salmon from hatchery programs and other healthy salmon 

stocks without risking the continued existence of some weak stocks, including those 

listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), depends on accurate estimates of 

hook-and-release mortality rates and encounter rates in fisheries. The Council has 

appointed an ad-hoc committee to address additional research needs related to estimates of hooking mortality and encounter rates. At this juncture it is clear that adequate estimates of encounter rates are lacking, and this situation must be rectified. 

Additional research needs may be forthcoming from the ad-hoc committee and Council in the future. Encounter rates vary with relative stock abundances and ocean 

conditions as well as gear and fishery. A program to have fishers report encounters, 

coupled with a limited observer program, was successful in 1995 to 1997, but discontinued in 1998 due to a lack of funds. Such a program needs to be done annually 

to provide in-season measures of encounter rates and develop a long-term data base 

for prediction. This could be combined with stock identification research to provide 

real-time fishery assessment capabilities. An additional $100,000 per year is required to address this need. 

7. Application of Genetic Stock Identification for Salmon Management—$300,000

Increased listing of salmon stocks under the ESA and implementation of mass 

marking and selective fishery programs will require much more intensive evaluations of mixed salmon harvests in the future. No single method will be able to provide all the necessary information; rather, a variety of approaches will be required, 

including coded-wire tags and other physical marks, genetic stock identification 

(GSI), otolith marking, and perhaps others. Under the aegis of the Pacific Salmon 

Treaty (PST), GSI research has produced a coastwide data set that is used for stock 

composition in PST-related fisheries. Work should be expanded into three areas: (1) 

extend the use of GSI analysis of chinook salmon populations into areas of southern 

Washington, Oregon, and California. This will provide the capability to respond to 

Council and ESA mandates in fisheries not directly related to the PST; (2) initiate 

the use of molecular markers for GSI of coho salmon. Although most of the major 

populations of coho salmon have been examined for protein genetic variation and 

24

regional patterns of variability have been described, additional research is required 

to use genetic markers for mixed-fishery analysis; and (3) initiate genetic stock identification of chinook and coho salmon juveniles in coastal and estuarine waters. Although the early migration patterns of hatchery-reared juveniles have been studied 

to some extent with coded-wire tags, little is known about the coastal migratory 

habits of juveniles from wild populations. Identification of populations of origin is 

an important element in interpreting the results of ongoing ecological studies of 

early life-history stages in coastal waters. This phase of the research would utilize 

juvenile samples collected as part of other research projects. All three phases will 

be accomplished by extending and updating the protein genetic baseline for chinook 

and coho salmon populations, analyzing mixed-stock fisheries with current statistical procedures, and developing the use of DNA markers for GSI estimations for 

chinook and coho salmon. New funding needed is $300,000 per year. 

8. Coastwide Coastal Pelagic Species Assessments—$660,000

The recently adopted fishery management plan for CPS includes two activelymanaged species, Pacific sardine and Pacific (chub) mackerel. Both of these stocks 

now span thousands of miles of coastline from British Columbia to southern Baja 

California. The biomass of sardine has climbed to about 1.2 million tons, a level not 

seen for over 50 years, and the biomass of mackerel is around 130,000 tons. These 

estimates, based on many assumptions, are very uncertain and may be underestimated, because no coastwide measure of abundance exists. A coastwide abundance 

estimate is needed to ground-truth the biomass assessment models. A survey approach is proposed that combines simultaneous (April) acoustic trawl surveys (ATS) 

(a precise relative measure of biomass) and daily egg production (DEP) surveys (an 

absolute measure of biomass). The ratio between ATS and DEP surveys in the south 

(Mexico and California) will be used to calibrate ATS surveys off Oregon and Washington. Two chartered commercial fishing vessels (30 days each) will be used along 

with data collected from routine April survey data from existing CalCOFI and 

IMECOCal (Mexico) surveys. The work will be a cooperative project involving the 

SWFSC and NWFSC. Costs are estimated to be $660,000 per year. 

9. Development of an Economic and Social Science Program—$1,300,000

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) must develop an 

infrastructure for the social sciences and incorporate these disciplines in the living 

resource management processes, including strategic placement of economists, anthropologists, and sociologists. Good social science programs should be located in 

each of the NMFS Science Centers. The NWFSC needs full time employees (FTEs) 

to institute a program, and the SWFSC needs additional FTEs to expand its program to needed areas. For a solid infrastructure, social science FTEs should also 

be strategically located within regional offices and Councils. These FTEs are needed 

to apply the available data and scientific analyses to the policy, decision, and regulatory requirements associated with Executive Order 12866, Magnuson-Stevens Act, 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and ESA. The 

NMFS NWR and SWR need FTEs to address the new Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements and to address upcoming capacity/fleet reduction programs and user 

group allocation issues. The NMFS NWR and SWR also need FTEs to meet the 

growing policy and regulatory demands associated with habitat restoration and protected resource/ESA issues. To establish a good program within the NMFS NWR 

and NWFSC, and to appropriately expand the NMFS SWR and SWFSC program, 

$1.3 million is needed. 

Support of Other Budget Initiatives for FY 2001

Ecosystem Management 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act mandated appointment of an advisory panel to develop recommendations to expand the application of ecosystem principles in fishery 

conservation and management activities. The panel’s final report is imminent. The 

eight regional fishery management Council chairs listed ecosystem management as 

one of the priority activities which should be funded in the NMFS budget. 

Minimize Bycatch and Bycatch Mortality 

A new national standard in the Magnuson-Stevens Act calls for bycatch to be 

minimized to the extent practicable. A national effort is needed to address this vital 

mandate. On the west coast, an initial step must be to implement a comprehensive 

groundfish observer program to document the extent of bycatch and bycatch mortality. 

25

Increase Regional General Counsel for Fisheries Staff 

Regional offices of NOAA General Counsel are understaffed and cannot provide 

timely reviews of numerous Council and NMFS actions under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This is particularly a problem at the NMFS NWR. Additional attorneys 

are needed. 

Highly Migratory Species in the Pacific 

We support NMFS SWR efforts to improve the science and management of Pacific 

highly migratory species. These efforts benefit the Western Pacific and Pacific fishery management Councils. The Pacific Council expects to become active in the management of highly migratory species on the west coast. 

Electronic Data Collection and Fish Statistics 

On the west coast, there is a pilot program to evaluate electronic recording of logbook data. The Council supports expansion of electronic data systems (including 

fishtickets and logbooks) on the west coast in FY 2001 and beyond. 

Enforcement 

Council-approved management measures are only as good as our capability to enforce them. Enforcement resources on the west coast are stretched to the limit. They 

cannot adequately cover certain existing fisheries, such as the live-fish fishery, and 

will not be adequate to enforce significant new programs, such as individual quotas, 

which are anticipated in the year 2000 and beyond. 

Klamath and Trinity Rivers Chinook Escapement Estimation 

The critical effort to estimate the spawning escapement of chinook salmon in the 

Klamath and Trinity rivers is in danger of not being funded in 1999 and beyond. 

NMFS should make sure that this program is funded by the Bureau of Reclamation 

or other entity. 

Critical Funding Shortfalls in FY 1999

NMFS SWFSC 

NMFS SWFSC, La Jolla laboratory, has lost its only stock assessment modeler 

(Dr. Larry Jacobson). Owing to the SWFSC deficit, the position will not be filled 

after Dr. Jacobson’s departure in January 1999. This is clearly a loss of a most vital 

function for a fishery laboratory (see Natural Resource Consultants report Improving Fish Stock Assessments). This has grave consequences for the Council and the 

La Jolla laboratory, because it will not be able to carry out its fishery responsibilities in the NMFS SWR including: pending stock assessments on mackerel and sardine under the new CPS plan; SWFSC support for groundfish stock assessments; 

assessment modeling on the Highly Migratory Species Plan Development Team; 

subsequent stock assessments for west coast tunas, billfish, and sharks. The loss is 

also of deep concern to California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), because 

it closes a long-term stock assessment support provided to CDFG as part of joint 

research carried out over the last 25 years. Salary range for a Senior Stock Assessment Specialists for NMFS (level GS–14) ranges from about $69,000 to $90,000 per 

year. 

Elimination of overtime at NMFS SWFSC will eliminate the collection of data 

needed for trends in abundance collected by CalCOFI surveys for mackerel, sardine, 

and various groundfishes. For the two CPS species it is the primary source of information for trends in abundance, and without it we will be totally blind to changes 

in abundance. 

NMFS NWFSC 

NMFS NWFSC has identified a shortfall of approximately $400,000 to conduct the 

late summer slope bottom trawl survey using chartered fishing vessels in 1999. This 

was a successful cooperative program begun in 1998, which the Council believes 

must continue. The research vessel (R/V) Miller Freeman is expected to be available 

in 1999 to conduct the late fall slope survey on the west coast, but there are insufficient days at sea for the necessary level of sampling (see NMFS AFSC below). 

NMFS AFSC 

There are insufficient days at sea for the necessary level of sampling for the west 

coast slope survey aboard the R/V Miller Freeman. The Council encourages NMFS 

to find the necessary funds to cover this need. 

In closing, we hope you agree with these high priority research needs and submit 

them as regional input into the FY 2001 budget request. Also, it is critical that 

funding shortfalls in FY 1999 and 2000 be addressed. I thought the December 10 

session was extremely productive in achieving a consensus package, and I look forVerDate Apr 24 2002 09:41 Jul 25, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\77585.TXT SCOM2 PsN: JACKF
26

ward to continuing this process each year. Thank you for your support of the Council fishery management process.

Sincerely,

Lawrence D. Six 

Executive Director

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council 

One Southpark Circle, Suite 306

Charleston, South Carolina 29407–4699

Pete Moffitt, Chairman 

Fulton Love, Vice-Chairman 

Robert K. Mahood, Executive Director 

Gregg Waugh, Deputy Executive Director 

December 14, 1999

Memorandum 

To: Alan Risenhoover 

From: Bob Mahood 

Subject: Regional Councils’ 2002 Funding Request

The Councils appreciate the opportunity to participate in the DOC/NOAA/NMFS 

budget process. Based on your guidance we are submitting our request in a format 

compatible with the development of NMFS’s 2002 budget. Our budget request consists of two parts, administrative funding and programmatic funding, however, the 

total requested should be maintained as one amount under the Regional Fishery 

Management Council line item in the NMFS budget. The administrative funding 

level requested will allow the Councils to conduct and improve current management 

programs in a continuing effort to meet the mandates of the Sustainable Fisheries 

Act. The programmatic funding requested will allow the Councils to address specific 

information and data needs that are essential for managing our fisheries. 

Recommendations for funding priorities: The Councils are requesting a total 

funding level of $19,047,000 ($15,624,000 in administrative funds and $3,423,000 in 

programmatic funds). The total funding requested represents a 12% increase over 

the Councils’ 2001 budget request. The administrative portion of the funding request represents a modest increase of 9% per year over the Councils’ 2000 budget 

and is our highest priority. The administrative funding level requested is necessary 

to maintain, and in some cases expand, current management activities to meet the 

mandates of the SFA. Programmatic funds have not been available to the Councils 

since the 1980’s. We believe if funding above our administrative (basic operational) 

requirements can be obtained the Councils will be in a position to help NNIFS address critical data needs on a real time basis.

BUILD SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES: Most Council activities fall under building 

sustainable fisheries. The SFA passed in 1996 significantly increased the Councils’

management responsibilities and we are still struggling to obtain the financial resources to meet those responsibilities. The Act will be reauthorized in 2000 or 2001 

and the Councils will respond accordingly to any new requirements that result from 

changes to the Act. 

To continue basic Council operations/activities at current levels in 2002 (allowing 

for anticipated increases in fixed costs such as personnel, facilities, etc.) will require 

$14,387,000. Mandated expansion of current programs will require $1,167,000 and 

additional needed infrastructure costs will require $70,000. 

New Initiatives—$3,423,000 (main focus of programmatic funds) 

• Develop plans for and/or conduct (contract) data collection programs to fill the 

gaps in the data necessary to meet the required provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act, specifically in the areas of EFH, bycatch, stock assessments, overfished species 

(MSY biomass determinations), fishing communities, and economic and social assessments. 

• Establish recreational fishery data collection programs or enhance existing programs. 

Expansion of Current Programs—$1,167,000

• Develop new FMPs and/or amend current FMPs to meet management goals of 

rebuilding overfished species; achieving MSY and OY; and addressing EFH, bycatch 

and fishing communities. 

• Address development of ecosystem management. 

27

• Develop new or refine existing limited access, EFQ/ITQ and other similar programs. 

• Assess and improve reporting and monitoring programs. 

• Conduct comprehensive reviews of various FMPs to determine their effectiveness. 

• Coordinate international species management. 

• Enhance public information/education dissemination. 

• Manage Pacific HMS. 

Address Current Shortfalls—$1,850,000

• Funds are currently not available for the Councils to: 

—meet the SFA requirements relative to EFH, bycatch, overfishing and fishing 

communities 

—conduct international fisheries management 

—develop and monitor marine reserves 

—establish observer and other reporting and monitoring programs 

—address issues related to seabird interactions, marine debris, endangered species and marine mammals 

Infrastructure Costs—$70,000 

• Increase in Council office space and/or costs. 

• Develop video conference capability in some areas.

RECOVER PROTECTED SPECIES: The Councils have some management activities that fall under this category, such as minimizing protected species interactions 

and impacts from fishing operations.

SUSTAIN HEALTHY COASTS: Council activities addressing essential fish habitat 

relate to this category. 

If you require any further or more detailed information, or have any questions relative to our 2002 funding request, please contact me.

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council 

One Southpark Circle, Suite 306

Charleston, South Carolina 29407–4699

Pete Moffitt, Chairman 

Fulton Love, Vice-Chairman 

Robert K. Mahood, Executive Director 

Gregg T. Waugh, Deputy Executive Director 

December 17, 1999

Ms. Penny Dalton 

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries 

National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA 

1315 East-West Highway 

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Dear Ms. Dalton:

We regret you were unable to attend the budget meeting with us on October 29, 

1999. A number of issues were discussed relative to the FY 2000 appropriations, the 

FY 2001 budget request and development of the FY 2002 budget. We also discussed 

ways to improve the Councils’ input into the NOAA/NMFS budget process. Alan 

Risenhoover did his usual excellent job of briefing us on the status the budgets and 

provided guidance on how we could more effectively participate in the budget process for FY 2002. Following his guidance we have already submitted the Councils’

FY 2002 budget request. We hope you will strongly support our request through the 

NMFS/NOAA/Commerce budget development process. 

As you are aware, the eight regional Councils requested an appropriation of $15 

million for FY 2000. The proposed funding level of $13.15 million creates a shortfall 

of $1.85 million which will greatly impede the Councils’ ability to meet the mandates of the SFA and to manage the fisheries resources in their jurisdictions. The 

attached ‘‘Funding Shortfalls’’ document outlines the activities each Council will not 

be able to undertake because of the proposed budget shortfall, and the approximate 

additional funding that would be required to accomplish these activities. In cases 

where these listed activities are mandated by law the Councils will have to delay 

or eliminate other on going management programs if additional funding can not be 

obtained. We are requesting that NMFS provide the Councils with additional funding to help us do our job as specified in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. We realize you 

28

may not be able to make up the entire $1.85 million shortfall, however, any additional support you can provide would be greatly appreciated. 

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call.

Sincerely,

Pete Moffitt 

On behalf of the Regional Council Chairmen 

FUNDING SHORTFALLS FOR FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCILS IN FY 2000

The eight regional Councils requested an appropriation of $15 million for FY 2000 

to meet their fisheries management responsibilities. The proposed funding level of 

$13.15 million creates a shortfall of $1.85 million which will greatly impede the 

Councils’ ability to meet the mandates of the SFA and to manage the fisheries resources in their jurisdictions. The following briefly outlines the activities each Council will not be able to undertake because of the proposed budget shortfall, and the 

approximate additional funding that would be required to accomplish these activities. In cases where these listed activities are mandated by law the Councils will 

have to delay or eliminate other on going management programs if additional funding can not be obtained. 

New England Council 

• Develop new FMPs for skates, red crab and shrimp 

• Program for managing capacity in the groundfish and scallop fisheries 

• Fund activities of the Research Steering Committee 

• US/Canada relations

Additional funding needs for these activities—$500K 

Mid-Atlantic Council 

• EFH research to address adverse effects of fishing gear on EFH 

• Conservation engineering research to address bycatch reduction

Additional funding needs for these activities—$590K (includes COLA adjustments 

and non-labor costs) 

South Atlantic Council 

• Collection/analysis of community related socioeconomic data

Additional funding needs for these activities—$75K 

Caribbean Council 

• Stock assessments for key FMP species 

• Develop/monitor marine reserves to comply with EFH requirements

Additional funding needs for these activities—$127K 

Gulf Council 

• Hire consultant to write FMP/amendment regulations 

• Develop amendments to address marine reserves, shrimp, spiny lobster, mackerel and vessel monitoring systems

Additional funding needs for these activities—$187K 

Pacific Council 

• Develop rebuilding plans for 5 species of groundfish 

• Develop new HMS FMP 

• Meet AFA requirements 

• Marine reserves analysis 

• Community impacts analysis 

• Groundfish capacity reduction (strategic plan implementation)

Additional funding needs for these activities—$271K. The Pacific Council also needs 

$2 million to fund the proposed observer program. 

North Pacific Council 

• Receiving additional funds to meet needs 

Western Pacific Council 

• Unknown

Total additional funding needs for these activities—$1.75 million

29

Senator SNOWE. Thank you very much, Mr. Lone. 

Mr. Anderson. 

STATEMENT OF PHIL ANDERSON, SPECIAL ASSISTANT

TO THE DIRECTOR OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH 

AND WILDLIFE 

Mr. PHIL ANDERSON. Thank you, Madam Chair, and good morning. My name is Phil Anderson. I am a Special Assistant to the Director of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and I 

head up the Intergovernmental Policy Group. 

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today and present 

the views of the Department relative to the reauthorization of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. 

The State of Washington has very significant interest in issues 

within the Pacific Fishery Management Council and the North Pacific Council forums. Washington State is the home of many vessel 

owners, crew members and processors that participate in fisheries 

managed by the North Pacific Council. Similarly, Washington 

coastal communities, as well as communities in Puget Sound, serve 

as the home for commercial and recreational fisheries managed by 

the Pacific Council. 

The Department supports the revisions adopted by Congress in 

1996 that addressed a more cautionary approach to managing the 

Nation’s fisheries resources. The revisions have been aggressively 

implemented by both the Pacific and the North Pacific Councils. 

However, to fully implement and maintain this new course will require additional resources being made available. 

Congress must be prepared to provide support to the Council 

process, including attainment of the necessary scientific data to 

manage the fisheries and implement the Act. Partnerships between 

the Council and the States can assist in meeting the needs of the 

Council. The Department of Fish and Wildlife is committed to the 

Council process and our partnerships with the National Marine 

Fisheries Service and other coastal States. 

It is important that the Council have available to them management tools that are reasonable and consistent with the mandates 

of the Act and the National Standard Guidelines. The Pacific Council is currently struggling to address overcapacity in the face of 

greatly reduced harvest allowances in our groundfish fishery. In 

order for market forces to lessen the adverse impacts associated 

with capacity reduction, IFQ’s must be available to the Council. We 

strongly recommend that the IFQ moratorium be allowed to sunset 

and that Congress inform the Councils of their intent as soon as 

possible. 

Council authority to assess fishers for fishery data collection 

should be expanded to include the Pacific Council. Congress has so 

far been unwilling to pay for an observer program on the west 

coast groundfish fishery, and we are concerned about the fishers’

ability to pay fees to support an observer program unless this cost 

is distributed equally throughout the fleet. Only the North Pacific 

Council is now authorized to collect such fees and establish a fund 

to recover the cost of a mandated observer program. And we believe 

that authority should be extended to the Pacific Council. 

30

National Marine Fisheries Service deserves credit for their efforts to be responsive to the new direction established by the Act 

in 1996. It is a fact, however, that commitment alone does not get 

the job done. Regardless of how lean and mean the management 

machine is, sufficient resources must still be provided. Congress 

must provide additional resources to National Marine Fisheries 

Service to ensure timely review and approval of the regulatory 

amendments. 

The lack of adequate data, stock assessments and 3-year intervals in trawl surveys have played a large role in the failure of our 

management to detect the decline of many species of groundfish on 

the west coast. Absent additional resources being made available to 

the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Council will likely fail 

in its effort to manage groundfish stocks responsibly. We recommend the Congress provide National Marine Fisheries Service 

with the necessary resources to meet the data needs for managing 

west coast groundfish. 

The Act currently provides the States of Washington, Oregon and 

California interim authority, with certain exceptions, to enforce 

State laws and regulations against any vessel engaged in the dungeness crab fishery in the EEZ adjacent to the respective States. 

This authority has been a valuable tool for the Department in securing management agreements with coastal treaty tribes and has 

facilitated our ability to spread the effects of such agreements 

across all non-treaty fishers who fish in the EEZ adjacent to our 

State. 

This authority will expire in October of 2001. We recommend extending the authority until such time as the Secretary adopts a 

Federal management plan for this fishery. 

In summary, the Department believes that the changes made in 

the 1996 Act were thoughtful, timely, and will result in an improvement of the Nation’s fishery resources. Successful implementation, however, will depend on Congress providing adequate tools 

and resources to National Marine Fisheries Service and the Councils. In short, we do not support an overhaul of the Act. A combination of new funding vehicles and resources to meet the demands of 

implementation will allow the Council to meet the intent of the 

Act. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today. I would 

be happy to answer any questions. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. Anderson. 

Mr. Harp. 

STATEMENT OF JIM HARP, TRIBAL REPRESENTATIVE, 

PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL 

Mr. HARP. Madam Chairman, honorable members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on behalf of 26 

tribes in the Pacific Fishery Council area. 

I plan today to speak to five issues that bear on the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and add a comment. 

First, the tribal seat. In 1996, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act was reauthorized and amended. 

The tribal seat on the Pacific Fishery Management Council was 

31

added at that time. The tribes continue their support of the tribal 

seat. 

One small area of improvement would be for the tribal seat to 

be allowed designees. This addition would allow for tribal representatives from a specific area the opportunity to participate in 

the deliberations of fisheries within their area of interest. Currently, other government agencies represented on the Council have 

the ability to have designees for their seats. 

This is an effective and useful process because it allows the designation of individuals with specific expertise on a regional- or 

stock-specific issue, and it allows the Council representative to 

have a stand-in when workload demands the representative be 

elsewhere. The tribes are again requesting consideration of amending the tribal seat on the Council that would allow this designee 

request to be implemented in the reauthorization process. 

Second, fishery management plans. As a result of the amendments to the MFCMA in 1996, a major process of amending the 

various fishery management plans has been underway. While these 

amendments have often been useful and have dealt with needed 

issues, they have been very time consuming and have been a drain 

on the Council resources, as well as the resources of the various 

government agencies that work within the Council family. 

Also, many serious conservation concerns are facing most of our 

fisheries and the regional Councils simply need more resources to 

deal with these additional issues. An ability to provide stipends for 

scientists participating in the groundfish management team, the 

salmon technical team and the scientific and statistical committee 

would help ensure that the agencies who provide these scientists 

can devote the time of their top staff to serve in these advisory positions. 

Third, bycatch. A critical issue facing the groundfish fisheries on 

the west coast is bycatch. The declining trip limits for many species 

has aggravated the problem of dealing with bycatch. Because there 

is no observer program on the west coast, the Council cannot measure the amount of bycatch in our fisheries adequately. This insufficiency has complicated the Council’s efforts to successfully deal 

with the problem. Any changes to the Act to facilitate the development and funding of an observer program would be helpful. 

Individual quotas: Another important issue is that of IQ’s. Currently there is a moratorium on the development and implementation of IQ’s in the Pacific Council area. While the tribes recognize 

that this is primarily a non-Indian issue, they support the concept 

of IQ’s. IQ’s can bring a great deal of stability to the fisheries, 

which would benefit both the Indian and non-Indian fishers. 

Fifth, stock assessments. Many of the problems facing fishery 

management on the west coast, especially groundfish management, 

have more to do with the inadequate funding for both NMFS and 

the PFMC rather than problems with the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

itself. Several of the groundfish stocks are very depleted and we 

have problems assessing the status of these stocks, as well as developing recovery plans. 

The NMFS triennial trawl survey is an important part of our 

stock assessment process. However, it is not done often enough, 

and Congress seems to be moving away from funding adequate levVerDate Apr 24 2002 09:41 Jul 25, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\77585.TXT SCOM2 PsN: JACKF
32

els of NMFS research. Currently the Council tries to do stock assessments for each species on a 3-year basis. However, this is not 

adequate, given the number of important species we try to manage 

and the number of species that are yet to be assessed. Stock assessments are expensive, but necessary, if we are to adequately manage fisheries. 

A final comment. Within the reauthorization process, we request 

Congress to renew the commitment to the core purposes and policy 

statement behind the Magnuson-Stevens Act. That is, to ensure 

conservation and management of the national fisheries resources 

and to promote domestic fisheries under sound conservation and 

management principles. In the management of the salmon resource 

in the Pacific Northwest, the Pacific Council must meet the obligations as defined by the Pacific Salmon Treaty, Indian Treaty Fishing Rights, ESA, and other domestic management considerations. 

Also, just as the Magnuson-Stevens Act is required to be in compliance with other applicable laws, the application of these other 

applicable laws needs to comply with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

In the development and application of ESA obligations, there needs 

to be recognition of Magnuson-Stevens Act principles that these 

fishery resources are managed for utilization and under the goal 

for attainment of maximum sustainable yield. 

This concludes my testimony, and again, I appreciate your consideration of my remarks. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Harp follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JIM HARP, TRIBAL REPRESENTATIVE, PACIFIC FISHERY

MANAGEMENT COUNCIL

Madam Chairman, honorable members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the twenty-six tribes in the Pacific Fishery Council area. 

I plan today to speak to five issues that bear on the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and add a comment. 

TRIBAL SEAT

In 1996, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

(MFCMA) was re-authorized and amended. A tribal seat on the Pacific Fishery 

Management Council was added at that time. The tribes continue their support of 

the tribal seat. One small area of improvement would be for the tribal seat to be 

allowed designees. This addition would allow for tribal representative(s) from a specific tribal area the opportunity to participate in the deliberations of fisheries within 

their area of interest. Currently other government agencies represented on the 

PFMC have the ability to have designees for their seats. This is an effective and 

useful process because it allows the designation of individuals with specific expertise 

on a regional or stock specific issue and it allows for the Council representative to 

have a stand-in when workload demands the representative to be elsewhere. The 

tribes are again requesting consideration of amending the tribal seat on the Council 

that would allow this designee request to be implemented in the reauthorization 

process. 

FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLANS

As a result of the amendments to the MFCMA in 1996, a major process of amending the various Fishery Management Plans has been underway. While these amendments have often been useful and have dealt with needed issues, they have been 

very time consuming and have been a drain on Council resources as well as the resources of the various government agencies that work within the Council family. 

Also, many serious conservation concerns are facing most of our fisheries and the 

regional Councils simply need more resources to deal with these additional issues. 

An ability to provide stipends for scientists participating in the groundfish management team, the salmon technical team, and the scientific and statistical committee 

33

would help ensure that the agencies (who provide these scientists) can devote the 

time of their top staff to serve on these advisory positions. 

BYCATCH

A critical issue facing the groundfish fisheries on the west coast is bycatch. The 

declining trip limits for many species has aggravated the problem of dealing with 

bycatch. Because there is no observer program on the west coast, the Council cannot 

measure the amount of bycatch in our fisheries adequately. This insufficiency has 

greatly complicated the Council’s efforts to successfully deal with the problem. Any 

changes to the Act to facilitate the development and funding of an observer program 

would be helpful. 

INDIVIDUAL QUOTAS

Another important issue is that of Individual Quotas. Currently there is a moratorium on the development and implementation of IQ’s. While the tribes recognize 

that this is primarily a non-Indian issue, they support the concept of IQ’s. IQ’s can 

bring a great deal of stability to fisheries, which would benefit both Indian and nonIndian fishers. 

STOCK ASSESSMENTS

Many of the problems facing fishery management on the west coast, especially 

groundfish management, have more to do with inadequate funding for both NMFS 

and the PFMC rather than problems with the Magnuson Act itself. Several of the 

groundfish stocks are very depleted and we have problems assessing the status of 

these stocks as well as developing recovery plans. The NMFS Triennial trawl survey 

is an important part of our stock assessment process. However, it is not done often 

enough and Congress seems to be moving away from funding adequate levels of 

NMFS research. Currently the Council tries to do stock assessments for each key 

species on a three-year basis. However, this is not adequate given the number of 

important species we try to manage and the number of species that are yet to be 

assessed. Stock assessments are expensive but necessary if we are to adequately 

manage fisheries. 

FINAL COMMENT

Within the reauthorization process, we request Congress renew the commitment 

to the core purposes and policy statement behind the Magnuson-Stevens Act. That 

is to ensure conservation and management of the national fisheries resources and 

to promote domestic fisheries under sound conservation and management principles. 

In the management of the salmon resource in the Pacific Northwest, the Pacific 

Council must meet the obligations as defined by the Pacific Salmon Treaty, Indian 

Treaty Fishing Rights, ESA, and other domestic management considerations. Also, 

just as the Magnuson-Stevens Act is required to be in compliance with other applicable laws, the application of these other applicable laws needs to comply with the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act. In the development and application of ESA obligations, 

there needs to be recognition of Magnuson-Stevens Act principles that these fishery 

resources are managed for utilization and under the goal for attainment of maximum sustainable yield. 

This concludes my testimony, and again I appreciate your consideration of my remarks.

Senator SNOWE. Thank you. Thank you all for your testimony 

here this morning. 

Let me begin with you, Ms. Dalton. I would like to explore this 

with the panel. The issue that has repeatedly come up in today’s 

testimony, which I have heard from witnesses in other field hearings and will hear from other witnesses testifying here today, is the 

issue of the quality of the stock assessments and the lack of scientific data. 

So what is the problem, and how are we going to rectify it? I 

hear from my fishermen at home in the State of Maine, and it was 

one of the major issues that came before the Subcommittee during 

the course of the field hearings. I also just read an article that appeared in the National Fishermen, in the February issue, that 

34

talked about the lack of data and the lack of support by the agency 

and Congress for quality stock assessments. This lack of support is 

making the job much harder. 

We are here this morning to discuss the groundfish industry. We 

are not sure exactly what the causes are that have been attributed 

to the decline in the groundfish industry here off the west coast. 

We heard similar testimony yesterday in Alaska, with the opilio 

crab. These two problems are obviously connected in some way. But 

what are we going to do? What is it going to take to rectify this 

problem? 

I know it is Congress’ responsibility, but I think it is your agency’s and all of our responsibilities. What will be the major issues 

that will help turn this around? Is it all money? Will it be more 

management tools? 

Obviously the financial support of Congress and the agency is an 

issue. I think it is going to require a cooperative commitment on 

all of our parts, to ensure that we get the kind of data that will 

rebuild confidence in the ultimate decisions that are made. 

So I would like to have you address that here this morning. This 

article that appeared in the National Fishermen talked about one 

researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sea Grant 

Program, who was very frustrated because he was trying to get 

permission from NMFS to test a low-impact scallop dredge, and he 

was unable to do it. The bureaucratic paperwork and process led 

to inevitable delays, until the point where he finally gave up. 

This researcher said that the process totally discouraged research by scientists, let alone by fishermen. He also said that they 

are essentially blocking the intent of the original Magnuson-Stevens Act for approval of an experimental fishery. He said that the 

permitting process was so ridiculous that it made research extremely difficult and frustrating. 

There are a lot of issues at stake here. I think we really have 

to be committed to resolving these issues in this reauthorization 

process. So will you tell me what it is going to take? 

Ms. DALTON. Obviously one huge factor is resources. I think 

there are some events that have led us to where we are now—the 

historic precedent, where we have put our efforts on the nature of 

the fisheries themselves, and distribution of resources. In Alaska, 

and I would also suggest in New England, we actually have the 

best traditional investment in our stock assessment resources, in 

part because that is traditionally where our biggest fisheries have 

been. So we know that we need the assessments and, over the 

years, we have built up a better stock assessment program. 

A problem that we have on the west coast, and you also heard 

about it in the Southeast, is we have fisheries where we have a 

huge number of stocks. We have 80-some species that are involved 

in the groundfish fishery. In the Southeast, we have a few hundred 

species that are actually involved in their groundfish fishery. It is 

difficult to complete stock assessments for each. And the harvest 

for each of the different stocks is not necessarily very large. 

What we have done on the west coast is focus most of our attention on assessing whiting, which is the big biomass fishery, and we 

have not been able to put the resources into assessing a lot of the 

different rockfish species that are really where we are having trouVerDate Apr 24 2002 09:41 Jul 25, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\77585.TXT SCOM2 PsN: JACKF
35

ble now. We have our acquisition plan. We also have our fisheries 

information system, which intended to get fishery-dependent data. 

One of the things that we are very excited about, that we think 

will improve our stock assessments markedly, are the new research 

vessels. Thanks to Senator Stevens’ help, we got the money last 

year for the first one of those four vessels. One of the problems on 

the west coast is we have not had a fishery vessel here. There just 

has never been the funding it. 

Senator SNOWE. How many vessels do you have for that purpose? 

Ms. DALTON. I am not sure. I believe about six right now, across 

the country. But a lot of them are old. Most of them are over 35 

years old. And the new vessels are also acoustically quiet, so we 

get much better information from them. One of the issues, as you 

raised with MIT, is not really stock assessments—it is gear. MIT 

is trying to figure out new techniques to improve gear efficiency, 

reduce bycatch, and deal with the habitat issues. That has been a 

separate effort. 

A lot of that is the work that you and other members have been 

doing to develop cooperative research programs. We have some cooperative research that is being done on the west coast. But one 

of the things that we would like to do is invest in more. 

Senator SNOWE. Well, if we were to do one, two, or three, what 

should it be? 

Ms. DALTON. The easiest thing to do is to invest more money in 

it. The problem is you are never going to have enough money to 

assess all these resources, and so you have got to put the dollars 

where you get the best return. 

Senator SNOWE. Such as the observer program? 

Ms. DALTON. The observer program would be a huge help on getting fishery-dependent data and also getting information on bycatch. And that was one reason why it was in our request last year. 

Senator SNOWE. Mr. Lone, can you address that? I would like to 

have the rest of the panel also address this issue, because obviously 

you have all raised it in your testimony. 

Mr. LONE. Thank you, Senator Snowe, I can address two or three 

items. Number one, I am a strong supporter of our need for an observer program to identify what our bycatch is. We are severely 

constrained as we establish annual allocations for the various species, since we do not have an observer program. 

Speaking about the fishermen involved in the assessment process, we have looked into this issue on the west coast on a limited 

basis. As you have pointed out, there are bureaucratic challenges 

to implementing such an approach. 

Please note the letters that I appended regarding funding needs. 

In December 1998, with the help of the NMFS Northwest and 

Southwest Regions and Science Centers, the Council prepared a 

plan describing the need for additional funding. Unfortunately, we 

have been unable to secure funding to date. While this plan was 

for the year 2001, it can serve somewhat as a master plan for what 

is needed in future years. 

Senator SNOWE. Mr. Anderson. 

Mr. PHIL ANDERSON. Thank you, Senator Snowe. 

First of all, let us recognize that the groundfish fishery has been 

ignored up until very recently. It has been passively managed. We 

36

did not have a groundfish plan until 1982. We had our first stock 

assessment along the lines of about 1988. We cannot passively 

manage this resource and be successful. 

Priorities, it is a matter of priorities. Take a look at the expenditures in an agency like mine or an agency in the Northwest region 

of the National Marine Fisheries Service on the amount of dollars 

being spent on salmon versus groundfish. I do not know the precise 

numbers in the National Marine Fisheries Service, but I do know 

the numbers in our budget. And groundfish takes a back seat in 

a big way in a long limousine. 

So what are the solutions? Partnerships between the National 

Marine Fisheries Service and the States on collecting data. Just 

the basic data of looking at the catches that are landed, looking at 

age structures, getting otoliths read, finding age readers—just 

those very basic things that we need to do to get some more information about some of these stocks does not cost a lot of money relative to building a new survey vessel, but just getting qualified 

people, making an investment and getting the basic data and information coming out of the landed catch would be a big help, in my 

judgment. 

Where is the funding going to come from? I hate to come before 

Members of Congress or the legislature and continually say the answer is just give us more money. That does not usually sell real 

well. But I think the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, CARA, 

there are substantial dollars in Title I that could be used by the 

States, in partnership with National Marine Fisheries Service, to 

get us the kind of data that we need to successfully manage these 

fisheries. 

And those are the kinds of partnerships that I am talking about. 

A lot of the stock assessment authors and some of the expertise are 

in the State agencies, as well as National Marine Fisheries Service. 

Certainly the observer program. It is not, in my judgment, a big 

ticket item, but it is a very—we have to know what our total mortalities are. 

That is another linchpin to managing any of these species, knowing what our total fishery-related mortalities are. And we do not 

know that right now. It is not going to cost a lot of money to get 

that information, but the piggy bank is dry right now. Whether it 

costs a dollar or a million dollars, the piggy bank is empty. And 

we do not have the necessary funds to get that information. 

So some basic data collection, through partnerships, and an observer program, along with the additional surveys, trawl surveys, 

on an increased interval, not the every 3-year interval we are on 

right now. Those three things, in my mind, could greatly improve 

our management of west coast fisheries. 

Senator SNOWE. Do you think good data would have predicted 

the decline in the groundfish industry? 

Mr. PHIL ANDERSON. I think timely data would have given us a 

much earlier indication of what was going on and we could have 

reacted to it before the collapse occurred, to the extent that it has. 

Senator SNOWE. Mr. Harp, would you care to comment on this 

issue? I agree with you on the tribal designee, and we will explore 

that. It is a good suggestion. 

Mr. HARP. Thank you for that comment, Madam Chair. 

37

I would just like to echo what Mr. Anderson has said. As I said 

in my testimony, I think we need to get more frequent and better 

stock assessments, which requires additional money. I think we 

need to have an observer program implemented on the west coast 

here to get a better estimate of the amount of fish that are actually 

caught. That would address the bycatch part that I mentioned in 

my testimony. 

I think there also needs to be an emphasis for more cooperation 

and coordination amongst the tribal, State and Federal agencies 

with the data that they do have on hand. Although it is limited, 

we can then expand from there. 

One of the things about a situation in that resource is that when 

you get to a declining level, I think it does promote much more cooperation than when you do have a lot of abundant species. That 

has been my observation over 25 years in natural resources. When 

you have less to deal with, it fosters much more cooperation than 

when you have plenty of fish. 

Thank you. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you. 

Senator Gorton. 

Senator GORTON. Mr. Anderson, was the Council properly consulted and asked for input on the part of the National Marine Fisheries Service in preparing its 4H paper with respect to the impact 

of commercial harvest on listed salmon stocks? 

Mr. PHIL ANDERSON. Senator Gorton, to my knowledge, the draft 

4H papers were prepared without input from the Council. 

Senator GORTON. If you had provided input, would it have been 

different with respect to the impact on harvest than you have read 

in the 4H paper? 

Mr. PHIL ANDERSON. We are, as the Washington Department of 

Fish and Wildlife, along with other entities, being provided an opportunity to provide comments to National Marine Fisheries Service on that draft. And we are in the process of formulating our comments. And I do not have specific knowledge of the precise language, but I know the thrust of the 4H paper and how it represents 

harvest versus hydro. 

Out of the 12 listed species in the Columbia River, seven of them 

essentially do not have any harvest. And so eliminating harvest on 

those seven species that does not exist is not going to rebuild those 

stocks. There is harvest impact on particularly the Fall Snake 

River run. In our judgment, balancing the impacts of the actions 

necessary to recover those fish between hydro and harvest, that 

that is the appropriate way to proceed, and not to put it all on the 

backs of harvest. 

Senator GORTON. Thank you. 

Ms. Dalton and Mr. Stelle, is there in your regulations or in your 

minds a distinction between essential fish habitat under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and critical habitat with respect to listed fish 

under the Endangered Species Act? Is there critical habitat that is 

not essential fish habitat? Is there essential fish habitat that is not 

critical habitat? 

Ms. DALTON. Will may have a different opinion on it. I would say 

the two of them probably would be very similar, because the definition of essential fish habitat is the waters and substrate that are 

38

essential for the fish to grow and spawn and feed, and critical habitat is what is necessary for the continued existence of the species. 

So it would seem that the two should be fairly similar to each 

other, if you look at it on the face of the law. 

I think the way that they are treated under the two different 

statutes are very different and the requirements that are associated, and our responsibilities, are very different in the two statutes. On the one, what we are talking about in the Magnuson-Stevens Act is a consultative process. Section 7 consultation requirements in the ESA are much tighter. 

And I will let Will comment. 

Mr. STELLE. Good question, Senator. Penny is right. On the matter of the substance of what is critical habitat for a species versus 

essential fish habitat, there are not huge differences. The huge difference is in what is the implication of a designation. Under the 

Endangered Species Act, the designation of critical habitat does invoke the powerful requirements of Section 7 of ESA, and they are 

much more stringent and powerful than the advisory consultation 

process under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. So it is the effect of the 

designation where the principal difference is, sir. 

Senator GORTON. And if we were to take the waters of the State 

of Washington, are all of them both EFH and critical habitat? 

Mr. STELLE. No. All of the waters of the State of Washington 

have not been designated either as critical habitat or as EFH. 

There are waters that are not critical habitat and there are waters 

which are not EFH. 

Senator GORTON. Describe some that are not EFH. 

Mr. STELLE. The freshwaters of the State of Washington that 

have not been currently or historically occupied by salmonids or 

those freshwater systems which have historically been occupied by 

salmonids but which are now blocked off from passage. So if it is 

not historically salmon waters, it is not EFH for salmon purposes. 

Senator GORTON. You used the term ‘‘historic.’’ If some human 

construction, a dam or anything else, has meant that say for the 

last 40 or 50 years there are no salmon but there were salmon 50 

or 100 years ago, is it or is it not EFH? 

Mr. STELLE. To the best of my knowledge, sir, no. And the classic 

case in point is Grand Coulee. The waters of the Columbia above 

Coulee are not EFH. That is permanent blockage of fish passage. 

Senator GORTON. Okay, thank you. 

Fish obviously live in water. How do you get to the point where 

you have EFH that is not water—uplands? And are you not on 

your maps designating substantial land areas as essential fish 

habitat? 

Mr. STELLE. Again, Senator, to the best of my knowledge, no. My 

recollection of the anticipated designation of EFH is it is the aquatic system. 

Senator GORTON. So a map that showed a whole county really is 

just a shorthand to say the waterways within that county and not 

the land area? 

Mr. STELLE. Yes, sir. And my recollection of the general regulation is that it does identify activities in the upland riparian area 

as factors which may affect EFH. But the actual area which is designated as EFH is the water system itself. 

39

Senator GORTON. Well, if the land is a factor that may affect 

EFH, what control does the designation or the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act give to the National Marine Fisheries Service over activities on 

that land? 

Mr. STELLE. Under the terms of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, it 

provides us with the authority to make recommendations to the 

agency that may be engaged in that activity on how those activities 

may affect or adversely affect the essential fish habitat. Those recommendations, and also the recommendations of the Council on 

that matter, are advisory only to the agency doing the thing. 

Senator GORTON. And so in that respect are dramatically different from critical habitat? 

Mr. STELLE. Correct, sir. 

Senator GORTON. Thank you. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you, Senator Gorton. 

Senator Stevens. 

Senator STEVENS. I think the chair said that she agreed with Mr. 

Harp. Do the rest of you have designated representatives, if you 

are absent, on the Council? I think it is a habit in the North Pacific 

Council that the seat can be filled by any person within the agency 

or the area that has the right to hold it. Apparently, from Mr. 

Harp’s point of view, they have to have just one. And he is asking 

for some flexibility. 

Do you agree with that, Mr. Anderson? 

Mr. PHIL ANDERSON. The State agencies and Federal agencies 

can have designees. But on the Pacific Council, the eight members 

that are either in the at-large or obligatory seats cannot have designees. 

Senator STEVENS. Why? Is that just because the Congress put it 

that way or is that the way you all want it? 

Mr. PHIL ANDERSON. No, that is because that is the way Congress established it in the Act. 

Ms. DALTON. For the State and Federal, it is the representative 

or their designee. But the at-large members are included because 

of their unique qualifications. They are not included on the basis 

of their representation of the State or Federal Government. 

Senator STEVENS. I can understand that if it is a particular individual who has significant qualifications. But in an area such as 

a representative of the tribes, I do not see why they should not be 

able to designate their person. 

I do not have any questions. I appreciate very much your clarifications on the problems of the Pacific Council area. 

Senator SNOWE. Can I just ask one other question on IFQ’s? I 

gather you agree about lifting the moratorium on IFQ’s. Would you 

recommend that Congress establish certain conditions under which 

IFQ’s could exist? 

Mr. PHIL ANDERSON. I believe that the National Academy of 

Sciences, that did the review for Congress, recommended that certain criteria be established by Congress in the Act relative to IFQ’s. 

I would support that. 

Senator SNOWE. Mr. Lone and Mr. Harp, do you have any 

thoughts on this matter? 

Mr. LONE. I agree with Mr. Anderson. 

Mr. HARP. I agree with Mr. Anderson and Mr. Lone. 

40

Senator SNOWE. Mr. Stelle, in response to Senator Gorton’s question about what areas are designated as EFH, how much of the 

EEZ is designated as essential fish habitat off the coast here? 

Ms. DALTON. The Pacific Council has not completed an EFH 

amendment for Pacific salmon yet. So, prior to that, the Council 

has worked on it, but nothing has been submitted to us yet. 

Probably, we have most of the EEZ covered because of the large 

number of species and the diversity of areas that you find them in. 

Senator SNOWE. So that is almost the entire area? 

Mr. STELLE. Madam Chair, for groundfish, the EEZ has been 

designated as EFH. And Ms. Dalton is right, for salmon, the process has not—we are still in the middle of the process of working 

on that designation. 

Senator SNOWE. So it is the entire EEZ, out to 200 miles. We will 

have to re-visit this issue. How to define and interpret the essential 

fish habitat provisions continue to surface at these hearings. 

Are there any other questions from the Committee? 

[No response.] 

Thank you all very much. We appreciate your testimony here. 

And now for the second panel. Our first witness will be Mr. Bob 

Alverson, Manager of the Fishing Vessel Owners Association; Mr. 

Ralph Brown, a member of the Pacific Council; Mr. Rod Moore, Executive Director of the west coast Seafood Processors Association; 

and Mr. Tim Henkel, who represents the Deep Sea Fishermen’s 

Union of the Pacific. 

We will begin with Mr. Alverson. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT ALVERSON, MANAGER,

FISHING VESSEL OWNERS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. ALVERSON. Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Bob 

Alverson, and I am representing the Fishing Vessel Owners Association, here in Seattle. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to provide this statement. 

The Association is a trade association, representing the owners 

of 84 hook and line vessels that operate in longline fisheries from 

California to Alaska. Our species of concern include halibut, sablefish, Pacific cod in the Bering Sea and Alaska, and sablefish and 

rockfish species off the coast of Washington, Oregon and California. 

My oral comments will be tailored to the lower Pacific coast. Our 

written comments significantly outline the benefits of the halibut/

sablefish IFQ program. Based on the favorable experience in that 

program in Alaska, the Association believes that individual transferable quotas should be available for application to any fishery in 

the United States exclusive economic zone. The Association urges 

Congress to allow the statutory moratorium on individual quotas to 

expire in accordance with its terms. 

This position is strongly supported by such organizations as the 

Alaska Crab Coalition, Deep Sea Fishermen’s Union, numerous 

trawl organizations up and down the coast, and all of the regional 

fishery management Council chairmen. And, equally notable, the 

National Academy of Sciences has recommended it, based on your 

request to have them analyze the situation. 

Relative to the lower coast, the Association is seriously alarmed 

and adversely affected by the conditions prevailing in the west 

41

coast groundfish fisheries under the jurisdiction of the Pacific 

Council. Here is a case crying out for some form of IFQ. Excess 

harvesting capacity and extremely depressed resource conditions 

combine to defeat conventional management. Indeed, it is conventional management, necessitated by the IFQ moratorium and a 

flawed system of scientific data acquisition and analyses, that have 

caused these conditions. 

Specific to our fixed-gear fleet, the fixed-gear sablefish fishery off 

the coast of Washington, Oregon and California is managed with 

three tiers, each tier having a different trip limit based on the historical production of the participating vessels. In 1999, each vessel 

that had a sablefish permit was allowed a nine-day season, beginning August 15th, regardless of the poundage of the applicable tier. 

The Pacific Council attempted to allow a longer period of time for 

harvest in order to provide safety, management certainty and to 

better fit the sablefish harvest with other fishery activities. However, NOAA general counsel’s office maintained that to allow too 

much time to catch a trip limit would be construed as an IFQ. 

Therefore, it would violate the moratorium on the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

On that basis of that ruling, the Pacific Council is currently 

forced to adjust a harvest time and trip limit sizes for the fleet, 

such that the fleet only has the probability of not catching their 

trip limit of 26 percent. This last season, on August 15th, most of 

my fishermen in our organization have what they call a tier 2 permit, which is equivalent to about 30,000 to 40,000 ground pounds 

of sablefish, 22,000 pounds dressed weight, and they were given a 

nine-day season to go out and catch that. 

The caveat with that is based on a mathematical progression, 

that 26 percent probability, that the average guy will not catch his 

trip limit. Which is quite an incentive to try to go out and force the 

issue and try to catch your 26 percent—beat the system. But if you 

beat the system, the system tells you, we will shave another day 

off next year so that we can maintain this overhead. The 26 percent probability of not allowing us to catch our historical fish is 

called overhead, and that satisfies NOAA general counsel in not 

calling this an IFQ. 

Madam Chairman, we request for the Pacific Council, if at all 

possible, that the Senate let us know if they are going to go ahead 

and allow this moratorium to expire or not by April. By giving us 

some indication in April, it would save the Pacific Council two full 

seasons in trying to prepare what is going on in terms of how it 

is affecting the industry. 

IFQ’s take a lot of time to design and implement. It took nine 

years for us to design and implement the one in the North Pacific 

Council. We had six years of design work going on in the sablefish 

fishery in the Pacific Council, that Jim Lone spoke to earlier, when 

the moratorium came into effect. It takes a lot of time, a lot of designing. And saving two full seasons would greatly help the Pacific 

Council. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Alverson follows:]

42

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT ALVERSON, MANAGER, FISHING VESSEL OWNERS

ASSOCIATION

Madam Chair:

On behalf of the Fishing Vessel Owners Association (‘‘FVOA’’), I would like to 

thank you for the opportunity to provide this statement. The FVOA is a trade association representing the owners of 84 hook-and-line fishing vessels that operate in 

fisheries from California to Alaska, and in the mid-Pacific Ocean. Our fisheries include halibut, sablefish, and Pacific cod in the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska, and 

sablefish off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California, as well as albacore 

within and beyond the United States Exclusive Economic Zone in the Pacific Ocean. 

Although I am, at present, a member of the Pacific Fishery Management Council, 

and I am a former member of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, I provide this statement solely in my capacity as Manager of the FVOA. I note that the 

Deep Sea Fishermen’s Union, which represents the crewmen on vessels owned by 

FVOA members, has endorsed this statement. 

SUMMARY

The FVOA and DSFU believe that the 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801, et seq.) have provided, in several respects, the basis for improved management of our nation’s fisheries. The Act’s National Standards on safety (National Standard 10, 16 U.S.C. 

1851(a)(10)) and bycatch (National Standard 9, 16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(9)), enacted in the 

Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996, are notable for the focus that they have provided 

on critically important aspects of fisheries management. The FVOA and DSFU were 

joined by the Alaska Crab Coalition (‘‘ACC’’) in first proposing the enactment of 

these new National Standards, and in securing wide support among Washington 

State and Alaskan fishing industry organizations. The FVOA, DSFU, and ACC also 

contributed to the development of conservation-related amendments to the then 

Magnuson Act in 1990. 

The habitat provisions of the Sustainable Fisheries Act have contributed to the 

progressive management of our fisheries. In particular, these provisions have helped 

to draw attention to the need for actions to reduce the impacts of trawling on the 

benthic environment, which serves as nursery grounds for valuable species of fish. 

The FVOA, DSFU, and ACC took the initiative among fishing industry groups to 

propose habitat-related amendments during the process leading to the Sustainable 

Fisheries Act. 

Most importantly for the FVOA and DSFU, the Sustainable Fisheries Act preserved the Individual Fishing Quota (‘‘IFQ’’) program that had been established for 

the halibut and sablefish fisheries off the coast of Alaska. This program, after ten 

long years of preparation by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council and the 

Department of Commerce, ended the deadly and damaging open access halibut and 

sablefish fishing derbies. IFQs have been the great success that their proponents 

had predicted from the outset of the development of the program. 

However, one provision of the Sustainable Fisheries Act—the moratorium on 

IFQs—cannot be viewed as contributing in a positive way to fisheries management 

[16 U.S.C. 1853(d)(1)]. On the contrary, this congressionally-imposed constraint on 

fisheries managers serves as a roadblock to effective management, especially, but 

not exclusively, in fisheries plagued by excess fishing capacity and/or low resource 

abundance. 

Based on the very favorable experience in the halibut and sablefish fisheries, the 

FVOA and DSFU believe that individual transferable quotas should be available for 

application to any fishery in the United States Exclusive Economic Zone. The 

FVOA and DSFU urge Congress to allow the statutory moratorium on individual quotas to expire in accordance with its terms. This position is strongly 

supported by the ACC, as well as by all the regional fishery management Council 

chairmen. Equally notable is the fact that the report to Congress by the National 

Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, as directed by the Congress 

in the 1996 amendments (section 108(f), P.L. 104–297) definitively describes the 

benefits of individual fishing quotas. The development and design of IFQ programs 

by the regional fishery management Councils should be permitted as recommended 

by the NRC. [Executive Summary, Prepublication Copy, December 18, 1998.] 

The FVOA and DSFU are seriously alarmed, and adversely affected, by the conditions prevailing in west coast groundfish fisheries under the jurisdiction of the Pacific Fishery Management Council. Here is a case crying out for some form of IFQs. 

Excess harvesting capacity and extremely depressed resource conditions combine to 

defeat conventional management. Indeed, it is conventional management necesVerDate Apr 24 2002 09:41 Jul 25, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\77585.TXT SCOM2 PsN: JACKF
43

sitated by the IFQ moratorium, and a flawed system of scientific data acquisition 

and analysis, that have caused these conditions. An attempt at creative management by the Pacific Council only resulted in a legal determination that the proposed 

measures violated the IFQ moratorium. As described in detail, below, this led to 

perverse results. If Congress decides to extend the IFQ moratorium, an exception should be made for west coast groundfish fisheries. At a minimum, 

Congress should ensure that the Pacific Council will no longer be constrained by interpretations of the IFQ moratorium that prevent the establishment of vitally needed, remedial management measures.

The FVOA and DSFU also ask Congress to extend to the Pacific Region 

the fisheries research plan provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. [16 

U.S.C. 1862.] As discussed further, below, there is an urgent need for a comprehensive observer program in the depressed groundfish fisheries off the Pacific Coast. 

There is simply no other way to obtain reliable data on bycatch of depressed, and 

even threatened, species. It is true that the industry would be hard-pressed to find 

the funds to pay for an observer program. But it is also the case that Congress has 

been unwilling, to date, to provide federal funds. An effective observer program is 

indispensable to recovery of the fish stocks and the fishing industry. Authorization 

for the imposition of observer fees on industry should be provided, so that in the 

continued absence of federal funding, the vitally needed observer program can be 

established. The fishing industry stands to benefit from improved conservation of 

our public resources. Consequently, the industry should be prepared to pay for the 

needed observer program, if federal funding is inadequate or unavailable. Playing 

Russian Roulette with our fisheries has proved disastrous to important groundfish 

species and to the industry that has depended on them. We must have observer 

data in order to manage our fisheries with confidence that we are doing the right 

things. I note that, in the event that an IFQ program is established for these fisheries, industry capability and willingness to fund an observer program would, no 

doubt, be considerably enhanced. 

Conservation 

As discussed in detail, below, replacement of the open access race for fish by the 

halibut/sablefish IFQ program has resulted in improved conservation and management. The incidental catch of halibut in the directed sablefish fishery has declined 

38%. The incidental catch of groundfish in the sablefish fishery has dropped by 39%. 

Halibut mortality due to lost fishing gear has decreased by 59.65% (translating to 

an average $3.5 million dollar saving, annually). 

Incidentally caught sablefish is no longer discarded in the directed halibut fishery. 

Sablefish in the western and central Gulf of Alaska is now fully harvested, not only 

avoiding waste, but also generating an economic gain for the industry (an average 

$3.93 million gain, annually). 

These improvements accord with the principal purpose of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act, which is conservation, and with a major, related objective of that statute, minimizing bycatch and related mortality. [16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(1), (9).] 

In the absence of IFQs, the west coast groundfish fisheries have continued to be 

plagued by excessive waste. This has contributed to the further decline of onceabundant resources. 

Safety 

As noted above, the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that fisheries management 

promote the safety of human life at sea. [16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(10).] Replacement of the 

open access race for fish by the IFQ Program has greatly improved the safety of 

life in the halibut and sablefish fisheries off the Alaskan coast. The former halibut 

fishing derby was the second most dangerous occupation in the United States (preceded only by the Bering Sea crab fisheries). 

Weather conditions off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California are by 

no means as severe as the conditions off the coast of Alaska, where the halibut/sablefish program functions. Nevertheless, there are injuries and vessel and gear 

losses attributable to the race for fish in bad weather in the Pacific Council region. 

IFQs would undoubtedly provide relief, insofar as the pace of the fisheries would 

be slowed and fishermen would be able to choose the conditions in which they would 

carry out their operations. 

Communities 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that fisheries management take into account 

the interests of fishing communities. [16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(8).] Community development quotas (‘‘CDQs’’), which are integral to the halibut/sablefish IFQ program, 

have assured isolated, low-income, Alaskan native coastal communities a major 

source of employment and revenue. At the same time, economic and social disrupVerDate Apr 24 2002 09:41 Jul 25, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\77585.TXT SCOM2 PsN: JACKF
44

tion of other communities has been avoided; the top five halibut ports and the top 

four sablefish ports remain the same as under the open access system. Small vessels 

serving minor ports have been guaranteed their place in the fisheries, and an industry fee-based loan program has been established for the owners of those vessels and 

for new entrants to the fisheries. In short, this IFQ program has increased the overall value of the fisheries, making it possible to dedicate a portion to the poorest communities, without adversely affecting the others. 

The FVOA and DSFU would by no means suggest that CDQs or an industry-funded loan program be established in the Pacific region. Conditions there are quite different from those in Alaska, where communities are both small and isolated and 

have fewer sources of income. However, it is a fact that some communities in the 

Pacific region will suffer greatly from the depressed conditions in the groundfish 

fisheries and that an IFQ system, by improving those conditions, would contribute 

to the recovery of the affected, local economies. 

Overcapitalization 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides for consideration of economic efficiency, and 

for reduction of excess fishing capacity. [16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(5), 1861a (a)–(e).] Excess 

capacity in fisheries has been identified as one of the fundamental causes of resource declines, unsafe conditions, lost economic efficiency, and lower quality product. The halibut/sablefish IFQ program has resulted in a reduction of the halibut 

fleet from 3,450 (1994) to 1,601 (1998). [Restricted Access Management (‘‘RAM’’) Report, NMFS, 1999, page 27.] Conservation risk associated with fishing pressure on 

the resources has declined radically. Unsafe conditions due to 24-hour halibut 

derbies and 2-week sablefish seasons have disappeared, as fishermen have gained 

the opportunity to conduct their operations in periods of good weather during eight 

months of the year. Longer seasons have led to full-time employment on vessels and 

in processing plants, and higher fish values have resulted in better lives for vessel 

owners and crews. Slower paced fisheries have allowed much improved handling of 

the catches, and thus, better quality product for the consumer. It is reliably estimated that a government-funded buyback achieving what was accomplished by the 

halibut/sablefish IFQ program would have cost the taxpayers approximately $318.8 

million. 

There is considerable doubt that an industry-funded buyback can work in the 

west coast groundfish fisheries. The financial condition of the fleet and the depressed condition of the resources suggest strongly that the economic basis for such 

a buyback simply does not exist for those fisheries. By the same token, there is no 

indication that Congress is willing to provide federal funds to pay for a fleet reduction program. These factors, too, argue for IFQs. 

Greatest Overall Benefit to the Nation—Conservation, Safety, Efficiency, 

Quality, Value 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that fisheries management achieve the greatest overall benefit to the Nation. [16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(1); see 16 U.S.C. 1802 (28)(A).] 

In addition to achieving improved conservation, safety, and efficiency, the halibut/

sablefish IFQ program has resulted in improved product quality and higher product 

value. The slower paced fisheries have translated to greater availability of higher 

quality product, in particular, fresh halibut for eight months, instead of a few days 

of the year, and greater bargaining power for U.S. producers in the sablefish export 

market. Landings of halibut provide a continuous supply of product for eight 

months, averaging about 12% of the harvest per month. The same is true for sablefish. [RAM Report, NMFS, 1999, page 12.] Similar benefits could be anticipated for 

the groundfish fisheries of the Pacific region. 

REVIEW OF THE HALIBUT/SABLEFISH INDIVIDUAL FISHING QUOTA AND COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT QUOTA PROGRAMS

When the North Pacific Fishery Management Council recommended approval by 

the Secretary of Commerce of IFQs and CDQs for the halibut and sablefish fisheries, it was on the basis of an administrative process involving extensive debate 

and intensive analysis. The Council had considered an array of possible management responses to conservation, social, and economic factors at work in the then 

open access fisheries. These factors were identified, as follows:

• Allocation conflicts; 

• Gear conflicts; 

• Fishing mortality and other costs due to lost gear; 

• Bycatch loss of halibut and sablefish in other fisheries; 

45

• Discard mortality for halibut and other retainable species in the halibut and 

sablefish fisheries; 

• Excess harvesting capacity; • Product quality, as reflected in halibut and sablefish prices; • Safety of fishermen; • Economic stability in the fixed gear halibut and sablefish fisheries and affected communities; and 

• Rural coastal community development of a small boat fishery.

The Council ultimately determined that the IFQ system would be the best management response to these factors. The Council also decided that CDQs would provide a useful economic boost to Alaskan coastal communities. 

Allocation Conflicts 

Allocation conflicts between the operators in the halibut/sablefish fisheries generally were found in skirmishes involving halibut. Prior to implementation of the 

IFQ program, the allocation issues centered around manipulations of when specific 

area openings would take place in order to advantage or disadvantage various 

groups. 

In the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands area, there evolved a series of complex clearing procedures designed to make it more inefficient for non-Alaskan-resident-operated vessels. This included such regulations, in the Pribilof Islands area, as constraining trip limits and a requirement that non-resident vessels deliver to Dutch 

Harbor. This, of course, gave the local fishermen additional fishing time. Similar 

clearing requirements were established for the Eastern Bering Sea, Area 4E, and 

the area known as Area 4B in the Aleutian Islands. 

The annual meetings of the International Pacific Halibut Commission (‘‘IPHC’’), 

were prolonged for hours on the question of precisely when to have the spring and 

fall 24-hour halibut openings. Some of the issues that drove this debate were as follows: Were the Canadian or the United States fishermen going to open first to get 

an advantage on price; would the spring opening conflict with the spring herring 

fishery in southeast Alaska; would the openings conflict with western peninsula 

salmon seasons; would openings occur during big tides; would openings put product 

at the docks in Alaska at the right time for the Sea Land ships; would the fall opening conflict with the State of Alaska sablefish openings; and would the opening conflict with the Russian Orthodox holidays? 

None of those issues, which were debated with emotion and zeal, have arisen 

since the implementation of the IFQ program. When the IFQ program was adopted, 

the onerous clearing requirements and trip limit regimes in the Bering Sea district 

were removed (though there are still clearing requirements they are not of an 

allocative nature). Former Governor of Alaska, Walter J. Hickel, correctly observed 

of the IFQ program, ‘‘Ultimately the free market decides.’’ [Letter from Walter J. 

Hickel to Bob Alverson, August 27, 1997.] All of the concerns of when to fish or not 

to fish that the industry and fisheries managers debated at length prior to implementation of the IFQ program are now the business decisions of each and every vessel owner, subject to overarching conservation and management regulations. 

Gear Conflicts 

The supplemental environmental impact statement (‘‘SEIS’’) for the halibut/sablefish IFQ program stated:

Although an IFQ program will tend to decrease gear conflicts within the halibut 

and sablefish fishery, it may increase gear conflicts between halibut or sablefish 

fishermen and other fishermen by increasing the areas and length of periods 

in which such conflicts can occur. For example, it is less costly for trawlers to 

avoid the halibut grounds during brief halibut openings than to avoid these 

areas most of the year. Similarly, the areas and times with a high risk of gear 

conflicts are easier to identify and avoid with the current intensive halibut fishing periods than with an IFQ program. No attempt has been made to estimate 

the magnitude of this effect. [SEIS, page 2–7.]

Halibut fishermen no longer have gear conflicts with sablefish fishermen. The 

best sablefish grounds are usually located on the outer continental shelf, or at about 

350 to 600 fathoms. The halibut fishery is conducted generally between 100 and 250 

fathoms. The IFQ fishery allows the participants to target where the fish are located. The time available for the fishermen to decide where and when to set gear 

allows avoidance of other fishing operations, particularly now that the grounds for 

halibut and sablefish are no longer saturated with gear. 

The statement, ‘‘it is less costly for trawlers to avoid the halibut grounds during 

the brief halibut openings, than to avoid these areas most of the year’’, is ironic, 

46

because the reverse has turned out to be the case. It is very costly for trawlers to 

avoid halibut grounds, because the trawl groundfish seasons have become very 

short. This is particularly true in the Gulf of Alaska. Should trawlers inadvertently 

get into a school of halibut or area where halibut gear is set, the trawl fishermen 

do not have the time to make optimum adjustments. If the trawlers had the time 

to make those adjustments, the bycatch and potential gear conflicts could be further 

reduced. As it stands, now, the longline IFQ fishermen have adequate time to harvest their quota shares and can avoid most of the intense trawl activity. In fact, 

the Pacific cod fishery in the Gulf of Alaska has been shortened, so that it ends 

about the time the March 15th IFQ fisheries start, with the result that few, if any, 

gear conflicts have been occurring with that directed fishery. 

The openings set forth below were provided the trawl fleet in the Gulf of Alaska 

during 1995 and 1999. One can easily see that fishing time is now at a premium 

to the trawl fleet, as it was to the halibut and sablefish fishermen prior to the IFQ 

program. The loss of fishing gear, particularly someone else’s, becomes a low priority, when fishing time becomes a high priority.

1995 

Pacific Cod Western Gulf January 20 to March 17

(inshore) Central Gulf January 20 to March 22

Pollock Western Gulf January 20 to February 2

June 1 to June 2

July 1 to July 2

October 1 to October 1 (12 hours) 

Central Gulf January 20 to January 24

June 1 to June 5

July 1 to July 5

October 1 to October 4

S.E. Alaska Pacific 

Ocean Perch 

July 1 to July 9 

Plus two days in October 

1999 Sector Area in the Gulf of Alaska 

Pacific Cod (Trawl) Inshore 610 Opened 1/20/99 closed 3/8/99

Inshore 620 & 630 Opened 1/20/99 closed 3/14/99

Offshore 610 Opened 4/18/99 closed 6/7/99

Pollock (Trawl) Inshore 630 Opened 1/20/99 closed 1/27/99

Inshore 610 Opened 1/20/99 closed 1/31/99

Inshore 620 Opened 1/20/99 closed 2/17/99

Inshore 640 & 650 Opened 1/20/99 closed 3/6/99

Inshore 610 Opened 6/1/99 closed 6/7/99

Inshore 630 Opened 6/1/99 closed 6/10/99

Inshore 620 Opened 6/1/99 closed 6/11/99

In summary, the SEIS predicted fewer gear conflicts, and this has proved correct. 

The SEIS’ prediction of IFQ harvesters experiencing, among themselves, 

gear conflicts, has not proved accurate. This is largely because sablefish and 

halibut operations take place at different depth strata, and because of the eight 

months of fishing time, halibut harvesters can afford to communicate with their fellow fishermen and avoid each others’ gear. The same applies for sablefish harvesters. The conclusion of the SEIS about trawlers has turned out to be just the 

reverse of actual experience. The trawl derbies have increased the trawlers’ cost of 

avoiding gear conflicts. 

The initial reports to the Pacific and North Pacific Councils on the operation of 

the whiting and pollock cooperatives indicate that the resulting reduction of capacity has favorably affected the fisheries by slowing the race for fish. Particularly 

helpful benefits should include reduction of bycatch and gear conflicts. 

Fishing Mortality and Other Costs Due to Lost Gear 

The SEIS correctly predicted the following with regard to gear loss and related 

fishing mortality:

‘‘There are several reasons why an IFQ program is expected to decrease gear 

losses and the associated costs. First, it would reduce the amount of gear that 

is on the grounds at any one time, and therefore, reduce the amount of gear 

that becomes tangled. Second, it would increase the willingness of fishermen to 

47

take more time to avoid tangling gear and to retrieve lost or tangled gear. It 

would do so by decreasing the opportunity cost of the time required either to 

set gear so that it is less likely to become tangled or to retrieve it. Third, it 

would eliminate the current gear losses that occur because fishermen set more 

gear than they can retrieve before the end of the brief halibut openings. Finally, 

it would allow fishermen to fish at a pace and in areas, time periods, and 

weather conditions that decrease gear losses.’’ [SEIS, page 2–6.]

The SEIS stated, ‘‘There are principally two types of costs associated with gear 

losses in the halibut and sablefish fishery. There are (1) cost of replacing lost gear, 

and (2) harvest forgone due to the fishing mortality caused by the lost gear.’’ [Id.] 

The SEIS estimated that, in 1990, 1,860 skates of gear and two million pounds of 

halibut were lost. [Id.] 

In its annual reports, under the category of waste, the IPHC includes the mortality of halibut due to lost gear in the IFQ fleet. In the 1994 Annual Report, waste 

was recorded at 2.85 million pounds. The 1995 and 1998 Annual Reports recorded 

waste as 1.0 and 1.9 million pounds, respectively. This represents a 48% average 

reduction in waste, or an annual savings of approximately 1.4 million pounds of halibut from 1994. This compares impressively with the 50% saving predicted by the 

SEIS. Based on the 1999 Seward, Alaska price for halibut (approximate average, 

$2.44/lb.), the savings due to reduced waste is approximately $3.36 million. 

The lost fishing gear in the halibut derbies was primarily the result of 4,000 to 

6,000 vessels setting their gear all at the same time, and the gear becoming entangled. Gear lost in this manner is a thing of the past. The SEIS estimated the value 

of lost gear at $2.0–$2.4 million per year in the halibut derbies. [SEIS, page 2–6.] 

Under the IFQ program, the vessels share the grounds over an 8-month season. 

Gear still can be lost due to the normal hang-up on the bottom, but there are no 

longer large amounts of gear lost due to gear conflicts. 

There has also been a savings in the amount of gear purchases for each vessel 

each season. It was not uncommon for vessels to pre-bait and set 80 to 130 skates 

of gear during a 24-hour derby opening. Vessels are now fishing with 50 to 70 

skates of gear. Additionally, the vessel operators, prior to IFQs, used two different 

types of gear—one for halibut and one for sablefish. Many harvesters are now using 

their sablefish gear to harvest the halibut quotas, further reducing gear-related 

costs to the fleet. The SEIS predicted a 50% reduction in gear needed to harvest 

the same amount of fish. [SEIS, page 2–7.] 

The open access sablefish fishery had similar problems with lost gear; however, 

the SEIS did not quantify the loss. It is reasonable to conclude, based on the halibut 

experience, that the lengthened sablefish seasons under the IFQ program have also 

resulted in lower gear losses and associated resource mortality than prevailed in the 

open access fishery. 

In summary, there has been at least a 48% reduction in waste of halibut recorded by the IPHC, with a net benefit of $3.36 million annually to the fleet. The IFQ program has resulted in much less gear being set to harvest the quota. 

Bycatch Loss of Halibut and Sablefish in Other Fisheries 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides, ‘‘Conservation and management measures 

shall, to the extent practicable, (A) minimize bycatch and (B) to the extent bycatch 

cannot be avoided, minimize the mortality of such bycatch.’’ [16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(9).] 

Congressional interest and intent with respect to bycatch reduction was clearly 

reflected in the Senate and House Floor debates in the 104th Congress. Senator Stevens declared that, ‘‘Under S. 39 [Sustainable Fisheries Act], the Councils will be 

required to reduce the amount of bycatch in every fishery around our country.’’ [Congressional Record, September 18, 1996 at S10810.] He also stated, ‘‘We thought 

Americanization would go a long way toward conserving the fishery resources of this 

Nation. Foreign vessels have now given way to U.S. vessels that are capitalized now 

far beyond what we ever envisioned in the seventies, and the fisheries waste continues to get worse in many areas.’’ [Id.] Senator Murkowski stated, ‘‘This will put 

us on the road to stopping the shameful waste that is currently occurring in many 

fisheries.’’ [Id. at S10820.] Senator Gorton remarked, ‘‘I join my colleagues in 

lauding those provisions that aim to reduce waste and bycatch in the fisheries’’. [Id. 

at S10814.] 

On the House Floor, Congressman Young, principal author of H.R. 39 (companion 

bill to S. 39), and chairman of the committee of jurisdiction, stated, ‘‘The reduction 

of bycatch in our fisheries is one of the most crucial challenges facing fisheries managers today.’’ [Congressional Record, September 18, 1995 at H9116.] On passage of 

S. 39, he stated, ‘‘The bill recognizes that bycatch is one of the most pressing problems facing the continuation of sustainable fisheries.’’ [Congressional Record, September 27, 1996 at H11438.] 

48

Prior to the implementation of the IFQ program for sablefish and halibut, the 

length of the seasons had shortened to a point of causing chaos. The sablefish fishery had collapsed from a 9-month season to a less than a 10-day fishery in the western Gulf of Alaska, and to a five-day season in southeast Alaska. 

By 1994, the halibut fishery had become two 24-hour openings, one in the spring 

and one in the fall. In the mid-1970’s, the halibut season had been nine months. 

By the 1990’s, when fishermen harvested sablefish, they were required by regulation 

to throw away their incidentally caught halibut, and during the halibut derbies, the 

fishermen were required to throw away the incidentally caught sablefish. The mortality associated with this regulatory bycatch was deducted from the available commercial harvests. 

The IPHC recorded the halibut mortality in the directed sablefish fishery by the 

use of the observer program. The average halibut mortality in the longline sablefish 

fishery for each of the five seasons preceding the IFQ program was 1,816,000 

pounds. The bycatch mortality, after the IFQ program was implemented in 1995 

was recorded at 297,000 pounds. This represented an 84 percent reduction in halibut mortality, or a reduction of 1,519,000 pounds annually. There have been no updates on this in the NMFS database since 1995, but there is no reason to expect 

that the experience has changed since then. The reduction resulted from a variety 

of several factors. Two of the more important ones were: (1) the fishery slowed 

down, and juvenile halibut were able to be released with better care, and thus with 

lower mortality; and (2) the adult halibut were allowed to be retained and counted 

against the quota. (Juvenile halibut are not allowed to be landed; they are defined 

as being less than 32 inches long.) 

Similar information is not available to quantify what has taken place with incidentally caught sablefish. The directed halibut fishery is generally conducted in a 

shallower habitat than that in which the sablefish are usually found, so the numbers of sablefish saved in the halibut fishery would probably not be as great as the 

numbers of halibut saved in the directed sablefish fishery. (The deep-water sablefish 

habitat does, however, have substantial numbers of halibut in the late winter and 

spring.) The important point is that the fleet is now landing incidentally caught sablefish. That was not the case prior to the IFQ program. 

The reduction in halibut mortality in the directed sablefish fishery of 1,519,000 

pounds represents approximately a $3.2 million gain to the longline fishermen, assuming an average 1997 price of $2.10 per pound. As noted above, prior to the IFQ 

program, this now-retained bycatch was discarded and deducted from what might 

be available for commercial harvest. 

There has been an additional saving to the longline fleet with the implementation 

of the IFQ program. Prior to 1995, the longline sablefish fishery operated in the 

Gulf of Alaska with a halibut cap of 700 metric tons. Once this bycatch mortality 

was accounted for, with the help of the observer program, the directed sablefish 

fishery was closed. This had the effect in the western Gulf of Alaska, and at times 

the central Gulf of Alaska, of stopping the harvest of sablefish, in order to protect 

halibut. The ability under the IFQ program to keep the sablefish fishery open in 

the Gulf of Alaska in each of the years, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999, has allowed for the western Gulf of Alaska harvest level to be fully achieved, and the central Gulf quota to also be harvested. For 1997, in the western Gulf of Alaska, the 

harvestable amount of sablefish quota shares amounted to 1,690,222 round pounds, 

representing an additional $3.93 million to the fleet. (Price $3.70/dressed, 63% recovery.) 

In summary, the IFQ program has allowed the fleet to recapture the lost harvest 

of halibut that was occurring due to sablefish operations. This gain amounts to an 

average of $3.2 million annually since the inception of the IFQs. The program additionally allows for the full harvest of sablefish in the western and central Gulf of 

Alaska, providing an average annual gain of $3.93 million. 

Janet Smoker of Fisheries Information Services (‘‘FIS’’) completed a review of the 

IFQ directed sablefish fishery in the Gulf of Alaska relative to the retention of various species caught incidentally. The FIS report examines the 1994 season against 

the IFQ seasons of 1995, 1996, and part of 1997. The following conclusions were 

based on the North Pacific Fishery Management Council’s observer program. 

While conducting a directed fishery on sablefish, some of the target catch is discarded. The retained sablefish has always been high, according to the report. The 

retained sablefish in the directed longline fishery for sablefish during 1994 was 

96.8% (a number that is hard to improve upon), and during the 1995, 1996, and 

1997 seasons averaged 97.03%. One observation concerning the small difference in 

retained bycatch between the open access period and the IFQ fishery is that there 

has been very little ‘‘high grading’’ in the IFQ fisheries, indeed, less than in the preVerDate Apr 24 2002 09:41 Jul 25, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\77585.TXT SCOM2 PsN: JACKF
49

IFQ fisheries. High grading had been a concern with respect to the IFQ program, 

when it was under development. 

The SEIS noted several very important points relative to this subject. Vessel profit would increase 6%, if sablefish under 4 pounds (eastern dressed weight) were discarded, but in so doing the number of fishing days would increase 70%. [SEIS, page 

2–14.] The fishermen would have made more money, but would have worked many 

more days. As noted above, the observer statistics compiled by FIS, which indicate 

a 97.03% retention of sablefish, suggests that the SEIS was accurate. High grading, 

which means catching the fish at least twice, is not economical. 

The FIS report also indicates that the directed sablefish fishery during the 1994 

season was retaining 75.5% of all groundfish, inclusive of sablefish that was being 

caught. The next three seasons under the IFQ program increased the total groundfish retention to 84.9% of all groundfish species. Discards of groundfish declined 

from 24.5% of the catch to an average of 15.03% of the catch, representing a 39% 

reduction in discarded groundfish. 

The retention of groundfish, not including sablefish, increased from the 1994 season level of 25.7% to an average of 34.6% during the 1995, 1996, and 1997, seasons. 

This represented a 35% increase in groundfish retention, not including sablefish. 

The halibut discards that occur during the directed sablefish fishery have gone from 

21.1% in 1994 to an average of 13.03% during the 1995, 1996, and 1997, seasons. 

This represented a 38% decline in halibut discards. Discards of halibut under the 

IFQ program in the directed sablefish fishery are largely halibut that are less than 

the legal size for retention. 

The discards of rockfish and Pacific cod in the IFQ fisheries are significantly the 

result of the rockfish and cod quotas being achieved during the race for fish in those 

fisheries, which then result in regulatory discards for the remainder of the year for 

IFQ fisheries. The majority of groundfish discards in the IFQ fisheries are flounders 

and skates, for which markets have not yet been adequately developed. 

In summary, according to the cited evidence and analysis through 1997, the retention of sablefish has remained in the 97% range suggesting very little, if any, high 

grading. The discards of groundfish in the directed sablefish fishery reduced 39%, 

for a 84.9% retention of everything caught. The fish currently discarded are primarily skates and flounders for which markets are not available. The halibut discards in the sablefish fishery declined 38%. The IFQ program has, therefore, helped 

reduce bycatch significantly. Data for 1998 and 1999 are not available. 

Excess Harvesting Capacity 

The SEIS made a number of comments with regard to excess harvesting capacity. 

‘‘The fact that there are too many vessels has been identified as a problem.’’ [SEIS, 

page 2–52.] ‘‘The Council has considered the introduction of a quota system as a 

means to enable vessels to leave the industry to receive some recompense through 

the sale of quota shares for so doing.’’ [Id.] ‘‘It is hoped that following introduction, 

transfer of quotas will lead to less efficient vessels leaving the industry.’’ [Id.] 

In 1994, the number of vessels participating in the sablefish fishery opening numbered 1,139, and in the halibut fishery, 3,450. The number of vessels participating 

in the sablefish fishery in 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998, were 517, 503, 504, and 449 

respectively. The corresponding numbers of halibut vessels were 2,057, 1,962, 1,925, 

and 1,601. [RAM Report, NMFS, 1999, page 27.] 

The reduction of vessels as envisioned by the SEIS is working and is being accomplished without any federal buy-back assistance. The fleet is using the equity value 

of quota shares to buy itself out. The FVOA estimates that, in order for the Federal 

Government to have achieved a fleet reduction in the halibut fishery from 3,450 vessels in 1994, to 1,601 in 1998, a reduction of 1,849 vessels, it would have cost at 

least $172,432 for each vessel and its potential harvest of fish. This means that the 

halibut fleet has self-rationalized itself in the amount of $318,822,000 ($172,432 ×

1,849 vessels) in four years, without any federal assistance. 

There are no mechanisms comparable to IFQs in terms of cost effectiveness in reduction of a fleet. The taxpayer cost of one New England buy-out was $23 million, 

and the impact was minimal. 

One of the options the North Pacific Fishery Council seriously looked at, when it 

was considering whether to adopt IFQs for the halibut fishery, was a license limited 

entry program that would have reduced the halibut fleet from 5000 vessels to less 

than 1000 vessels. This option would have provided no compensation to the 4000 

vessel operators eliminated from the fishery, and accounts, in large part, for the 

adoption of the IFQ alternative. 

50

Product Quality, as Reflected in Halibut and Sablefish Prices 

The SEIS made numerous predictions regarding the expected effects on product 

quality, the availability of fresh halibut, and ex-vessel prices. One of the primary 

goals of the IFQ program was to provide high quality fresh halibut on a continual 

basis. The 24-hour openings in the derby fisheries limited the ability of fishermen 

and processors to provide fresh halibut to brief periods of the year, and to very few 

customers. For example, the Hotel Captain Cook, in Anchorage, Alaska, had to import fresh halibut from Canada to supply its customers, even though Alaska produced more halibut than did any other place in the world. ‘‘. . . I mention the Crow’s Nest Restaurant in the Hotel Captain Cook, which has 

a reputation of serving nothing but fresh halibut. Prior to IFQs, most of the year 

we flew fresh halibut in from Vancouver.’’ [Letter from the Honorable Walter J. 

Hickel to Mr. Bob Alverson, August 27, 1997.] 

The SEIS had the following specific expectations with regard to the IFQ program. 

First, the program would provide the flexibility in scheduling landings that is necessary for fishermen and processors to take advantage both of the latent year round 

market for fresh halibut and the seasonal consumption patterns for sablefish, and 

to decrease storage time and costs for the halibut and sablefish that are frozen. Second, the program would increase the quality of landed halibut and sablefish, by decreasing the opportunity cost of the time required to assure that the catch is quickly 

dressed and cared for. Third, the program would eliminate the brief, intensive openings that result in such large concentrations of landings that unloading and processing delays can decrease product quality and prices. [SEIS, page 2–4.] 

Flexibility in scheduling landings to take advantage of a year-round market for 

fresh halibut and seasonal consumption patterns is evident from the IPHC monthly 

landing reports for the 1995 through 1998 seasons. [RAM Report, NMFS, 1999, page 

12.] The fleet has spread its landings over the entire time provided, all eight 

months. This has allowed the fresh fish market to absorb approximately 75% of the 

harvest. The initial forecast by the SEIS was 50%. [SEIS, page 2–5.] 

With regard to storage costs and savings, the SEIS stated, ‘‘If 75 percent of landings currently are frozen and if an IFQ program would result in only 50% being frozen, the cost savings in 1990 would have been $4.2 million ($0.32 per lb. × 25% of 

52.6 million lbs.).’’ [SEIS, page 2–5.] With 75 percent of the harvest now going to the fresh markets, cold storage saving in terms of 1990 dollars is $9.8 million. ($0.32 

per lb. × 50% of 61,200,000 lbs. (1999 quota).) This saving thus is over twice that 

forecasted by the SEIS. Additionally, in terms of product quality, the SEIS assumed, 

on average, that halibut was frozen 6 months a year. This is no longer the case, 

and the quality is, therefore, higher than anticipated. 

The SEIS stated, ‘‘The price increase for sablefish is expected to be less than for 

halibut, because the potential benefits from the fresh fish market are probably less 

for sablefish’’. [SEIS, page 2–5.] 

The SEIS greatly underestimated the Japanese frozen market for sablefish, and 

the marketing advantages that IFQs gave U.S. fishermen, in terms of negotiating 

leverage in this foreign market. (Harvest guidelines have decreased as well, which 

has put an upward pressure on prices.) Japan consumes over 97 percent of the U.S.- 

and Canadian-harvested sablefish. Since the establishment of the IFQ program, the 

sablefish price has steadily increased. The 1997 average price to fishermen would 

conservatively be estimated at $3.70 per dressed pound. The NMFS assumes a 63 

percent recovery rate between dressed and round sablefish, therefore in terms of 

round weight, the price would be $2.33 per pound. The 1999 dressed weight price 

in Alaska averaged approximately $3.10 per pound, reflecting the recent recession 

in Japan. 

The SEIS estimated that the round pound price for sablefish would increase $0.05. That document stated, ‘‘In 1991, this would have been a $0.05 per pound round weight increase in the ex-vessel price or about a $2.8 million dollar increase 

in ex-vessel value.’’ [SEIS, page 2–5.] 

The price for dressed sablefish in 1991, based on the SEIS, was $1.59 per dressed pound or $1.00 per round pound. The 1997 round price of $2.33 converts to a 1991 

price of $1.98, using a consumer price index regression of .849. In terms of 1991 

dollars, the IFQ program added $0.98 per round pound to the price of sablefish. In 

terms of the allocated 1997 quota shares, the added value to the resource is 

$29,629,207, in 1991 dollars. ($0.98 × 30,233,885 1997 round pounds.) The prediction of a $2.8 million gain, therefore, was very greatly underestimated. In terms 

of revenues to the State of Alaska, under the 3.3% raw fish tax, the gain has been 

$957,000 per year on the average, through 1997. 

With respect to halibut the SEIS predicted the following: ‘‘In summary, it is estimated that an IFQ program would increase halibut ex-vessel prices by $0.04 to 

$0.68 per pound. Given the 1990 landings of 52.6 million pounds, the resulting inVerDate Apr 24 2002 09:41 Jul 25, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\77585.TXT SCOM2 PsN: JACKF
51

crease in the ex-vessel value of the fishery would have been from $2.1 million to 

$35.8 million.’’ [SEIS, page 2–5.] 

The SEIS used a 1990 value for halibut at $1.78 per pound. The prices for halibut 

since the IFQ program was initiated in 1995 have been in the $1.90 to $2.40 range 

in the Seward Alaska area. Prices in the Seattle area are generally 35 to 60 cents 

above Seward prices, largely reflecting transportation costs. Assuming an average 

price for 1997 of $2.25 per pound, and using a consumer price regression of .814, 

the 1990 value would have been $1.83 per pound. Hence the added ex-vessel value 

to the industry in terms of 1990 dollars is approximately 5 cents. This would mean 

an added ex-vessel value to the fishermen of $2.5 million. Consequently, although 

there has been, in fact, an increase in price paid to the fisherman, the amount has 

been at the lower end of the prediction. 

It should be noted, however, that this value may be somewhat misleading, in that 

the halibut industry has completely changed since the implementation of the IFQ 

program. There are no more long lines of fishing vessels waiting to deliver halibut. 

Processors no longer have product stacked on their processing floors for days at a 

time because freezers are too full. Prior to the IFQ program, containers of frozen 

halibut were transshipped to the Seattle area for redistribution. Now, significant 

amounts of halibut are air freighted out of Anchorage, Alaska. There has been an 

added cost in air transportation to get good quality fresh fish to distant markets, 

which does not readily appear as an additional value when only looking at the price 

the fishermen receives. There are new businesses in air-freighting as well as longhaul trucking out of Anchorage that were not envisioned prior to the IFQ program. 

The industry has been revolutionized, and the most important quality aspect for 

halibut of the new system is shelf life. The better the quality at the boat, the longer 

the fresh fish can be available to consumers. The need for good quality to ensure 

shelf life for halibut now is the driving force on prices paid to the harvesters. A letter from Dory Seafoods states:

The majority of the high quality buyers want to know when was the fish caught 

and how old will the oldest fish be when it is received in the market place. 

Many buyers will not buy old fish, or if given a choice, they will pay more for 

fresher fish with a longer shelf life.

I believe the overall quality has improved on air shipments out of Alaska. The 

fishermen have more time to dress, ice and take care of the product on board 

the fishing vessels. In addition, the processing plants are receiving smaller 

quantities per day and, in most cases, are able to ship the product out the same 

day as received. As a result, the halibut is handled much quicker and received 

in the market place in better shape than in pre-IFQ years. [Letter from Dory 

Seafoods to Robert D. Alverson, August 28, 1997.]

There have been complaints from several shore-side processors that they are not 

doing well under the IFQ program. It is clear that the raw product cost has not 

changed very much for halibut from the 1990 prices. It is also evident that the frozen market nature of sablefish makes all ports competitive for sablefish. More importantly, as shown below, the landings per port have not changed materially. What 

the fishermen do notice is that those processors that have available to them good 

and reliable transportation, either air or long-haul trucking routes out of such locations as Anchorage, seem to be very competitive for halibut. Those who have chosen 

as a business decision not to be active in fresh fish marketing probably have lost 

market share. Processors in western Alaska and the Dutch Harbor area have some 

access to the fresh markets, but with more difficulty. In these areas, the landed halibut generally reflects a frozen product price. In the case of sablefish, the product 

must be frozen for export to Japan, and therefore, all Alaskan ports with freezer 

capacity should be able to participate in that fishery. 

Sablefish is unique in that the final destination is Japan or other Asian markets. 

Sablefish has very few fresh fish sales. The nature of the flesh quality and high oil 

content make it necessary to freeze the product. The distribution of sablefish before 

and after IFQs were implemented can be seen in the RAM reports. There has not 

been any significant change in landings to particular ports of call. [NMFS 1999 IFQ 

Report.] 

In summary, it is evident that quality has improved and halibut is now available 

fresh throughout an 8-month period. Some of the additional values to the fishermen, 

considering some of the predictions of the SEIS, are $8.2 million in annual average 

savings in cold storage costs for halibut; $2.5 million of additional annual average 

ex-vessel value of halibut; and $29 million in added annual average export value 

of sablefish. The SEIS discussed savings in gear, food, bait, and fuel costs to the 

fleet. That analysis estimated annual savings of $1.8 to $2.5 million for food; $3.1 

52

to $4.0 million for fuel; $20.0 to $28.0 million for opportunity cost of labor, and $9.2 

to $11.7 million for fixed costs. This statement does not attempt to quantify these 

actual savings, although they have materialized in all of these categories. These savings and additional values to the fleet have resulted in at least a $75 million net 

average annual benefit to the industry. 

Safety of Fishermen 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides, ‘‘Fishery management measures shall, to the 

extent practicable, promote the safety of human life at sea.’’ [16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(10).] 

Senator Patty Murray stated during the Senate Floor debate on S. 39, the Sustainable Fisheries Act:

‘‘This race for fish creates serious safety considerations in many fisheries. 

Under this race, fishers feel compelled to keep fishing even when the weather 

or conditions of the vessel or health of the captain or crew would suggest otherwise. Unless fishery management plans provide opportunities and incentives for 

fishers to sit out storms and return to port for repairs or medical attention, lives 

will continue to be lost.

For this very reason we included promotion of safety of life at sea in the National Standards of the Magnuson Act. [Congressional Record, September 18, 

1996 at S10818.]

The SEIS stated:

An IFQ program is expected to increase vessel safety by reducing substantially 

the incentive fishermen have to disregard factors that increase the risk of accidents. However, due to a lack of reliable data and methodological problems, it 

is hard to provide quantitative estimates on the linkages between vessel safety 

and other factors, such as management practices. [SEIS, page 2–3.]

In the recently released book, Fishing Vessel Safety, Blueprint for a National 

Program, the National Research Council noted that commercial fishing has one 

of the highest fatality rates of any occupation and that safety has largely gone 

unregulated. [Page 142.] While attributing a large portion of the safety issues 

to the vessel (e.g., its structure, equipment, and crew), the authors did consider 

fishery management practices to be one of three major external influences on 

vessel safety. [Page 131.] Allocation conflicts have ‘‘resulted in a highly competitive operating environment in which fishermen may take unnecessary risks to 

maintain their livelihood’’. [Page 132.]

In addition to its enforcement responsibilities, the Coast Guard monitors safety 

at sea, and reports that, during the 1998 IFQ season, there were 11 search and rescue missions undertaken (fifteen in 1995, seven in 1996, and nine in 1997). There 

were no sinkings in 1998 (four in 1997, two in 1996, and two in 1997), and two lives 

lost (none in 1995, two in 1996, and one in 1997). In the three years prior to the 

IFQ fishery, there were an average of 28 SAR missions, two vessel sinkings, and 

two lives lost during the short derby seasons. Three of the deaths have occurred 

while the vessels were moored in harbor. Only one death has occurred during heavy 

weather. 

Economic Stability in the Fixed Gear Halibut and Sablefish Fisheries and 

Affected Communities 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides:

Conservation and management measures shall, consistent with the conservation 

requirements of this Act (including the prevention of overfishing and rebuilding 

of overfished stocks), take into account the importance of fishery resources to 

fishing communities in order to (A) provide for the sustained participation of 

such communities, and (B) to the extent practicable, minimize adverse economic 

impacts on such communities. [16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(8).]

Although the establishment of the IFQs and CDQs for halibut and sablefish predated this provision of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Council and the Commerce 

Department took into account community interests in designing these management 

programs. The Commerce Department, in approving the IFQ program, recognized 

that the open entry fishery for halibut and sablefish had created an extreme excess 

of capital investment. The Department observed that the excess capital was causing 

instability and uncertainty in the fishery. The SEIS states, ‘‘However, once the adjustments are made, IFQs would decrease uncertainty and increase the ability of 

fishermen and processors to plan their participation in the halibut fishery.’’ [SEIS, 

page 2–13.]

53

Of the 7,992 different vessel owners who participated in the halibut fishery between 1984 and 1994, 38% did so for only one year while only 9% participated 

all seven years. It is estimated that 1,443 vessel owners participated in the 

fixed gear sablefish fishery between 1985 and 1990. Of these, 45% participated 

in only one year and only 6% participated all six years. [Id.]

This is the case in terms of both short and long-term planning. In areas with 

only a few very short openings, if a vessel breaks down, a fisherman might miss 

all or a substantial portion of the season. Likewise, increased fishing effort does 

not allow processors to plan for consistent or orderly processing. The short-term 

discontinuities make planning difficult. [SEIS, page 2–12.]

A further benefit of quota systems is deemed to be the degree of certainty given 

to participants upon which to base their investment and fishing decisions. It is 

argued that if people are aware of the quantity of fish available to them that 

they will be able to make soundly based decisions about the future. [SEIS, page 

2–54.]

The vessel owners are now able to fish and time their operations, not only around 

bad weather, but also with a view to market opportunity, so they can efficiently operate in other fisheries that may otherwise have been unavailable to them because 

of brief, fixed season openings. Prior to the IFQ program, thousands of vessels had 

two, one-day earning opportunities. Today, earning opportunities, through consolidation, are creating stability within the harvesting sector. Stability has been enhanced 

by the constraints on quota share concentration, through the use of ownership caps, 

vessel caps, and vessel classes. These were designed to prevent too great an accumulation of quota share ownership by individuals in the fleet and to ensure processors 

an adequate number of harvesting vessels. Ownership caps and vessel cap limits are 

cited in the RAM report, 1999, page 25. 

The SEIS stated that, under the IFQ system, people would be able to make sound 

business decisions about their future. The system was designed to encourage transfers of quota within certain limits. It was designed to encourage an owner-operated 

fleet. This was provided by requiring new purchasers of IFQs to be on the vessels 

when the quota shares were being fished. It is clear that the program is functioning 

as designed. The owner-operator provision is providing stability for crews and vessel 

owners who work on deck. 

Some members of FVOA have chosen to sell, and others have chosen to purchase, 

quota shares. The results are that for those who have chosen to purchase, the owners and the crews are earning more. Those who have sold out have received some 

compensation for their past investment and efforts. The crews that have been displaced to date are those who were participating in two, one-day jobs. The SEIS 

states on this issue, the following, ‘‘In considering the employment effects of an IFQ 

program, it should be remembered, that many fishermen take a break from other 

fishing or non-fishing activities to participate in the halibut fishery. Therefore, their 

alternative to participation in the halibut fishery is not unemployment.’’ [SEIS, page 

2–10.] However, the IFQ fisheries are becoming attractive as full or near full time 

employment opportunities. 

In terms of stability for the local communities, there have been some claims that 

the IFQ program has adversely affected the ports of Kodiak and Dutch Harbor. The 

1997 IPHC Annual Report list by port the halibut landings as follows:

1. Kodiak 20% 9,103,000 Lbs. 

2. Homer 12% 5,242,000 Lbs. 

3. Seward 9% 3,876,000 Lbs. 

4. Dutch Harbor 6% 2,855,000 Lbs. 

5. Sitka 6% 2,800,000 Lbs. 

The RAM September 1997 report, page 50, shows that, in 1995 and 1997, the top 

five halibut ports remained the same as in 1994, and the percentage of landings was 

similar. 

With regard to sablefish, the SEIS did not provide analysis similar to that for halibut, however, in looking at the 1990 data provided in that document, four of the 

top five districts are still in the top five for landings, when compared to the 1997 

September RAM report, page 50.

1. Wrangel, Petersburg 7,121,000 Lbs. 26%

2. Sitka Borough 6,131,000 Lbs. 22%

3. Seward Borough 4,302,000 Lbs. 15%

4. Juneau Borough 2,481,000 Lbs. 9%

5. Kodiak Island Borough 2,134,000 Lbs. 8%

6. Aleutian West Borough not available 

54

The IFQ program was designed to have a minimal impact on communities, by preventing a massive redistribution of landings. This was accomplished significantly 

with the three-year qualification period of 1988, 1989, 1990, where there had to be 

a landing to qualify for any poundage in one of these years. This helped ensure that 

quota holders were still active and operating in the same location as was historically 

the case. Clearly, this has been accomplished as shown by the hard evidence of landing reports. An argument of economic disadvantage to Kodiak or Dutch Harbor 

based on IFQ poundage being delivered elsewhere cannot be substantiated. 

The instability of these communities is most likely the result of the remaining 

pulse-type groundfish fisheries. The fishermen in the Kodiak area have three, threeday pollock openings; Pacific cod has barely a two-month operation. The landings 

in Kodiak were down between 1995 and 1996 by 160 million pounds; none of this 

reduction could be attributed to the IFQ program. In 1997 and 1998, Kodiak landings rebounded to 277 and 362 million pounds, respectively. This reflected increases 

of salmon landings. 

Fisheries of the U.S. 1998, NMFS 

Similarly, landings in Dutch Harbor were reduced by 105 million pounds between 

1995 and 1996. The argument that this was due to the IFQ program is similarly 

insupportable. It was due to a reduction in pollock landings. The landing in 1997 

and 1998 were 587 and 597 million pounds respectively, which are still 100 million 

pounds below 1995 levels. This is all due to pollock landings, not IFQ halibut or 

IFQ sablefish. [Id.] The 1999 RAM Report, pages 13 and 14, show the same ports 

in the top 10 as in previous years for halibut and sablefish. 

Rural Coastal Community Development of a Small Boat Fishery 

The SEIS made the following statements and conclusions regarding rural coastal 

community development of a small boat fleet:

The Council wished to enhance the opportunities for rural coastal communities 

to participate in the sablefish and halibut fisheries. It was in pursuit of this 

objective that the western Alaska community development program was inserted into the preferred alternative. [SEIS, page 2–55.]

Opportunities for small communities will be enhanced by having portions of 

total allowable catches set aside. [Id.]

Many of the constraints imposed on transferability have been introduced to preserve a small boat fishery for sablefish and halibut. [Id.]

The community development quota program was specifically set up for western 

Alaska rural communities. The CDQs for 1999 amounted to 2,610,000 dressed 

pounds of halibut. In the halibut regulatory areas of 4C and 4E, all of the CDQ 

quota, 1,400,000 pounds, was harvested and landed by the local community. 

The ex-vessel value of CDQ-landed halibut was approximately $5,200,000 (Dutch 

Harbor price, $2.00). The CDQ halibut quotas thus are a significant benefit to the 

coastal community of western Alaska and the small vessels which operate out of 

those communities. 

The Gulf of Alaska’s small boat fleet vessels, less than 35 feet in length, have a 

secure position in the fisheries. Poundage earned by initial recipients is safeguarded 

permanently in their vessel length category. 

The small boat fleet has been additionally enhanced with recent regulatory 

amendments that allow quota share holders operating small vessels to buy quota 

from larger vessel classes and fish that quota on the smaller vessels. IFQ holders 

operating larger vessels cannot use smaller vessel class quota on their larger vessels. This new provision gives smaller vessels, which tend to operate close to shore, 

more purchasing opportunity. 

As noted above, the 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act provided for 

a government loan program funded, in part, from landing fees of the IFQ participants. [16 U.S.C. 1853(d)(4).] Those who can apply for the loans are fishermen with 

little or no holdings of IFQs. The amount per loan is limited to about 8,000 lbs. of 

resource, and anyone holding or controlling 50,000 lbs. or more of quota is not eligible for the loans. Congress chose to help out the crews and those fishermen looking 

for upward mobility in the industry. This program should help rural citizens who 

have few cash-generating industries. 

However, I cannot leave this subject without noting that the conference report on 

appropriations for Commerce, Justice, State and other agencies for fiscal year 2000 

purported to divert halibut/sablefish IFQ fees from their intended purposes in the 

North Pacific to Hawaiian communities. To comply with this conference report directive would be a gross violation of the express provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens 

55

Act and an unconscionable breach of the Federal Government’s commitment to the 

fishermen, communities, and fisheries of the North Pacific. I urge our elected representatives in Congress to stop this ill-considered diversion of funds. 

Comment on Gulf Coastal Communities Proposal 

The Gulf of Alaska Coastal Communities Coalition will be sponsoring a proposal 

which would allow certain tax exempt coastal village corporations of Alaska to participate in the purchase of IFQ for halibut and sablefish. The villages are part of 

the large native regional corporations set up under the Alaska Land Settlement Act 

program. There are about 42 villages in the Gulf of Alaska that have been identified 

that would participate in these purchases. The Fishing Vessel Owners Association 

and Deep Sea Fishermens Union oppose this for the following reasons. 

1. The halibut and sablefish IFQ program was set up to ensure an owner operated 

fleet in the future. For the past 5 seasons crew and boat owners have been purchasing QS on this basis. The GACCC proposal would allow corporations to bid 

against crew and boat owners in the market and lease back to certain village fishermen. This would begin to turn the fishery into a company store fishery with the 

fisherman not being the owner of the QS. 

2. The 42 villages are part of five larger native regional corporations that generated well over 200 million dollars in net operating profit last year. There is no 

reason these regional corporations can not assist the villages and underwrite the 

local fisherman if there is a problem. 

3. Some of the existing sources of funding at this time are as follows: (a) The Bureau of Indian Affairs provides individual business loans of up to 500,000 dollars 

and each individual village can qualify for up to a 5,000,000 dollar loan, which could 

be used to help local residents. (b) The State of Alaska has its own loan program 

for Alaskans. In fact, the State provided loans for 199 IFQ holders, according to the 

RAM Report, 1999, page 23. (c) The village fishermen can participate in the existing 

IFQ loan program established under the 1996 Magnuson-Stevens Act amendments. 

The NMFS loan program has provided loans for 14 IFQ operators. [RAM Report, 

1999, page 23.] (d) Private banks have provided loans for 1,234 IFQ holders. [RAM 

Report, 1999, page 23.] 

We also have the concern that if 42 villages maximized the ownership privileges 

that this could result in 40 percent of the resource of sablefish and 20 percent of 

the recourse of halibut being bought up from the existing quota share pool. There 

is a concern that over the long term the quota purchased by the villages will not 

circulate for future purchases as does quota share when existing crew and/or boat 

owners retire. This will push up the cost of entry for crews and new vessel owners 

that are not members of the villages. In addition to this the villages are tax exempt, 

which will give them a 20 percent advantage on price when bidding against crew 

and boat owners. 

WEST COAST GROUNDFISH

Major groundfish fisheries off the coast of Washington, Oregon, and California are 

in severely depressed condition. The impact on the affected industry and dependent 

communities is serious. 

Key Facts About Stock Conditions and Economic Impacts 

Certain key ground fisheries off Washington, Oregon, and California have had the 

following reductions in allowed harvest since 1982, when the Pacific Council adopted 

its groundfish management plan.

1983 ABCs 2000 ABCs 

Sablefish 13,400 mt 9,692 mt 

Widow rockfish 18,300 mt 5,750 mt 

Lingcod 7,000 mt 700 mt 

Bocaccio 6,100 mt 164 mt 

Canary 2,700 mt 356 mt 

Dover sole 19,000 mt 9,426 mt 

The cut back in harvest level in 1998 resulted in revenues to the vessels dropping 

from $99,479,252 to $67,803,000. [SAFE document, 1999, Pacific Council.] This represented a 32 percent drop in income. The revenue information from 1999 is not 

available, but should show a further income decrease, as the Council reduced the 

rockfish harvest in 1999. The 2000 harvest levels have been reduced from the 1999 

levels, with the addition of 5 overfished species. When a resource has been declared 

56

overfished, additional restrictions are required. It is anticipated that some fishing 

will have to be curtailed in 2000, because certain overfished resources will hit their 

harvest limits midway through the year. This will result in the allowable harvests 

of the healthy resources not being fully taken. The State of Oregon has predicted 

that the 2000 cuts in harvest could result in an additional $24 million in lost income. The condition of these fisheries has resulted from failures of local science, regional 

management, and national policy. Due to poor data and dubious scientific analyses, 

stock assessments have been fatally flawed. Lack of confidence in the science, and 

failure to employ the precautionary approach have led to excessive allowable 

catches. Belated management responses to the deplorable condition of the groundfish fisheries have been hampered by the moratorium on IFQs and by overly broad 

interpretations of it. The Pacific Council has reduced harvests in each of the past 

three years, but has been unable to institute a management system that would mitigate the economic impacts and reduce excess capacity. 

Management of trawl and fixed gear operations is accomplished with the use of 

trip limits. The trip limit management tool can be successful when the amount of 

fishing effort matches up with sufficient quantities of fishery resources. This tool 

fails where there is an imbalance. The lower Pacific Coast has too much effort and 

too little resource. Other than for fixed gear sablefish harvests, all trip limits are 

the same for every vessel. There is one set of trip limits per vessel, and that set 

applies uniformly to all vessel sizes and gear types. Currently, two or more licenses 

cannot be combined, or ‘‘stacked’’, for a single vessel, thus precluding an efficient 

means of consolidating excessive effort. Consequently, the fisheries remain extremely inefficient and difficult to manage for conservation. 

For each trawler or longliner, trip limits apply to 14 species. These trip limits are 

supposed to be harvested once every three months, and sometimes, once every two 

months. These limits become, as they are now, economically unsustainable when allowable harvests fall below, and harvesting capacity rises above, certain levels. Most 

of the economically important species for the fixed gear industry have such low trip 

limits that the fixed gear vessels have in many cases ceased to operate, except for 

sablefish. The recent reduction for the 2000 season will likely be as disastrous to 

the trawl fleet as preceding reductions have been to the fixed-gear fleet. 

The fixed-gear sablefish fishery is managed with three tiers, each tier having a 

different trip limit based on the historical production of the participating vessels. 

In 1999, each vessel that had a sablefish permit was allowed a nine-day season, regardless of the poundage of the applicable tier. The Pacific Council attempted to 

allow a longer period of time for harvest, in order to provide for safety, reduce management uncertainty, and better fit sablefish harvests with other fishing activities. 

However, the NOAA General Counsel’s Office maintained that, to allow too much 

time to catch a trip limit would be construed as an IFQ, and therefore, would violate 

the moratorium in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. On the basis of that ruling, the Pacific Council is currently forced to adjust harvest time and trip limit sizes for the 

fixed gear sablefish fleet in a manner that creates a 26% probability that a trip limit 

will not be achieved during a given fishing time. This percentage is called ‘‘overhead’’. Overhead guarantees that the race for fish in tightly constrained fisheries 

suffering from excess capacity will be greatly accelerated. Conservation and safety 

risks, as well as economic inefficiency, increase accordingly. Ever greater financial 

pressures lead vessel owners to add more crew, conduct fishing operations around 

the clock, and fish in dangerous weather conditions. For their part, the government 

managers occupy themselves with readjusting the fishing periods to account for fluctuations in the fisheries in a manner that will ensure continued achievement of the 

26% probability that the trip limits will not be reached. 

The fixed gear solution that has been discussed and supported by many of the affected permit holders would include allowing the existing sablefish tiers to be harvested over a nine-to-twelve-month time frame. Of course, this would require removal of the overhead requirement, because any season this long would result in 

the certainty of a permit trip limit being harvested. In view of the prevailing legal 

ruling, the removal of the overhead requirement would be permissible only if the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act moratorium were lifted for this fishery. 

The ability to ‘‘stack’’ the permits and provide for reasonable, cumulative trip limits for sablefish and/or other groundfish species is also supported among those who 

operate in these fisheries. This approach would allow the fleet size to be reduced, 

so that harvesting capacity would better fit with the available resource and management would be less difficult. NOAA General Counsel has indicated that allowing 

stacking begins to assure fishermen certain guarantees of achieving trip limits, and 

therefore, cannot be reconciled with the IFQ moratorium. Here, again, the need for 

lifting the moratorium becomes evident. 

57

As noted, above, the other, vital need is to authorize an industry-funded observer 

program for the west coast groundfish fisheries. This requires an amendment to section 313 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. [16 U.S.C. 1862.] I have noted that the 

present economic conditions in these fisheries is such that industry fees to fund an 

observer program would be unwelcome. However, as I have also noted, the establishment of a credible observer program is indispensable to gaining an understanding of the groundfish fisheries that will allow their effective conservation and 

management. If Congress will not appropriate the funds in the public interest to 

provide for such a program, then there is no alternative to industry, in its own interest, finding the means to do so. 

There are provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act that would appear, at first 

blush, to have some potential for ameliorating the conditions in the west coast 

groundfish fisheries. However, upon close examination, each of these provisions has 

its deficiencies. Fisheries disaster assistance, as provided by section 312(a) of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1861a(a)) has merit, within limits. It does not answer the need for a long-term resource recovery program, and there are many issues 

concerning appropriation and allocation of funds under this section that would have 

to be resolved before short-term relief could be implemented. Accordingly, I believe 

that, if fisheries disaster relief is seriously pursued, it must not be allowed to divert 

attention and effort from achieving the long-term solution of reduced fishing capacity and increased resource abundance. I add that this provision does not authorize 

funding beyond the end of fiscal year 1999. 

An industry-funded capacity reduction program, as authorized by section 312(b)– (d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act has some superficial appeal. However, the economic and resource conditions of the west coast groundfish fisheries are so badly 

deteriorated, it is difficult to see how the statutory requirements can be met for financing a buyback. 

CONCLUSION

By any rational measure, the halibut/sablefish IFQ program has been a great success. With this example firmly established, individual transferable quotas should be 

available to fisheries managers nationwide, and in particular, should not be barred 

for west coast groundfish fisheries. In addition, Congress should authorize an industry-funded observer program for the west coast groundfish fisheries, so that, if federal funds are not forthcoming, vitally needed observer data can be secured, nonetheless.

Senator SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. Alverson. 

Mr. Brown. 

STATEMENT OF RALPH BROWN, MEMBER, PACIFIC FISHERIES 

MANAGEMENT COUNCIL 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the Subcommittee. I am Ralph Brown. I am a trawl boat owner here on 

the coast and also a Member of the Pacific Fisheries Management 

Council. 

Fishing is basically all I have ever done, so if I come across as 

a fisherman, that is why. That is what I am. 

I am not going to read my testimony. I spent about four pages 

basically saying that the big problem is we do not have the information. And whether the Magnuson-Stevens Act would work as 

presently constructed with the right amount of information, I do 

not know. Because we do not have it. If we had the right amount 

of information, I do not know. 

One thing I do know on this coast, is that if we started collecting 

much of the information we need to adequately manage it, it is 

going to take enough years that the effects that we are feeling now 

basically will have become permanent in the fleet. As a consequence, my focus has to be on what do we do with those people. 

We have got to do something for those people. We cannot just say, 

well, too bad, folks; it was a good run for your money, but now you 

are out. 

58

In my testimony I did forget to put one comment in. I agree with 

Bob on the desirability of ending the moratorium on ITQ’s. I know 

that has been a contentious issue. And if you cannot see your way 

to end the moratorium on ITQ’s, I would at least ask you to look 

at the National Marine Fisheries Service interpretation of what an 

ITQ is—it is very broad right now—and see whether or not that 

was really your intention in the moratorium. We run into the definition of an ITQ in places that I just would not think you would. 

So I would at least ask you to do that. 

Ideally, of course, we would have the information to adequately 

manage our fisheries, to do the things that the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act require. In the absence of that, when we are left with the great 

uncertainty that we have, it appears that the only response we 

have now are actions that destroy industries. Mr. Phil Anderson 

mentioned the dungeness crab fishery as one that we have been 

asked to manage. We sort of delayed with the interim language. 

We do not know whether we are going to be asked to manage it 

in the future. 

I took, admittedly, a quick and dirty look at the regulations and 

requirements that we would have to use if we managed the dungeness crab fishery. And I came up with a reduction in catch of 60 

percent. That fishery today is considered to be one of the best managed fisheries on the coast biologically, and yet I still come up with 

we would be required to reduce it by 60 percent. 

We need to think about our definitions of MSY. That is a fishery 

that our current definition does not fit very well. And in fact, one 

of the reasons that we did not have a management plan before is 

that we could not get advice from our scientists on how we would 

even define MSY for that fishery, it is so variable. Catches have 

run, since 1952, have run from a low in the State of Oregon from 

3 million pounds up to a high of 18 million pounds. It is not a stable kind of resource. It bounces all over. 

While we were developing our coastal pelagics plan, the squid 

portion was turned down by National Marine Fisheries Service. 

Our scientific statistical committee advised us they did not know 

how to develop a MSY for the squid resource. It is another that is 

extremely variable due to environmental conditions. So we need to 

rethink that a little bit. 

But the main thing that we need on this coast is better information. And in the absence of better information, we need, along with 

the absence of better information, we really need to do something 

for our people that are just literally going to have to leave the

fishery. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RALPH BROWN, MEMBER, PACIFIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

COUNCIL

Thank you for asking me to testify before this Sub-committee. I am Ralph Brown 

of Brooking, Oregon. I grew up in the fishing business and currently own two trawlers that fish out of Southern Oregon. I am vice-president of Fishermen’ Marketing 

Association (FMA), a trawl organization that has approximately 600 members living 

in Washington, Oregon and California. 

I also serve on the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) in one of the Atlarge seats. I am currently in the middle of my second term in that position. 

59

For this testimony, I am speaking only for myself and am not speaking for either 

the FMA or the PFMC. 

A discussion of management and management failures in this region has to focus 

on a discussion of the information that we use. A lack of, or in some cases, poor 

information characterizes management of fisheries along this coast. 

The Council and Council staff worked very hard to upgrade our management 

plans to be in compliance with the new requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

This was so time consuming that good ideas for improving management of our fisheries had to be deferred. We are just now getting to the point where we can move 

forward with new management ideas. 

What was the result of all of this hard work? We are left with a description of 

Essential Fish Habitat that includes nearly all of the aquatic habitat from the top 

of the Rocky Mountains to the western edge of the EEZ. We simply didn’t have the 

information to narrow the description any further. We are left with a requirement 

to minimize impacts on habitat by fishing gear, with no idea what those impacts 

are. We are left with a requirement to consider social and economic information but 

with no social or economic information to use. We are left with the requirement to 

minimize by-catch without knowing how much by-catch is occurring or who is producing it. We are left with a requirement to end over-fishing on stocks for which 

we don’t have the foggiest idea as to their condition, because we don’t have the information to do assessments on the majority of the species listed in our management 

plan. 

I have been an observer of this management Council and the management process 

for a long time now, for two decades. I find the people involved to be sincere and 

dedicated to proper management of our fisheries. You will hear people saying that 

the state of our fisheries is bad because the Council did not make hard decisions 

when they were needed in the past. This is not true. This Council has never shied 

away from hard decision. As an example, this Council adopted a limited entry plan 

back when limited entry was a controversial subject throughout the country. This 

Council has never had an information base that was adequate to base decisions on. 

The shortage of information is particularly acute with respect to stock assessments and harvest levels. Our assessments have bounced all over the place. 

Our normal schedule is to assess the stocks that we assess every three years. 

Three years ago, harvest levels for sablefish were at 7,000 tons. The management 

team came to the Council with a recommendation to reduce harvests to 2,500 tons. 

They said it with a straight face. I argued successfully to delay the full cut and we 

reduced catches to 5,300 tons, with a promise to have a new assessment the following year, rather than on the normal three year schedule. This assessment occurred and the next year the management team recommended an Acceptable Biological Catch number of 9,692 tons. They said this with a straight face also. 

Much of the management of our deep water fishery is driven by management of 

shortspine thornyheads. A paragraph from the Stock Assessment Review Panel Report of 1997 states ‘‘The thornyhead assessments are particularly short of data, but 

the management regime nonetheless requires a specific number based on a sophisticated reference point as a basis for the ABC. The assessment is unable to deliver 

that ABC estimate with certainty. This means there is a high probability that management will simply be unable to achieve the desired target.’’

We are going through an examination of our harvest policies right now. This is 

the fourth examination that I am aware of. The previous examinations have resulted in successively more restrictive harvest policies. I expect the next harvest policy to be more restrictive than the last. Overly lenient harvest policy has been given 

as the reason that we have overfished species. This may be true, but the Council 

followed the advice of its scientists in each case. 

At this point, the proper question to ask of our scientists is: Does anyone here 

have any idea of what is going on in the ocean? 

I am critical of the science that has been used on this coast. I hope this is not 

viewed as criticism of the scientists here. All of the scientists here have done their 

best with the shortage of information that they have to work with, but they also 

can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. We have to be given permission to admit 

that we have sow’s ears and not be forced to continually pretend that they are silk 

purses. 

What happens today if we successfully argue that the science is flawed? National 

Marine Fishery Service recommends that greater uncertainty in the stock status be 

matched with greater precaution in harvest. If we successfully argue that the 

science is poor, then we have demonstrated a greater uncertainty and get larger 

cuts in harvest. It’s like being involved with a protection racket: ‘‘If you argue with 

our science we’ll cut you worse.’’

60

Most of the members of industry here think that the science that we base our decisions on is inadequate. We’ve tried to lobby for more research money and we’ve 

tried to work with National Marine Fishery Service to increase our understanding 

of our resources. We haven’t gotten very far for a variety of reasons, and now the 

shortage of information threatens to destroy the industry. 

I believe that we are not done with the cuts in harvest. National Marine Fishery 

Service has been sued by a coalition of environmental groups that claim that not 

enough protection has been given the unassessed stocks in this region. There is a 

reason that the stocks are unassessed. We simply don’t know enough to do assessments on them. 

National Marine Fishery Service has guidance on dealing with stocks that can’t 

be assessed. Their guidance is to reduce the catch on species like this by twentyfive to seventy-five percent. These species are all incidentally caught, along with 

other targeted species. The only way to achieve a reduction in the unassessed species is to reduce the target catch by an equivalent amount. 

In 1982, landings of groundfish, other than whiting, were 119,000 tons. According 

to the latest report, in 1999, landings were 36,000 tons, a reduction of seventy percent. There are people saying that that reduction is not enough. 

If my fear of the future comes true, we will have reduced catches of groundfish, 

other than whiting, on this coast to 15,000 tons, or a reduction of nearly ninety percent, and there will still be people saying that that is not enough of a reduction due 

to the uncertainty of our assessment process. 

I don’t want a shortage of information to be an excuse for overfishing, but it is 

unacceptable that the only response allowed today to a shortage of information is 

to destroy an industry. 

The Council now has five species that are listed as overfished. We have rebuilding 

plans developed for three of them. The remaining two, canary rockfish and cowcod, 

were declared overfished this year, and rebuilding plans have not been developed 

for them yet. 

The time required for rebuilding of these species has been projected to range from 

ten years for lingcod to nearly fifty years for Pacific ocean perch. Some of the model 

runs for bocaccio rockfish showed rebuilding not being finished for 300 years. When 

canary rockfish and cowcod rebuilding plans are developed, the rebuilding period 

will be similar to that of Pacific ocean perch. 

These rebuilding plans cannot be viewed as temporary and they can not be viewed 

as actions that will result in a stronger industry for anyone fishing today. We have 

made permanent changes in the industry and have entered a brave new world of 

fishery management. 

This brave new world may work if the information needed to make it work is provided, but we don’t have that information today and it will be many years after we 

start to collect the information before it will be sufficient to make wise management 

decisions. 

What do we do for people involved in fisheries now? We have very nearly destroyed the industry. Continuation of this course of management will destroy the 

industry. The promise of a better life fifty or one hundred years from now is not 

sufficient. 

Today we have many displaced workers and large amounts of displaced capacity. 

If we continue along our management path we will have larger numbers of displaced 

workers, and larger amounts of displaced fishing capacity. We have to deal with 

these as top priority. 

Unless we address the capacity that is and will be displaced by these cuts in 

groundfish we will spread the impact of these cuts to all parts of the industry. Dealing with this displaced capacity must be a top priority for fishery managers in the 

very near future. 

In closing, I do not have specific recommendations, today, for solutions to the 

problems that are facing us in management of fisheries along the west coast. I am 

working with other members of industry to develop recommendations and we look 

forward to working with you to solve these problems. 

Priorities would be to improve the information base that we use to make management decisions and to provide for the people that we are displacing, and, finally, 

I would like to repeat that destroying an industry, as the only allowable response 

to uncertainty, is not acceptable. 

Thank you.

Senator SNOWE. Thank you. 

Mr. Moore. 

61

STATEMENT OF ROD MOORE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

WEST COAST SEAFOOD PROCESSORS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. MOORE. Thank you, Senator Snowe. For the record, my name 

is Rod Moore. I am Executive Director of the West Coast Seafood 

Processors Association. And I sort of feel like I am a constituent 

of all of you since I was born in Portland, Maine, and lived in Alaska for several years, and worked for Senator Stevens’ colleague, 

Congressman Young, for 18 years, and I am now living on the west 

coast, with several of our members in Washington State. So I want 

to thank all of my Senators for coming here today. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SNOWE. You have covered all of your bases. 

Mr. MOORE. I have tried. 

[Laughter.] 

You have my written testimony in the record, and I just want to 

highlight some of the things that I talked about there. There are 

three issues in particular which, in combination, have really done 

the most to exacerbate our problems in terms of fisheries management on this coast. 

First, as you have heard from a number of witnesses, is science 

or, rather, the lack thereof. The standard in the Act calls for using 

the best scientific information available. We have the standard of 

no scientific information available. If you look at the research abilities, time series and so forth in the Bering Sea and in New England and you contrast that with the west coast, you will find that 

we are sorely lacking in the basic scientific data that is needed to 

properly manage the fisheries. 

We are at the point where we have to go out and beg people for 

money for an annual trawl survey that we started a couple of years 

ago, using industry vessels. It is the sort of thing where we are trying to get the National Marine Fisheries Service to pull money out 

of one pocket and put it in another, just so we can do a basic survey. And these are the sorts of surveys that other parts of the country have available to them. And without science, the requirement 

to impose a precautionary approach is almost automatically going 

to lead to reductions in harvest. 

The second issue is the whole treatment of overfishing and rebuilding required in the Act and the regulations which implement 

the Act. A fishery is overfished if, regardless of cause, it has declined to a low percentage of virgin spawning biomass. However, 

without a survey time series—which we really do not have because 

we do not have any science, remember—virgin biomass must be 

calculated from the computer model using current data. 

But if the current data set is not the best, then you have to make 

assumptions using what little you do know. So if your data base 

is zero and you use that to back-calculate, you get zero, and then 

you take a ratio, what do you get? You get zero. In other words, 

you are overfishing almost automatically. And once you are overfishing, you have to develop a rebuilding plan. And what do you 

base that rebuilding plan on? It is the same lack of data that you 

have already got. 

Obviously I am exaggerating a little bit here, but it illustrates 

the problem of trying to use sparse data to manage fisheries under 

very stringent legal requirements. And what is even worse is that 

62

we may be asked to rebuild to an impossible state of nature. Fish 

exist in a complex environment of depth, salinity, temperature, 

prey, predators, and competitors. Their populations are dynamic. 

They are not stable. They are not point estimates. They change 

over time. And they often change relative to each other and because of each other. 

Senator Stevens, I know you are aware of it in the Gulf of Alaska, what has happened with the tremendous increase in arrow 

tooth flounder up there as a result not only of changes in the 

aquatic environment but also the fisheries that have occurred in 

other species. Arrow tooth flounder moved in. If for some reason we 

were able to develop the fishery on arrow tooth flounder but we 

had to rebuild one of those other fisheries to some level that comes 

from who knows where, you are going to wind up depressing arrow 

tooth flounder to get someplace else. So you just go back and forth 

on rebuilding one or the other. 

So we are asked to bring single stocks back to a level that the 

ocean may no longer be capable of supporting, and to do so within 

a politically defined area as opposed to an area where the fish may 

actually exist. On this coast, sablefish is a great example. Sablefish 

can be found from Mexico all the way up past Canada, out to Alaska, and over to Japan and Russia. What we have to look at, in 

terms of whether sablefish are declining, overfished, where they 

are, is a political segment. We cannot really look at what is going 

on someplace else. 

Finally, the third issue, which is related to the first, is that if 

you, as the Congress, require us to do something, please give us the 

resources to do it. Do not tell us we are overfished and then not 

provide us with the science and management capability to do rebuilding plans. And do not tell us to reduce capacity to save fish 

and then deny us the tools to do so. Do not tell the seafood industry 

that we will be responsible for research and management but neglect to give us the rights and privileges we need to carry out that 

responsibility. 

We need the science, realistic legal structure and appropriate resources. There are 6 billion people here on earth. Please give us 

what we need to help feed them. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Moore follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROD MOORE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

WEST COAST SEAFOOD PROCESSORS ASSOCIATION

Madame Chair, members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to 

present this testimony on behalf of the West Coast Seafood Processors Association 

(WCSPA). Our Association represents shore-based seafood processors and associated 

businesses in Washington, Oregon, and California. Collectively, our members process the majority of Pacific groundfish, Dungeness crab, and pink shrimp landed in 

those States, along with substantial quantities of salmon, sardines, swordfish, albacore tuna, and a variety of other species. Three of our members also operate facilities in Alaska. Most of our member companies are family or individually owned, 

some for several generations. 

Most of my testimony will discuss the effects of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) on the Pacific groundfish fishery, so 

it may be helpful to understand a bit about that fishery. The Pacific groundfish fishery, which is primarily managed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council under 

a fishery management plan, comprises some 83 different species, most caught in asVerDate Apr 24 2002 09:41 Jul 25, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\77585.TXT SCOM2 PsN: JACKF
63

sociation with others. The fishery is the largest on the west coast in both volume 

and value and is the economic mainstay of our coastal fishing communities. 

The majority of groundfish landings are by trawl vessels, although there are significant components taken by fixed gear (both hook-and-line and pots) and recreational vessels. A limited entry permit system has been in effect since 1994 and 

most landings are by limited entry vessels. There is also an ‘‘open access’’ component of the fishery which includes shrimp trawlers that incidentally take groundfish, small hook-and-line vessels, and the small beach-launched dory fleets in Oregon and California. Finally, there is an offshore fleet that harvests Pacific whiting, 

composed of catcher-processors and motherships that are supplied by smaller trawl 

vessels. 

Under the fishery management plan, harvests are allocated among the different 

entities, as well as to tribal fisheries in accordance with treaty provisions (some of 

which are under legal challenge). Harvest levels are generally set as coast-wide limits, though some species have different limits in the north and the south due to 

their relative abundance. Most recently, in order to address concerns with population sizes, the several rockfish species have been subdivided based on their normal 

occurrence by depth: near-shore, shelf, and slope. 

Along with overall harvest levels, individual vessel harvests are regulated by cumulative trip limits, which may vary throughout the year and by type of gear used. 

The current gear restrictions on cumulative limits, which largely were developed by 

the seafood industry in order to conserve distressed species, impose greater restrictions on the harvest of those species which have been designated as ‘‘overfished’’. 

Now that you know everything about the Pacific groundfish fishery, let me turn 

to the statute that governs how it operates—the MSFCMA. Before getting into specifics on the Act and its implementation, there are some general principles which 

we all need to think about. 

First, assumptions. Before taking my current job over five years ago, I spent nearly 18 years on the staff of the U.S. House of Representatives, working for Congressman Young of Alaska and the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. Between January, 1977, and December, 1994, many of the changes to the MSFCMA 

were my ‘‘babies’’; I was the House staffer who helped draft them and monitored 

their implementation. In doing so, I made a number of assumptions about how the 

language of the law and the intent of Congress would be carried out, just as you 

and your staff do today. Only after leaving Congress and coming to work for the 

seafood industry did I discover how wrong I was in many of my assumptions. 

Just to give you a small example: when the MSFCMA was passed, it created eight 

regional Councils in recognition of the regional differences in fisheries. We then proceeded to put in place national standards, mandatory provisions for all fishery management plans, etc. In short, we ignored the fact that we had created a regional system and imposed a one-size-fits-all pattern. So, the Congress talks about doing 

things via fishery management plan amendment, when in some cases—and Pacific 

groundfish is a good example here—the fishery management plan is a framework 

and everything accomplished under the plan is done by regulation. So, we wind up 

arguing with NMFS, NOAA General Counsel, and the Office of Management and 

Budget as to whether what we want to do with Pacific groundfish qualifies as a 

‘‘plan amendment’’ even though it is being done by regulation. Frustrating as it is, 

this is only a minor example of making incorrect assumptions. 

Second, put your money where your mouth is. The workload imposed on our managing entities—both NMFS and the Councils—and on the seafood industry by statutory requirements is not matched by the resources needed to get the job done. As 

a result, we are constantly robbing Peter to pay Paul, and pretty soon both of them 

will go bankrupt. For example, there are numerous requirements for considering environmental, economic, and social impacts of regulations. These are all good things 

and the Congress has tried to streamline the fishery management process by having 

all analyses completed by one deadline. Unfortunately, no resources are provided to 

develop the database on which such analyses depend, or to provide the people to 

do them. In the NMFS Northwest Region, there are 3 people working full time on 

all aspects of groundfish management—that’s three people to cover the biggest and 

most valuable fishery on the west coast. Looking at the science side, it’s even worse: 

the harvest levels for yellowtail rockfish in 2000, for example, are based on 4 to 5 

year old data. We have had at least one El Nin ̃ o, one La Nin ̃ a, and the beginnings 

of a major ocean regime shift since those data were collected, and this is one of the 

better examples. We scramble to find boats and money to conduct surveys, we have 

fewer stock assessment scientists than are listed in the NMFS Table of Organization, and yet our managers and scientists are being asked to produce more and more 

science. Something has to be done before the system collapses under its own weight. 

64

Third, we need to remember that fish stocks are dynamic and subject to a wide 

variety of fluctuations in size, location, and productivity. We cannot assume that 

what is here today will be here tomorrow nor, if it is gone, that human beings were 

the primary cause. We cannot assume that fish stop at some arbitrary political border in the ocean. We need flexibility in our management. Split-nosed rockfish 

(known locally as ‘‘rosefish’’) in central California are a good example. In 1998, huge 

numbers of rosefish were found; in 1999, the numbers went back to ‘‘normal’’ levels 

for the same mysterious reason that they bloomed the year previously. How did 

management respond? In 1998, there was no avenue for raising harvests for that 

year; instead harvest levels were increased in 1999. So, in 1998, fishermen had to 

discard rosefish to stay within their legal limits, and in 1999 they couldn’t catch 

what was allowed because the fish had moved on. Fish—and fishermen—are dynamic; the law and management need to recognize that. 

So let’s turn to specifics. The Subcommittee’s letter of invitation asked me to testify specifically on the impacts that the 1996 amendments to the MSFCMA (known 

collectively as the ‘‘Sustainable Fisheries Act’’) have had on the west coast fisheries. 

The following comments are on particular provisions of the Act:

Optimum Yield definition—In the 1996 amendments, the Congress amended the existing definition to prohibit increasing harvest above maximum sustainable yield 

(MSY) due to social and economic factors. This causes a variety of problems. First, 

MSY is often unmeasurable; in fact, the Pacific Council uses a proxy for MSY which 

is a harvest rate that results in a remaining spawning stock biomass of some percentage of what would exist absent any fishing. Our optimum yield is established 

by applying that harvest rate to the current biomass (as estimated through stock 

assessments) with necessary reductions if the current biomass is judged to be below 

40% of the virgin biomass. In effect, we are taking a number—which may have confidence intervals of as much as 50%—and treating it as a point estimate, then reducing it. We have completely abandoned flexibility. Rather than the iron-clad definition found in current law, we would be far better off stipulating that ‘‘optimum’’ reflect some accepted scientific principle (rather than MSY) as modified to meet appropriate conditions.

Best scientific information available—This is the ‘‘science standard’’ on which many 

provisions in the Act are based. It is not defined. Like beauty, it often seems to be 

in the eye of the beholder. For example, several years ago the biomass estimates 

for Pacific whiting were reduced by 40% based on a single experiment conducted by 

a single scientist. When we suggested that more work be done before making such 

a drastic reduction, we were told that the single experiment constituted the best scientific information available and the new technique would be used. The standard 

needs to be defined; it needs to incorporate a peer-review process, and it needs to 

take into account anecdotal data. And if the Subcommittee is interested in a peerreview process that works, I recommend looking at the process used by the Pacific 

Fishery Management Council which involves scientists, fisheries managers, and industry representatives formally analyzing stock assessments.

Overfishing, the term—Before discussing the process used to deal with overfishing, 

I hope the Subcommittee will think about the term itself. If a fish stock declines 

for any reason, it is considered ‘‘overfished.’’ Unfortunately, the term implies 

human—and indeed, harvest related—causes, even though it may simply have been 

Mother Nature throwing us a curve ball. Since few members of the media and even 

fewer members of the public have any clear understanding of the legal basis for an 

overfishing declaration, the seafood industry gets the blame and you in Congress get 

letters from irate citizens demanding that you do something to curb the excesses 

of those avaricious fishermen. Pacific Ocean Perch (POP) is a good example. POP 

have been considered overfished for 20 years because of the current biomass level 

in relation to virgin biomass. And how do we estimate POP virgin biomass? It is 

based on harvest reports from Russian trawl vessels that operated off our coast long 

before the MSFCMA was first enacted, reports whose veracity is highly questionable. In fact, there is speculation that POP were never abundant off the west coast, 

that what we have is a fringe population whose center is in Southeast Alaska. Yet 

we get the blame. Perhaps a term such as ‘‘distressed fishery’’ might be more appropriate, a term which takes into account population declines from a variety of 

sources.

Essential fish habitat—Under current definitions and guidelines, the entire ocean 

has been declared ‘‘essential’’ for many species, thereby both diluting the effect of 

this change in the law and putting additional burdens on the seafood industry, since 

the effect of fishing gear on essential fish habitat is about the only thing that gets 

regulated. We need to look at ways to go after areas that truly are essential.

65

Conflict of Interest—We are rapidly approaching the point when we will make it impossible for individual fishermen and processors to serve on management Councils, 

a direct contravention of the cooperative management system that was originally envisioned in 1976. Under NMFS’ interpretation of the law, a 10% interest in a fishery 

triggers a ban on Council member voting. However, what varies is whether the 10% 

test applies to a fishery as a whole (e.g., the Pacific groundfish fishery) or to a port 

or region (e.g., the port of Astoria or the lower Columbia River region). It is a fact 

of life that our fisheries are consolidating and thus getting smaller in many areas. 

Applying the 10% test to a particular port or region can easily prevent a Council 

member from voting on most issues. To make matters more confusing, a representative of a group of fishermen or processors can vote more freely on issues than can 

any of the people he or she represents. We are moving the Councils more to participation by paid representatives and state officials and losing the expertise that can 

be provided by individual, long-term fishermen and processors. This doesn’t make 

any sense.

Individual Quotas—The Congress should lift the moratorium on individual quota 

programs and include language to enable processors to achieve equitable benefits— and bear equitable costs—in any program established. If there are guidelines that 

need to be created, they should provide flexibility among regions and fisheries. Any 

fees or other costs recovered should be returned to the fishery or region in which 

they were collected. Whether or not to establish an IQ program should be a decision 

made by a particular Council. Please note that under current NMFS interpretations 

of what constitutes an IQ, our cumulative trip limit management system would not 

be allowed. We need to provide flexibility for the Councils to develop management 

programs that work for their particular fisheries.

Overfishing/rebuilding process—Section 304(e) is a wonderful illustration of the old 

adage about the road to Hell being paved with good intentions—and here on the 

West Coast we are feeling the burn. First, consider how a stock is determined to 

be ‘‘overfished’’—we use point estimates to gauge the status of stocks that may fluctuate widely and we have insufficient data to determine what that status is in reality. Take canary rockfish, an important—and ‘‘overfished’’—species on the west 

coast. In 1999, the acceptable biological catch was 1,045 metric tons, a figure derived from a prior stock assessment. In 2000, the ABC is 356 metric tons, based 

on the most current stock assessment and the species has been designated as ‘‘over- fished’’ under the guidelines established by the Sustainable Fisheries Act. I served 

on the review panel that examined the most recent stock assessment and there are 

no technical problems with the assessment itself; however, it does make a number 

of assumptions based on exceedingly sparse data. Nevertheless, we have to ask: did 

this species crash in the three year time period between assessments? If so, was the 

crash human caused or environmental? If the latter, can it be rebuilt absent another 

change in the environment? By using a single point—current biomass in relation to 

virgin biomass—are we looking at the true picture of this stock, which may fluctuate widely? 

Second, are we considering the proper parameters? Overfishing designations are 

based on current biomass in relation to virgin biomass. The world has changed and 

is continuing to change. Carrying capacity of the ocean fluctuates. Can we even 

achieve a stock size above the ‘‘overfished’’ level given contemporary ocean conditions? 

Third, once a stock is designated as ‘‘overfished’’ the Council has a relatively short 

period of time to come up with a rebuilding plan. Given the lack of resources—both 

human and fiscal—available to NMFS and the Council, especially in this region, all 

of our efforts will suddenly be directed to preparing rebuilding plans, thereby ignoring other needed science and management efforts. How many stocks suffer (or how 

many fishermen suffer) when all attention is focused on a handful of stocks? 

Fourth, we need to ‘‘end’’ overfishing; not respond to it or address it, but end it. 

If overfishing is a result of long-term oceanographic changes that affect the basic 

productivity of the stock, how do we accomplish that objective? 

Fifth, we have time frames that don’t fit biology. Ten years might be a sufficient 

period when dealing with a fast growing, highly fecund gadoid whose biomass has 

been depleted by over-harvest, but it doesn’t work for a slow growing, long lived 

rockfish with moderate fecundity that has been depleted by changes in ocean conditions. While there are exceptions for overfishing resulting from environmental 

changes, trying to convince anyone that Mother Nature caused the problem is extremely difficult, especially given our current state of knowledge. 

Sixth, once we embark on a rebuilding program, we really have no way to monitor 

if we are doing right, doing wrong, or if the fish are just coming back by themselves. 

Do we prepare a new stock assessment and come up with a new point estimate? 

66

Will we be going from famine to feast every three years? Or will we wind up ten 

years older with no more fish than we have now? 

Last, but not least, how do we deal with mixed stock complexes, which is how 

most fish are caught? Does the overfished species become the tail wagging the dog? 

This year, the Pacific Fishery Management Council adopted most of a plan developed by the seafood industry which we think will allow fishermen to maintain access to healthy species while avoiding ‘‘overfished’’ species. This will require a significant investment by the industry in modified gear. But what if one of the other 

species becomes overfished as well—a possibility according to some scientists. Will 

we then have to close off large areas of the ocean, tie up boats, shut down processing 

plants, all to avoid two species? These are very real and very scary questions. 

I realize that I have raised a number of questions and what you are looking for 

is answers. A group of us in the seafood industry from around the country have 

been working on those answers and we hope to have something for you in the near 

future.

Observers—Suggestions have been made that the Pacific Fishery Management 

Council be included in the North Pacific Fisheries Conservation language found in 

section 313 of the MSFCMA. While we recognize the noble intent in this proposal, 

as a practical matter section 313 was designed specifically for the North Pacific 

Fishery Management Council and simply including the Pacific Council would not 

work. As I mentioned above, we have a large open access fleet and a recreational 

fleet, both of which can have significant impacts on some species. Neither of these 

fleets are regulated or permitted by the MSFCMA; they fall under the jurisdiction 

of the several States. Thus, a change such as has been suggested would put the full 

burden of paying for and carrying observers on the limited entry trawl, hook-andline, and pot fleets—the direct opposite of what the Congress tried to do when it 

enacted section 313 in its original form. If the intent is to try to find an equitable 

cost sharing method for paying for and carrying observers, new language would 

have to be developed.

Marine Protected Areas—While I realize that this subject will be addressed by a separate panel, I want to add a few thoughts of my own. WCSPA has testified in favor 

of looking at MPAs; one of our members served on a Council committee looking at 

MPAs and my deputy is currently a member of the Council’s Marine Reserve Committee. MPAs are not a new concept; in fact, they are an extension of traditional 

time and area closures long supported by the seafood industry. However, they have 

their own set of issues. For example, we believe that the size and area of MPAs 

should be decided by the appropriate Council. Second, if an MPA is established, it 

should be a true MPA, closed to all fishing, and not just an excuse to allocate fish 

among industry sectors. Third, we need to deal with overlapping and conflicting jurisdictions. To give a worst case example, an MPA established 15 miles off the 

Olympic Peninsula here in Washington would have to untangle the jurisdiction of 

two countries (the U.S. and Canada, in the case of albacore), one Native American 

tribe (the Makah tribe), the Pacific Fishery Management Council, and three States 

(Washington, Oregon, and California, who regulate recreational fisheries and commercial fisheries for crab and shrimp through landings laws). How you would do 

that if the MPA is controversial boggles the mind. Less complicated but similar examples exist up and down the coast. I leave it to the next panel to determine if they 

have any answers.

Madame Chair, members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my testimony and 

I would be happy to answer any questions. I want to thank you for taking the time 

out of your busy schedules to visit our half of the world. I look forward to working 

with you and your staff in developing a re-authorization bill for the year 2000.

Senator SNOWE. Thank you. 

Mr. Henkel. 

STATEMENT OF TIM HENKEL, PRESIDENT,

DEEP SEA FISHERMEN’S UNION OF THE PACIFIC 

Mr. HENKEL. Good morning, Madam Chairman and members of 

the Committee. My name is Tim Henkel. I am a professional 

longline crewman. I have been a working fisherman for 22 years, 

and for the past 13 years I have been a crewman and relief skipper 

aboard the halibut schooner, Masonic, out of Seattle. I currently 

67

hold the position of President of the Deep Sea Fishermen’s Union 

of the Pacific. 

I would first like to say that the Deep Sea Fishermen’s Union 

strongly supports Mr. Alverson’s view on the west coast groundfish 

management. I would like to address the individual fishing quota 

from a crewman’s perspective. 

Under the IFQ system, working conditions are much safer than 

during the frenzied derby days of the open access era. For example, 

when fishermen had to deal with extremely limited time constraints in effect, the 24-hour halibut openings, in order to be competitive, they were compelled to go out on the ocean in any kind 

of weather, with far too much gear aboard their vessel than it was 

designed to safely handle, leading to vessel instability. Today, I am 

relieved to say that this situation no longer occurs. Coast Guard 

rescues have been significantly reduced as a result of the IFQ management. 

Under the previous open access system, the quality of the product often suffered due to the huge delivery gluts. It also created an 

adverse effect on prices paid to fishermen. Today, under the new 

IFQ system, the product quality has improved due to better handling. Combined with a reasonably safe supply and a growing fresh 

market, these changes have ultimately brought about better revenues to fishermen and have improved the quality of the product to 

the consumer. 

From 1991 to 1994, incomes began to take a sharp decline, in 

great part due to an increase in the number of boats participating 

in the open access fishery; the proverbial slice of the pie was getting smaller for everyone. Had this phenomena continued, many 

crewmen feel they would have been forced to abandon the fishery 

in search of other employment, or continue as part-time longliners 

and try to establish themselves in one of the already overcrowded, 

depleted fisheries. 

For the crewmen who have survived this change, the IFQ system 

has provided them a much more stable income. The halibut and sablefish resource is becoming healthier as a result of IFQ management. The Deep Sea Fishermen’s Union is a professional crewmen’s 

union, working under contract with the Fishing Vessel Owners Association since 1912. As far as we know, we are the only fishing 

crewmen’s union in the United States. 

During the open access years, our collective bargaining ability 

lay in our skills as highly efficient, productive and professional 

crewmen. This was essential to the fishing operation in order to 

compete for the resource. Under the privatized IFQ system, a professional crewman is desirable but not necessarily essential. Thus, 

our collective bargaining ability has been greatly diminished. Many 

crewmen believe that the acquisition of quota will become the future collective bargaining tool. 

The Federal IFQ loan program, as mandated by the MagnusonStevens Act, has been an excellent vehicle for crewmen and small 

vessel owners to acquire fishing quota. And on behalf of a lot of 

crewmen, I would like to thank this Committee, Senator Stevens 

and Senator Gorton, Madam Chair, for that program. That program has been manna from heaven to crewmen. 

68

I personally am a recipient of the loan program. The role of crewmen is moving away from the boots and oilskins mentality and into 

fully invested quota shareholders. Some of us have more invested 

in quota than the value of the vessels we work on. Unfortunately, 

the labor sector of the fishing industry still has no real voice in the 

decisionmaking and implementation process. It is my hope that in 

this hearing the Committee will consider this, and mandate the 

labor sector a voting seat on the North Pacific Fishery Management Council. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Henkel follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TIM HENKEL, PRESIDENT,

DEEP SEA FISHERMEN’S UNION OF THE PACIFIC

Deep Sea Fishermen’s Union of the Pacific 

5215 Ballard Avenue N.W. 

Seattle, Washington 98107

January 10, 2000

The Honorable John McCain: Arizona 

United States Senate 

508 Dirksen Building 

Washington, DC 20510

Re: U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation 2000, Magnuson/Stevens Reauthorization Hearing, January 14, 2000—Seattle, Washington

Senator McCain:

Individual Fishing Quota System 1995–2000; A Crewman’s Perspective

Under the I.F.Q. system, working conditions are much safer than during the frenzied ‘‘Derby Days’’ of the open access-fishing era, For example, when fishermen had 

to deal with extremely limited time constraints e.g., twenty-four hour halibut openings, in order to be competitive, they were compelled to go out on the ocean in any 

kind of weather with far too much gear aboard than the vessel was designed to safely handle, leading to vessel instability. Today I’m relieved to say that this situation 

no longer occurs. Coast Guard rescues have been significantly reduced as a result 

of I.F.Q. management. Under the previous open access system, the quality of the 

product often suffered due to huge delivery gluts that also created an adverse effect 

on prices paid to fishermen. Today under the new I.F.Q. system the product quality 

has improved due to better handling. Combined with a reasonably steady supply 

and a growing ‘‘fresh market’’ these changes have ultimately brought about better 

revenues to fishermen and have improved the quality of the product to the consumer. 

From 1991 to 1994, incomes began to take a sharp decline in great part due to 

an increase in the number of boats participating in the open access fishery. The proverbial ‘‘slice of the pie’’ was getting smaller for everyone. Had this phenomenon 

continued, many crewmen feel they would have been forced to abandon the fishery 

in search of other employment or continue as part-time longliners and try to establish themselves in one of rite other already overcrowded and depleted fisheries. For 

the crewmen who have survived this change, the I.F.Q. system has provided them 

a much more stable income. 

The halibut and sablefish resource is becoming healthier as a result of I.F.Q. management. We’re not experiencing the lost gear deadloss of the ‘‘derby days’’. Releasing sub-legal halibut unharmed is much easier now because the fishermen are not 

forced to haul gear at unsafe breakneck speeds. Environmentally the program all 

but eliminated discards of bycatch, increased the focus on stock assessment and 

even allowed us the freedom to develop an in-season survey for bird-bycatch reduction. (An impossibility under an open access or license limitation scheme.) 

From a labor standpoint, there are a few backlashes. Jobs have been cut, but 

many believe it had to happen. Now we have a smaller more professional fleet instead of a hugely overcrowded part-time fleet. 

The Deep Sea Fishermen’s Union is a professional crewmen’s union working 

under a contract with the Fishing Vessel Owner’s Association since 1912. As far as 

I know, we are the only fishing crewmen’s union in the U.S. During the open access 

69

years, our collective bargaining ability lay in our skills as highly efficient, productive and professional crewmen. This was essential to the fishing operation in order 

to compete for the resource. Under the privatized I.F.Q. system, a professional crewman is desirable but not necessarily essential. Thus our collective bargaining ability 

has been diminished greatly. Many crewmen believe that the acquisition of quota 

will become the future collective bargaining tool. The Federal I.F.Q. Loan Program, 

as mandated by the Magnuson Act, has been an excellent vehicle for crewmen and 

small vessel owners to acquire fishing quota. I personally am a recipient of the loan 

program. The role of crewmen is moving away from the ‘‘boots and oilskins’’ mentality into fully invested quota shareholders. Some of us have more invested in 

quota than the value of the vessels we work on. Unfortunately, the labor sector of 

the fishing industry still has no real voice in the decision making and implementation process. It is my hope that in this hearing the Committee will consider this 

and mandate the labor sector a voting seat on the North Pacific Fishery Management Council. 

Thank you for inviting my comments on this issue.

Respectfully,

Tim Henkel 

President 

Deep Sea Fishermen’s Union of the Pacific

Senator SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. Henkel. I want to thank all of 

you for your very important testimony. 

Let me begin with the scientific data, because you all mention it 

in your testimony. Do you think that if we had adequate resources 

to collect the data necessary to make decisions at the regional and 

Federal level, the credibility of the decisions would be enhanced? 

I know my fishermen at home in Maine often question whatever 

decision comes out of the agency. How can we restore the credibility of the National Marine Fisheries Service when people have 

so many doubts about it? 

For example, when NMFS says that the status of 75–80 percent 

of fish stocks is unknown, it emphasizes the negative results of 

fisheries management. Would better data be enough to restore 

credibility to the agency? 

On the one hand, the status of certain stocks is unknown. That 

raises questions with not only the fishermen, but also with environmental groups and others who are concerned about conservation. 

So we get it at both ends. Would this cure the problem? 

Mr. Moore. 

Mr. MOORE. Senator, I do not think it would completely solve the 

problem, because people are always going to be skeptics. It would 

certainly help. I think once you have the resources to more adequately assess the stocks out there, to provide money for surveys 

and so forth, that then gives the Federal and State agencies more 

flexibility to work with the industry. And once the industry, both 

the fishermen and the processors, are brought into the process of 

conducting research and analyzing research, that, in and of itself, 

helps out with the credibility. 

But you need that financial base to start with, to provide the 

basic data and the basic tools. We in the industry are doing some 

of that ourselves. 

Bob, I think your group was working on some sablefish research 

at one time. I know Ralph and I have worked on some things. 

Our Council has developed a stock assessment review process, 

sort of a peer review of the data, which deliberately involves somebody from the groundfish advisory panel, which is the industry and 

70

public panel, as part of the review. That helps create the credibility. But the tools for doing all of those things are very limited. 

Now, we all hate to say it. We all hate to come up here and beg 

you for money. But that is part of the problem, is trying to get the 

people and the tools we need to get the better data. 

Senator SNOWE. Mr. Brown, you are on the Council. What is your 

perspective? 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you. I have spent an awful lot of time at 

stock assessment meetings. Probably, of the fishermen on the coast, 

I may have spent more time than any others. So I am fairly familiar with the science and the science needs. 

And it would certainly help an awful lot if we had adequate data. 

It is very frustrating to go to a stock assessment meeting, and review panel meeting, and hear the stock assessment authors say, on 

something like short-spine thornyheads, ‘‘well, we know they live 

somewhere between 60 and 160 years.’’ It makes a big difference 

in the mortality. Mortality directly relates to the amount that you 

harvest every year. But in order to do a stock assessment, we have 

to pick something. And so it gets picked. 

It is very distressing, in the same stock assessment, to hear, 

well, we are not exactly sure what the catch was because, until 

1994, we landed thornyheads as thornyheads rather than as shortspine and long-spine thornyheads. They were not separated. So we 

have really no way to know what the catch of short-spine 

thornyheads specifically was, prior to about 1994. 

And so we have developed a formula that we will apply to the 

catch information to give us that number. Unfortunately it, of 

course, has to include a number of assumptions that the modeler 

is making, that frankly I do not think were adequate. We got into 

a bit of an argument about it. But, again, she did what she had 

to do. She had to have catch. 

There were three or four different growth curves that were presented. They were not tremendously different, but they were some 

different. She had to use one of them. She could not use all four. 

I am trying to see if there was another factor. I cannot remember 

what it was now. The recruitment is absolutely unknown, and so 

they fixed it at 10 million fish, because we have to have something. 

And at that point, you start wondering what exactly did we assess 

here, when we have basically assumed all of the parameters. And 

yet, that stock assessment is driving the management of most of 

our deep water species. It is very difficult to stay chipper about all 

the processes with that kind of information flow. 

So it would help an awful lot. Because I think then, when we do 

go to the stock assessment meetings, we would have at least some 

confidence that the information going into the stock assessment 

had some basis other than an assumption based by the modeler. 

Senator SNOWE. Mr. Alverson. 

Mr. ALVERSON. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I think the short answer to your question, Madam Chairman, is 

yes, it would go a long ways. To be more specific, the current survey, the current tri-annual survey, may adequately survey maybe 

30 of the 84 species that we have to manage. There are a number 

of species that we have very little or no data base on that are driving a lot of our management. 

71

The science of how to fund this is a concern. I did hear a comment about these new vessels that the National Marine Fisheries 

Service is supposed to get. And I do not necessarily want to get 

sideways with the Service, but ever since my dad was director of 

the Service, I have been sideways with the Service. 

[Laughter.] 

But those boats, we are told, are $40 million a copy. I do not 

know if that is accurate, but that is what we heard. And if I had 

that $40 million and I put it in a U.S. 30-year T bill at six percent, 

that is $2.4 million. And we could do one hell of a lot with $2.4 

million annually out here. 

The other aspect to that, in terms of money—and I would caution 

Congress that—and again, I do not want to get sideways with the 

Service—but if you allocate funds, we need on-the-water activity, 

We do not need people behind a desk, from my perspective—where 

those funds go. Our Association has been greatly concerned for the 

last decade and a half with management. We have testified many 

times to the Pacific Council that we thought there was a decline 

taking place in the different resources. 

What is driving a lot of the reductions now, that the Council has 

to vote on, is a change in science. The best available science has 

changed in the last three to four years. The best available science 

prior to three or four years ago, with all the wonderful population 

dynamics, the people we have up and down the coast and our SSC 

peer reviewing all of this, suggested a rockfish species could be harvested at what they call an F–35 rate. 

That has now changed. And it began to change three or four 

years ago. And it is suggested that they should have been harvested over the last 20 years at an F–45 and perhaps an F–65 rate. 

That means our long-term harvest policies over the last 20 years 

have been anywhere from 30 to 50 to 60 percent higher than what 

the resources could naturally reproduce themselves at. 

So that is part of the science and part of the picture. And again, 

the short answer is yes, but with the qualifications that I made. 

Senator SNOWE. You are saying that there would be a better use 

of the money than putting it into more vessels. My staff said that 

it costs $50 million per vessel. 

Mr. ALVERSON. Per copy? 

Senator SNOWE. Yes. 

Mr. ALVERSON. Well, that is $3 million a year at six percent. 

[Laughter.] 

Thank you. 

Senator SNOWE. Yes, Mr. Brown, did you have something to add? 

Mr. BROWN. Yes, please. I am sorry to interrupt here. 

We keep talking about the amount of surveys, and we talk about 

the tri-annual survey occurring once every three years. I should 

point out that that tri-annual survey does not go inside of about 

200 feet of water, and we have never had a survey inside or south 

of Point Conception. And yet, as one of our overfished species, 

lingcod, a major portion of the stock—and we of course do not know 

how much—lives inside of 200 feet of water. 

Another one of our overfished species, bocaccio rockfish, it is primarily south of Point Conception, where we have never had a survey, and the juveniles live inside of 200 feet of water. For one of 

72

the species that was recently listed as overfished, cow cod, the area 

of concern is south of Point Conception, where we have never had 

a survey. 

Senator SNOWE. Mr. Henkel, you mentioned in your testimony 

that IFQ’s have worked very well and improved the health and 

safety of the crewmen on board the vessels. Do you think that 

IFQ’s have in any way consolidated the industry in favor of larger 

vessels? One of the legitimate concerns is that IFQ’s will result in 

a few large operations dominating the industry, overtaking the 

smaller-sized, traditional, family-run vessels. 

Mr. HENKEL. Madam Chairman, I think consolidation has occurred. I think that is a fact of life under the system. But you have 

to compare it back to the old open access days. It was completely 

overcrowded. People have a tendency to focus on that consolidation 

aspect. But I walk the docks, and I have not talked to a single 

working fishermen who wants to go back to the dark ages of open 

access. 

And from a crewman’s perspective, yes, we have—I actually compiled a list—I do not know if I have it with me—of vessels that 

have dropped out and of crewmen that have been laid off. However, 

a phenomena I see occurring here is small groups of crewmen, twos 

and threes and fives, are acquiring quota. And they are going out 

in little groups and they are approaching a skipper and they are 

making trips. And this phenomena is just kind of now getting underway. 

It took a long time for us to get over the initial shock, and there 

was this collective resentment about allocation. And in my opinion, 

this is sort of a little sleeping giant starting to wake up. And I 

think, in terms of the committed fishermen, who are in for the long 

haul, there is going to be a leveling of the playing field. I think a 

new paradigm of crew employment and crew to skipper and vessel 

balance will be—the new generation of crewmen after the initial 

key people start retiring and whatnot, it is sort of leaning toward 

groups of crewmen with quota, uninvested participants I believe—

this is more my opinion, but it seems to be the trend—are going 

to become more of a thing of the past. 

It is interesting now, where you have to step up to the plate and 

invest. And the guys I know and work with do not have any problem with that. We do have a small problem with competing with 

larger entities with financial leverage. However, I thought that an 

idea like a capital construction fund for crewmen that could be applied toward the acquisition of quota would be an excellent vehicle. 

This system, it is interesting, it is beginning to work. I think it 

needs some more time. And you hear a lot of stuff but, all in all, 

I think it is just beginning to take off. And we are pretty happy 

with it. 

Senator SNOWE. What gives the crewmen incentives under IFQ’s? 

Mr. HENKEL. Well, for instance, one of the arrangements we have 

on the vessel I work on, if the crewmen go out and buy quota, we 

can come on to the—you have to pay for that quota, obviously, and 

it is quite expensive, so one has to charge a fee for the use of that 

quota. We are talking about a second generation quota as opposed 

to—the Vessel Owners Association, that we have a contract with, 

some of them have allocated quota, which they do not charge us 

73

for. But if quota is purchased, then we have an agreement that we 

can charge to pay back that purchase. 

So when crewmen get together and buy quota, they can charge 

enough to make that quota pay for itself. And over a period of time, 

that snowballs. And where the traditional boat share/crew share 

split used to occur, the acquisition of quota is sort of bringing that 

back into balance, you might say. I do not know if you are following 

that. 

Senator SNOWE. Yes, I do. It is a very interesting perspective. It 

is an interesting observation. Thank you. 

Senator Gorton. 

Senator GORTON. Bob, if the participants in the west coast sablefish management program had the same eight-month season that 

North Pacific does, what would be the dynamics or the benefit? 

Mr. ALVERSON. The initial dynamics is that our insurance costs 

would go down, because of the intensity and the high risk of the 

current derby that we are forced into. 

Senator GORTON. You mean it would be safer? 

Mr. ALVERSON. It would be safer. It would be definitely safer. 

The dynamic of the W.C. fishery is that most of the boats are involved in two or three fisheries. There is a complaint constantly at 

the Pacific Council that that August 15th date unfairly penalizes 

albacore fishermen, because that is when they tend to school along 

the west coast. And some of those people are hook and line sablefish fishermen. So it will allow them to participate in May or June, 

catch their black cod, as opposed to be force fitted into one-seasonfits-all. And it would allow the fishermen either to go do their other 

things and better organize their fishery. 

These trip limits that we have been allocated were based on an 

overpopulated industry to begin with. So they do not reflect what 

they used to 10 or 20 years ago, where someone might actually fish 

for five months off the coast. These are basically, at the most, a 15-

day trip, which is what they have been reduced to. Some of the 

number one tiers might take two or three weeks to catch, if you 

have the proper amount of time. 

The other dynamic is the Pacific Council would like the ability 

to stack these. And there would have to be a limit of how many 

you could stack. But the idea of stacking is employed in Chatham 

Strait, in Alaska, on their black cod fishery, and in their Clarence 

Strait fishery on black cod. And that allows a fishermen or a crewman to own one of these and go on another boat that already has 

a quota. And that would reduce the amount of boats and gear in 

the water and help reduce the overcapitalization that we have. So 

that the boats could get back, and the crews, to the historical income base and harvest base that they used to have. 

I think that the trading of these quotas, if they had eight months 

to fish—they are called an IQ under the current law—but the trading of them would take place very similar to what goes on in Alaska, on their IFQ and their Chatham Strait black cod fisheries. 

Senator GORTON. Thank you. 

Mr. Moore, I understand, and I hope I am correct on that understanding, that you are a strong supporter of a $4 million observer 

program for the west coast cod fish fisheries. The President and the 

74

Senate came up with $2 million. The House zero. Is $2 million better than zero? 

Mr. MOORE. I would say $2 million is certainly better than zero. 

$1 million is better than zero. 

I think, Senator, that what we need to do in all of the researchoriented sorts of things, whether it be observer coverage, whether 

it be money for trawl surveys, whether it be more for scientists to 

conduct stock assessments and so forth and so on, we need to look 

at whatever pot of money you in your infinite wisdom and capabilities can get available for groundfish and figure out what we can 

do with that pot of money, and set priorities based on where the 

needs are. 

Senator GORTON. Okay. You are also critical of the National Marine Fisheries Service and its research program. Is that primarily 

because it does not have enough money, or do you think it is not 

prioritizing right with what it does spend on research? 

Mr. MOORE. Well, I hate to wave a red flag in front of anybody, 

but I sort of have to echo Phil Anderson’s comments, from the previous panel. When you look at the huge amount of money that is 

spent on salmon on this coast and the economic returns from the 

salmon fishery to the west coast, then you look at the paltry sum 

that is spent on groundfish and what have been huge economic returns from groundfish, there is an imbalance there. There needs to 

be some shifting of priorities in terms of allocation of money. 

Senator GORTON. You need an Endangered Species listing. 

Mr. MOORE. Well, I have thought about that, Senator. 

[Laughter.] 

The problem is, when you are dealing with a fishery that is 150 

miles out in the ocean, the only people who get shut down by the 

endangered fishery listing are Ralph and Bob and my processors, 

so it does not do any good. 

Senator GORTON. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you, Senator Gorton. 

Senator Stevens. 

Senator STEVENS. Madam Chairman, I do not want to be a bastard at the family reunion, but I want to have a little reading here 

and make sure that I get the views of our friends about IFQ’s. The 

National Research Council did give us its report. And in the executive summary they said categorically: ‘Congress should lift the moratorium on the development and implementation of the IFQ programs established by the Sustainable Fisheries Act.’

But they also pointed out that the Magnuson-Stevens Act defines 

an IFQ as a Federal permit under a limited access system to harvest a quantity of fish expressed by a unit or units representing a 

percentage of the total allowable catch that may be received or held 

for the exclusive use by a person. No argument so far, I assume. 

But then it says: ‘Congress should permit, one, the assessment 

of fees on initial allocations of quota and first sale and leasing of 

it, imposition of an annual tax on quota shares, zero revenue auctions.’ The Magnuson-Stevens Act presently imposes limits on various fees that may be used to recover the cost of IFQ management 

enforcement. The Congress should increase these limits so that the 

75

IFQ management and other forms of limited entry can be recovered 

fully. 

Additionally, revenues extracted from IFQ fisheries should be 

used to mitigate some of the potential negative impacts of IFQ’s 

and support research. Now I am going to start to eliminate some 

of this and not read all that is in this section. The committee recommends the Magnuson-Stevens Act be amended to allow the public to capture some of the windfall gain generated from initial allocation of quotas, to recover incremental costs of IFQ management 

authorized by the collection of fees from the transfer and holding 

of IFQ’s. 

It has a whole series of other things of what the Congress should 

do. And then it has a whole series of things about what the Secretary of Commerce and the National Marine Fisheries Service 

should do. It also requests that the Council should consider including fishing communities in initial allocation of IFQ’s. 

It has a new concept of rents. And it says: Councils should avoid 

taking for granted the gifting of quota shares to participants in the 

fishery, just as they should avoid taking for granted that vessel 

owners should be the only recipients of quota, and historical participation should be the only measure for determining initial allocations. There is a whole set of things that they say both the Congress should do and that Congress should authorize the Council to 

do. 

Now, I take it that there is a general feeling that the moratorium 

should be lifted. What do you think about the advice they give us 

as to what the Council should do, the Secretary should do and the 

Congress should do as we lift the moratorium? 

Mr. Alverson. 

Mr. ALVERSON. Madam Chair, Senator Stevens, I thank you for 

the opportunity to comment on those specific issues. With regards 

to the fees, we negotiated significantly with the Senate, yourself 

and Senator Gorton on the fees that applied to our IFQ program 

up north. And we do not object to that. It is a little bit tough being 

the only fishery in the United States that pays for itself. But we 

got a big benefit out of that. And it is being managed very well. 

So if we had an IFQ auction in the Pacific Council, we would not 

object to the fee. It does drive an issue on natural resources issues 

in general. The broadcasting systems are public. Should they pay 

three percent of gross? New taxes on the west coast, when Senator 

Hollings and Senator Breaux and Senator Inouye’s people do not pay fees? Our President says we have a $3 trillion surplus. We 

need this money for research, but Congress needs to set some priorities. 

You mentioned the inland Senators would like that money to go 

for their wind storms. But we have got La Nina and El Nino that 

maybe some of the surpluses ought to go to from Congress. 

So the fee issue, there is a lot of things to be talked about on 

fees. But we will take our fees. We note that the East Coast quahog got out of the fee program. I think it is inappropriate for the 

west coast to be the only ones paying fees. 

With regards to the National Academy of Sciences recommendations, the 1996 amendments on limited entry, in general, require 

a whole litany of hoops to jump through for a Council. Many of 

76

those are applicable to the IFQ program. And many of them are applicable to the National Academy of Sciences recommendations. 

I think the National Academy of Sciences asked that the hard decisions on all those issues, of whether the crew people are involved, 

whether the boat owners get the lion’s share, the issues of community development, should reside with the regional Councils, because 

every region has a different political situation and different economic makeup. And we would agree with the Academy’s recommendation, though those should probably be delineated and 

lined out for the Councils, to make sure they go through those 

hoops by Congress. 

That concludes my comments, Madam Chairman. 

Senator STEVENS. Mr. Brown. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you. I hesitate to say this with my back to 

the crowd, but I have always felt that when privileges were extended for use of a resource, that it was not unreasonable to also 

expect that the user accept some responsibilities for the use of that 

resource. Therefore, certain fees probably are reasonable. 

As you know, on this coast we had a proposal for an industry 

funded buyback program to try to reduce our capacity. That was 

our way of trying to use our money to make our situation better. 

It took a long time to get the enabling legislation and, unfortunately, we ran out of time before we could get that. Although I 

think we are looking at it again. 

We have had proposals in the past to try to fund our own research organizations. We have had a difficult time trying to figure 

out how to collect those funds from everyone under the existing 

mechanisms. When we actually went to Congress, the Senate, to 

try to get the enabling legislation to allow for the buyback, what 

we actually started with was a program that was similar to what 

States use when they have special service districts, recreational 

districts, library districts, where groups of fishermen could vote 

among themselves to tax themselves to use the money for the common benefit of the industry. 

And the things that we were thinking about were things like research, primarily research, but we wanted it broad enough that you 

could actually use it for other things that might come up, whatever 

that might be. We did not get that far. We did get the buyback language, fortunately. 

So, the bottom line—I think reasonable fees are acceptable. And 

one thing I would say is that if we are going to make major 

changes in the structure of the industry, we need to get them over 

with so that the industry can adjust to them and get on with business. One of the hardest things to deal with right now on this coast 

is the fact that nothing is ever stable long enough for the industry 

to adjust to. That may be more difficult than the actual magnitude 

of the cuts, the fact that we do not know if they are done. We did 

not see them coming. And we are never given time to adjust. 

So if we are going to do a fee structure, if we are going to do marine reserves, if we are going to do those sorts of things, let us get 

them done so that the industry can adjust to them and we can stabilize. 

Senator STEVENS. I do not think either you or Mr. Alverson commented upon the windfall gain and rent proposal. They say that we 

77

should allow the public to capture some of the windfall gain generated from the initial allocation of quotas and recover the incremental costs by the collection of fees from the transfers, and we 

should also consider the concept of rents, to pay an annual fee for 

the utilization of the quota. 

Mr. ALVERSON. Mr. Chairman, our three percent fee, I consider 

that to be a rent. Whether it is three percent or a fixed amount 

per individual, we are going to be paying a rent of three percent, 

equivalent to a B&O tax that the States assign, only the States assign about a one percent B&O tax. 

But I am not sure, beyond that, if these largely bureaucrats who 

make up the National Academy of Sciences, whether they are trying to feather their nest, too, off our back. What is fair? 

We pay three percent. We will be paying a three percent Federal 

tax. We pay a 3.3 percent State tax to the State of Alaska when 

we offload. We pay an additional two percent to most of the State 

of Alaska for what they call a village tax or something like that. 

We have a CDQ that takes five percent of our gross. 

When you add all these taxes that we currently pay, that five 

percent and the three percent add up to eight percent out of our 

gross that currently go to domestic programs in our IFQ program 

for halibut. 

Senator STEVENS. That is the existing IFQ. 

Mr. ALVERSON. Right. 

Senator STEVENS. Do not you think these Council recommendations go further than that now? 

Mr. ALVERSON. Say again? 

Senator STEVENS. Do not you believe that the recommendations 

of this Council go further than the existing IFQ? 

Mr. ALVERSON. Well, they are looking at future IFQ, surely. And 

I believe a rent should be assessed. 

Senator STEVENS. But we do not have a windfall gain concept. 

Mr. ALVERSON. Sure, you do. You people in Congress have a 

windfall tax program. When we sell out, we have to pay windfall 

tax or you pay a corporate tax to the Federal Government when 

you sell out. 

Senator STEVENS. But they are not talking about that. 

Mr. ALVERSON. I know they are not talking about that. They are 

talking about a new tax. 

Senator STEVENS. Right. 

Mr. ALVERSON. But you fellows have a tax. When we sell out and 

retire, we pay a tax on the gain. 

Senator STEVENS. That is not a windfall tax. That is just income 

tax. You are talking about the income tax on the increase in the 

value of your assets. 

Mr. ALVERSON. It is all money out of our pockets, Senator. 

Senator STEVENS. I understand. But I am trying to get your idea. 

When you look me in the eye and say, I want you to lift that IFQ 

moratorium, I want you to understand that Congress has been told 

a whole series of criteria that ought to be put into effect as that 

is done. 

Mr. ALVERSON. Okay. 

Senator STEVENS. It is not a simple matter to get this thing done 

with that report. And we have got until what, December to do it? 

78

Senator SNOWE. October. 

Senator STEVENS. October to do it. 

Senator GORTON. And they want to know whether we are going 

to do it by April. 

Senator SNOWE. That is right. 

Senator STEVENS. And you wanted to know if we were going to 

do it by April. And I want to know by April whether you agree with 

what they recommend. Because if you are in agreement with them, 

we can get it done fast. 

Mr. ALVERSON. Well, what are the numbers? What are the tax 

numbers we are talking about? If they are similar to what you already have in there, a three percent fee—I think there was at one 

time a one percent of your—— Senator STEVENS. I do not happen to agree with them. I am the 

author of the limits in the existing language. 

Mr. ALVERSON. I know you are. And we are thankful of that. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator STEVENS. Mr. Moore. 

Mr. MOORE. Thank you, Senator. 

Looking at it from the processors’ perspective, first of all, in 

terms of lifting the individual quota moratorium, obviously we are 

in favor of it. It is something that the vessels need. We think that 

there needs to be some sort of accommodation. 

Senator STEVENS. Should it apply only to limited entry fisheries? 

Mr. MOORE. Well, on this coast—and I just want to limit myself 

to that, if I can—we really have two limited entry fisheries and 

then sort of a mixture of open access. 

Senator STEVENS. Rod, tell me, should it be limited? Because existing law currently limits IFQ’s to limited entry fisheries. 

Mr. MOORE. That is correct. 

Senator STEVENS. It means we have got to amend two acts if we 

are going to lift this moratorium and do what they say. 

Mr. MOORE. I think you would probably wind up having to do 

one all-encompassing thing, something similar to what you and 

Senator Gorton did with the American Fisheries Act, if you will, 

where you tried to solve a number of problems in one major piece 

of legislation. 

Senator STEVENS. And we did that primarily by consensus. 

Mr. MOORE. Yes, sir, you did. I think that perhaps the same sort 

of approach needs to be done with IQ’s. And then, as Bob and 

Ralph have both said, kind of leave to the Councils what some of 

the mechanics are for particular fisheries. There may be fisheries 

that are not appropriate for individual quotas and maybe should 

never be under them. 

Senator STEVENS. That is the criteria that they want us to spell 

out when they are appropriate. 

Mr. MOORE. That is something, Senator, that I cannot see how 

you can do. With everything that you have to deal with on your 

plate, how you can figure out which fishery, some small, podunk 

fishery in California or Oregon—— Senator STEVENS. Well, that is why we are here. What are the 

criteria that you would approve? 

Mr. MOORE. I would have to sit down and give you a laundry list. 

It is not something I could do off the top of my head. 

79

Senator STEVENS. That is what I am afraid of, a laundry list. 

Mr. MOORE. I know. Nobody likes them. 

Senator STEVENS. Let me move on. I do not want to take too 

much of my time. 

Mr. Henkel, have you got any comments about this? You were for 

IFQ’s. Are you for all these things the Council wants to put on? 

Mr. HENKEL. Senator Stevens, I look at it this way. I have to 

speak from a labor aspect. If labor had a real voice in the decisionmaking and implementation process of the fisheries, not just halibut and sablefish in the longline fishery but North Pacific fisheries, and we had some sort of a leg up in terms of a capital construction fund or something like that—not money given to us, but 

just a leg up so we can work; we will pay our own way—if you 

want to give us a leg up like that, we will fund that loan program. 

You bet, we will pay tax. If you give us a chance to get into some 

IFQ, we will gladly pay the tax on it. 

Senator STEVENS. My last comment and question would be this. 

I mentioned the opilio crab crash. We have obviously got to do 

something about that disaster. Last night it was suggested to me 

that we allow using the capital construction fund for the vessels involved, on a pool basis, to become a matching fund to Federal moneys, to bring about a buyback, to immediately institute a buyback. 

What do you all think about using the capital construction fund 

in that manner? 

Bob. 

Mr. ALVERSON. Madam Chairman, Senator Stevens, I do not represent the crab guys. I did negotiate prices for them. And I know 

that they have a horrible situation of overcapitalization. I think 

that that option should be provided to them. I think it is innovative. There is always a problem and question of, is everybody paying in the same amount? 

Senator STEVENS. Well, they will have to work that out. 

Mr. ALVERSON. I am not quite sure how a buyback would work. 

Senator STEVENS. They would have to work that out. Probably 

three votes to pool our funds and one of them comes out. 

Mr. ALVERSON. Yes. I think that there is something there that 

could be worked out. 

Senator STEVENS. Does anyone disagree? 

Rod. 

Mr. MOORE. Senator, I do not disagree. I would like to add to 

that, though. We have a situation with the capital construction 

fund, where some of the committees in the House and Senate have 

tried to get rid of it for years. It is now being discussed in sort of 

the world forum that subsidies are bad and capital construction 

funds are a subsidy. 

One of the problems that faces fishermen on this coast when they 

try to get out of the fisheries, because they are just not making any 

money, is they cannot do anything with their boat because they 

have got the profits tied up in a capital construction fund. And the 

tax penalties for coming out of that fund are so huge, they cannot 

afford to get out. 

It seems to me that some general revision of the capital construction fund ought to be looked at. Allow a fisherman who is retiring 

from the fishery to turn it into a Roth IRA or to an education acVerDate Apr 24 2002 09:41 Jul 25, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\77585.TXT SCOM2 PsN: JACKF
80

count for his kids or use it for buyback or use it for safety. Do not 

limit it to simply constructing and reconstructing vessels, and 

thereby increasing the capacity problems that we have. Let people 

be flexible in using that capital construction fund if they are going 

to be getting out of the fishery. 

Senator STEVENS. Mr. Brown. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you. I was a member of the Federal investment task force that looked at Federal subsidies and the role of the 

Federal Government in capitalization of the fleet. And I believe one 

of the recommendations that we came out with would be that the 

capital construction fund be used in such a manner. If I remember 

correctly, and it has been a while since I reviewed any of the information, there was about $250 million tied up in capital construction funds through the country for the fishing portion, not dealing 

with merchant marines, and the bulk of that money was on the 

west coast. 

When we have fisheries that are severely overcapitalized, as we 

do, anything that we can do to use those kinds of resources to help 

decapitalize the fleet rather than increase capitalization seems to 

be appropriate. I would take it a step further, also. That on this 

coast, I do not know how much money we have tied up in capital 

construction funds for the groundfish fishery, but one of the ideas 

that we have had would be that we use the same concept that we 

had in our buyback program—a fee on landings for people who stay 

in the fishery—as part of a match for some portion of a buyback 

program that we would assess future participants. 

Thank you. 

Senator STEVENS. Thank you. 

Madam Chair, I think we ought to ask GAO to tell us how much 

money is in those funds right now. They are part of a financing 

package that make it possible to deal with disasters. Thank you 

very much. 

Senator SNOWE. That is a good suggestion. Thank you, Senator 

Stevens. 

Mr. Moore, I just have one question. You suggested in your testimony that we should reexamine the term ‘‘overfishing,’’ because it 

is used as an all encompassing description, regardless of the source 

of the problem, that is attributed to a declining stock. You suggest 

using the term ‘‘distressed fishery’’ instead. How would that help 

in rebuilding the stock? Is it a perception issue? 

Mr. MOORE. There are two aspects. One is the perception issue. 

Just to give you an example, I had a conversation with somebody 

in the National Marine Fisheries Service who, to protect their identity, I will not name them, and to protect their job, I will not name 

them. They were working on some disaster relief things for the 

west coast and other areas and were talking to the attorneys in the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration about the need 

for disaster relief. 

And the attorneys said, ‘‘but the west coast stocks are overfished, 

and so therefore there is no need for any disaster relief.’’ At which 

point, the folks from NMFS tried to point out that, in some cases, 

it is not the fact that fishermen caught too many fish, it is that the 

environment changed, it drove down the stock, and so forth and so 

81

on. And the attorneys came back with, ‘‘but no, but they are overfished.’’ So partially it is a perception problem. People, when they hear 

overfished, think it is the fishermen’s fault, no matter what. I 

think as Ralph said in his written testimony, if a river dries up and 

all the salmon disappear, those salmon are overfished and it is the 

fishermen’s fault. 

The other issue is if you do want to differentiate in rebuilding 

plans between fisheries that are distressed—and I will use my favorite term—as a result of environmental conditions versus fisheries that are distressed because we did something wrong, there 

may be a need to look at different sorts of rebuilding plans. Because, in the one case, you can control the wrongdoers, and that 

is us; in the other case, there is not much you can do about the 

wrongdoer, because that is Mother Nature. So there is a dichotomy 

there that you may want to look at as well. 

Senator SNOWE. That is a very good suggestion. 

Thank you. Thank you all very much. Excellent testimony. 

The third and final panel will include: Dr. Rod Fujita, a Senior 

Scientist with Environmental Defense; Dr. Dave Sampson, a Professor of Fisheries at Oregon State University; Mr. Pete Leipzig, of 

the Fishermen’s Marketing Association; and Sam Anderson, Executive Director of the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties. 

[Pause.] 

We will begin with you, Dr. Fujita. 

STATEMENT OF ROD FUJITA, SENIOR SCIENTIST, 

ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE 

Dr. FUJITA. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the Subcommittee. My name is Rod Fujita. I hold a doctorate in marine 

ecology and I am a Senior Scientist with Environmental Defense, 

formally known as the Environmental Defense Fund. Environmental Defense is a leading national environmental group, with 

over 300,000 members nationwide. We are also a member of the 

Marine Fish Conservation Network, and fully support the Network’s agenda for reauthorization. Thanks for this opportunity to 

comment. 

I will focus my remarks on two fundamental problems we face 

today in fisheries management. One is the depletion of stocks. And 

the second is the degradation of fish habitat. There are three 

causes, in my view. The first is that managers must rely on insufficient data and on a rather poor understanding of marine ecosystems, quite apart from the lack of data. 

Second, most of the management systems currently in place create strong incentives for waste and over-exploitation of fisheries. 

And third, many of the habitats that support fisheries are being seriously degraded as a result of poor coordination amongst agencies 

and a real lack of focus on the importance of protecting fish habitat. 

Let us discuss the science first. It has garnered a lot of attention 

on the panel so far. One reason that fisheries science is in the state 

it is in is that good science is expensive and funds are really limited. But it is also important to realize that marine science is very 

82

difficult to do under the best of circumstances. It is kind of like 

asking a bunch of forest scientists to study a forest by sending 

them out to stumble around at night with some butterfly nets. 

More data will certainly help, but the ocean is intrinsically variable 

and uncertainty will always be with us. 

Given the high levels of uncertainty that almost everyone complains about, one would think that management would proceed 

cautiously, like a driver in the Seattle drizzle. The definition of optimum yield and other provisions in the Act are aimed at implementing a precautionary approach which calls for managers to err 

on the side of the fish populations, given this uncertainty. Yet the 

opposite occurs much too often. 

In fact, a double standard prevails. Little or no data are needed 

to keep fishing, but large amounts of high-quality data seem to be 

necessary to justify precautionary catch levels or other conservation measures. The result has been an overaggressive catch policy 

for west coast groundfish and other species, even with the strong 

conservation provisions of the 1996 amendments. 

Many complain that the science does not support the recent reduced catch limits for rockfish populations and other groundfish. 

But does the science support the status quo? Not in my view. 

What is the solution? Well, more funding for fishery science 

should certainly help. But it is also critical to strengthen the implementation of the precautionary principle in the face of uncertainty, 

which will remain with us as long as the ocean remains mysterious. 

The real tragedy here is that the decline of the groundfish, whatever caused it, could have been prevented. Many scientists, environmentalists and some managers, such as Phil Anderson, Bob 

Alverson, and other members of the Pacific Council, were warning 

years ago that rockfish and other species could not sustain the high 

catch levels that they were being subjected to. However, these 

warnings were largely ignored. And I think one powerful reason for 

this lies in the management regime itself. 

Most fishery management regimes create very strong incentives 

to over-exploit fish populations and to waste large amounts of fish 

and other marine resources. Open access management clearly creates incentives for a fisheries arms race and over-investment, leading to debt and calls for ever-larger catches to forestall short-term 

economic disaster. 

Many advocate limited entry as a solution. But limited entry also 

has an abysmal record. They are often implemented very late in 

the game, when fleets are already overcapitalized. And due to political pressure at that time, often, too many permits are granted. 

And because fishers do not get reliable assurances that they can 

catch a certain amount of the allowable catch, fishing actually increases in many limited access programs, according to the scientific 

literature on this topic. 

This is true even when input controls are used, due to the ingenuity of fishermen in getting around such controls. Now, in the 

west coast groundfish fisheries, declining fish abundance has required drastic cuts in catch quotas and progressively smaller trip 

limits, to which the people on the previous panel alluded. Because 

the number of vessels is much higher than the number required to 

83

catch the available fish profitably, the low quotas and trip limits 

threaten the economic viability of many fishers. 

Moreover, many fishermen have told me that the low trip limits 

induce discards—waste—as fishermen try to maximize the value of 

the small loads that they are allowed to land by throwing back the 

lower value fish. The Pacific Council determined that Individual 

Transferable Quotas, or ITQ’s, showed a lot of promise after years 

of consensus building, for the sablefish fishery. But, as you have 

heard, their hands have been tied by the ITQ moratorium. 

In contrast to open access and most limited access management 

regimes, almost all individual transferable quota programs that 

have been implemented around the world have ended the race for 

fish and reduced overcapitalization. Those are very robust results. 

Five of the six ITQ programs reviewed in the National Academy 

report ended the race for fish. Moreover, ITQ’s have an excellent 

conservation record, which is why Environmental Defense has 

taken a stand on this. Most ITQ’s have improved compliance with 

catch limits, which is the major conservation tool that fishery managers have at their disposal. 

The best picture of how U.S. ITQ programs can operate can probably be obtained by looking at the performance of the Alaska sablefish and halibut ITQ program, because it is really the only ITQ program in the world that incorporates the latest thinking about how 

to design ITQ programs, much of which is reflected in the NRC 

committee report. The Alaska program has performed admirably. It 

has ended the race for fish. It has improved product flow. It has 

improved prices. It has reduced bycatch and ghost fishing by about 

80 percent, according to the NRC, and improved safety, as you 

have heard. 

And it has done all this while improving compliance with overall 

catch limits. I am not aware of any excessive consolidation or 

corporatization of the fleet resulting from these ITQ’s. 

Environmental Defense recommends, along with the NRC, that 

moratorium on ITQ’s be lifted. We also suggest that guidelines for 

preventing adverse social or economic impacts that can occur due 

to the free reign of market forces be adopted and, in addition, 

guidelines for promoting the strong conservation benefits of ITQ’s 

also be adopted by Congress. Where ITQ’s are not appropriate, we 

recommend buyouts to reduce fleet capacity in accordance with 

strong conservation criteria to prevent the displacement of excess 

capacity to other stressed fisheries. 

We also strongly support disaster relief for fishermen, but we 

need to be mindful of the interaction between natural variation and 

fishing. When an El Nino hits, and they are now predictable by 

NOAA due to good satellite data and good models, fishing effort 

has to come down in order to accommodate nature. Nature is not 

going to accommodate us. We must control our fishing mortalities 

to accommodate nature. 

Better science and improved management of fisheries will accomplish nothing if the habitats that support fish are destroyed or degraded. But that is just what is happening. The degradation of 

salmon habitat by poor forestry practices, massive water diversions, dams and other factors has received a great deal of attention 

and money. In some regions, I am happy to report that great 

84

progress is being made due to these efforts. And it is to the credit 

of many farmers, water districts, loggers, and others that I have 

personally worked with in California. 

The winter run chinook is making a valiant attempt to recover. 

and it is up by several thousand fish over a few years ago due to 

these efforts. 

Unfortunately, this is not true everywhere. And there is going to 

be a continuing need for vigilance to bring back the salmon and the 

fishery that depends on it. Part of the problem is that fish habitat 

really is all over the place. It is all over the ocean. And it is spread 

across the jurisdictions of many different agencies. 

The EFH mandate of the Act can keep habitat protection on the 

radar screen of all the relevant Federal agencies. The EFH mandate needs to remain broad, in my view, to address the plethora 

of threats to the freshwater and marine habitats. NMFS is working 

quite effectively to implement EFH with low or no impact on existing regulations in the Bay Delta system near San Francisco, where 

I work. 

Unfortunately, very little progress has been made toward meeting the other mandate of the EFH provisions, which is to reduce 

the adverse impacts of fishing. This, despite the large and growing 

body of scientific evidence that certain kinds of fishing reduce biodiversity and harm the integrity of the marine habitats that support all of this economic activity. The Pacific Council and NMFS 

have started to take action to try to understand what these impacts 

are. 

But the most powerful way to understand the impacts of fishing 

on habitat would be to establish research reserves, where fishing 

is excluded. This is simply the way good science is done. One must 

isolate the factor of interest. And this is the only way we are going 

to discover what the role of fishing is in the decline of fish stocks, 

as opposed to natural variation, pollution or other factors. You 

must isolate the variables. 

Reserves, if designed well, would have the added benefits of 

proactively protecting habitats for fishing while this information is 

being gathered. Marine reserves are often criticized as being untested and uncertain. However, dozens of scientific studies show 

that marine reserves do indeed increase fish abundance and size, 

often by several-fold. There is also increasing evidence that marine 

reserves export young fish to fishing grounds, enhancing yields 

there. 

And perhaps you have heard from people in New England about 

the phenomenal success of the closed areas in Georges Bank in increasing scallop and haddock populations inside those closed areas. 

Scallop populations are up by 1,300 percent in some cases. And the 

significant thing on Georges Bank is that it shows clearly that 

these closed areas can actually export young fish and young scallops over their borders and enhance yields by up to 130 percent 

nearby. 

Are there similar data supporting the efficacy of conventional 

fishery management measures? I do not think so. 

In summary, Environmental Defense has concluded that while 

well-intentioned, the 1996 amendments to the Act have not fulfilled 

their great conservation or economic promise. Modest changes in 

85

the Act are needed, but I agree with other panelists that the larger 

changes that are needed are really in implementation and funding. 

Priorities should include documenting bycatch and quantifying discards with an observer program out here on the west coast. 

We are recommending greater funding for fishery science, not 

just for data acquisition, but for improving the scientific and theoretical basis for understanding how fish populations work and how 

ecosystems work. This needs to be coupled with stronger implementation of the precautionary principle. Because, as I said before, this 

uncertainty is not going to go away, no matter how much money 

we throw at it. 

We further recommend that the moratorium on ITQ’s be lifted in 

accordance with the recommendations of the National Research 

Council (NRC) report. And, finally, we recommend that the EFH 

provisions of the Act be strengthened and implemented in part 

with marine reserves to reduce the uncertainty around the impacts 

of fishing and to protect marine and freshwater fish habitats. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fujita follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROD FUJITA, SENIOR SCIENTIST, ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE

Thank you for this opportunity to testify on the reauthorization of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. I am Rod Fujita, senior scientist with Environmental Defense (formerly known as the Environmental Defense 

Fund). Environmental Defense fully supports the reauthorization agenda of the Marine Fish Conservation Network, which is attached. The Network is a coalition of 

more than 80 environmental groups, sport and commercial fishermen, and marine 

scientists working to improve our nation’s fisheries laws. 

I will focus my testimony on three fundamental problems facing US fisheries 

today: (1) scientific uncertainty and the lack of sufficient precautionary action; (2) 

lack of management resolve; and (3) management regimes that create incentives for 

overexploitation. I offer solutions to each of these problems: (1) higher appropriations for fisheries research, the establishment of a network of marine reserves, and 

a greater emphasis on precautionary action; (2) better balance among stakeholder 

interests within the regional fishery management Councils; and (3) lift the moratorium on Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQs). 

PROBLEMS

Too many commercially exploited fish populations are in decline. Here on the west 

coast, bocaccio, canary rockfish, cowcod, yellowtail rockfish, and lingcod were all 

fished down too aggressively; managers and agency scientists overestimated the productivity of these long-lived fish. This aggressive fishing took place during a time 

of relatively low productivity. The warnings of environmentalists and other scientists that aggressive fishing plus poor ocean conditions could result in collapse 

were largely ignored. These fish population declines have resulted in devastating 

economic loss, and untold ecological damage. Strong action was called for, in order 

to sustain fishing communities and protect the marine ecosystems that support 

them. The 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act had the potential to effect real change. However, spotty and timid 

implementation has resulted in the continuation of the status quo in too many 

cases. As a result, the west coast and the Nation as a whole are still suffering large 

economic and ecologic losses from poor fisheries management. 

DIAGNOSIS

(1) Scientific uncertainty and lack of sufficient precautionary action. West coast 

fishery managers and agency scientists relied on uncertain assumptions about 

groundfish productivity that later proved to be wrong. Sometimes the precautionary 

approach was applied, but too often it was not. The precautionary approach calls 

for management actions that reduce the risks to fish populations and marine ecosystems, when the impacts of fishing are uncertain. However, in fisheries management, a double standard prevails, in which very few or no data were necessary to 

86

support status quo fishing levels, but precautionary or conservation measures were 

often strongly opposed because of lack of data. Many argued that the data showing 

declines in fish abundance were of such poor quality that they could not support 

management actions such as reduced fishing quotas. However, when uncertainty is 

that high, it is certainly more prudent to cut back on fishing and conduct research 

to discover what truly sustainable fishing levels are, than to maintain the status 

quo, as was done too often. Moreover, although many claim that the precautionary 

approach was built into stock assessments and the quota-setting process in the form 

of conservative assumptions, the truth is that fishing mortality was probably grossly 

underestimated because discard mortality has never been quantified or properly accounted for. Also, managers refused to establish no-take marine reserves, which 

would have afforded the only effective insurance policy against management errors 

by protecting real, living fish in the water, rather than theoretical fish spawned in 

computer models. Moreover, marine reserves would have allowed managers to perceive declines earlier (by offering contrast to conditions on the fishing grounds) and 

to tease out the relative importance of fishing mortality, ocean productivity, and 

other factors of decline. 

The ecological costs of fishing are even less studied than the impacts of fishing 

on target and bycatch populations, but evidence of adverse ecological impacts is 

emerging. Globally, recent research shows that fishing has altered the very structure of ocean food webs, simplifying them by taking out top predator species. There 

is clear evidence that fishing resulted in mass starvation of seabirds in Norway. 

There is also abundant evidence that scallop dredging, certain kinds of trawling, 

and other types of fishing can harm bottom habitats. 

On the west coast, a recent study conducted in the Monterey Bay National Marine 

Sanctuary shows that trawling has strong impacts on bottom habitat (Engel and 

Kvitek, 1998). The heavily trawled area that was studied had less large rocks and 

mounds, more exposed sediment, and less debris than the lightly trawled area. 

Rocks and mounds contribute to the structural complexity of the bottom, and are 

very important to many different kinds of organisms that are found only in association with such structures. Exposed sediments tend to be poorer in food quality than 

sediments that are covered with encrusting organisms or held together by tubeforming organisms; hence, productivity is usually lower. Debris (usually fragments 

of kelps, marine ‘‘snow’’, fecal material, and the like) is a critically important food 

source for many benthic organisms. Not surprisingly, the study showed that sea 

pens, sea stars, sea anemones, sea slugs, and most polychaete worms were all far 

less abundant in the highly trawled area. Nematode and oligochaete worms (opportunistic, ‘‘weedy’’ species) were more abundant in the highly trawled area, but overall, trawling clearly reduced biodiversity. 

The authors of this study concluded that ‘‘the only way to address these questions 

adequately [referring to questions about the impacts of fishing on habitat] is 

through large-scale, long-term, manipulative studies in marine reserves’’ (Engel and 

Kvitek, 1998). 

Another Pacific study found significant differences in rockfish assemblages between trawled and untrawled areas (Matthews & Richards, 1991). The rockfish assemblages differed significantly in species composition, biodiversity, and biomass, 

with the untrawlable regions having significantly larger catches than the trawlable 

habitats (Matthews & Richards, 1991). This finding indicates that as more regions 

become trawlable due to gear improvements and as benthic habitats become more 

altered, there may well be significant changes in species composition and biomass, 

resulting in lower fish productivity. 

Despite these findings, and similar findings from around the world, no action has 

been taken to reduce the risk of harming marine ecosystems from the impacts of 

fishing, contrary to the intent of the EFH requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act. Marine reserves can help reduce the adverse impacts of fishing on habitat, in 

compliance with these EFH requirements. In addition, marine reserves offer one of 

the only rigorous scientific methods for evaluating the impacts of fishing, by offering 

reference or control areas for comparison with fishing grounds.

(2) Lack of management resolve and leadership. Proper implementation of the precautionary approach requires painful choices and leadership. Caving in to short 

term economic pressures subverts fisheries management. While many individual 

west coast fishery managers have shown a great deal of courage and leadership over 

the years, the reliance on general consensus among a very large and diverse group 

of stakeholders has hamstrung them and resulted in a lowest-common denominator 

approach to management too often.

(3) Management regime that creates incentives for overexploitation. Open access 

management clearly creates incentives for a fisheries arms race and overinvestment, 

87

leading to debt and calls for ever-larger catches to forestall economic disaster. In 

the free-for-all created by open access, any fish left in the water for conservation 

purposes can be caught by the next vessel that comes along, and fish have value 

only when caught. This sort of management system creates strong incentives to 

catch as many fish as quickly as possible, and this leads to frenzied fishing derbies 

(if total allowable catch levels are set). 

Limited entry programs have a rather abysmal record, because they are often implemented very late in the game when fleets are already overcapitalized. Often, too 

many permits are granted in response to pressure to be inclusive; hence, fleet size 

and fishing power are not reduced. Strong incentives to increase fishing power persist in most limited access systems because fishers do not have reliable assurances 

that they can catch a certain portion of the TAC (Gorte et al., 1985; Waters, 1991; 

Townsend, 1992). As a result, fishing power usually increases within limited access 

programs, even when input controls are in place (e.g., Norwegian purse seine fishery, BC salmon fisheries, US New England groundfish fishery; Townsend, 1992; Anthony, 1990) due to creative circumvention of input controls. 

In west coast groundfish fisheries, declining fish abundance has necessitated the 

adoption of drastically reduced catch quotas and the imposition of smaller and 

smaller trip limits. Because the number of vessels is much higher than the number 

required to catch the available fish profitably, the low trip limits threaten the economic viability of many fishers. Moreover, the low trip limits induce discards, as 

fishermen try to maximize the value of the small loads that they can land by throwing back lower value fish. 

In contrast to open access and most limited access management regimes, almost 

all Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ) programs have effectively ended the race 

for fish and reduced overcapitalization (Muse and Schelle, 1989; Muse, 1991). Five 

of the six ITQ programs reviewed in NRC (1999) did so. 

Moreover, ITQ programs have an excellent conservation record. Of the ITQ programs reviewed in NRC (1999), only the Icelandic cod ITQ program failed to keep 

catch within TAC levels, and this was because many vessels were exempted from 

the ITQ program. Landings have been substantially below the TAC in the wreckfish 

ITQ program, perhaps because quota holders are ‘‘banking’’ fish in the hopes of realizing sustainable catches over the long term (NRC, 1999). Pressure to increase the 

TAC that existed prior to ITQs has now disappeared (NRC, 1999). The biological 

status of New Zealand fisheries has improved substantially since ITQs were implemented: 7.4% are overfished, 11% are above the biomass needed for MSY, 18% are 

at or near MSY biomass, and the status of 64% is unknown (NRC, 1999). 

The best picture of how US ITQ programs may operate can probably be obtained 

by looking at the performance of the Alaska sablefish and halibut ITQ program, because it is the only US ITQ program that incorporates many of the features that 

have been recommended by the NRC committee on Individual Fishing Quotas (e.g., 

caps on quota accumulation, owner-on-board requirement, etc.).

• The Alaska ITQ programs stopped the race for fish and increased season 

length from less than 5 days per year to 245 days per year, and reduced overcapitalization. 

• The TAC has never been exceeded under the Alaska ITQ programs (NRC, 

1999). 

• Bycatch discard was reduced by about 82% in the Alaska halibut fishery after 

ITQs were implemented (NRC, 1999). This estimate is uncertain. 

• Ghost fishing mortality for halibut was reduced by about 77% in the Alaska 

halibut fishery after ITQs were implemented (NRC, 1999). 

• There is no evidence of highgrading (dumping of lower value fish to maximize 

value of the quota share) resulting from the Alaska ITQ programs (NRC, 1999).

88

• Safety appears to have improved due to the Alaska ITQ programs, due to the 

end of the race for fish; search and rescue missions dropped by 63% after ITQs 

were implemented (NRC, 1999). 

• Excessive consolidation of fishing fleets and corporate takeovers of independent fishing firms has not occurred, probably due to the restrictions on ITQ 

ownership contained in the Alaska ITQ program. 

SOLUTIONS

(1) Scientific uncertainty.

• Keep the EFH mandates in the MFCMA intact, and provide more resources 

for conducting the research and mapping necessary to identify especially important habitats for protection. Environmental Defense fully supports the position 

of the Marine Fish Conservation Network on EFH. 

• Appropriate more money for fisheries science and research, but increase costeffectiveness by contracting with fishermen and graduate students. Focus on 

identifying important habitats, food web interactions, controls on reproduction 

and recruitment, quantifying discard mortality, reducing bycatch and discards, 

creating a new MSY policy for groundfish, and developing gear performance 

standards to minimize habitat damage. Recognize that due to natural variability, even substantial uncertainty will remain despite even quite large increases in research investment. 

• Establish networks of no-take marine reserves.

(2) Lack of management resolve and leadership.

• Create a better balance of stakeholder interests on the regional Councils by 

including more scientists, economists, conservationists, consumer advocates, etc. 

• Consider breaking regions up into smaller management areas.

(3) Management regime that creates incentives for overexploitation.

• Lift the moratorium on ITQs, on the condition that all ITQ programs comply 

with conservation principles as outlined in the Marine Fish Conservation Network agenda. ITQs can be structured to prevent undesirable social and economic outcomes, such as excessive consolidation of fleets or take-overs by large 

corporations, as well as to improve fisheries conservation. 

LITERATURE CITED

Anthony, V.C., 1990. The New England groundfishery after ten years under the 

Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act. North American Journal of 

Fisheries Management 10:175–184.

J. Engel and R. Kvitek, 1998. Effects of otter trawling on a benthic community in 

Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. Conservation Biology Vol. 12(6):1204–

1214).

Gorte, R.W., E.H. Buck, D.M. Sale, and A.C. Grenfell, 1985. Limiting access for commercial fish harvesting. Congressional Research Service, 8501151 ENR. 71 p.

Matthews, Kathleen R. and Laura J. Richards. 1991. Rockfish assemblages of 

trawlable and untrawlable habitats off Vancouver Island, British Columbia. North 

American Journal of Fisheries Management 11:3120318.

Muse, B., 1991. Survey of Individual Quota Programs. Alaska Commercial Fisheries 

Entry Commission, Juneau, Alaska. CFEC 91–7. 34 p.

Muse, B., and K. Schelle, 1989. Individual Fishermen’s Quotas: A preliminary review of some recent programs. Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission, Juneau, Alaska.

NRC, 1999. Sharing the fish: toward a national policy on Individual Fishing Quotas. 

Committee to Review Individual Fishing Quotas. Ocean Studies Board, National Research Council. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

Townsend, R.E., 1992. A fractional licensing program for fisheries. Land Economics 

68(2):185–190.

Waters, J.R., 1991. ITQs and the bycatch problem. Abstract, p. 50 in: Dewees, C.M. 

and Ueber, R. 1990 (eds.), Effects of different management schemes on bycatch, joint 

catch, and discards. Summary of a National Workshop sponsored by the Sea Grant 

College Program and the National Marine Fisheries Service. January 29–31, 1990, 

89

San Francisco, California. Report no. T–CSGCP–019 California Sea Grant College, 

University of California, La Jolla CA 92093–0232.

Senator SNOWE. Thank you. 

Dr. Sampson. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID SAMPSON, PH.D., ASSOCIATE 

PROFESSOR OF FISHERIES, OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY 

Dr. SAMPSON. Madam Chair, members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for inviting me to testify before you today. 

For the record, my name is David Sampson, and I am an Associate Professor of Fisheries at Oregon State University. My work 

includes preparing stock assessments for the Pacific Fishery Management Council and conducting research on the accuracy of stock 

assessment methods. I will focus my testimony primarily on the 

use of stock assessments in fisheries management, but I will also 

comment on the use of observers. 

Stock assessments provide fishery managers with the basic information regarding the status of exploited fish stocks. Many of our 

stocks are managed on the basis of annual harvest quotas that are 

derived from estimates of current stock size and estimated target 

fishing rates. These estimates of biomass and fishing rate are subject to considerable uncertainty. 

In general, there are two primary sources for the data used in 

the stock assessment. One set comes from scientific surveys of the 

stock. The other comes from the fishers, either in the form of landing receipts and logbooks, or from scientific sampling of the landed 

catch. Assessment scientists often use a catch-at-age analysis to reconstruct the demographic history of the stock and estimate the 

current exploitable biomass on which the harvest quota is based. 

Assessment scientists use a second type of analysis to derive the 

target fishing rate, the other key ingredient for calculating the harvest quota. 

In response to the new guidelines for the national standards established in the 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 

the Pacific Council adopted new definitions for overfishing, overfished and optimum yield, and established new procedures for setting the annual harvest quotas. These procedures are illustrated in 

the diagram. 

And if I could have the overhead please. 

These procedures are considerably more complex than the previous ones. And, in my view, they place unrealistic demands on 

fisheries science. The primary change was the addition of two 

thresholds. If the stock is greater than 40 percent of its unfished 

size, then the quota is just the product of the current stock size 

times the target fishing rate. If the stock drops below 40 percent 

of its unfished size, the target fishing rate is set below the FMSY 

level and the quota is reduced proportionately. If a stock drops 

below 10 percent of its unfished size, the target fishing rate is reduced to zero. 

It is entirely appropriate that fish stocks be managed more conservatively when they are at low levels. However, it is extremely 

problematic to implement this engineering approach to harvest policy because of our general inability to provide reliable estimates of 

current and unfished stock size. Also, for many of our west coast 

90

stocks, there are inadequate data available to estimate the current 

stock size, let alone the unfished size. 

Estimates of fish stock size are inherently imprecise. Consider, 

for example, estimates of stock size from recent assessments of a 

west coast stock of yellowtail rockfish. The stock size series estimated by the 1996 assessment was dramatically different from the 

1993 assessment, and indicated that significant reductions were 

needed in the annual harvest quota. The assessment was redone in 

1997, and the estimates of stock size and the harvest quota essentially returned to the levels estimated in the 1993 assessment. 

Part of the instability of west coast assessments is due to the 

general lack of reliable long-term survey and fishery data series. 

For example, the trawl survey estimates of rockfish stock size are 

highly imprecise. And the surveys are only conducted every third 

summer. However, even with thorough long-term monitoring and 

top-quality stock assessment science, our perceptions of stock status can be highly inaccurate. Pacific halibut off Alaska and northern cod in Atlantic Canada provide recent examples of stocks that 

have been extensively monitored and studied and yet, in retrospect, 

there were dramatic errors in the assessments of stock size. 

The harvest quota system that has developed as a result of the 

1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act is unrealistically complicated, given 

the level of accuracy that we can reasonably expect from our stock 

assessments. We need to develop fishery control systems that have 

simple data requirements and that are robust to data errors. 

With regard to observer programs, the Pacific Council does not 

currently have any observer programs. An observer program could 

provide information on the bycatch of fish that are currently discarded at sea. Better information on discards would undoubtedly 

improve the quality of our stock assessments. But so, too, would 

better survey or age composition data. 

Instituting an observer program to monitor at-sea discards seems 

an extraordinary way to handle the wastage of marketable fish. 

Counting how many fish are thrown overboard draws our attention 

to the problem, but it does little to solve it. Trawl fishers discard 

their catches of salmon and halibut because the law requires them 

to do so. Why cannot we have a system that allows trawl fishers 

to buy the rights to take incidental harvests of salmon and halibut 

rather than forcing the fish to be discarded at sea? The fish would 

not be wasted. The salmon and halibut fishers could be compensated for their lost fishing opportunities. And the public would 

enjoy additional fish in the market. 

Similarly, discarding of marketable fish due to trip limits could 

largely be eliminated if fishers were permitted to trade and stack 

fishing permits to cover their trip limit overages, a practice that is 

currently banned because of the SFA prohibition against individual 

fishing quotas. 

Madam Chair, this concludes my testimony. Thank you for inviting me to speak to you today. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Sampson follows:]

91

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID SAMPSON, PH.D., ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR

OF FISHERIES, OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY

Madam Chair and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to 

testify before you today on issues related to the reauthorization of the Sustainable 

Fisheries Act (SFA). For the record, my name is David Sampson and I am an Associate Professor of Fisheries at Oregon State University. My work includes preparing 

stock assessments for the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) on behalf of 

the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and conducting research on the accuracy of stock assessment methods, sponsored by the Oregon Sea Grant College Program. Also, I was a member of the National Research Council’s Committee to Review Individual Fishing Quotas and for six years (1993–98). I served the PFMC as 

an at-large member of its Scientific and Statistical Committee. You have asked me 

to testify on the impact of the SFA on fisheries in the Pacific Northwest and to 

make recommendations for the reauthorization of the Act. I will focus my testimony 

primarily on the use of stock assessments and scientific data in fisheries management, but, as requested, I will also comment on the use of observers and on the essential fish habitat provisions of the Act. 

STOCK ASSESSMENTS AND SCIENTIFIC DATA IN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

The two main problems confronting fisheries managers are determining acceptable levels of harvest and crafting regulations that will achieve those levels. Setting 

regulations is an especially difficult task because almost all regulations tend to 

favor one group of fishers over another. Political maneuvering to influence the regulations often is very intense. Because I have no expertise in fisheries regulations I 

will confine my testimony to issues related to determining target levels for harvest. 

Stock assessments provide fishery managers with basic information regarding the 

status of exploited fish stocks, whether they are increasing or decreasing and why. 

Many stocks are managed on the basis of annual harvest quotas. The quota for a 

stock is usually derived from the estimated current exploitable biomass and the estimated target fishing rate. Projections of future harvests can be made if the strength 

of incoming year-classes (the recruits) can be estimated or assumed. These estimates, of current biomass, the target fishing rate, and future recruitment, are subject to considerable uncertainty. Marine organisms are difficult to observe and reliably monitor and they are often subject to variable environmental factors over which 

Man has no control. Fishery managers aim to maintain the fish stocks and the fisheries that exploit those stocks, but they generally have imperfect information on the 

conditions of the stocks and dull instruments with which to affect the stocks. 

In general there are two primary sources for the data that are used in a stock 

assessment. One set of data comes from scientific surveys of the stock; the other 

comes from the fishers, either in the form of landing receipts and logbooks, or from 

scientific sampling of the landed catch. With a relatively long-lived organism assessment scientists often use a ‘‘catch-at-age analysis’’ to reconstruct the demographic 

history of the stock. This type of analysis provides the estimate of the current exploitable biomass on which the harvest quota is based. The analysis attempts to account for temporal changes in stock abundance based on landings and age composition data series from the fishery, coupled with stock size and age composition data 

series from the scientific surveys. Assessment scientists use a second type of analysis, usually a ‘‘yield-per-recruit’’ or ‘‘spawning-biomass-per-recruit’’ analysis, to derive the target fishing rate, the other key ingredient for calculating the harvest 

quota. These analyses use estimates of growth, mortality and maturity to gauge the 

impact of different fishing rates on the productive capacity of the stock. 

In response to the new guidelines for the National Standards established in the 

1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act, the Pacific Fishery Management Council amended its Pacific Coast Groundfish 

Fishery Management Plan. The Council adopted new definitions for ‘‘overfishing’’, 

‘‘overfished’’, and ‘‘optimum yield’’, and established new procedures for setting annual harvest quotas. The new procedures, illustrated in the diagram below, are considerably more complex than the previous ones and, in my view, they place unrealistic demands on fisheries science.

92

The primary change in the procedure for setting the ‘‘optimum yield’’ quota was the 

addition of two thresholds. If a stock is greater than 40% of its unfished size, then 

the quota is the product of the current stock size times the target fishing rate (FMSY, 

the fishing rate that produces the maximum sustainable yield, MSY). If a stock 

drops below 40% of its unfished size, the target fishing rate is set below the FMSY

level and the quota is reduced proportionately. If a stock drops below 10% of its 

unfished size, the target fishing rate is reduced to zero. 

It is entirely appropriate that fish stocks be managed more conservatively when 

they are at low levels. Compared to the Council’s old harvest policy (indicated in 

the diagram by the dashed line), the new policy will more rapidly rebuild an overfished stock to levels that will support larger and less variable harvests. However, 

it is extremely problematic to implement this engineering approach to harvest policy 

because of our general inability to provide reliable estimates of current and unfished 

stock size. We do not have a stable measure to gauge whether a stock is overfished. 

Similar problems arise with thresholds based on an MSY stock size level. Also, for 

many of our west coast stocks there are inadequate data available to estimate the 

current stock size, let alone the unfished stock size. 

Estimates of fish stock size are inherently imprecise. Consider, for example, estimates of stock size from recent assessments of a west coast stock of yellowtail rockfish.

The stock size series estimated by the 1996 assessment was dramatically different 

from the 1993 assessment and it indicated that significant reductions were needed 

in the annual harvest quota. The assessment was redone in 1997 and the estimates 

of stock size and the harvest quotas essentially returned to the levels estimated in 

the 1993 assessment. There have been similar dramatic changes in our perceptions 

of stock status with several other west coast stocks. 


0119sam1.eps 0119sam2.eps
93

Part of the instability of west coast stock assessments is due to a general lack 

of reliable long-term survey and fishery data series. For example, the trawl survey 

estimates of rockfish stock size are highly imprecise, with large coefficients of variation (50% or larger). Furthermore, the surveys are only conducted every third summer. Even with thorough long-term stock monitoring and top-quality stock assessment 

science our perceptions of stock status can be highly inaccurate. Pacific halibut off 

Alaska and British Columbia and Northern cod in Atlantic Canada provide recent 

examples of stocks that have been extensively monitored and studied, and yet retrospective analyses have uncovered dramatic errors in assessments’ estimates of stock 

size. In the case of Pacific halibut, assessments conducted in the mid 1990s estimated the stock size for Area 3A at about 130,000 tons in 1989, compared to the 

80,000 tons underestimated by the 1989 assessment. The reverse type of error occurred with Northern cod. Stock assessments conducted during the early 1980s overestimated stock size by a factor of two compared to estimates for the same period 

from later assessments. The consequence for Northern cod was overfishing, stock 

collapse, and the closure of what had been a highly productive and stable fishery. 

The harvest quota system that has developed as the result of the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act is unrealistically complicated given the level of accuracy that we 

can reasonably expect from our stock assessments. We need to develop fishery control systems that have simple data requirements and that are robust to data errors. 

OBSERVER PROGRAMS

The Pacific Fishery Management Council does not currently have any observer 

programs. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, in cooperation with the Oregon Trawl Commission and the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, has 

for several years operated a limited program with volunteer trawl vessels fishing 

from ports in Oregon. An observer program could provide information on the bycatch of fish that currently are discarded at sea. Some of these discards occur because the fish are unmarketable, some because they are prohibited species (e.g., 

salmon and halibut in the trawl fishery), and some because of the system of trip 

limits that the Council uses to slow the pace of fishing and thereby maintain yearround fisheries. west coast stock assessments generally attempt to account for these 

at-sea discards but do so without any current data. Better information on discards 

would undoubtedly improve the quality of our stock assessments, but so too would 

better survey or age-composition data. 

Instituting an observer program to monitor at-sea discards seems an extraordinary way to handle the wastage of marketable fish. Counting how many fish are 

thrown overboard draws our attention to the problem but does little to solve it. 

Trawl fishers discard their catches of salmon and halibut because the law requires 

them to do so. All of the discarded salmon and half or better of the discarded halibut 

do not survive the experience. The trawl fishers are no better off as a result of this 

practice, nor are the salmon and halibut fishers, nor are the stocks of salmon and 

halibut, nor is the general public. Why can’t we have a system that allows trawl 

fishers to buy the rights to take incidental harvests of salmon and halibut, rather 

than forcing the fish to be discarded at sea? The fish would not be wasted, the salmon and halibut fishers could be compensated for their lost fishing opportunities, and 

the public would enjoy additional fish in the market. Similarly, discarding of marketable fish due to trip limits could largely be eliminated if fishers were permitted 

to trade and stack fishing permits to cover their trip limit overages, a practice that 

is currently banned because of the SFA prohibition against individual fishing 

quotas. 

ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

All organisms require suitable habitat for their continued existence and successful 

reproduction. For many marine organisms the habitat requirements vary as the organisms grow through their various life stages. Defining on a scientific basis that 

a particular habitat is essential for the survival of a given organism is extremely 

difficult, except when done in very general terms. For many marine fishes along the 

west coast spawning occurs over a broad geographic range and the larval fish drift 

in the plankton for several months. During this interval the waters in which the 

larvae reside are essential to their continued existence. Given that there is a myriad 

of commercially important fish species along the west coast leads to the conclusion 

that the entire expanse of the territorial sea and beyond is essential fish habitat. 

Such a broad definition seems likely to have little practical importance. 

With regard to possible detrimental effects of fishing gear on the long-term productivity of the ecosystem, little information is available. Given the generally high 

94

degree of natural variability in the marine upwelling ecosystem off the west coast, 

it seems likely that long term studies will be required to establish conclusively 

whether or not the various types of fishing gear have more than just a transitory 

effect on bottom habitats. 

Madame Chair, this concludes my testimony. Thank you for inviting me to speak 

to you today.

Senator SNOWE. Thank you, Dr. Sampson. 

Mr. Leipzig. 

STATEMENT OF PETER LEIPZIG, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

FISHERMEN’S MARKETING ASSOCIATION 

Mr. LEIPZIG. Good morning, Madam Chairman and members of 

the Subcommittee. My name is Peter Leipzig. I am an Executive 

Director of the Fishermen’s Marketing Association. And I represent 

commercial groundfish and shrimp fishermen in Washington, Oregon and California. I have worked for the Fishermen’s Marketing 

Association since 1978. My education is in the field of zoology and 

wildlife management. And in the past, I have worked with the National Marine Fisheries Service, as well as the California Department of Fish and Game. 

I have been a participant in the Pacific Fishery Management 

Council process for nearly 22 years. And I have served on numerous Council committees and have served two terms as a Council 

member. I was Vice-Chairman of the Council for a two-year period, 

also. 

I have been asked to focus my comments on the stock assessment 

process and data collection. And it should be obvious without saying it, but the quality of any of our stock assessments is no better 

than the data and the quantity of data that goes into those assessments. To answer the question, ‘‘do we need more data,’’ well, yes, 

certainly we need more data. We need all sorts of data and all varieties of data. 

However, we have to be realistic. There are some data that we 

are never going to obtain. We cannot go back in time and begin collecting data that we have failed to collect in the past. And this 

missing data is a major shortcoming in many of our stock assessments, in my view. 

We lack some of the most fundamental information, such as 

landings data, prior to 20 years ago, for the rockfish species. We 

lumped 50-some species of rockfish into one category called ‘‘other 

rockfish.’’ And that is the way they come into the landing. So we 

had very little information on which species composed that category. 

In many cases, we lack length information and weight information and sex information. We have survey work that is conducted 

by the National Marine Fisheries Service. And others have referred 

to this, the tri-annual survey that is conducted once every three 

years. That survey is our longest time series, and it began in 1977. 

But we have very few data points over that 20-some-year period because of the frequency of that survey. It produces biomass estimates that are plus or minus 100 percent. They are not very precise estimates. 

So where are we right now? Well, we do not know how many fish 

we have caught. We do not know how old they are, for the most 

95

part. We do not know how fast they are growing. And we have poor 

estimates of our population trends. 

And even though this historic information is poor and we are 

making little progress to begin collecting contemporary information, the management system is demanding more and more technical answers. Now, I am supporter of the Council process and of 

regional management. However, I believe that our current system 

is broken. It has become too complicated and too rigid. We are simply demanding too much from science. 

A stock assessment scientist now is asked to estimate not only 

the current biomass with this limited information, but estimate the 

unfished biomass. And then project into the future what the yield 

should be for the purpose of establishing quotas. In reality, we 

would be lucky if we can detect what change is occurring in the 

stock itself. 

To better understand fish populations, biologists have attempted 

to model them. This modelling exercise requires much of the same 

information that we are lacking. But it also assumes that the environment is constant. We know that this is not correct. We know 

that the ocean environment is changing constantly. We know from 

science that long ago we had ice ages and that, since then, the 

earth has warmed up. We are no longer considered in an ice age. 

And that is a very long-term type of change. 

We also know that there are very short-term types of changes. 

This is the kind of thing that every fisherman can see from year 

to year. We have, for some species, very strong year classes that 

appear out of nowhere. And this is because the environment has 

provided the opportunity for those fish to experience that and survive. 

We are beginning now to understand that there are some 

changes that occur in the ocean environment that are more intermediate in length, perhaps 10 to 40 years. And during these periods, the ocean conditions are conducive for the survival of certain 

fish and not very conducive for the survival of other fish. And when 

this condition reverses, those species that were surviving in the 

past may be on a decline in the future. 

Oceanographers are referring to these as regime shifts. And it is 

widely agreed that in the Pacific region, a regime shift began in the 

late seventies. During this period, and others have mentioned it, 

we saw a decline in northern anchovies while we saw a similar increase in abundance of Pacific sardines. 

Relating to the groundfish fishery, through this period, we have 

seen a dramatic decrease in survival of young rockfish. Bocaccio 

rockfish is a species of very much concern. There has been nearly 

a complete recruitment failure of bocaccio rockfish since the late 

1970’s. The reason I am dwelling on this point is I think the fisheries management can no longer just take a snapshot in time and 

assume that those conditions are going to continue into the future. 

Central to our management system is the concept of MSY. And 

this assumes that there is some long-term average that we can harvest from our stocks. But it also assumes that the environment is 

constant. 

There is a concept that comes out of wildlife management called 

the carrying capacity. It refers to the amount of animals that a 

96

habitat can produce and sustain. It is in relation to the current 

ability of the habitat. As the habitat changes, the environment 

changes, and the carrying capacity decreases. I believe that this 

concept should be incorporated into our definition of what MSY is. 

If the Act were to be modified in such a way that we could begin 

thinking in terms of stocks that are at low levels of abundance, 

one, as those that have been overfished and are at low abundance; 

secondly, those that are at low abundance because man has caused 

some changes to the habitat; and, third, because the habitat itself 

has changed. And I think this would provide the Council some 

flexibility on how they go about approaching stocks at low abundance, rather than simply referring to them all as ‘‘overfished.’’ In conclusion, we need more data collection. We need survey 

work and port sampling, as Phil Anderson had referred to. We need 

to improve our systems for tracking the data collection that we do 

engage in. We need personnel in order to do it. But, most importantly, we need to begin imposing some common sense into determining when stock assessments can be conducted. And we need to 

begin thinking about non-quota approaches to managing some of 

our fish. The system in general has to become far more flexible. 

I see the red light has come on, and so I will end right there and 

answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Leipzig follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PETER LEIPZIG, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FISHERMEN’S MARKETING ASSOCIATION

Madame Chairwomen and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Peter Leipzig. I am the Executive Director of the Fishermen’s Marketing Association. I represent commercial groundfish and shrimp fishermen in Washington, Oregon, and 

California. 

I have worked for the Fishermen’s Marketing Association since 1978. My education is in the fields of Zoology and Wildlife Management. In the past I have 

worked for the National Marine Fisheries Service and the California Department of 

Fish and Game. 

I have been a participant in the Pacific Fishery Management Council process for 

nearly 22 years. I have served on numerous Council committees and as a Council 

member for two terms, including two years as vice-chair. 

I have been asked to focus my comments on the stock assessment process and 

data collection. The quality and quantity of data available for any species limits the 

quality of any of our stock assessments. Do we need more data? Yes, we need more 

data of various types. However, we will never obtain some data. We can not go back 

in time and begin to collect information that we did not collect in the past. This 

missing data is a major shortfall in many of our assessments. 

In most cases we lack the most fundamental information, such as landings data 

beyond 20 years ago. We used to lump 50-some species together as ‘‘other rockfish’’. 

In other cases we lack length, weight, and sex information. Bony structures used 

to age fish are not collected for most species. And needless to say, without bony 

structures, age validation studies for most species are not being conducted. 

The fisheries independent survey work that NMFS has performed for the longest 

time period on the Pacific Coast is conducted once every three years. This survey 

provides biomass estimates that are generally plus or minus 100%. 

So where are we? We do not know how many fish we caught, we do not know 

how old they were, we do not know how fast they grow, and we have poor estimates 

of trends in the populations. 

Even though we lack historical information and little progress is being made to 

collect contemporary data, the management system is demanding more and more 

technical answers. 

I am a supporter of the Council process and of regional management of the resource. However, I believe that our current system is broken. We have made this 

process too complicated and too rigid. We are demanding too much from science. An 

assessment scientist must tell the Council what the current biomass is, what the 

97

unfished biomass was, and project yields for quotas into the future. In reality, we 

would be lucky to show whether a population is changing. Yes, assessment scientists 

can produce the information we ask of them, but around the country—sport and 

commercial fishermen—are reacting with disbelief to many of these assessments. 

Their perception of the status of a stock of fish does not jive with the conclusions 

of many stock assessments. 

To better understand fish populations, biologists have attempted to model them. 

This requires information about growth, mortality, and removals. This required information is the same data that we are missing or have very little. We also assume 

that the environment is constant. We assume that a fish population in a state of 

equilibrium will produce the same amount of offspring, will grow at the same rate, 

and produce the same amount of fish that can be harvested year after year. 

Change in the environment is not part of the model, even though we know the 

ocean environment is a dynamic, ever changing system. We know from science that 

there are very long-term changes in the environment. We know that many years ago 

there was an ice age and that gradually the environment has warmed up. We also 

see very short-term changes. From year to year the ocean environment is different 

and for some species this may be seen as strong year classes. 

What we are beginning to understand is that there are changes that are more intermediate in length. These may be 10 to 40 years in duration. During these periods 

some species may prosper, while others may decline. When these conditions reverse, 

those species that had done well may begin to decline and those that had not done 

well will increase in abundance. 

Oceanographers call these changes ‘‘regime shifts’’. It is widely agreed that a regime shift occurred in the North Pacific in the late 1970’s. During this time we saw 

a decline in abundance of northern anchovy and an increase in abundance in Pacific 

sardine. More importantly to the Pacific groundfish fishery, there has been a dramatic decrease in the survival of young rockfish. For bocaccio rockfish, there has 

been a near complete recruitment failure since the late 1970’s. Why am I dwelling on this point? It is important in fisheries management that 

we do not simply take a ‘‘snapshot in time’’ and assume that those conditions will 

continue in the future. Fish populations that exist today could decline in the future 

simply because of changes in the ocean environment. Similarly, a fish population 

in the past may have been very large because environmental conditions were good, 

while the population may currently be at a low level because environment conditions are poor. 

Central to our management system is the concept of Maximum Sustainable Yield 

(MSY). This concept assumes that there is some maximum amount of fish that can 

be removed from a stock of fish every year without impacting the stock. This concept 

assumes that the environment is relatively stable and therefore has little impact on 

the abundance of fish. This concept is flawed. We know the environment can significantly influence the abundance of fish. 

There is a concept in wildlife management that has never made it into fisheries 

management, called the carry capacity. This is the maximum population the environment can support any point in time. It recognizes that the environment changes 

and therefore the number of animal will also change. I believe this concept should 

be incorporated into the Act in relation to MSY. 

If the Act were to incorporate such a concept, then we could begin to think about 

stocks being at low levels of abundance as a result of: (1) overfishing, (2) mancaused impacts to the environment, and (3) natural fluctuation to the environment. 

Currently, the Act labels any stock at low levels of abundance as ‘‘overfished’’, even 

when a river dries up in a drought and all the salmon die. This distinction would 

allow Councils to continue to address overfishing problems, but could provide Councils needed flexibility in managing other stocks of fish. 

One example of a data poor situation that the Pacific Council has dealt with this 

past year is the southern lingcod. The assessment was peer reviewed by a Stock Assessment Review (STAR) Panel last summer. 

During the several-day review, the author on a daily basis expressed his opinion 

that sufficient data did not exist to conduct the assessment. He had only six years 

of biological information. He did have three sets of fishery-dependent trend data; 

however, none of these included the last several years. The modeling exercise was 

conducted and an estimate of current biomass was produced. An unfished biomass 

was estimated using high estimates of recruitment from earlier periods of greater 

abundance. 

It was determined that the current biomass was less than 10% of the unfished 

level; therefore the stock was declared overfished. Sport and commercial fishermen 

both believed the stock to be in excellent condition. Nevertheless, regulations have 

been implemented that effectively have terminated a fishery for lingcod. 

98

All of the data used in this assessment came from the fishery. Without a fishery, 

there is no method to monitor the recovery of this stock from its declared overfished 

state. The rebuilding plan contains a schedule of how much lingcod can be taken 

every year, and at the end of ten years the stock will be declared rebuilt. The loss 

of the fishery data over that ten-year period will hinder future stock assessment. 

In conclusion, we need increased data collection through survey work and port 

sampling. We need to improve our data collection system of tracking landings, including recreational catch. There is the need for more personnel to collect and deal 

with this additional data. But most importantly we need to impose common sense 

in determining when stock assessments can be conducted. We need to think about 

non-quota approaches to managing some of our fish. The system must become more 

flexible. 

Lastly, we need to begin addressing fishing capacity reduction on a national level. 

And I ask you to lift the moratorium on new ITQ systems.

Senator SNOWE. Thank you. Did you have much more? Did you 

want to finish your statement? Go ahead. 

Mr. LEIPZIG. I would like to just say this. And it has nothing to 

do with data collection, but, as everyone else, I’ll get my digs in. 

I think the time has come for the prohibition on ITQ’s to be lifted. 

I think that it is a legitimate management tool. And the management Councils should have the flexibility to proceed with the development and implementation of those types of systems. 

We also need to begin addressing the capacity issue on a national 

level. We have far too many people engaged in fishing activities. 

We need to find a way for them to exit the fisheries in a graceful 

manner. Right now, people can certainly leave the fishery. But they 

cannot do it by selling their business. Nobody is going to be buying 

boats entering into the fishing business at this point. We need to 

find some way for the Federal Government to participate in removing some of this effort. 

And lastly, on observers, and I guess this does relate back to 

data collection, but I think there need to be clear objectives when 

an observer program is going to be implemented, and that some 

sort of uniform deployment of those persons across all users of the 

resource, people that are interacting in a fishery with the species 

in a fishery, should all be sampled. It cannot just be heavily 

weighted to the people that catch the most of those fish. 

And reasonable costs have to be derived. The mean gross revenue 

in the groundfish trawl fishery for the three States of the Pacific 

groundfish fishery was $160,000 in 1998. Things are worse now. I 

have been told that observer costs for an observer company run in 

the neighborhood of $7,500 a month. That is $90,000 if you have 

an observer 12 months year. And 100 percent observer coverage is 

not going to be realistic if you expect for the industry to pay for 

the bill, because there is not that kind of money in this fishery. 

Thank you. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you. 

Mr. Anderson. 

STATEMENT OF SAM ANDERSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

MASTER BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF KING AND SNOHOMISH 

COUNTIES, WASHINGTON 

Mr. SAM ANDERSON. Madam Chair, members of the Committee, 

my name is Sam Anderson. I am the Executive Officer of the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties. I am 

also a member of the National Association of Home Builders. And 

99

today I represent not only the building industry, but also other industries that belong to the Essential Fish Habitat Coalition, which 

includes the National Association of Homebuilders, the American 

Forest and Paper Association, the Bay Delta Urban Coalition, the 

Edison Electric Institute, and the Association of California Water 

Agencies. 

As a representative of the home building industry, I find it unusual to be speaking to this Subcommittee and on this panel, commenting on a statute that is intended to ensure sustainable populations of fish so they can be commercially harvested. But our coalition is here to ask the Subcommittee to consider three requests 

while passing the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

First, we ask Congress to clarify in legislation its original intentions for the essential fish habitat program by narrowing the definition of essential fish habitat. We believe Congress never intended 

for the National Marine Fisheries Service to interpret the program 

as broadly as it has. 

Second, we ask Congress to prohibit NMFS from imposing mandatory duties or timeframes on other Federal agency actions. Third, 

we ask that Congress direct NMFS to immediately develop a general concurrence for those activities that are already regulated and 

cause minimal impacts to areas identified as essential fish habitat. 

I would like to touch briefly on our main concerns. First is our 

concern with NMFS’ interpretation of Congress’ intent. Congress 

spoke only of establishing guidelines and providing information on 

essential habitat. There is no indication in the Act that the essential fish habitat provisions should be of a regulatory nature. But, 

under the proposed EFH program, Federal action agencies are required to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service and 

are required to provide a written assessment wherein there are 

mandated timeframes as part of that consultation process. 

These requirements establish a new mandatory series of actions 

for Federal agencies. There is little doubt in our minds that the essential fish habitat regulations could delay or stop building permits, timber permits and other land-based activities in the Puget 

Sound. Further, if time lines are not met and recommendations are 

not followed, we are concerned that private parties will pursue litigation and even more permits and projects will be delayed. 

Secondly, we are concerned NMFS’s definition of essential fish 

habitat is too broad. NMFS’ final interim rule retains an extremely 

broad definition of essential fish habitat. The regional fishery management Councils are mapping all existing and potentially historical habitat. When all habitat is covered under the program, the 

term ‘‘essential’’ becomes meaningless. We expect, with this broad 

interpretation, NMFS will be regulating activities occurring on inland waterways. 

For example, the proposed essential fish habitat designations for 

salmon within the Pacific Fishery Council include the existing geographic range of all salmon species and much of their historic 

range. And I have with me the map that I think Senator Gorton 

was looking for when he was talking to Will Stelle. You will notice 

that most of the watersheds certainly west of the Cascades in the 

State of Washington have now been designated as essential fish 

habitat. 

100

And to answer your question, yes, all of the 200-mile limit has 

been designated, as well. 

Third, we are concerned about the information gathered to identify essential fish habitat. NMFS’ interim final rule provides that 

data for identifying essential fish habitat should be obtained from 

the best available information. The information gathering procedures of both NMFS and the fishery management Councils ignore 

non-fishing entities or interests. 

A Council system is designed to promote the interests of the fishing community, and justifiably. Yet the information from these 

Councils will carry great weight in determining essential habitat, 

and it will truly impact non-fishing interests. Also of concern in 

this area is NMFS’ reliance on historic information when mapping 

essential habitat. 

Fourth, we are concerned with the essential fish habitat consultation provisions. The interim final rule sets forth extremely 

stringent criteria for a consultation that does not take advantage 

of existing processes. NMFS often states that the essential fish 

habitat program is a voluntary information gathering tool. Yet it 

has promulgated a regulation that requires Federal action agencies 

to prepare essential fish habitat assessments, undertake other 

mandatory measures and meet mandatory deadlines. We believe 

Congress should direct NMFS to base the program purely as an information exchange process. 

Fifth, we are concerned that the essential fish habitat consultation process is duplicative and redundant. For the most part, landbased activities have been addressed and controlled through numerous Federal, State and local laws and regulations. Most coastal 

States, including Washington, California and Oregon, have particularly stringent environmental protection laws at the State and local 

levels. And all three of these States have comprehensive land planning and regulations protecting environmentally significant areas 

and lands. 

For these reasons, we believe it is important that a general concurrence policy be implemented between NMFS and other Federal 

agencies, and Congress should address the cost/benefit of this program. 

Lastly, we are concerned with the unavailability and the lack of 

information. In my written statement, I have outlined information 

we believe should be provided by NMFS so that the American public and Congress can conduct meaningful review of the essential 

fish habitat consultations done to date. We ask that this Subcommittee request similar information, as outlined in my written 

testimony, from NMFS. Having significant information about consultations will be important if Congress is to evaluate the implementation of the EFH program to date. 

In conclusion, we believe it is important that Congress clearly define the essential fish habitat provision’s intent when it addresses 

reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act this year. Congress 

should also assist the American public by halting implementation 

of the essential fish habitat program until more guidance can be 

provided in the Act itself. Our coalition is, has been, and continues 

to be engaged with the National Marine Fisheries Service and ConVerDate Apr 24 2002 09:41 Jul 25, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\77585.TXT SCOM2 PsN: JACKF
101

1For convenience sake, I will use the acronym ‘‘MSA’’ from now on. 

gress in a discussion on how this program should work and where 

we might help. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sam Anderson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SAM ANDERSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MASTER BUILDERS

ASSOCIATION OF KING AND SNOHOMISH COUNTIES, WASHINGTON

Madame Chair, members of the Committee, my name is Sam Anderson and I am 

the Executive Officer of the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish 

Counties. I am also a member of the National Association of Home Builders. Today, 

I represent not only the building industry but also other industries that belong to 

the Essential Fish Habitat Coalition. This Coalition is comprised of diverse non-fishing resource and business interests including the National Association of Home 

Builders, the American Forest and Paper Association, the Bay Delta Urban Coalition, the Edison Electric Institute and the Association of California Water Agencies. 

We are all extremely concerned about the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) implementation of the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Act.1

First and foremost, the coalition is very concerned with the scope of the Essential 

Fish Habitat provisions as proposed by NMFS. The coalition believes that NMFS 

has far exceeded Congressional intent in its implementation. Because we work in 

heavily regulated industries, we worry that the proposed Essential Fish Habitat regulations will slow down permits and foster law suits—which will only raise the cost 

of conducting business for our industries. Worse, the requirements under the proposed regulation are redundant and duplicative. 

As a representative of the home building industry, I find it curious to be speaking 

before a Senate Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries commenting on a statute 

intended to ensure sustainable populations of fish, so they can be commercially harvested. Yet, those familiar with the recently developed Essential Fish Habitat program will understand why I am here and why builders, developers, miners, hydropower electricity providers, farmers, and timber manager, nationwide are so concerned. We all know that the Essential Fish Habitat designation acts as a federal 

zoning overlay. The designation will ultimately result in land use restrictions and 

economic impacts on both coastal and upland land areas. 

As a result of this, we ask you to consider three requests while passing the reauthorization of MSA. First, we ask Congress to clarify in legislation its original intent 

for this program by narrowing or clarifying the MSA’s definition of Essential Fish 

Habitat. The coalition believes Congress never intended for NMFS to interpret the 

program as broadly as it has. Second, we ask Congress to prohibit NMFS from imposing mandatory duties or timeframes on other federal agency actions. Third, we 

ask that Congress direct NMFS to immediately develop a ‘‘general concurrence’’ for 

those activities that are already regulated and cause minimal impacts to areas identified as EFH. 

We do not dispute the importance of efforts to identify and conserve the vital 

habitat areas of the United States’ domestic fisheries. Our central opposition to the 

EFH regulatory program is that it superimposes the MSA decision process onto the 

land development process—a process that is already subject to state and federal 

comprehensive regulatory programs that address the full range of environmental 

concerns, including fish habitat. 

1. NMFS is Acting Beyond the Scope of Congress’ Intent in Developing Consultation Program 

The home building industry, as well as the other members of our coalition, are 

very heavily regulated and sensitive to any additional pending restrictions on our 

activities. We believe Congress’ intent under the MSA was to create a consultation 

program, not a new regulatory scheme. In fact, Congress spoke only of establishing 

guidelines and providing information on essential habitat. 

Unfortunately, we believe very strongly that, based on NMFS’s overzealous interpretation of the MSA, we will indeed face new mandated regulatory requirements. 

Let me explain. Under the proposed program, federal action agencies are required 

to consult with NMFS and to provide a written assessment as to how an agency 

action will effect EFH. Once NMFS has responded by providing the agency their determination and recommendation, the agency is required to reply (again in writing) 

as to whether or not they will follow NMFS’s recommendation. This requirement 

102

2See attached maps [Contact the Master Builders Association]. 

will divert key federal agency staff from normal permitting and operational duties. 

Further, it is highly unlikely that these written responses by the agencies will be 

within the time limits established by the program. We do not know what effect this 

three part process will have on permits, but suspect that it will cause significant 

delays as the same staff which provided the assessment must justify their failure 

to meet the deadlines of the program. Meantime, permits and agency tasks languish. Further, if time lines are not met and recommendations are not followed, we 

are concerned that private parties will pursue litigation and even more permits and 

projects will be delayed. 

We are also concerned that conflicts and disagreements between NMFS and federal agencies over consultation issues will undoubtedly arise. How will these be resolved? We do not know. But, we strongly believe that disagreement between NMFS 

and another agency will take time to settle, leading to additional permit delays and 

costs. 

We also suspect that very soon NMFS, working with other agencies, will require 

that industry pay for the EFH impact assessments. NMFS has argued in its final 

interim rule that it will not impose new or additional enforceable duties on State, 

local, tribal or private sector entities that would constitute a federal mandate. This 

has been misleading. Let me explain why. The rule requires federal agencies to complete detailed EFH assessments for many private sector activities requiring federal 

permits or other authorization. The rule authorizes these agencies to designate a 

non-federal representative to prepare the assessment. This creates a problem in that 

federal-permitting agencies, not funded themselves to complete EFH assessments, 

will require nonfederal private applicants to pay for them in order to obtain needed 

permits. As we have learned under the Endangered Species Act, part of the cost of 

getting a permit is usually gathering information and research for the agency. 

2. The Definition of EFH is Overly Broad 

NMFS’s final interim rule retains an extremely broad definition of ‘‘essential’’ fish 

habitat. The Regional Fishery Management Councils are mapping all existing and 

potentially historical habitat. When all habitat is covered under the program, the 

term ‘‘essential’’ becomes meaningless. The EFH designations should carry some 

measure of unique value, if they are to have any added benefit for protecting and 

restoring salmon populations and their essential habitats. 

In contrast, NMFS has interpreted EFH in its regulations to cover not only the 

critically important essential habitat, but instead concluded the designation should 

cover all habitat necessary to a ‘‘healthy ecosystem.’’ In other words, rather than 

isolating ‘‘essential’’ habitat as a subset of all habitat, NMFS designated ‘‘essential’’ the ecosystem within which the fish habitat is located. An overreaching interpretation indeed. 

This interpretation means that NMFS will regulate activities occurring on inland 

waters. Once inland, NMFS unsurprisingly announced the need for ‘‘watershed’’ planning—not only would rivers, estuaries, and wetlands be covered, but also all 

areas that could impact those waters. Finally, NMFS determined that it was not 

enough to cover waters where fish currently are found, but also that EFH should 

cover areas where fish historically were found. 

Rather than debate the definition in an academic manner, it is illustrative to review how the definition is being implemented by NMFS. The proposed EFH designations for salmon within the Pacific Fishery Council include the existing geographic 

range of all salmon species and much of their historical range.2 These maps illustrate the broad brush used by the Fish Councils and NMFS in identifying EFH. Virtually every watershed within Washington State is included within the EFH designation. And, it is important to remember that the regulatory reach of the EFH 

program, as devised by NMFS, includes a review of not only the actions within designated EFH, but those activities outside EFH that ‘‘may adversely affect’’ EFH. A 

vast landscape of NMFS influence and control. 

In addition to its definition of the word ‘‘essential’’ NMFS uses a very broad definition for the term ‘‘adverse effect’’. It is defined as ‘‘any impact that reduces quality 

and/or quantity of EFH.’’ This includes any loss of prey or reduction in species fecundity. All activities anywhere are likely to have some ‘‘adverse effect’’ somewhere

on EFH as that term is now defined. As best we can see, there is no limiting principle that would leave any activity outside of NMFS purview. 

We find especially troubling the question of lost ‘‘prey.’’ NMFS states that actions 

that reduce the availability of prey species or prey species habitat may be considered adverse effects on managed species and EFH. Since NMFS offers no corresponding requirement that the loss have some meaningful impact on the managed 

103

fishery, the loss of a few prey or a whole population may qualify as an adverse effect. Thus, actions, which have little or no impact on truly essential habitat, may 

nonetheless be regulated under these provisions. 

3. Information Used to Identify EFH 

NMFS’s interim final rule provides that data for identifying EFH should be obtained from the ‘‘best available information.’’ The regional Fish Councils are to use 

logbooks and local knowledge in this identification. The information gathering procedures of both NMFS and the Councils ignore non-fishing entities that are not given 

a comparable role in providing information and shaping habitat identification and 

recommendations. Nonetheless, we will be significantly impacted by these regulations. The Council system is complex, cumbersome, and unresponsive to non-fishing 

interests and designed to promote the interests of the fishing community, not strike 

a balance between fishing and non-fishing sectors. 

The possibility that historic habitat may be designated as EFH points out further 

problems with the EFH identification approach. Presence of a species, either historic 

or current, in an area does not mean that the species can survive or reproduce in 

that area. There should be some assurances that information will be developed to 

identify habitats that are truly essential—and not just potential or historic. 

4. Consultation Provisions 

NMFS has stated to the regulated community that it will strongly encourage the 

use of existing consultation and environmental review processes to satisfy the EFH 

requirement. By contrast, the interim final rule sets forth extremely stringent criteria for the consultation that does not take advantage of existing processes. 

For example, as part of the stringent consultation rules, the regional Fish Councils have been given a role in determining whether general concurrences may be 

used when allowing public review of the concurrence. NMFS also hopes to develop 

agreements with the Councils to coordinate comments and recommendations on actions affecting EFH. Thus, through formal agreements with NMFS, the Councils 

will have a role in determining the end product of an EFH consultation. All of these 

changes make the consultation process even more difficult to deal with for non-fishing, regulated entities—and they vest improper power in the Councils. 

As noted above, the homebuilders and other members of our coalition have little 

input into the way the Councils act. Indeed, they are heavily weighted to consider 

fishing interests. But, we will be subjected to the regulatory power of the Councils 

through NMFS’s regulatory scheme. We do not believe this result was ever intended. Indeed, it is notable that when the EFH concept was being developed during 

the 1996 MSA reauthorization process, the views of the non-fishing sector were 

never solicited. Why? Because, quite obviously, Congress did not intend that inland 

interest groups be pulled into the program. But, NMFS has now expanded the EFH 

program so extensively that non-fishing interests are forced to become involved. 

5. The EFH Assessment 

NMFS has written that the EFH assessment must include an analysis of alternatives ‘‘particularly when an action is non-water dependent.’’ Nothing in the terminology of the MSA, its legislative history, or case law suggests that the Act covers 

non-fishing, non-water dependent activities such as land development or construction activities, mining, timber harvesting, etc. This particularized burden on federal 

agencies to assess alternatives to non-water dependent actions is not only unauthorized, it is also without any basis in reason. Why is it more appropriate, in order 

to protect fish habitat, to consider alternatives to non-water dependent activities 

when certain fishing (i.e., water dependent) activities are acknowledged to contribute equally to EFH degradation? 

There are numerous other problems with the consultation process. For example, 

the rule states that the purpose of the procedures is to ‘‘promote the protection of 

EFH.’’ This standard of providing ‘‘protection’’ is found nowhere in the MSA. NMFS 

may request further review of any federal agency decision that is inconsistent with 

a NMFS EFH recommendation. There is no authority for this requirement. The acting agency need only respond in writing; NMFS cannot perpetuate the consultation 

process or mandate a result in this manner. 

6. Duplicative and Redundant Provisions 

Without a doubt, there are activities that threaten fish habitat that are causing 

fish populations to decline and affect commercial fisheries. These activities should 

be regulated to ensure that their impacts are minimized and mitigated. We, however, do not believe that land-based activities are causing a significant enough adverse impact to warrant the burdensome consultation process set forth in the EFH 

interim final rule. This is not to say that many land-based activities do not cause 

104

deleterious environmental impacts. However, for the most part these impacts have 

been eradicated through the numerous federal, state, and local laws and regulations 

already in place. The environmental regulations established since 1970 have precluded significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on all land, whether it 

is essential fish habitat or not. Most coastal states including Washington, California, 

Oregon have particularly stringent environmental protection laws at the state and 

local levels. And, all three states have comprehensive land planning and regulations 

protecting environmentally significant areas and lands. 

Over the past two years, NAHB, as well as other Coalition members, have repeatedly asked the NMFS and the Fish Councils to identify the adverse impacts to those 

areas considered Essential Fish Habitat that are not already addressed by other 

regulations. Sediment and runoff, for example, which can be problematic for many 

fish species, is largely eliminated by the federal storm water program administered 

by the Environmental Protection Agency and local storm water management requirements. Consequently, NMFS’s role in this heavily regulated area adds little because runoff and pollutant discharge issues are well defined, well regulated, and appropriately mitigated to the extent possible by existing federal, state and local agencies. 

We are concerned that the EFH program, as described in the NMFS interim final 

regulations, already has grown into yet another regulatory impediment imposed by 

Congress on businesses as a condition to receiving a federal permit. A large variety 

of permits could be affected. The EFH regulations could delay or halt altogether 

building permits, timber permits, and other land-based activities in the Puget Sound 

region. 

NMFS often states that the EFH program is a voluntary information gathering 

tool, yet it has promulgated a regulation that requires action agencies to prepare 

EFH assessments and undertake other mandatory measures and meet mandatory

deadlines. Congress did not vest NMFS with the power to impose these duties on 

other agencies and, if the program is to be cooperative and voluntary as NMFS asserts, these requirements must be deleted and replaced with cooperative mechanisms. For example, Congress should direct NMFS to recast the program so that 

NMFS will provide helpful information about truly essential habitat for fish species 

of concern, allowing other agencies to consider that information in their own reviews 

of projects without formal requirements for EFH assessments and consultations. 

Without this Congressional direction, there will undoubtedly be permitting delays. 

The cost of getting permits will increase—due to delays, due to the need to undertake consultation and prepare EFH assessments, due to the inevitable slippage in 

deadlines that cover the federal agencies, and due to the cost of complying with 

EFH restrictions. Permits are likely to be subject to new restrictions. In some cases, 

permits for activities are likely to be denied. And keep in mind, these are not restrictions for species in danger of extinction, they are restrictions to protect the 

habitat of all fished species, no matter how plentiful or widely dispersed. 

7. Lack of Information 

This Committee and the public must be given sufficient information about these 

consultations to evaluate the implementation of the EFH program to date. The following information should be provided by NMFS so that the American public and 

Congress are enabled some level of meaningful review of EFH consultations to date: 

(a) The number of consultations completed, by NMFS Region; 

(b) The average time taken to complete a consultation, and the range and distribution of time taken for each consultation around that average; 

(c) The average cost of each consultation, in dollars and person-hours or full 

time equivalents (‘‘FTEs’’), and the range and distribution of the costs of each 

consultation around that average; 

(d) The distribution and amount of that cost among NMFS, action agencies, 

third party applicants for federal authorizations, and others; 

(e) The number of consultations in each category described under the interim 

final rule: national general concurrences; regional general concurrences; abbreviated, expanded, extended, and supplemental consultations; and separately the 

number of programmatic versus project-specific consultations; 

(f) The number of documented ‘‘no effect’’ determinations by action agencies, 

the number of these with which NMFS concurred/did not concur, and the number of these for which an EFH consultation was nevertheless completed; 

(g) The number of consultations involving federal actions for which ESA consultation was also completed, and the number of these which involved ESA consultation with NMFS; 

(h) The number of consultations involving federal actions for which the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) documentation was also completed, 

105

and the category of NEPA documentation completed (e.g., Environment Assessment or Environment Impact Statement); 

(i) The number of consultations involving other environmental analysis documentation besides an EFH assessment, and the number of these for which the 

environmental documentation prepared for other purposes also served as the 

EFH assessment, without modification to meet EFH consultation requirements; 

(j) Other information about how EFH consultation was consolidated or integrated with procedures such as NEPA, ESA, Federal Power Act licensing procedures, and Coastal Zone Management Act regulations for individual or collective 

actions; 

(k) Categories of activities for which EFH consultations were completed, including the basic categories of fishing and nonfishing, more specific federal action categories such as Clean Water Act Section 404 permits and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission power facility licensing or relicensing, and more 

specific types of activities, such as timber sales, road projects, marina developments, oil and gas drilling, hardrock mineral extraction, housing subdivisions, 

agricultural water diversions, and so on; 

(l) How many EFH consultations have been initiated, but not yet completed, 

and how long they have been pending; and 

(m) The categories and representative examples of recommendations made by 

NMFS in consultations, action agency disagreements with such recommendations, and how these differences were resolved. 

We ask that this Committee request NMFS to compile this kind of information 

in a format that facilitates understanding of the EFH consultations which have occurred so far and that enables constructive further comment. 

Conclusion 

The non-fishing sector does not oppose the EFH concept. Indeed, we address these 

concerns regularly. However, we believe the actions set forth in the EFH provisions 

are duplicative and redundant and we seriously question the cost/benefit of this program. Even NMFS has said that of the 2000 consultation to date, most were already 

covered by some other environmental review. NMFS has also said that they strongly 

encourage the use of existing consultation and environmental review processes to 

satisfy the EFH requirements, yet the rule sets forth extremely stringent criteria 

for the use of any such process. 

When asked why the EFH definition is so broad that it now includes almost the 

entire coastline of the United States, and substantial upland habitats, NMFS points 

to the lack of guidance it received from Congress. The 1996 Amendments, NMFS 

asserts, established a broad and vague definition of the term. So NMFS moved in, 

filling what they perceived as the void. It is important that Congress clearly define 

the EFH provisions when it reauthorizes the Magnuson-Stevens Act this year. Congress should also assist the American people by halting implementation of the EFH 

program until more guidance can be provided in the Act itself. Our coalition is, has 

been, and continues to be engaged with NMFS and Congress in a discussion on how 

this program should work and where we might help. 

Thank you for your time today and consideration of our concerns.

Senator SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. Anderson. I will start with you. 

Do you have any examples of how the EFH process has directly 

affected your constituency and the industries that you represent? 

Mr. SAM ANDERSON. I do not in this region, but I can provide you 

some through the National Association of Home Builders. 

Senator SNOWE. Do you know of any specific examples anywhere 

in this country where this has had a negative impact? 

Mr. SAM ANDERSON. I have not personally been involved in them, 

but I have been told by the National Association that it has. 

Senator SNOWE. We have been getting testimony from others 

who represent non-fishing interests. Did you ever think non-fishing 

interests were intended to be covered by this designation? 

Mr. SAM ANDERSON. No, we did not. What I find interesting in 

it is that about a year and a half ago, this came to light. And we 

focused a lot of our attention in the building industry out here on 

the Endangered Species Act and the listing of the chinook, and all 

of a sudden, out of the blue, came the essential fish habitat proviVerDate Apr 24 2002 09:41 Jul 25, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\77585.TXT SCOM2 PsN: JACKF
106

sions that nobody thought we had anything to do with essential 

fish habitat, fish management, or the Pacific Fisheries Council or 

any of this other stuff. 

Then, the next thing we know, in the building business, suddenly 

there is a potential that our permitting activities will be regulated 

through essential fish habitat and the designation of significant inland waterways as essential fish habitat. No, we were not prepared. 

Senator SNOWE. So you see it as another bureaucratic impediment and overlay in the process? 

Mr. SAM ANDERSON. Yes, we do. 

Senator SNOWE. It was intended to be a consultation process, but 

that has become another matter. You believe it may be too restrictive? 

Mr. SAM ANDERSON. That is correct. 

Senator SNOWE. You believe the process causes delays and complicates decisionmaking on federally permitted projects. 

Dr. Fujita, can you tell me, are you satisfied with the current 

provisions of essential fish habitat? You believe they should be 

broad, is that correct? 

Dr. FUJITA. That is right, Senator Snowe. 

Senator SNOWE. You do not see any problems in the way that it 

is being interpreted at this point? I would like to have Dr. Sampson 

and Mr. Leipzig also comment on this issue. We have heard considerable testimony from various witnesses at other hearings about 

the broad interpretation of the essential fish habitat provisions 

what was truly originally intended by EFH is more similar to how 

the more narrow habitat areas of particular concern are currently 

being defined. 

Would you agree that there are some problems with the overly 

broad interpretation of the essential fish habitat provisions? We 

have even found that the entire Gulf of Maine and the entire EEZ 

have been designated as EFH. Do you think that such a broad designation was truly intended by the original definition? 

Dr. FUJITA. I do not question the concerns of stakeholders who 

feel that the EFH provisions have been overly interpreted or too 

broadly interpreted. I am sure there are problems on the ground. 

I am not aware of any in my region, in the Bay Delta. EFH is not 

complicating the Bay Delta process to restore salmon habitat. But, 

again, I am not going to question those people who do have problems. 

What I would say is that the narrow interpretation of Federal 

and State laws that protect the environment, the Balkanization of 

those laws and jurisdictions, has been a major cause of habitat 

fragmentation and is one of the reasons we are in the state we are 

in today with respect to salmon and, I think in the future, with respect to marine habitat, if we do not get our act together. The fact 

that water and forests and riparian areas, flood plains, and fish 

were all under different jurisdictions is one reason that the ecosystem has collapsed. 

There has been a great need, and it has been brought to the attention of management agencies and the Federal Government for 

years by ecosystem scientists, for what we call an ecosystem approach, in which the jurisdictions are swept aside and natural sysVerDate Apr 24 2002 09:41 Jul 25, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\77585.TXT SCOM2 PsN: JACKF
107

tems, or rather human impacts on natural systems, are managed 

with respect to ecosystem boundaries, not Federal agency jurisdictions. 

EFH is a first step in that direction. Because of its broad definition, it enables NMFS to act as a coordinating agent and bring together these disparate, well-intentioned though they may be, but 

disparate efforts. Coordination is the key here. And because it is 

a consultative process, I do not see any inherent problem with that 

broad definition. I think it is very helpful. 

Now, as Will Stelle said before with respect to ESA consultations, that is a different matter, because you are talking about a 

big hammer and strong regulations that can cause a lot of economic 

dislocation. But EFH need not be that way and, in my view, it is 

not being implemented or interpreted that way. 

Senator SNOWE. Dr. Sampson, you have a different point of view. 

Do you think it is possible to narrow the definition, making a distinction between essential and nonessential fish habitats, and defining that in law without impairing the conservation goals? 

Dr. SAMPSON. I work primarily with the groundfish species off 

the west coast here. And with most of those species, they are very 

wide ranging and their different life stages have very different requirements that essentially encompass the entire EEZ. So it is 

hard for me to see how you could define it except in very broad 

terms because of the requirements of these groundfish species. 

It is a different issue with salmon, where there clearly are terrestrial concerns that are well-defined in space and time. With many 

of the marine organisms, though, I do not think that works. 

Senator SNOWE. Mr. Leipzig. 

Mr. LEIPZIG. I cannot add much. My involvement is also with 

groundfish. And so I echo Dr. Sampson’s comments. 

This is also an area that we have not, in the Pacific Council, with 

the groundfish issue, really delved in deeply. We have gone 

through the process of identifying essential fish habitat, which is 

everything that is wet and salty. It covers a broad area. There are 

certainly very site-specific areas that should be very much of concern for certain species, where they tend to aggregate for spawning 

purposes or where the juveniles may live. 

But, as Dr. Sampson points out, many of these fish, through 

their life stages, will be covering a broad area. Many of them will 

be pelagic for many, many months, covering the entire ocean surface, until they settle out to the bottom. So it is hard to know. 

Senator SNOWE. Dr. Sampson, you spoke extensively about the 

quality of stock assessments and scientific data. What is the one 

thing you think we should do to improve the quality of data? Is it 

money? Does it simply come down to providing enough resources to 

fund the scientific data? 

Dr. SAMPSON. Certainly we do not have very good data. And we 

do not have the long-term data series that you really need to do 

things the way we have currently structured the system. There are 

many types of data that are needed, and it is hard to say exactly 

what the best way of going about providing that data would be. I 

think we could do a lot more to explore how we could improve the 

quality of our assessments from some relatively inexpensive comVerDate Apr 24 2002 09:41 Jul 25, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\77585.TXT SCOM2 PsN: JACKF
108

puter modelling exercises, where we improved this type of data 

versus some other type of data, to see what type of gains we make. 

We have not engaged in very much of that at all. Instead, we 

have taken a very hit-or-miss approach to providing this bit of information here, providing some other bit of information there, without looking comprehensively at what causes a stock assessment to 

be imprecise. 

But one message that I think is very important is that even with 

very good data, we are not going to necessarily get it right. And 

there are many examples of that in fisheries science. So I think 

throwing money and collecting more data is not going to fix what 

fundamentally is a problem of allocation and too many fishermen 

chasing a limited number of fish. 

Senator SNOWE. Dr. Fujita, would you care to comment? 

Dr. FUJITA. Sure, thank you, Madam Chair. 

Money is going to help, but it needs to be well spent. And certainly research out here on the west coast has been grossly mismatched to the research need and the scientific enterprise that is 

required. I think that there are ways to leverage that money. If we 

got more money to spend on research out here, we could leverage 

it in many ways. One is through cooperative research with fishermen, using fishing vessels as research platforms. I think that the 

NMFS science team out here is making great strides in opening 

that field up. And I think fishermen are enthusiastic about that. 

So it does two things. It puts a lot more eyes and ears out there 

on the water collecting data in a scientifically credible way. And it 

also increases the credibility of the science I think, because the 

fishermen themselves are engaged in cooperative factfinding. 

Another way to do it is to engage academic scientists and the 

graduate students and post-docs more effectively. Being a former 

graduate student, I know that is an extremely cost-effective way to 

do research. It may violate some slave labor laws, but it is a good 

way to get science done cheaply. 

[Laughter.] 

And, third, I think that there has been a lot of emphasis on data 

acquisition here. I do not think that is the only answer, to do surveys all over the place with a big vessel that cannot even sample 

rock piles where the rockfish live because the net snags. That is 

not the most effective way to do research. It will help, but it is not 

the only way to do it. And submersibles are, I think, a smart way 

to go. 

Also there are some theoretical problems in the basic theory of 

marine ecology and how fish work that remain mysterious. I think 

things like the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis that the National Science Foundation is funding are really 

important. Those issues may seem far removed from our problems 

here, but one of the reasons why we got into this mess is that we 

did not understand the basic mechanisms that produce fish and 

how they interact with each other. We did not know enough about 

the life histories of these things. Those are basic scientific questions, and if we do not start to answer them, we are just going to 

perpetuate this problem. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you. 

Senator Gorton. 

109

Senator GORTON. Dr. Sampson, I have a variant on one of Senator Snowe’s questions with respect to stock assessments. And you 

say, and I think I am quoting from your testimony, ‘‘the harvest 

quota system that has developed as a result of the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act is unrealistically complicated given the level of 

accuracy that we can reasonably expect from stock assessments, 

and that we need to develop fishery control systems that have simple data requirements and to deal with data errors.’’ Now, is that advice to us to amend the Act or advice to fisheries 

Councils to change the way in which they do business? With the 

three Senators here having to change the Act, do you have a specific change in the Act that you would recommend in order to reach 

that goal that you outlined? 

Dr. SAMPSON. I think my comment there was specifically directed 

at the guidelines produced by the National Marine Fisheries Service with regard to the 1996 amendment. And their interpretation 

of what is required for controlling harvest is what I was complaining about. I think it has very unrealistic expectations about 

what we can and cannot say about the size of fish stocks. 

Senator GORTON. Well, then, unless you think, I think rather unrealistically, that the National Marine Fisheries Service is going to 

listen to you, would you have a specific recommendation to us in 

the way we instruct the National Marine Fisheries Service in the 

statute in order to reach that goal? 

Dr. SAMPSON. I am afraid I do not have a good answer. I think 

the original SFA was probably appropriate in general, but it was 

interpreted very narrowly. And I think that is what has caused 

some problems. 

Senator GORTON. Well, personally, I think you are probably onto 

something. If you would think seriously about what we might go 

through in the next few months to help you reach that goal and 

communicate those thoughts with us, it may be of real help. Otherwise, this is rather purely academic. 

Mr. Sam Anderson, for you and for this new and rather sudden 

and unexpected set of challenges, let me sort out some of the concerns that you have. Rank in order, if you will, or give me a couple 

of brief comments on it. Do you think too much water has been defined as essential fish habitat or are you primarily concerned with 

the effect of that broad designation on activities on land? That is 

number one. 

Just the designation, should the geographical designations be 

much smaller than they are on the map that you showed us there? 

Or is your primary concern with what the consequences of the designation are? And is it your feeling that the National Marine Fisheries Service is demanding too much and, therefore, is going to 

have an adverse impact on the way in which you create housing 

or any other kind of human development? 

Mr. SAM ANDERSON. It is actually both. The first one, what concerns us is they have so broadened the term ‘‘essential’’ as to be 

almost all. Anything that is relevant or significant in the ecosystem 

as it relates to salmon, we are going to call it essential. So we have 

just wrapped our arms around everything. That is why you see all 

of these counties in just about every watershed west of the Cascades is now defined as essential habitat, or anything that may afVerDate Apr 24 2002 09:41 Jul 25, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\77585.TXT SCOM2 PsN: JACKF
110

fect the essential habitat. So they brought all of that in. They cast 

a—pardon the pun—but a fairly wide net, and just hauled in everything they could as essential. 

Why that bothers us is that now, all of a sudden, we have this 

superimposed Federal overlay of a consultation process. And frankly, from our perspective, if it is anything like the Section 7 consultation processes that are going on now—now, granted, there is 

a difference in the ESA—but they cannot process anything. The 

National Marine Fisheries Service in this region has a very difficult time consulting with anyone. 

They do not have the people to do it, to get road projects out now 

in the Puget Sound, King County, for example, and Washington 

Department of Transportation have had to give them bodies to get 

through this. So just to work your way through the mechanisms of 

a consultation, a required and mandated consultation process 

around here, in the context of the Endangered Species Act is extremely difficult. 

If you expand this now, sort of, not quite voluntary, mandated 

consultation and you hang up our permits until somehow NMFS 

gets through it, talks to the agency, has a right to respond, comes 

back, makes more recommendations, our feeling is that we are 

going to be waiting a long time to get some of these permits back. 

Senator GORTON. It does sound to me like it is the second rather 

than the first. I take it the broad designation of habitat, along the 

recommendations of Dr. Fujita, that it would be an entire ecosystem thing, would be less burdensome if the mandates were 

fewer and it were a more truly voluntary consultation? 

Mr. SAM ANDERSON. I think that is true, Senator. 

Senator GORTON. And if great deference were given to the traditional land use authorities and their decisions? 

Mr. SAM ANDERSON. That is true, yes. 

Senator GORTON. Do you think there are going to be many consultations, the way they are setting it up now, required under the 

endangered fisheries habitat that are not required under the Endangered Species Act? 

Mr. SAM ANDERSON. Yes. Because they have covered all salmon, 

not just listed. 

Senator GORTON. So it is not pure duplication; they are going to 

be just a lot more? 

Mr. SAM ANDERSON. Yes, I believe that. 

Senator GORTON. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you. 

Senator Stevens. 

Senator STEVENS. I am concerned, Mr. Anderson, about the interaction of the coastal zone management concept, the National Environmental Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act and now 

the essential fish habitat. It does seem to me that there ought to 

be some jurisdictional difference there. NEPA requires a review for 

all significant Federal actions. And the coastal zone management 

is really designed to give the coastal communities tools to use in 

planning, as far as land development was concerned, in order to 

protect the coastal zone, which was in effect to protect the resources of the oceans. 

111

I do not know how to get a hold of this, but it does seem to me 

that we ought to find some way to determine who is in charge of 

the shop now. Ms. Dalton mentioned that there is going to be onestop shopping. But when I want a screwdriver, I do not go to a supermarket. And really, when I want some fresh orange juice, I do 

not go to a hardware store. 

I really think we have got to define this down somewhere and 

decide who is in charge, and stop this redundant consultation concept that is going to be very expensive for these Federal agencies. 

And as I said in Anchorage, I think we are going to be spending 

money in consultations that we ought to be spending to protect resources. So I think you have got a point. But I do not know how 

we are going to get to it. And it is another reason why some of 

these people who say, tell us by April that you are going to pass 

this bill by October, had better get busy. Because if your association is opposed to this bill, it is not going to pass by October. 

Thank you. 

Senator SNOWE. On that positive note, we thank you very much. 

Now the final segment of this hearing is known as the open 

microphone session. If anybody desires to make a comment with respect to the issues that were discussed here today, you can sign up 

with Senator Gorton’s staff if you have not done so already. 

Senator Gorton’s staff is going to read off the names. We will 

allow two minutes each for the 15 people who have signed up. We 

will begin. 

Mr. SCHROETER. The first speaker is Jan Standaert. And then, 

next up is Jude Henzler. 

STATEMENT OF JAN STANDAERT, CREWMAN AND SKIPPER, 

DEEP SEA FISHERMEN’S UNION 

Mr. STANDAERT. Hello. Thank you for coming and inviting us to 

testify. My name is Jan Standaert. I am with the Deep Sea Fishermen’s Union. I have been a crewman and a skipper over the last 

25 years. I have not owned a vessel. The whole time has been spent 

on the deck. 

I would like to say thanks again for inviting us. And I agree with 

all of what Tim Henkel said. For years now, the crewmen has been 

considered ancillary to the operation. And with the passage of 

IFQ’s, we have even, as Tim suggested, become more ancillary. 

One problem I have is that in the decisionmaking of the Council 

process, crewmen have not been considered as being part of the decisionmaking. I can recall a number of boat owners who have been 

on the Council, but not one crewmen has been considered to be a 

part of the Council. 

I think that in the near future it will be imperative that crewmen be used in the consideration, since in Alaska, for example, in 

the future, most of the quota I believe will be owned by crewmen, 

at least under the current rules. And current rules are where a corporation cannot own second-generation IFQ’s and the owner of 

IFQ’s has to be aboard a vessel. I believe that most of the IFQ’s 

will be in the ownership of labor. And I think they need to be on 

the Council in order to make those important decisions that will affect them. 

112

That brings me to defend the crewmen in view of corporations 

wanting to come in and own IFQ’s. During the early days of figuring out IFQ’s in Alaska, crewmen got together and were very emphatic about the corporations cannot own IFQ’s, the major reason 

being that we will be competing with big money. And that is very 

difficult for a lot of us crewmen. 

I see the red light is on, so thank you. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you very much. 

Mr. SCHROETER. And then Jude Henzler, and then next up would 

be Paul MacGregor. 

Mr. MACGREGOR. I am going to pass. 

Mr. SCHROETER. Okay. Then Laura Deach. 

STATEMENT OF JUDE HENZLER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

BERING SEA FISHERMEN’S ASSOCIATION 

Mr. HENZLER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. My name is Jude 

Henzler, and I am the Executive Director of the nonprofit corporation Bering Sea Fishermen’s Association. Our main membership 

consists of small boat fishermen and women, principally Alaska 

Natives from the Arctic and Yukon and Koskoquin River regions of 

Alaska. Our office is located in Anchorage, Alaska. 

I should stop and explain that my oldest daughter is a firefighter 

for the City of San Jose, and I am obliged to wear this jacket. I 

just came from a visit with her. 

I wanted to talk to you today about the two things regarding 

data acquisition in congressionally sponsored fishery programs. The 

first thing is to inform you of one of the things that we are doing 

with some special congressional funding at BSFA. We think it is 

valuable and we want to make sure you are aware of it. 

Congress last reauthorized the Magnuson-Stevens Act in September 1996, and included in that reauthorization the adoption of 

the Western Alaska CDQ program, and at the same time mandated 

a review and evaluation of that unique Alaska program by the National Academy of Sciences. The Academy accomplished this task 

last year, and its members concluded in its report: ‘‘More than any previous welfare or development initiative, more 

even than the Native corporations, the CDQ program seems to offer 

a viable way for local people to gain control over the means by 

which they are articulated to the larger economy and society.’’ I point to the fact that in the above quote, the Academy members 

say these fine things about the CDQ program, but at the same time 

use the flaccid verb ‘‘seems’’ to deliver the good news. What else 

could they do, though, for there are no hard data to support the 

evidence of their eyes and their experience, which instruct them 

that the CDQ program really is a good thing? 

I will cut to the chase here with the red light. Our funding is 

going to end in August. I just hope that you realize that a data 

base which we have established and started is the only way you 

are really going to be measuring whether the CDQ program is 

working. I do not know who would continue that work. I would 

hope it is us, but we do not have the funding. I hope that you will 

hear the good word and I will start an itch and you will figure out 

some way to scratch it. 

Thank you. 

113

Senator SNOWE. Thank you. 

Mr. SCHROETER. Laura Deach, and then Mark Powell. 

STATEMENT OF LAURA DEACH,

WEST COAST LONGLINER 

Ms. DEACH. Madam Chairman, my name is Laura Deach, and I 

longline off the Washington coast with my husband, primarily in 

the sablefish fisheries. I have sat on the Pacific Fishery Management Council individual quota, the three tier and the buyback committees. I am one of the 26 percent of the fixed-gear sablefish fleet 

off this coast that is supposed to be able to catch their quota every 

year. And I despise the derbies that I have had to suffer through 

for nine years. 

I believe that the number one problem on this coast is overcapitalization and the management tools that have been used, including gear restrictions, time closures, license limitation or limited 

entry, buyback programs, and trip limits. They either lack the capacity to reduce overcapitalization or they have failed. 

I believe that individual quotas can get to the problem of overcapitalization by allowing one fisherman to purchase another fisherman out. As such, it is a personal buyback program. 

Mr. Stevens, I would dearly love to pay for my fishery if I had 

a fishery anymore. But I do not, basically. We are reduced to catching about one-sixth of what we caught 10 years ago. In 1991, I and 

several other people requested from the Pacific Council an individual quota program that has never been allowed to be enacted. 

I wonder where the concern is for the windfall profit of limited 

entry programs. The initial windfall was generated when they gave 

licenses on this coast. Senator Snowe, I appreciate your concern for 

the economic disaster that has fallen on the west coast, but I think 

you people totally lack sometimes the emotional or mental disaster 

that is also created. I loved my fishery. I loved fishing. And I 

mourn it now like a dead lover. 

Thank you. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you. 

Mr. SCHROETER. Mark Powell, and then Mark Lundsten. 

STATEMENT OF MARK POWELL, MARINE BIOLOGIST,

CENTER FOR MARINE CONSERVATION 

Mr. POWELL. Thank you, Madam Chair, Senators, staff, and 

panel members. My name is Mark Powell. I am a marine biologist, 

and I represent the Center for Marine Conservation. We support 

the reauthorization goals of the Marine Fish Conservation Network. A strong and effective Magnuson-Stevens Act will rebuild depleted fish populations and rebuild depressed fisheries. 

It took a long time to reach the state we are in, with fish and 

fishers hurting. It will take some time to get to recovery. While dislocation of fishers is a serious problem that deserves a response, 

continued overfishing of depleted stocks is not that viable response. 

The key elements of a strong Act are reducing overfishing, reducing bycatch and reducing the habitat damage caused by fishing. 

Regarding damage to fish habitat caused by fishing, this is an important part of the Act that has not been well implemented. Almost 

nothing has been done to reduce habitat damage caused by fishing 

114

gear, such as destruction of bottom habitats by trawling and other 

gear. Scientific studies have shown the value of structure as cover 

for young fish. 

Habitat damage may be a partial cause of observed core survival 

of young fish, a problem usually blamed on natural conditions. This 

issue is best addressed through the creation of no-take marine reserves, which would allow habitat recovery in some areas. Reserves 

would be good for fish and would provide unimpacted areas for 

study. 

Regarding the lack of data, the ocean is variable and is hard to 

study. It is unlikely we will ever be able to acquire detailed knowledge of all the elements in current models. We need to focus on scientific principles that we do understand. We need to establish protected areas to provide safe havens, where fish are unimpacted by 

overfishing and habitat damage. Then fish can survive natural fluctuations that they have for millions of years and we will have a 

better opportunity to understand which exactly are the human impacts. 

Thank you. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you. 

Next. 

Mr. SCHROETER. Mark Lundsten, and then Stephen Taufen. 

STATEMENT OF MARK LUNDSTEN, OWNER-OPERATOR OF AN 

ALASKAN LONGLINER 

Mr. LUNDSTEN. My name is Mark Lundsten. I own and operate 

a 70-foot longliner in Alaska and off the coast and I fish for a living 

on my boat. I am an original recipient of an original allocation of 

black cod and sablefish and halibut IFQ’s. 

I would like to make a point about the fees and about consolidation. First, about the fees, I think that, like our fishery, other fisheries should support themselves, should be self-sustaining. IFQ’s 

raise the value of our resource to such a level that the increase in 

funds to the U.S. Treasury just from income taxes from fishermen 

and so on more than offset the cost of the program by many times. 

Now we also have a 3 percent fee which will more than cover our 

fees. And it is also funding a program for loans to small operators 

and crew members which has been spoken of quite a bit. 

So I would suggest that to fill the lack of money for scientific surveys and so on, you charge everyone a 3 percent fee across the 

board, across the Nation, for all fisheries that can afford it, that 

are not distressed. When you do that, you will have an investment 

of the users into the science and it will promote interaction between the scientists and the fleet, which is probably the main impediment to good science these days, especially, as I hear it, on the 

west coast and in New England. 

The other point I would like to make is just about consolidation. 

You have heard a lot about overcapacity. We suffered from it horribly in Alaska. The way you solve overcapacity is you reduce capacity. When you reduce capacity, you, of necessity, consolidate. We 

have done that. Not doing that is the true path to marginalization 

and poverty among fishermen. 

If you have a child who is going fishing, you would rather have 

them on a boat that is not one of those marginalized, impoverished 

115

boats. You want them to go out, especially in the Gulf of Alaska 

or the Bering Sea, on a boat that is well-maintained, well taken 

care of, with good safety procedures and all the equipment it needs 

to be safe at sea. That is what you get when you get a reasonably 

consolidated fishery. 

There is only so much product in the ocean you can take out and 

process and make money on. And if you try to spread that out too 

thin, it is not going to work. That fish can only support so many 

reasonable jobs. 

Thank you. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you. 

Mr. SCHROETER. Stephen Taufen, Edward Paulsen. 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN TAUFEN,

GROUNDSWELL FISHERIES MOVEMENT 

Mr. TAUFEN. I gave the clerk the two-page item for you. 

Madam Chair and fellow taxpayer-paid Senators, my name is 

Stephen Taufen, of the Groundswell Fisheries Movement. Let us 

cut to the real chase. The most important issue listed in the Congressional Research Service report on the reauthorization of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act is transfer pricing, the tax cheating by foreign-controlled corporations in the United States fisheries of the 

North Pacific. 

In 1993, in self-defense, I became a Federal whistleblower at the 

Internal Revenue Service on this issue. By 1997, the International 

Branch, in Seattle, had formed a seafood specialty group to delve 

further into this problem. During 1997 through 1999, I have lobbied the North Pacific Council, its advisory and scientific panels on 

these issues. Many of you are familiar with my writing in the industry press. 

Senator Gorton, as a Washington State representative, please 

note there is also a Board of Accounting case still pending here, 

where CPA’s could be looked at further for their role as certified 

public accomplices. 

You wonder how you are going to pay for fisheries management 

and research costs and disaster assistance. Well, I say enforce the 

tax laws against foreign-controlled corporations. The IRS cannot do 

it alone. In 1979, abusive transfer pricing was predicted in a Pacific 

Rim study on fisheries investment to become the largest problem. 

For over two decades, we have seen the abuse of creative accounting by foreign-controlled corporations in the North Pacific. In 1992, 

President Clinton ran for office on this issue of over-invoiced imports and under-invoiced exports. In 1993, the House Ways and 

Means Committee on Tax Oversight, known as the Pickle Commission, dealt with it. 

The General Accounting Office has produced several reports, 95– 101 and 99–39. Overcapitalization is relative to the dollars returned. We have not Americanized this fishery until we have effectively dealt with the second-tier legislation on the economic issues 

and looked at abusive transfer pricing and the problems of foreign 

ownership and what it has meant in this fishery. 

Madam Chair, please see that this issue is adequately covered 

and that effective action is taken. 

Thank you. 

116

[The prepared statement of Mr. Taufen follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEPHEN TAUFEN, GROUNDSWELL FISHERIES MOVEMENT

The Congressional Research Service report #RL30215 on ‘‘The Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management Act: Reauthorization Issues for the 106th 

Congress’’ includes the issue of (ABUSIVE) TRANSFER PRICING.

[Excerpt from Draft Version, believed to be on page 34 in final draft.] 

Transfer Pricing 

‘‘Commercial fishing interests are concerned about transfer pricing, especially in North Pacific fisheries. This is not currently addressed in the 

MSFCMA. ‘Transfer price’ is the price charged by one company to a related 

company, when they allocate income and expenses among themselves. 

These ‘intrafirm transfers’ are covered under IRS tax code section 482. 

Some U.S. fishing companies allegedly are not properly reflecting income 

attributable to their operations within the United States, while some foreign parent companies may be using pricing strategies to avoid higher U.S. 

taxes. In addressing ‘abusive’ transfer pricing, Congress could consider 

amending the MSFCMA to require full disclosure of all financial documents 

and transfer pricing criteria to U.S. authorities.’’

Groundswell believes that Congress should enact specific legislation in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Act Reauthorization bill to enable increased ‘‘Accountability 

and Transparency’’ on this issue.

• Fund a new review of the effects of FOREIGN OWNERSHIP and its extended 

problems, including WHO NOW OWNS WHAT COMPANIES AND VESSELS 

(including closely-held shoreside vessels), TRANSFER PRICING ABUSES, 

ANTITRUST CONSIDERATIONS in the US seafood industry, specifically in 

North Pacific Fisheries. 

• Request/fund a GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE (GAO) REVIEW OF 

ABUSIVE TRANSFER PRICING in Fisheries of the North Pacific, and of CONFLICTS OF INTEREST on National Fishery Councils. 

• Legislate document and other accessibility clauses that allow the Council and 

others to find out what has been going on with Foreign-Controlled Corporations 

and their true level of profitability, i.e. increase ‘‘accountability and transparency’’. 

Background: 

Transfer Prices—controlled exchange prices between related affiliates whenever 

they allocate income and expenses among themselves, often in international transactions—are different than Arm’s Length Prices. The latter are what the price 

would have been if the sales or services were between unrelated parties which literally stand ‘‘at arm’s length’’ from each other. The latter are often known as ‘‘comparable, uncontrolled prices’’ (CUP). 

In the North Pacific seafood industry, one of the major problems has been widespread abuse of IRS tax codes (e.g. § 482 on Transfer Pricing, § 263A on capitalized 

costs, and § 451–454 on inventories, etc.), primarily by foreign-controlled corporations (FCC). In large part, this has been by shoreside, Japanese-corporately-owned 

fishing subsidiaries and their overseas parent firms. These transnational firms do 

not operate in a ‘‘free trade’’ environment. Rather, they are insulated from open 

market forces by their economic structures, akin to bureacratic enterprises such as 

state trading enterprises, which can avoid arm’s length prices altogether, or can exercise monopolistic powers. 

Abusive transfer pricing, or ‘‘over-invoiced imports and under-invoiced 

exports’’, (also known as ‘‘product laundering’’) accounts for an estimated 

direct economic loss of over $200 million each year in North Pacific fisheries. It dovetails with the problems of antitrust (restraint of trade and price-fixing). For pollock alone, the effect in one decade, when including economic multiplier 

effects, was to take over $2.15 billion away from US fishers and their communities 

and suppliers, and tax coffers. 

It is imperative that Congress considers its effects within legislation specifically 

addressing the industry-segment of fisheries. (President Reagan asked Michael Porter of Harvard to address issues of National Competitiveness and Porter concluded 

that it is within the industry segment that competition is won. Certain nations become the hosts for firms that dominate industries.) 

117

The Groundswell Fisheries Movement has lobbied to present these concerns as 

part of the Reauthorization issues. This follows up on efforts before the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council over the past three years concerning pollock allocations and other issues. The industry Advisory Panel voted in April of 1998 on 

this issue, advising the Council to consider its effects on markets and grounds prices 

etc. 

The Council has been torn by conflicts-of-interest which include foreign ‘‘agents 

of influence’’ and has failed to take an adequate look at this problem and the extended concerns in the antitrust arena. 

Additional information can be obtained by contacting me through the Internet by 

e-mailing staufen@seanet.com. In addition, I have a paper on ‘‘WTO and Fisheries: 

An Issue of ‘Accountability and Transparency’ ’’ posted at the www.wtowatch.org

site, under the Documents tab, under issues such as Agriculture or Business and 

Industry. It is from a panel presentation at the University of Washington’s School 

of Marine Affairs in October of 1998.

Senator SNOWE. Thank you. 

Mr. SCHROETER. Edward Paulsen, and then Chris Doumit. 

STATEMENT OF EDWARD PAULSEN,

PAULSEN FISHERIES 

Mr. PAULSEN. My name is Edward Paulsen, and I represent 

three Bering Sea crab fishing vessels and have fished on these vessels. 

The crab industry is now facing an economic disaster, and it is 

likely that a third to half of the vessels involved in the Bering Sea 

crab fisheries will not be able to stay in business over the next few 

years. And there is no relief in sight for the industry. There is simply too much capacity. 

I support both John Yanni’s comments and Arnie Thompson’s 

comments, whom you heard from yesterday in Anchorage regarding 

buybacks. I recently graduated from the School of Marine Affairs 

at the University of Washington, and finished a thesis on the feasibility of buybacks for the crab industry. I found that a $60 million 

buyback, which at that time could have been industry funded because the industry had not collapsed yet, but a $60 million buyback 

was possible and was beneficial for the industry. At this point, it 

seems like a minimum of $60 million is necessary, and it is unlikely that the industry itself can support such a buyback, at least 

in the near term, over the next few years. 

However, the greatest priority for the crab industry is an individual quota-based system, such as co-ops or ITQ’s. Individual 

quotas are necessary in the crab industry for two reasons, for both 

safety and conservation reasons. 

I see the red light. 

Senator SNOWE. Are you finished? 

Mr. PAULSEN. I wanted to also say we have heard a lot about the 

safety reasons of ITQ’s or co-ops. But there is a big conservation 

reason for co-ops in the crab industry, because it slows the race for 

fish down and it allows the fishing gear to actually do its job and 

minimize bycatch. That is the one industry where you really can 

minimize bycatch by slowing the fishery down. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you. 

Mr. SCHROETER. Chris Doumit, and then Todd Hiner. 

118

STATEMENT OF CHRIS DOUMIT, WASHINGTON COAST CRAB 

FISHERMAN AND COMMISSIONER, COLUMBIA RIVER CRAB 

FISHERMEN’S ASSOCIATION, ON BEHALF OF CHAIRMAN 

DALE BEASLEY 

Mr. DOUMIT. Madam Chair and Committee, my name is Chris 

Doumit. I am a Washington Coast crab fisherman and a Commissioner with the Columbia River Crab Fishermen’s Association. I 

also gill net in Bristol Bay, Alaska, and we tender in Bristol Bay, 

Alaska, as well as the South Peninsula. 

I am here today basically as a courier for our chairman of the 

Columbia River Crab Fishermen’s Association, Dale Beaseley, and 

he has got a written commentary. I am not going to read his comments, although I agree with it. It is on sound science and data collection that was covered earlier. 

I just want to make sure it is part of the record. 

Senator SNOWE. It will be included as part of the record. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Beaseley follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DALE BEASELEY, COMMISSIONER, COLUMBIA RIVER CRAB

FISHERMEN’S ASSOCIATION

My name is Dale Beasley. I am commissioner of the Columbia River Crab Fisherman’s Association (CRCFA) thirty-five year commercial fisherman, and strong advocate for a healthy marine environment. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and welcome to Seattle, Washington. 

My testimony today will address four issues of the Act: l)sound science, 2) Essential Fish Habitat, 3)cumulative effects on mans’ intervention into the ocean, and 4) 

extended state management jurisdiction of the Dungeness crab fishery off Washington, Oregon, and California. 

Sound Science 

The Act recognizes that collection of reliable data is essential to the effective conservation, management and scientific understanding of the fishery resources of the 

United States, however, this is the biggest challenge facing the Councils, NMFS, 

and the states. Developing measures to eliminate over-fishing is relatively easy. Determining whether a fish stock is overfished or if over-fishing is occurring is not so 

easy. Many years of data are required to adequately determine the status of a fish 

stock and to evaluate the effects of management measures. Although data collection 

efforts over the years have improved through state and federal cooperation and fisherman involvement we are far from where we should be. The Act specifies that conservation and management measures shall be based on ‘‘the best scientific information available’’. Although this may appear to he a high standard, in practice 

is difficult if not impossible to achieve. Standards of data collection need to be developed that adequately protect marine habitat and resources from anthropogenic adverse invasive impacts. The greatest threat to our ocean resources is our own ignorance. 

A good example of recent failure in data collection for protection of habitat is in 

the new deep water dredge disposal site at the Mouth of the Columbia River. The 

final environmental impact statement related to this site does not require any biological monitoring until 50% of the site is buried by several feet of sediment in a 

two year time frame. Do to the excessive size of the site and the projected quantities 

of dredge material anticipated for the site, biological monitoring will never be required. Precious, unique, and irreplaceable aquatic environment will be irreparably 

damaged and removed from commercial production without quantification of losses 

for mitigation. Ocean sediment disposal sterilizes the marine environment for commercial production, Without this important data collection, mitigation of ecosystem 

losses is impossible. 

Attitudes about our marine environment have to change, becoming more protective. For fishermen to successfully contribute to coastal economies, preservation of 

habitat is essential. I would like to quote a response the US Army Corps of Engineers made to a comment letter sent in on the Draft EIS found in the FEIS (Final 

Environmental Impact Statement), Volume II: Draft EIS Comments and Responses, 

Integrated Feasibility Report for Channel Improvements and Environmental Impact 

119

Statement, Columbia & Lower Willamette River Federal Navigation Channel, page 

18 of the Paul King letter, ‘‘The Corps has no legal obligation under NEPA to ensure 

the scientific integrity of its studies,’’ further stating, ‘‘The Corps is entitled to rely 

upon its own experts’ studies and under no circumstances need it affirmatively defend those studies scientific integrity’’, and if this were not enough the Corps went 

on to say ,‘‘Even if the comments had produced some evidence that the Corps’ experts lack proper qualifications or relied upon flawed scientific methods that evidence would not discredit or otherwise render the Corps’ studies or its EIS legally 

inadequate.’’ This attitude needs fixing, now. The Congress can do the fix by disallowing any questionable of shaky scientific informational use in making decisions 

related to ocean resources. Government agencies like EPA, US Army Corps of Engineers, and NOAA that make decisions related to our oceans must be held to the 

highest standards of scientific integrity possible. If investigations are not done and 

done properly, uninformed decisions will be made that cause resource losses to our 

fisheries. Sound science is a must requirement.

Essential Fish Habitat 

The Columbia River Crab Fisherman’s Association is supportive of the concepts 

contained in the 1996 EFH provisions. Proposed habitat modifications that may significantly impact essential fish habitat must be scrutinized with the value of these 

habitats in mind. We further recommend Our nation’s goal should become NO NET 

LOSS OF HABITAT. 

It has been our experience within the last years that existing procedures of review 

and consultation have generally been ineffective off the West Coast. It would seem 

that the EFH amendment would make the importance of preserving fish habitat one 

of the issues to be taken into account in the larger picture of balancing developmental needs with environmental needs. At the Mouth of the Columbia River (MCR) 

no official consideration or consultation occurred between NMFS and the US Army 

Corps of Engineers when designating a new deep water ocean dredge disposal site 

in the West Coast’s premiere flatfish nursery area at MCR in an area designated 

EFH by the Pacific Fisheries Management Council. In our opinion the area should 

have been designated as an HAPC (Habitat Area of Particular Concern). This opinion is based on twelve years trawl experience in the area. CRCFA recommended a 

disposal site several miles to the west out of the flatfish nursery area. Dredging economics took precedence over natural resource degradation. CRCFA is appalled that 

EFH was not formally considered in the process by NMFS, especially in light of the 

Corps’ statements related to scientific integrity of its’ studies when applied to the 

deep water site. New ocean disposal sites should be mandatory NMFS consultation 

that result is mitigation for lost habitat and natural resources. The old adage of just 

letting the coastal communities pay the debt through lost habitat and resources has 

got to change, NO NET LOSS Of HABITAT OR RESOURCES must become the 

goal. 

Essential Fish Habitat needs more protection from ocean dumping than the Corps 

and EPA are willing to provide. Sediment testing standards found in the Dredged 

Material Evaluation Framework Lower Columbia River Management Area produced 

by Corps and EPA will allow sediments to come to the ocean from thirty miles 

upriver without any mandatory contamination testing, citing exclusionary criteria. 

CRCFA would like to see the more stringent guidelines of the NOAA National Status and Trends Program applied. Sampling and Analytical Methods of the National 

Status and Trends Program’s National Benthic Surveillance and Mussel Watch 

Projects should apply to any new ocean disposal sites. In fact the Columbia area 

should be placed in the program for reoccurring national testing. NOAA sampling 

and analytical methods are six times more sensitive in indicating contamination in 

the sediments than EPA’s. Considering that the Columbia River is the number one 

ranked river in the entire United States in quantities of carcinogen material intentionally released into the river under permit, it is extremely questionable why 

NMFS would not require consultation in prime EFH and allow untested sediments 

complete exclusionary status. Even if the sediments were found to be 100% clean 

and acceptable for ocean disposal, EFH will still be irreparably altered and prime 

habitat changed forever by this proposed dumping. 

Essential Fish Habitat should be extended to species not under federal management. A good example is Dungeness crab, the highest dollar commercial marine 

species in both Washington and Oregon. This species is under state management 

and must have available EFH considerations to fully manage the species throughout 

its range. Degradation of marine habitat without mitigation is totally unacceptable. 

Compensatory mitigation of marine habitat loss has to become the standard by 

which all new invasions into the ocean are executed. 

120

Cumulative Effects 

The Act should look closer at cumulative effects of actions taken over a period of 

years. Again I will use the deep water site at the Mouth of the Columbia River as 

example. The recent Environmental Impact Statement concludes no unacceptable 

significant effects on other uses of the ocean would occur. CRCFA analysis of the 

value of habitat to the fishery is approximately 122,000 pounds of Dungeness crab 

per square mile per year of area fished. The deep water site’s projected use is at 

least fifty years and includes over fourteen square miles. Potential loss to the fishery over this time period is estimated at 87,230,000 pounds of crab alone if the entire site is devalued for the fifty year time frame. Even at half that rate, the cumulative impact is highly significant and cannot continue to be ignored. Coastal resource dependant fishing communities can ill afford to lose this kind of positive fishery production. This loss analysis does not include entrainment mortality, which 

could be more significant than disposal activity. Cumulative effects need more mandatory attention and must he considered as a real cost to the project in determining 

cost/benefit ratios of the overall project. All future WRDA bills must take cumulative environmental losses into the cost of doing business. When the fisherman 

pays, the nation pays. 

State Jurisdiction 

The 1996 and 1998 amendments to the Act added language to address a state’s 

authority to manage Dungeness crab resources outside the boundaries of the states 

to the limits of the EEZ. At this time there is no compelling federal need to manage 

the coastal crab fishery. The Pacific Fisheries Management Council is over-burdened 

with current FMP obligations and is not desirous of additional responsibility or expense. In fact the Council has on two prior occasions recommended continued state 

management of the Dungeness crab resource. Council authority for this extremely 

valuable fishery is not usurped, it can develop an FMP at any time need arises. 

The Washington, Oregon, California Coast is a very large diverse area. State management of the Dungeness crab resource has a long, successful, cooperative, effective 

management history which offers strong conservation measures and maximum sustainable yield. Dungeness crab is the only successful West Coast fishery that can 

harvest at maximum sustainable yield with certainty and guarantee the future of 

the resource Basic regulation is the 3-S [size, sex, season]. Other conservation measures include escape rings for undersized crab and biodegradable link to prevent 

ghost fishing of lost gear. Bi-catch mortality associated with other fisheries is not 

a problem. Limited entry is in place in all three states. Other effort reduction is in 

the early stages of development with an interim pot limit in Washington and talks 

of effort reduction in Oregon and California. Over-capitalization is starting to be addressed. 

Fishermen in all three states still overwhelming support continuing the Dungeness crab provision in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. State managers should be 

able to use all the states laws to manage the fisheries. The one area that could use 

stronger and more direct language for protection and preservation of Dungeness 

crab is habitat protection. Without habitat protection, the crab fishery is only partially managed. Extension of EFH provisions or extending state habitat protection without question to state managers of the crab resource will further 

provide additional conservation protection to a very valuable resource. 

Indian nation treaty obligations are being met because of the Act’s management 

authority. 

Management of the resource throughout it’s range can he accomplished while accommodating regional variation, It is far easier and economical for stakeholders to 

interact with state agencies and commissions than commute to Washington D.C. On 

a state by state basis what seems important locally will not get lost in a much larger federal bureaucracy. Micromanagement is much easier to accomplish at the state 

level. Interstate agreements are achievable and in place for variation in soft-shelled 

season openings. Federal management of the Dungeness crab resource will not improve economic returns to the fishery or the nation. 

Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission has acted as a moderator and 

consolidator of coastal management in aiding formulation of limited entry in all 

three states. These entry requirements have recently been successful in protecting 

coastal fishing community structure. 

There are no conflicts between the states which require federal management of 

the fishery. Boundaries between the states are well defined and not in dispute. 

The crab fishermen in the coastal slates are supportive of reauthorization of state 

management of the Dungeness crab resource. Habitat protection for crab and other 

state managed species, needs attention. 

121

Thank you for the opportunity to comment in a regional setting The Columbia 

River Crab Fisherman’s Association is grateful that you chose Seattle for one of your 

national hearing sites. We hope you come back.

Senator SNOWE. Thank you. 

Mr. SCHROETER. Todd Hiner, and then Wade Bassi. 

STATEMENT OF TODD HINER, KODIAK, ALASKAN CRAB 

FISHERMAN AND OWNER-OPERATOR 

Mr. HINER. Madam Chair, I am Todd Hiner. I have just flown 

in from Kodiak. We tried to make the Anchorage meeting, but with 

such short notice over there, we flew down to Seattle here. 

I was born and raised in Alaska. I am an owner-operator of a 

crab fishing vessel. I am very concerned about how fast the push 

for co-ops is in my fishery. I have been crab fishing for 37 years. 

I have owned and operated a boat for the past 25 years. My dad 

pioneered crab fishing in Alaska. We have over 45 years of experience in this fishery. 

IFQ’s were pushed through our community with high opposition 

to it. I see the same push going for co-ops that are not proven. I 

speak for a lot of fishermen who never have liked politics. I am 

very nervous about this process. There are so many hidden agendas. The independent fishermen’s voices need to be heard. We are 

the ones who made this fishing industry. We have been in it for 

the long haul. Please let us be a part of this decision process. Let 

our voices be heard. 

Please do not take the free enterprise and competitive spirit out 

of fishing. It has worked for us for over 40 years. Leave it alone. 

I have made a good living and am raising five children who want 

to fish. Every fishery has its ups and downs. Please do not take 

drastic measures on ours. 

We are Alaskans that have let boats come in from all around the 

country to fish our waters. Now a lot of boats in and out of our 

State have built big track records. How can we give away a resource like IFQ’s or co-ops to people and companies? How can you 

justifiably give someone a resource for the rest of their life? I do 

not want a retirement program. We want a license and a right to 

fish. It is easy and it works. 

Do not force the small boat operators, owners and crews out of 

a business with co-ops and IFQ’s. That is pretty much it. Thank 

you. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you. Thank you for coming down. 

Mr. SCHROETER. Wade Bassi, and then Bart Madison. 

STATEMENT OF WADE BASSI, OWNER-OPERATOR

FISHING VESSEL POLARIS 

Mr. BASSI. My name is Wade Bassi. I am owner-operator of the 

fishing vessel Polaris. And we are currently involved in the sablefish/halibut fishery in Alaska. 

Over the past years that we have been involved, I have noticed 

a lot of changes. We have been much safer. There has not been the 

big rush for fish. And we have been able to harvest our fish not 

easier but a lot more—how do you say it—we have gotten more fish 

than—we have not wasted the fishery like we used to waste it, 

where it was a big rush for fish. 

122

I would like to have this available for other fisheries also. So I 

would like to have the Councils be allowed to use this as an option. 

I think that they should have all their options available to make 

it the most efficient fishery and also the best for the fishermen that 

are involved in it. 

I would like to also see that the Councils, the individual Councils 

in the region, which are most familiar with the regions and the 

way that the fishery is operated, be allowed to make the decisions 

on how the different options could be put into the management system. It is imperative that the industry itself also be greatly involved in the decisionmaking, because we are the ones who are affected most by it. 

I feel that the way the Council system is run now, me as a fisherman in the industry myself, I cannot take the time to go to all 

these meetings and get my input. And when you attend these 

meetings, there is a lot of—they jump around from one thing to the 

other and you never know when your particular issue is going to 

come up. I would like to see fishermen and the industry itself more 

involved in these decisions. 

Thank you. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you. 

Mr. SCHROETER. Bart Madison, and then Arnie Lee. 

STATEMENT OF BART MADISON, TACOMA, WASHINGTON, 

RECREATIONAL FISHERMAN 

Mr. MADISON. Senator Snowe, members of the Committee, my 

name is Bart Madison. I am a recreational fisherman from Tacoma, 

Washington. And I would like to speak to you today about conflict 

of interest rules that exist in the existing legislation, and perhaps 

a need for some help. 

First of all, I would like to congratulate Senator Gorton, yourself 

and Senator Stevens for the effort that you put into implementing 

these conflict of interest and reclusion rules which had never been 

in the Act before as far as I understand. In your opening remarks 

in Maine, Senator Snowe, you said: ‘‘Today we will be hearing testimony about breakdowns in the public process that have led to the 

adoption of less than adequate management measures.’’

One of the testifiers there, Peter Emerson, from the Environmental Defense Fund, observed that the fishing industry interests 

dominate the Councils, the public interest should be adequately 

represented, and decisions should be made in the public interest. 

He recommended amending the Act to ensure broader representation of public interests and to require the Governors to consult with 

conservationists on their appointments. 

In Texas, Wilma Anderson, of the Texas Shrimp Association, eloquently described to you how the faulty process in management 

had skewed the rules and the advantages away from Texas recreational and commercial fishermen. 

Peter Shelley, Vice President of the Conservation Law Foundation in Maine, asked the rhetorical question: ‘‘Is the Congress satisfied with the conflict of interest rules that are in place?’’

Dr. Fujita just testified about certain decisionmaking processes 

which appear to be flawed. 

123

I have read the Act, and there is a phrase there which bothers 

me, that I would like for you to look at a little more closely. I think 

it is Section 302(j) paragraph 7, it says: 

‘‘A Council decision shall be considered to have a significant and 

predictable effect on a financial interest if there is a close causal 

link between the Council decision and an expected and substantially disproportionate benefit to the financial interests of the affected individual relative to the financial interests of other participants’’—and here is the part that bothers me—‘‘in the same gear 

type and sector of the fishery.’’

Now, I look at that in this manner. In the Network Council, for 

example, if we are all at some point or another in our careers involved in the salmon fishery, and the question comes to increasing 

harvest levels on chinook in southeast Alaska, why should not we 

all vote for that? Because we all participate in the same gear type 

and fishery. We might be inclined to do that in spite of sound scientific evidence that tells us that we should not do it because we 

are damaging the fishery. 

So I would like for you to take a look at that. And I will offer 

you a draft of this, and then followup with a message. 

Thank you. 

Senator SNOWE. Okay, I appreciate that. We will include it in the 

record. Please give it to the Committee. 

Senator SNOWE. Mr. Schroeter. 

Mr. SCHROETER. Arnie Lee and then John Bruce. 

STATEMENT OF ARNIE LEE, COMMERCIAL FISHERMAN AND 

OWNER-OPERATOR 

Mr. LEE. My name is Arnie Lee. I am a commercial halibut fisherman and black cod fisherman. I own my own vessel here. 

I started fishing in 1964 with my father, through the present. So 

I have seen an industry that was slightly overcapitalized in 1964 

go to an extremely overcapitalized system, and then into an IFQ 

system. And one issue that sometimes gets overlooked is the families and the men that work on these boats and what happens with 

the systems that develop when they get highly overcapitalized. We 

went for two or three months at a time away from home, because 

that was just the way the seasons were set up and we had to do 

it. 

And it was tough on the families and the people, and especially 

with families being home and knowing that we are pushing things 

to the limit because there is only so much time and so much fish, 

and we have to get it when it is available. So there is stress on 

the families back home, worrying about their husbands, or their 

wives, if they are out there fishing. And it was tough on the kids. 

With the system we have now, we can slow things now if we 

need to. And we all have slowed things down. If we were still under 

open access fisheries, my crew—I have been very fortunate, they 

have been with me for 11 to 24 years, and my son is the most recent, in just the last couple of years, but the rest of them have been 

with me a long time, so they are family—and I would have to let 

go some of those people, because they would not be as productive. 

I could not operate in that competition system. 

124

And I remember, as a 17-year-old, when I first started fishing, 

after my second year, I was standing on board with the crew of the 

fishing vessel Tongas, and the crew there was the average age of 

68. And I thought, as a 17-year-old, how can they do that? 

Well, I hope, as I grow older and my crew grows older, I can slow 

it down a little bit so they do not have to be displaced in their midforties. Because I have friends now who are in the crab fishery, and 

they say, ‘‘I cannot do it any more,’’ and they are in their forties. 

And they say, ‘‘I have to quit.’’ We have to be concerned about people and families and how our 

management decisions affect them also. 

Thank you. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you. 

Mr. SCHROETER. John Bruce, and then Mike Barrow. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN BRUCE 

Mr. BRUCE. Madam Chairman and panel members, thank you for 

being here today. 

You have heard a lot today about IFQ’s. And most of it has been 

positive. I fished for 30 years in the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering 

Sea in the small longline fleet out of Seattle. I have a son that is 

up there now. And I am interested in seeing this positive program, 

that has been developed continue on in other fisheries. 

We spent 10 years developing that program. We did not do it in 

Washington, D.C. We did it in the region. And we dotted most of 

the i’s and crossed the t’s. And we did not run to Washington, D.C. 

and ask for a fix, like has been done recently in the other groundfish fisheries. 

And the reason that this IFQ program is working so well is because it was developed in the region and it was thought out clearly. 

And I find it amazing myself that after a few years with this program, we have not had major changes to the program. We are 

doing some fixing, but it is very minor in comparison to the huge 

change in management philosophy with IFQ’s. 

So I think it is important that we think about what we are doing 

with IFQ’s. If the crab fleet would have gotten on the bandwagon 

and piggy-backed with the longline fleet, I doubt that we would 

have the problem today. A lot of those crabbers are my friends, and 

I have fished with them, worked for them and with them, and the 

position that they are in is appalling. And had they had the opportunity five years ago to do what we did, you would not face the 

problems that you are facing today with that opilio and that crab 

fleet out west. 

So the IFQ program is working. You have heard lots of positive 

things. And I would like that opportunity extended to other fisheries in the U.S. 

Thank you. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you. 

Mr. SCHROETER. Mike Barrow, and then Larry Hendricks. 

STATEMENT OF MIKE BARROW,

BRISTOL BAY DRIFT NET ASSOCIATION 

Mr. BARROW. Senator Snowe, members, thank you for the opportunity to speak. 

125

I am here representing the Bristol Bay Drift Net Association on 

the issue of Russian interception of salmon stocks. I have worked 

in both the government sector and in the fishing industry over the 

years with projects and operations in Alaska, Canada, Russia, and 

China. My clients and I believe that large quantities of Alaskan 

and other North American salmon are being intercepted at sea by 

catching efforts operating within and near the area of the Russian 

EEZ 200-mile zone. 

The interception is believed to be causing great economic losses 

to the Yukon-Koskoquin and the Bristol Bay fisheries and the local 

and extended economies. The primary document of fishery efforts 

impacting these high sea runs are the Japanese factory gill net 

fleet, who pay large fees to the Russians. Additionally, the Russians are gearing up in this area both with licensed fisheries and 

renegade fishery fleet. 

Additionally, it is our understanding currently the Russians have 

no serious monitoring enforcement systems in place for this fishery 

or a comprehensive management plan in place. The negative economic impacts on Alaska communities and the Alaskan fish industry are very serious. First, millions of returning salmon that are 

unavailable to the fishers and the processing industry, as well as 

the declines in pricing from cheap Russian fish that is hitting the 

market. 

Due to the urgency of the situation and having talked to Representative Young on this, he is very concerned about this, and 

urged us to come forward to this Committee to see if we could find 

areas where we could begin to see some relief for this area. We understand that long-term solutions will require the Russians have in 

place monitoring and enforcement management systems and agreements between Russia and the North Americans for protecting the 

salmon runs. 

Currently there are steps we feel that can be taken in the fairly 

immediate future to start addressing this problem. One is to put 

in place a gill net and trawl survey along the Russian maritime 

border, following the fishing effort. This can document the origin 

of the salmon caught migrating through the Russian EEZ. 

Secondly, increase the capabilities and efforts of the U.S. Coast 

Guard to monitor the fishing activities and offloading at sea of the 

fleet in and near the Russian 200-mile EEZ, working with the Defense Department, Coast Guard, NASA, and using more sophisticated techniques, such as acoustics and satellite systems to monitor 

the activities. It is our understanding currently that the Russians 

do not have the capabilities to monitor their own fleet in this area. 

And if they cannot, we should. 

Increase funding and focus from NMFS and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game to prioritize this area. Currently, out of the 

$2 million in disaster funds that are being used in Bristol Bay and 

the $6 million for Yukon-Koskoquin, no monies are being used for 

identifying and documenting this problem. And that should be corrected. 

Have NMFS sample products being offloaded at the ports of destination to determine the fish of origin and the quantities, as well 

as put someone in NMFS to focus in on this, to coordinate this effort. This was done in the seventies and the eighties for the high 

126

sea pirate fish and it needs to be done for the Russian interception 

problem. 

And finally, establish a salmon genetic data base for fish, for the 

salmon from origins in North America and Russia. If we get the 

samples, we get the fish in the surveys, we need quick and costeffective ways to genetically identify the origin of these fish. My interest is to explore with you ways to find additional solutions to 

this problem. You are well aware of the economic impacts that are 

being felt in western Alaska. And if nothing is done, it is going to 

get much worse. 

Thank you. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you. 

Ms. BUMPUS. Next we have Larry Hendricks, and then John 

Crowley. 

STATEMENT OF LARRY O. HENDRICKS, ALASKAN CRAB 

FISHERMAN 

Mr. HENDRICKS. Good afternoon, Senator Stevens and Senator 

Snowe. My name is Larry Hendricks, and I currently fish in Alaska, and I have fished there for the last 38 years. I would like to 

submit this letter of recommendations for changes in the Magnuson-Stevens Act Fisheries Act. Our Alaska crab fisheries have been 

decimated with State and Federal restraints on how to conduct our 

business. 

My past history of fishing crab for 38 years include all species 

of king and snow crab. I have witnessed the decline of all major 

fisheries in the Kodiak, Southern Alaska Peninsula, Bering Sea, 

Pribiloff Islands, Saint Matthew, and the Aleutian Chain areas 

under the current open access system. With the open access race 

to harvest our resources, many of the existing laws are causing the 

fishermen to contribute to the decline of our own crab resources. 

Many safety and environmental issues could be addressed with a 

quota or share system for the crab fishing vessels. 

As for the processing sector, possibly a limited number of processing licenses could be issued. Currently we have competition between them, and I do not see many problems other than maybe a 

shift in the vessels to the most efficient plant. For the entire group 

of crab fishermen, we need help in creating a quota or share system to protect our fishermen and slow our fisheries down. 

Just as the land in the 1800’s was divided up during the homesteading era, the days of our open ocean are over. And we are in 

need of similar help to rebuild and protect the resources in the new 

millennium. We have some serious problems here and we have to 

slow the fisheries down. And we cannot do it with the existing 

laws. All our laws do now is cause us to decimate our own resource. 

If we can have control over our own fisheries, fish them during 

sane current periods, when we can be safe, and then we can harvest them and let our gear work efficiently instead of competing 

and racing against each other, we would be a heck of a lot better 

off. 

Thank you. 

[Correspondence of Mr. Hendricks follows:]

127

LETTER OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF LARRY O. HENDRICKS

F/V SEA STAR 

Larry O. Hendricks 

GOT YAS LLC. 

1110 N.W. 50th 

Seattle, Washington 98107

Senator Olympia Snowe 

U.S. Senate Committee 

Commerce, Science, and Transportation

Dear Senator Snowe,

I would like to submit this letter of recommendations for changes in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Act. Our Alaskan crab fisheries have been decimated with state 

and federal restraints on how to conduct our fisheries. 

My past history fishing crab, thirty-eight years, includes all species of king and 

snow crab. I have witnessed the decline of all major crab fisheries in the Kodiak, 

Southern Alaska Peninsula, Bering Sea, Pribilof Islands, St. Matthew, and Aleutian 

Chain areas under the current open access system. 

With the open access race to harvest our resources, many of the existing laws are 

creating the fisherman to contribute to the decline of our crab resources. Many of 

the safety and environmental issues could be addressed with a quota or share system for the crab fishing vessels. 

As for the processing sector, possibly a limited number of processing licenses could 

be issued. Currently we have competition between them and I do not see many 

problems other then maybe a shift in vessels to the most efficient plant. 

For the entire group of crab fisherman, we need help in creating a quota or share 

system to protect our fisherman and slow down our fisheries. Just as the land in 

the 1800’s was divided up during the homesteading era, the days of the open oceans 

are over, and we are in need of similar help to rebuild and protect our resources 

in the new millennium.

Thank you,

Larry Hendricks

Senator SNOWE. Thank you. 

Ms. BUMPUS. John Crowley, then Jack Crowley. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN CROWLEY, LONGLINE FISHERMAN AND 

VESSEL OWNER 

Mr. John CROWLEY. Thank you, Madam Chair, for this great 

privilege of being able to come before this Committee and make 

these public comments to members of the most important and powerful lawmaking body in the world. 

My name is John Crowley. I own a 69-foot longliner out of Seattle, and I am the third generation longline fisherman. I started 

at 11 years old, in the year of 1959, with my father. I was the dishwasher. I learned to wash dishes real good. 

My grandfather came to Alaska in 1911, and entered the longline 

fishery in 1916. We have been a longline family and vessel owners 

since that year. This year we marked 84 years of family involvement in that fishery. 

The last several years before the dawn of the IFQ system were 

probably the worst that I recall due to overcapitalization and the 

race for fish. The quality was way down, safety was way down, people were dying, and vessels were being lost. And the public was 

eating mostly frozen halibut. 

In 1995, which signalled the big change when the IFQ came in, 

the dawn of the IFQ fisheries, stability finally reached our fisheries. As a family, we received an initial allocation of IFQ’s. We 

bought some and we leased some. Safety went way up. Quality 

128

went way up. And consumers now get halibut eight months out of 

the year. It is especially pleasing to go to a restaurant like Chinook’s in Seattle and sit and watch four or five or six or eight people order fresh halibut on the menu there eight months out of that 

year. 

Further, we go to visit our in-laws down in Gridley, California— most people have never heard of Gridley, California—they have one 

restaurant there, and they have fresh halibut on their menu. It is 

certainly pleasing to be able to know that we are a part of that. 

Overcapitalization has changed and gone down. And that is because of the IFQ program. We as an industry have funded our own 

buyback by just buying out other people in the fishery who want 

out. There are hundreds of fishery loans now, totaling over millions 

of dollars, and many fishermen, individually, including myself, 

have borrowed over a million dollars to improve our position in the 

IFQ fishery. We have not burdened the public with government 

loans. We have done it on our own. 

Through the IFQ’s we have been able to accomplish this buyback 

and also reduce overcapitalization, on our own. Last year on our 

vessel, we sold 100 percent of our product in the State of Alaska, 

where I was born and raised and where my heart is. Generally, we 

sell well over 90 percent of our product there, bringing home only 

the last trip to Seattle. 

The halibut and the black cod fishery of the North Pacific are 

world-class models of the best managed fisheries in the world. At 

a time when many fisheries around the world are being depleted, 

these two healthy fisheries are certainly in a wonderful position, 

and due mostly because of the IFQ system. 

I urge you to reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Act and hold intact our program as it is. I also urge you to lift the prohibition of 

future IFQ’s. They have certainly proven their wealth as one of the 

best management tools available to you folks. 

Thank you. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you. 

Next. 

Ms. BUMPUS. Jack Crowley, then Darrell Knudson. 

STATEMENT OF JACK CROWLEY, LONGLINE FISHERMAN AND 

VESSEL OWNER 

Mr. Jack CROWLEY. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Senator Stevens. I certainly have been in the industry a long time. Like my 

son just said, our family has been in it—I thought 85 years—he 

said 84. I will not argue with one year. But I have 50-some years 

in the fishery, too. 

I am not going to bother you with all of the benefits of the program, because you have heard so much about it this morning and 

you are very familiar with that. But I am going to urge you to do 

not let that Magnuson-Stevens Act go. And please lift the moratorium. It would not benefit me, but it would benefit a lot of people 

that need it. 

I am going to take a minute to relate a little story. During the 

time we were putting the IFQ program together, 10 years, relatives 

of my family that were born and raised in Juneau and grew up 

there and knew what fresh halibut tasted like because our family 

129

supplied them, had moved to San Francisco. And when I was telling them about this program we were working on—it took 10 years, 

you know—I sensed that they did not really approve of it. They 

thought this was a giving away of a resource. 

Well, in the second year of our program, I got a phone call from 

Sylvia. And she said, you know, I really appreciate all the fresh 

halibut, good fresh halibut, I am able to buy here in San Francisco. 

She said, your program is a success. 

Thank you. 

Ms. BUMPUS. Darrell Knudson, and then Charlie Noggle. 

STATEMENT OF DARRELL KNUDSON, LONGLINE FISHERMAN 

Mr. KNUDSON. Hello. I have been a longline fisherman for over 

20 years. I am a third generation, too. And my family has been 

fishing for a long time. 

And the IFQ program, I have been running boats for 10 years, 

and the IFQ program has been working very well. It has made the 

industry, as you have heard, a lot safer. We do not have to go out 

in as bad weather, feeling like we have to compete and if we do 

not go out, we are going to miss out on some fish. We are able to 

compete a lot better with the fresh fish market. Before the Canadians would, just before opening, say, would go out and catch a 

bunch of fish, get them on the market, and we were not able to— you know, most of our fish were going for frozen. 

I had a lot of things to say before I got up here, but basically 

it works. That is it. 

Senator SNOWE. Okay. You can submit it in writing if you want 

to. 

Mr. KNUDSON. Thank you. 

Ms. BUMPUS. Charlie Noggle, and then the last witness is Mandy 

Merklein. 

STATEMENT OF CHARLIE NOGGLE, LONGLINE FISHERMAN 

Mr. NOGGLE. Hi. My name is Charlie Noggle. I have a 47-foot 

longliner, and I have fished black cod in Washington and Alaska 

for the past 21 years. 

An IFQ program for the west coast black cod would be a huge 

improvement for a small-boat fisherman like myself. It would allow 

me to be more efficient, increase the price of black cod that we receive down here, and reduce the cost of catching it. 

An IFQ program would enable me to move my gear to avoid halibut bycatch, which was something that always kind of bothered 

me off the west coast here, where it is a derby fishery, and all the 

grounds are covered. Fishermen are forced to set back pretty much 

where you start and it causes a fairly high halibut bycatch. It 

would allow me to operate considerably more safely if we got rid 

of the derby fishery. 

And the last thing that Arnie had mentioned about the family 

time—well, last summer, for example, I figured I was working 

every day from mid-June until the end of August, when the derby 

fishery out here was over with. And to turn this into an IFQ fishery and allow us to schedule it whenever we want, schedule the 

fishing off the west coast, it would allow me to spend some time 

with the family before they return to school in the fall. 

130

Thank you. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you. 

Ms. BUMPUS. The last witness is Mandy Merklein. 

STATEMENT OF MANDY MERKLEIN, BOARD MEMBER,

PACIFIC MARINE CONSERVATION COUNCIL 

Ms. MERKLEIN. I really appreciate you staying here through the 

bitter end to hear my last comments. 

My name is Mandy Merklein. I am a marine fishery scientist. I 

have been working up in Alaska and down here in Washington for 

over 15 years on all kinds of boats—little longliners, big factory 

trawlers—and it has given me an appreciation of the trials in both 

management and operating a fishing business, and I appreciate a 

lot of the comments you have heard today. 

I am here primarily in the capacity as a Board Member of the 

Pacific Marine Conservation Council, and I would like to give 

longer testimony here as part of the record. I will just make this 

short for you. 

Primarily, the Pacific Marine Conservation Council is a 17-board 

member nonprofit, and we have environmentalists, fishermen and 

scientists on our board. We are pretty new. We are just about two 

years old. We have about roughly 260 members right now. 

We believe that the Magnuson-Stevens Act should stay intact 

and it should stay strong. We really appreciate it. We think it 

needs time to develop, and we believe that the essential fish habitat language in the Act should also remain strong and broad. I 

think the comments that you heard from Rod were good about 

that—that the ecosystem is a chain and all the links need to be 

protected. Although it can be interpreted and improved upon, we 

want the language to stay strong. 

We also are very concerned about funding, particularly the Council staff itself is understaffed. And we would like to see good funding for the Councils so that they can operate effectively. We also 

are of course concerned about the stock assessment surveys not 

having enough funding to fulfill their duties. And particularly we 

are very concerned about the lack of an observer program off the 

west coast. Alaska has had many observer programs for over 14 

years in their groundfish fisheries. We need them in our marine 

mammal gill net programs, although that is not covered in your 

Act. 

And I think that I have been aghast to come down here off the 

west coast and see the lack of at-sea data. There is no data available on bycatch and discards at sea, which makes it very difficult 

to manage this fishery properly. So I am very concerned about total 

catch, as is PMCC. 

So I ask you to support a strong observer program. And there are 

ways you can do that in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. In particular, 

there are funding mechanisms that you can borrow from Alaska 

and apply down on the west coast. And I think they could be very 

well adopted down here despite some of the problems that Alaska 

sees. 

Thanks for your time. 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you. 

131

Well, that concludes our hearing. Before we leave, I want to ask 

unanimous consent to keep the record open for 10 legislative days 

for any additional statements, comments, or other information that 

the Subcommittee may want to include in the hearing record. 

I want to thank all of you for being here today, for presenting 

your thoughts and your concerns, for being an attentive audience, 

and for being very responsive to all of the issues as witnesses. The 

Subcommittee and I appreciate all the work that you did in order 

to make your presentations here today on what is a very significant 

issue to all of you, to our respective states, and to the Nation as 

a whole. 

I also want to thank Senator Gorton for extending an invitation 

to this Subcommittee to host this field hearing here in Seattle. I 

want to thank Senator Stevens for hosting us in Anchorage yesterday, it was a very valuable hearing. I also want to thank him for 

all of the knowledge that he brings to bear on this issue, as he has 

for a long time. 

So, again, thank you all very much. This concludes the hearing. 

[Whereupon, at 12:22 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(133)

A P P E N D I X

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE TO

PENELOPE DALTON

Question. NMFS has been criticized for its lack of compliance with National 

Standard 8 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act which requires NMFS to consider the 

economic impacts of regulations on small businesses. These regulations can be quite 

complex and they can have a tremendous effect on the day-to-day life of fishermen— the vast majority of which are indeed small, family-run businesses. 

Explain what the Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee could do to ensure that National Standard 8 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act are properly considered?

THE WITNESS DID NOT PROVIDE A RESPONSE. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE TO

ROD FUJITA

Question 1. It appears that the current groundfish crisis in the Pacific has been 

caused in large part due to a lack of basic scientific information. Only six of the 

83 groundfish stocks are assessed each year, and only 26 of the 83 have ever had 

some form of stock assessment analysis done at all. 

Do these ‘‘unknown’’ stocks make up a significant portion of the total groundfish 

catch? If so, which fish need to have basic scientific information about them? 

Obviously, funds are limited at NMFS, is this an area—the ‘‘unknown’’ groundfish 

stocks—which needs more dedicated funding, or is there a more effective way to 

spend money in the groundfish fishery than by doing 57 additional stock assessments? 

Answer. The groundfish crisis was caused by almost equal parts of lack of information and lack of precautionary approach. The prudent management response to 

the fact that only a small portion of all the species have been assessed, and even 

those assessed were of uncertain status (except that for many, landings showed 

rapid and fairly steady declines for many years before the ‘‘crisis’’) should have been 

to stop fishing them so hard, set up some research reserves, and collect some better 

data to inform management. Instead, the Council and NMFS chose in most cases 

to continue the status quo, despite the arguments of many scientists, environmentalists, and even some managers that this was going to result in a fishery collapse down the road. 

It’s hard to say what fraction of total groundfish landings are made up of 

‘‘unassessed’’ stocks, due to the lack of data. Even if it’s a relatively small fraction, 

however, it will be important to somehow limit fishing mortality on them because 

they could (and will) constrain fishing on more productive stocks that they are 

mixed with if they become depleted. For example, bocaccio contributed very little to 

commercial landings, but the fact that it has been depleted through sport catch, 

habitat damage, and bycatch in commercial fisheries has constrained a very large 

and valuable multispecies groundfish fishery due to mandated efforts to rebuild bocaccio. 

This is not to say that we must assess every single groundfish species. This would 

be prohibitively expensive. The alternative, it seems to me, is to set aside representative habitats that offer safe havens for all of these species to maintain their populations as no-take marine reserves. Another, perhaps complementary approach, 

would be to conduct some basic life history research (short of a full assessment) on 

each species to determine (if possible) things like the intrinsic rate of increase, von 

Bertalanffy growth parameters, age at first reproduction, and fecundity at first reproduction in order to classify each species as to its relative vulnerability to overfishing. This is the approach advocated by the American Fisheries Society, the nation’s premier association for fishery biologists. Management measures and data collection could then be targeted toward protecting the most vulnerable species, saving 

time, energy, and money. 

134

Question 2. The Congress has been critical of NMFS for not sufficiently considering the socio-economic impacts of its fishing regulations. The Subcommittee on 

Oceans and Fisheries has heard that NMFS does not take into account effects that 

their regulations have on actual fishermen and does not use the best or even sometimes, legitimate science as the basis of these decisions. There seems to be a gap 

between available scientific information and fisheries management decisions. 

Do you believe that considering the socio-economic impacts of potential regulations would reduce the ability of fisheries managers to make sound, science-based 

decisions? 

Do you believe that there is a lack of basic science in fisheries management decisions making? 

Answer. In an ideal world, socio-economic analyses would be truly comprehensive, 

taking account not only of impacts of regulations on the fishing industry, but also 

of impacts of inaction or overly aggressive fishing policies to biodiversity, ecosystems, future generations, and existence values held by most Americans. In this 

ideal world, consideration of socio-economic impacts would help managers make the 

right decisions. 

Unfortunately, socio-economic impact analyses focus almost exclusively on economic impacts on the fishing industry and fishing communities. Very little attention 

is given to non-economic values, or economic impacts on other sectors of the public. 

Thus, these kinds of analyses offer only a very skewed perspective on the real impacts of regulation. So, considering these kinds of analyses actually hampers decision-making. Socioeconomic impacts should be considered AFTER science-based recommendations are made and vetted, in a very transparent forum, so that the very 

subjective assumptions that underlie most socieoeconomic analyses can be critically 

evaluated and so that non-market values can be expressed. The decision-making 

forum should also make crystal clear WHY decisionmakers are deviating from a 

science-based recommendation, and they should be held accountable to such decisions. Such decisions should be guided by MFCMA definition of Optimum Yield, 

which clearly states that OY is to be based on MSY as REDUCED to account for 

a variety of factors. 

Question 3. In 1998, the Pacific Coast groundfish industry suffered from its lowest 

annual revenues in the last 18 years, about $68 million. An observer program, similar to observer programs in fisheries off of Alaska, would go a long way towards improving the supply of basic scientific information on groundfish stocks. Obviously, 

observers have been useful in the past to document bycatch. In a mixed-stock fishery, which has some stocks that are overfished, some that are not, and some that 

have an unknown status, like groundfish with its 83 stocks, identifying bycatch and 

other information is needed to better manage the fishery. 

How would you design an effective observer program? 

There are a limited number of qualified candidates who are eligible to be observers under a NMFS program. How could recruitment of observers be addressed? 

Answer. To save money and to account for the fact that not all west coast groundfish vessels can safely carry observers, I would design a program that would take 

a representative sample of the fleet. The sample must be large enough to result in 

statistically valid estimates of discard and bycatch rates. Another approach would 

be to conduct a scientific survey of discard, bycatch, and discard survival every couple of years, again using a representative sample. Tamper-proof video recorders may 

also provide a cost-effective way to document bycatch and discard rates, but require 

lots of time to analyze. Videotape could be sampled randomly by trained samplers/

recorders to save time. Results could be verified and calibrated by fully sampling 

some tapes and comparing the results to subsample variation. 

If a scientific survey approach were applied, observers could consist of scientists 

and graduate students. I would think that ex-fishermen would make excellent observers if trained in sampling and data entry. 

I hope these answers are helpful. Please don’t hesitate to contact me if I can be 

of further assistance. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE TO

PHIL ANDERSON

Question. NMFS has been criticized for its lack of compliance with National 

Standard 8 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act which requires NMFS to consider the 

economic impacts of regulations on small businesses. These regulations can be quite 

complex and they can have a tremendous effect on the day-to-day life of fishermen—

the vast majority of which are indeed small, family-run businesses. 

135

Do you believe that National Standard 8 has been properly considered, or do you 

feel that more emphasis should be placed on the socio-economic impacts of fisheries 

regulations? 

Answer. I believe that National Standard 8 has been properly considered within 

the Pacific Fishery Management Council forum. The Pacific Council reviews and 

considers the potential economic impacts to small businesses which may result from 

fishery regulations. The Pacific Council is currently in the process of documenting 

descriptions of west coast fishing communities to assist in assessing economic impacts. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE TO

PETER LEIPZIG

Question 1. 1995 you testified that the Pacific groundfish stocks were healthy and 

not overfished. In 2000 we hear of the Pacific groundfish collapse and the need for 

disaster assistance. 

Please explain what has changed in five years. Is this environmental, overcapitalization, poor science, or an additional factor? 

What action do you feel is necessary to deal with the current state of the Pacific 

groundfish fisheries? 

Question 1a. Please explain, what has changed in five years? 

Answer. This is the BIG question and there is no one single, simple answer. Several events have occurred and this has provided much opportunity for ‘‘finger pointing’’. One point that I would like to stress is that the record is clear, the amount 

of fish harvested has been very close to or below the quotas for each species since 

the early 1980’s, when the Groundfish Plan was adopted. NMFS and the Council 

were not pressured to set quotas higher than the recommendations coming from the 

scientific community. The following are comments about some of the issues that 

have contributed to our current situation.

• Survey information. The west coast groundfish resource has very little ‘‘fishery independent’’ data. NMFS has conducted a continental shelf trawl survey 

once every three years since 1977. This survey is conducted to a depth of 250 

fathoms, while the fishery operates out to depths of 600–700 fathoms. The 

southern extent of the survey is Central California, while fishing continues to 

the Mexican border. There are very few tows made during this survey and 

many species of groundfish are highly aggregated. This results in biomass estimates with a very high variance (plus or minus 100%). 

NMFS began conducting surveys on the continental slope in the late 1970’s. 

These surveys were not synoptic. Any one year only a small portion of the coast 

was sampled. In 1994 (?) it was determined that the trawl gear being used was 

not functioning properly. A NMFS appointed independent review of these surveys concluded that the data that had been collected should not be used in stock 

assessments. 

• Fish ages. In the mid- to late 1980’s, scientists concluded that the old techniques used for aging fish were inaccurate. It was believed that many species 

were older than formerly believed. This new information took time to be incorporated into stock assessments. However, if the fish were older, that meant that 

they grew slower and were less productive than we had believed. The rate of 

natural mortality was less. For some species this has translated into harvest 

levels being lower than they had been in the past. 

• Harvest policy. In the early 1990’s the Pacific Council adopted a default harvest policy of F35%. This is the fishing mortality rate that would reduce a population to the level that would produce 35% of the unfished spawning output. By 

the late 1990’s, scientists were recommending that this policy be changed for 

rockfish species to F40%–F45%. These new harvest policies meant in some cases 

that the quota needed to be reduced in order to increase the biomass. Recent 

analysis of stock assessment output suggests that the current level of recruitment for some species is insufficient to maintain the current population, and 

harvest policy targets should be increased once again, in some cases to F65%. 

• Sustainable Fisheries Act. In 1996 Congress passed the SFA. The implementing rules adopted by NMFS have employed a ‘‘risk adverse’’ approach to 

establishing quotas. For species where assessments have not been conducted, 

these rules require the harvest level be set at levels that are in some cases 50% 

of the recent catches. In multi-species fisheries, the species with the lowest 

quota in relation to the way fish are caught becomes the ‘‘weak stock’’ and controls the harvest of the remaining species. 

136

• Discards. The Pacific groundfish fishery imposes a limit on the amount of fish 

that can be landed for a given period of time. These are referred to as ‘‘trip limits’’. The purpose is to stretch the landings of fish over time, thus maintaining 

a higher exvessel value and greater economic yield from the fishery. On the 

down side, trip limits create regulatory discards. When a fisherman catches 

more than the limit the fish must be discarded at sea. Discards have been estimated based on dated observer work. These discards are subtracted from the 

quota. When quotas are reduced, the trip limits is reduced, and this causes 

more discards. We are caught in this cycle. [Note: an observer program will not 

eliminate discards, it will only estimate them better]. 

• Environment. There is very strong evidence that the ocean began changing 

in the late 1970’s to a condition that was not conducive for the survival of young 

rockfish. Data collected from Southern California power plants dramatically 

shows the drop in young fish that are entrapped in the cooling water intakes. 

The impact of this type of environmental change has been well documented for 

other species of fish. For rockfish that are long lived and slow to recruit into 

the fishery the change was difficult to detect at first. But the impact is real. 

• Over capacity. The groundfish fishery has had excess capacity for many years 

and a management system that is slow to react and slow to support change. 

The trawl fleet first proposed limited entry in 1985. In 1987 the PFMC set a 

control date to restrict new entrants. This date slipped to 1988, and it took until 

1994 before limited entry was implemented. The west coast groundfish industry 

lobbied for the industry funded buy-back provisions in Section 312 of the SFA, 

only to have NMFS drag their collective feet in publishing implementing regulations. Now it is too late for an industry program to reduce sufficient capacity 

alone; there is the need for government assistance.

Question 1b. What action do you feel is necessary to deal with the current state 

of the Pacific groundfish fisheries? 

Answer. Certainly we need to know more about the groundfish stocks. We need 

to know more about their actual age and rate of growth. Better, more precise estimates of population size and population trends are needed. But ‘‘more and better’’

science is a cop-out and will not solve the current problem in the groundfish fishery. 

If we begin new surveys today the information from those surveys will not be useful 

for stock assessments for 10 years. If funding were to be made available for such 

work and the funding were to cease in several years, all of the money would have 

been wasted. The fishery needs long-term continuous data series to be useful for 

stock assessment work. 

This fishery is in a state of crisis. The amount of fish available to harvest is much 

less than once occurred. A serious fleet reduction program is the only solution. The 

current situation is not going to end for many years. We have rebuilding plans with 

time frames that range from 10 to 40 years. Without assistance to reduce the fleet, 

some operators will fall into bankruptcy and their boats and permits will recycle 

into the fishery without solving the problem of too much capacity. 

Question 2. It appears that the current groundfish crisis in the Pacific has been 

caused in large part due to a lack of basic scientific information. Only six of the 

83 groundfish stocks are assessed each year, and only 26 of the 83 have ever had 

some form of stock assessment analysis done at all. 

Do these ‘‘unknown’’ stocks make-up a significant portion of the total groundfish 

catch? If so, which fish need to have basic scientific information available about 

them? 

Obviously, funds are limited at NMFS, is this an area—the ‘‘unknown’’ groundfish 

stocks—which needs more dedicated funding, or is there a more effective way to 

spend money in the groundfish fishery than by doing 57 additional stock assessments? 

Answer. Some of the species in the groundfish plan for which there are no stock 

assessments are rarely encountered. While others may be common, they do not comprise a significant component of the total landings. The question here is where best 

to spend money. Basic scientific questions related to aging of fish apply to nearly 

all groundfish. Age validation needs to occur for almost every species. This involves 

chemically tagging fish and releasing them to be caught years later. This type of 

work could be combined with other fishery independent surveys. These surveys if 

properly designed can provide abundance data simultaneously for many species. 

A stock assessment requires data on catch, age, weight, sex, trend indices, growth, 

etc. Surveys provide some of this information. Port sampling programs, logbooks, 

etc. can also supply some of this information. However, personnel to prepare a stock 

assessment require a biologist with expertise in population dynamics. There are 

137

only a few such biologists on the west coast. More stock assessments are limited to 

the number of these people. 

Question 3. The Congress has been critical of NMFS for not sufficiently considering the socio-economic impacts of its fishing regulations. The Subcommittee on 

Oceans and Fisheries has heard that NMFS does not take into account effects that 

their regulations have on actual fishermen and does not use the best or even sometimes, legitimate science as the basis of these decisions. There seems to be a gap 

between available scientific information and fisheries management decisions. 

Do you believe that considering the socio-economic impacts of potential regulations would reduce the ability of fisheries managers to make sound, science-based 

decisions? 

Do you believe there is a lack of basic science in fisheries management decisions 

making? 

Question 3a. Would considering the socio-economic impacts reduce the ability of 

managers to make sound decisions? 

Answer. In the short-term, NO. In the long-term, YES. A fishery resource is only 

able to produce a certain amount of surplus stock. What we harvest is this surplus 

and this is where the value of the fishery comes from. If a regulation is needed to 

protect the long-term productivity of the stock then eventually that regulation will 

be necessary. But if that regulation which is necessary to protect the long-term productivity of the stock is causing socio-economic hardship on fishermen if imposed 

today, then that same hardship will likely occur in future if the regulation is not 

imposed. 

Many fishery managers would view this situation and conclude that the hardship 

is coming one way or another. It might as well be now. These managers tend to 

think of fisheries management with concern only for the fish and little concern for 

the fishery, when in reality they are managing people. The solution is to find someway as a manager to lessen the hardship. This can be accomplished by reducing the 

capacity of the fleet or increasing the value from the resource. Fewer people fishing 

for the resource or the same number deriving more money for what they catch. 

In the short term, if a management action is taken that provides a transition 

through the hardship, imposing the long-term regulation can be delayed. 

Question 3b. Do you believe there is a lack of basic science in fisheries management decision making? 

Answer. Fishery science is a science in its infancy. It relies heavily on other disciplines such as biology and mathematics. Fishery science has few opportunities to 

test a hypothesis that are necessary to develop principles and laws such as are 

found in physics or chemistry. Untested concepts are often taken as truths when 

in fact they may have begun as a ‘‘rule of thumb’’. And to make things worse, we 

have written some of them into legal terms that form the political body of fisheries 

management. There is very little science in fisheries management. 

Question 4. In 1998, the Pacific Coast groundfish industry suffered from its lowest 

annual revenues in the last 18 years, about $68 million. An observer program, similar to observer programs in fisheries off of Alaska, would go a long way toward improving the supply of basic scientific information on groundfish stocks. Obviously, 

observers have been useful in the past to document bycatch. In a mixed-stock fishery, which has some stocks that are overfished, some that are not, and some that 

have an unknown status, like groundfish with its 83 stocks, identifying bycatch and 

other information is needed to better manage the fishery. 

How would you design an effective observer program? 

There are a limited number of qualified candidates who are eligible to be observers under a NMFS program. How could recruitment of observers be addressed? 

Question 4a. How would you design an effective observer program? 

Answer. In the introduction to these questions the term bycatch was used. I realize that there is a legal definition in the Act for bycatch, but in reality everyone 

seems to have his or her own also. To me a fisherman catches fish. Some of the 

catch he keeps. Some of the catch is thrown overboard. Of the catch that goes overboard, some was thrown back because it is not desirable (low value), and some is 

tossed because the law says it must be tossed. 

In the groundfish trawl fishery, the major component of fish that is not retained 

is tossed due to the regulations. In the longline fishery it is tossed because of low 

value and regulations. In the recreational fishery the fish are not desirable. Every 

sector of the fishery has bycatch. The reason for bycatch (discards) differs from sector to sector; just as the species that are landed varies, the species that are discarded vary. 

The purpose of an observer program must be identified before the program can 

be developed. Questions such as—Is the program for monitoring or is it for law enforcement? The program must identify what information needs to be collected, how 

138

it will be used, and who will collect and manage the database. The cost of collecting 

the identified needed data versus other ways of collecting the data should be analyzed. Once these types of questions have been addressed then a sampling protocol 

can be developed that provides coverage of all vessels that encounter groundfish, including recreational boats and commercial vessels that take groundfish incidentally 

while fishing in other fisheries. Sampling that provides statistically reliable estimates from every sector should be the goal of an observer program. 

Of course cost is a big issue. User funded programs that have been used elsewhere, do not appear to be realistic in the Pacific groundfish fishery. The trawl fishery has the highest gross revenue of all sectors, with a mean gross revenue around 

$160,000 per year. Other sectors are substantially lower. The size of boats is an additional problem. Again, the trawl sector has the larger average size boat; this is 

around 60 feet. These are older boats with often two bunks and no toilet facilities. 

Again, an observer program will not eliminate discards; it will only estimate them 

better. 

Question 4b. How could recruitment of observers be addressed? 

Answer. This is a very tough personnel question. The type of individual that is 

hired should reflect the purpose of the observer program. A different sort of person 

could be hired if the program thrust is law enforcement as opposed to biological data 

collection. Either way the people hired will likely be younger and looking to the program as a ‘‘first step’’ in a career. If the Federal and State governments are not expanding their fisheries programs there is little career path for observers. Therefore 

private observer companies will likely have high turn over and high associated costs 

as a result. 

On the west coast, when poor working conditions (small boats with little amenities) and little opportunity for advancement are coupled with the fact there are well 

over 2000 boats that either fish for or encounter groundfish while fishing for other 

species; the creation of an observer program is a major undertaking. 

Given the above, it is clear that creative ways will be required to place observers 

in the west coast groundfish fishery. Ideas such as college credit for students that 

participate in such a program and training commercial fishermen to collect data 

would need to be explored. Alternative ways to gather the same information can not 

be overlooked, such as full retention or charter fishing contracts. 

Question 5. Senator Kerry’s questions: . . . what is a ‘‘non-quota’’ approach? How 

would it work and in what fisheries? 

Answer. On the west coast there are several major well managed State fisheries 

that do not used quotas. If these fisheries were to be brought under the Federal system, they would die. 

Examples are Dungeness crab and Pacific pink shrimp. They both use seasons, 

gear restrictions, and (animal) size as the primary management tools. The crab fishery is also for males only. These fisheries have variable landings with wide swings 

in abundance that are environmentally driven. 

Other ideas for ‘‘non-quota’’ approaches could be based in the biological characteristics of the animals. Some fish, because of size or behavior, are not caught until 

they have attained a size or age by which they have multiple opportunities to 

spawn. Such fish could be fished extremely hard with no impact on the productivity 

of the stock. Pacific sanddabs and many of the ‘‘small’’ rockfish species are examples 

of this type of fish. 

Another approach would be to monitor the fishery for ‘‘change’’. As a university 

professor recently commented to me—‘‘We should think of ourselves as being in an 

airplane. We should not be concerned about how high we are, but rather are we 

going up or down?’’ Dramatic changes in the size of fish, sex ratio, or CPUE are 

all indicators that something has changed in the population. These changes may 

simply be part of the natural process of fishing down, indicators of strong year classes, or changing ocean conditions. On the other hand these types of changes may also 

indicate that a stock has been overharvested. To be able to sort out what is occurring requires that fisheries biologists once again become fisheries biologists rather 

than function as simply computer jockeys. Before NMFS, fishery biologists were part 

of the fishing community, down on the docks looking at fish and talking with fishermen. They learned a great deal from fishermen, and fishermen learn a great deal 

from them. Through mutual respect interpretation of information used to occur. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE TO

DAVID SAMPSON

Question 1a. It appears that the current groundfish crisis in the Pacific has been 

caused in large part by a lack of basic scientific information. Only six of the 83 

139

groundfish stocks are assessed each year, and only 26 of the 83 have ever had some 

form of stock assessment analysis done at all. 

Do these ‘‘unknown’’ stocks make up a significant portion of the total groundfish 

catch? If so, which fish need to have basic scientific information available about 

them? 

Answer. Tabulated below are annual commercial landings statistics (in metric 

tons) for the 15 different U.S. west coast groundfish stocks for which formal stock 

assessments were prepared and reviewed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) during 1997–99. The data shown were taken directly from the groundfish ‘‘Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation’’ documents published annually by 

the PFMC. For some species (e.g., petrale sole) the assessments did not cover the 

entire range for the species, whereas the landings statistics are for the entire U.S. 

west coast.

These 15 ‘‘assessed’’ stocks accounted for about 85% of the commercial harvest of 

groundfish along the U.S. west coast. The ‘‘unassessed’’ stocks made up a bit less 

than the remaining 15% of the landings. Some would argue that these unassessed 

stocks have ‘‘ecological significance’’ but they do not have much ‘‘economic significance’’. 

Question 1b. Obviously, funds are limited at NMFS. Is this an area—the ‘‘unknown’’ groundfish stocks—which needs more dedicated funding, or is there a more 

effective way to spend money in the groundfish fishery than by doing 57 additional 

stock assessments? 

Answer. It is very likely that many of the fishers who have been displaced by restrictive catch quotas from harvesting their traditional target species will instead 

increase their harvests of these minor unassessed stocks. More information on the 

status of these stocks would be beneficial for setting reasonable harvest quotas, 

which currently are based on historical landings for many of the unassessed stocks. 

Even more beneficial would be a reduction in the harvesting capacity of the fishing 

fleet. The fundamental problem in the west coast groundfish fishery is not lack of 

information about fish stock status; it is lack of any effective control over fishing 

capacity. We have allowed (and even encouraged) the fishing industry to increase, 

and now there are too many fishers chasing after a limited supply of fish. 

Question 2a. The Congress has been critical of NMFS for not sufficiently considering the socioeconomic impacts of its fishing regulations. The Subcommittee on 

Oceans and Fisheries has heard that NMFS does not take into account effects that 

their regulations have on actual fishermen and does not use the best or even someVerDate Apr 24 2002 09:41 Jul 25, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00143 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\77585.TXT SCOM2 PsN: JACKF

0119sam3.eps
140

times legitimate science as the basis of these decisions. There seems to be a gap 

between available scientific information and fisheries management decisions. 

Do you believe that considering the socio-economic impacts of potential regulations would reduce the ability of fisheries managers to make sound, science-based 

decisions? 

Answer. No. It is important to distinguish between two kinds of fishery management decisions: decisions about how much of the fish resource to harvest, versus decisions about who should be allowed to make the harvests and how much they 

should be allowed to take. Most fishery regulations (catch quotas, season limits, 

gear restrictions) are not uniformly beneficial or harmful to all interest groups. 

Managers can use socio-economic information to help weigh the costs, benefits, and 

harvest-allocation implications of different management actions. Fishery managers 

should not try to use fisheries science to adjudicate between different possible uses 

of our fish resources. Fisheries scientists can provide advice to fishery managers 

about the likely consequences of particular harvest quotas or fishing seasons, but 

fisheries science CANNOT answer the question ‘‘What should we be doing with our 

fish resources?’’ The political process needs to define the objectives of fishery management policy. Once the policy is set and the objectives are clear, the fishery scientists can give scientific advice on appropriate methods for achieving the objectives. 

Question 2b. Do you believe there is a lack of basic science in fisheries management decision making? 

Answer. No. In my experience as a member for six years of the Pacific Fishery 

Management Council’s Scientific and Statistical Committee the Council almost always heeded the recommendations of the stock assessment scientists regarding appropriate harvest levels. That is not to say, however, that fisheries science has been, 

or ever will be able to accurately estimate the sizes of the fish stocks or accurately 

predict whether or not the condition of the stocks will improve to a certain level in 

the future. Fisheries scientists have in general done a poor job at explaining or 

quantifying the uncertainty about the stock size estimates and catch projections 

that appear in most fish stock assessments. Also, it seems that many fishery managers would prefer the assessment scientists to provide a single best estimate for 

a catch quota rather than a range of values, perhaps because the managers do not 

know how to pick a ‘‘best’’ number from a range. Collectively we have not agreed 

on what is ‘‘best’’, whether to catch the fish or leave them in the water, whether 

to have a large fleet of small boats or a small fleet of big vessels. 

Question 3a. In 1998, the Pacific Coast groundfish industry suffered from its low- est annual revenues in the last 18 years, about $68 million. An observer program, 

similar to observer programs in fisheries off of Alaska, would go a big way toward 

improving the supply of basic scientific information on groundfish stocks. Obviously, 

observers have been useful in the past to document bycatch. In a mixed-stock fishery, which has some stocks that are overfished, some that are not, and some that 

have an unknown status, like groundfish with its 83 stocks, identifying bycatch and 

other information is needed to better manage the fishery. 

How would you design an effective observer program ? 

Answer. I disagree with the fundamental premise of the question, that an observer program is needed to improve ‘‘the supply of basic scientific information on 

groundfish stocks.’’ There are alternative ways to acquire much of the basic scientific information. Unfortunately, the debate has focused on having an observer 

program rather than on the data that is needed for stock assessment and fisheries 

management. 

In the groundfish fisheries in Alaska much of the harvest is caught and processed 

at sea, so that the only method for documenting the size of the catch and its biological characteristics (species composition and length, age, and sex compositions) is to 

have samplers aboard the fishing vessels. Off the U.S. west coast there is significant 

at-sea processing only in the at-sea component of the fishery for whiting (Pacific 

hake). There were U.S. observers aboard the foreign vessels that harvested whiting 

during the 1970s and early 1980s, and there have been observers aboard the U.S. 

factory trawlers that have been harvesting whiting off the U.S. west coast since 

1990. 

Other than the catches of whiting that are processed at sea, the groundfish 

caught off the U.S. west coast are landed at a relatively small number of ports that 

are routinely monitored by agents from the states of California, Oregon, and Washington. An observer program would certainly supplement the data collected by the 

State fishery agencies, but it would be much more cost-effective to simply provide 

more fishery agents to collect the data where the fish are landed. Most of the variability associated with the biological characteristics of the harvested fish is due to 

trip-to-trip variation. That is, the fish caught during a trip tend to have similar 

characteristics, whereas there are large differences in the characteristics between 

141

fish caught on different fishing trips. (Presumably different fishing boats harvest 

from different fish schools and the fish in a school tend to have similar characteristics.) An observer during a four-day fishing trip will be able to record sample data 

from a single trip, whereas that same person could take sample data on shore from 

three or four trips each day when the vessels land their catches. 

A shore-side sampler, however, only has access to the landed catch and not to any 

fish that are discarded at sea. With regard to discards, it is important to distinguish 

between at-sea discards of marketable fish versus discards of unmarketable fish. 

The discards of marketable fish largely occur because of fishery regulations. For example, trawl vessels are legally prohibited from landing salmon and halibut and 

must discard those fish at sea. Also, the Pacific Council imposes trip limits that restrict how much fish any given vessel can land during a given time period. Any 

catches above the limits must be dumped at sea. These regulations are extremely 

costly, in terms of wasted fish, wasted fishing effort, and distorted harvest data. 

Adding an observer program to monitor these discards adds further to the costs but 

does nothing to eliminate the problem. Surely there must be ways to modify the regulations to fix the problem of at-sea discards of marketable fish, for example, by allowing the fishers to land their overages but not receive the full market price. The 

fish would not be wasted and they would be accounted for by the usual shoreside 

monitoring systems. 

With regard to discards of unmarketable fish, we need a modest at-sea observer 

program to obtain information on the magnitude and biological characteristics of 

these discards. The program, however, would only need to monitor a very small fraction of the fishing trips to obtain reasonable data on the level and characteristics 

of the discards. 

Question 3b. There are a limited number of qualified candidates who are eligible 

to be observers under a NMFS program. How could recruitment of observers be addressed? 

Answer. If sufficient funds were made available, I’m certain that the existing observer companies would be able to find and train observers. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JOHN F. KERRY TO

JIM LONE

I saw the letter you submitted to Dr. Bill Hogarth and Mr. Will Stelle regarding 

budget initiatives necessary to obtain adequate data in the fisheries under your jurisdiction. I understand that in your region in particular, there has been a serious 

problem with obtaining adequate data upon which to make sound management decisions. 

Question 1a. How does the Council and/or the Scientific and Statistical Committee 

prioritize research needs? 

Answer. The Council reviews its research and data needs every two years. This 

review includes consultation with the SSC, Groundfish Management Team, Groundfish Advisory Subpanel, other advisory groups and the public. The Council sets priorities for research and data needs based on the following ranked criteria.

1. Projects that address long term fundamental problems of west coast fisheries. 

2. Projects that improve the quality of information, models, and analytical 

tools used for biological assessment and management. 

3. Projects that increase the long run market competitiveness and economic 

profitability of the industry. 

4. Projects that contribute to the understanding by decision makers of social 

and economic implications in meeting biological and conservation objectives. 

5. Projects that provide data and/or information to meet the requirements of 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and other applicable 

laws.

The list of research and data needs is made available to NMFS and various research institutions (universities, etc.). 

Question 1b. Once these needs are prioritized, is there adequate funding available 

to do the necessary research? Is a lack of adequate funding the reason for the poor 

information we have on rockfish? 

Answer. There is a severe shortage of basic information about many west coast 

groundfish species, and this is particularly true of rockfish. There are over 50 species of rockfish listed in the groundfish fishery management plan, and we have comprehensive stock assessments on fewer than ten of them. Rockfish typically grow 

and mature more slowly than many other types of fish, and many species live 50–

142

75 years and even longer. Most rockfish species are not distributed evenly, but rather have patchy distributions that are often associated with rockpiles, pinnacles, 

reefs, and ridges along the ocean floor. These areas are difficult to survey because 

trawl nets (which are the primary sampling gear) tend to snag on rocks and other 

obstacles. In addition, the NMFS research surveys do not go shallow enough to sample many species. This leaves many areas neglected. Within the survey areas, the 

patchy distribution of rockfish requires that many more samples be taken in order 

to accurately assess how many fish are present. NMFS does not have the personnel, 

equipment and technology to survey these areas, nor the funds to develop the technology and acquire the equipment. Given the current level of survey activity, NMFS 

is doing a good job; but more survey activity is needed, which will require additional 

funds and personnel. 

While stock assessment is one of the Council’s highest priorities, information on 

economic and social conditions is also essential for informed decision making. There 

has not been adequate funding for development of biological, economic and social 

data collection and research on a number of fronts. Improved estimates of the total 

rockfish catch will require additional funding for observer programs and other data 

collection activities. This is because commercial vessels typically land a mix of species in a single load, and often record the amounts under broad categories such as 

‘‘small red rockfish’’. The west coast data system relies on port samplers to sample 

representative catches to determine the ratios of various species that are caught. 

Fishers and fish buyers generally record the landed amounts by species group rather than individual species receipts because (1) a substantial sorting and paperwork 

burden would be placed on fishers and processors to identify and weigh each species 

of rockfish in a landing, and (2) it is often extremely difficult and time consuming 

to differentiate among the 60+ species of rockfish on the coast, and not all fishers 

have the necessary expertise to identify every species. Trawl vessels take the large 

majority of the catch, therefore much of the port sampling effort has been focused 

on trawl vessels. The number and size of trawl landings have declined with declining stocks and more stringent regulations, and it has become more difficult to get 

adequate sampling of the trawl catch. Additionally, as the importance and concern 

over species taken by non-trawl vessels have increased, the inadequacies of the sampling efforts for these non-trawl species has become more apparent. More port samplers are needed to collect species composition and collect the biological data needed 

for stock assessments. This information is also needed for addressing allocation 

issues. While port sampling is important, it does not reveal the amount of catch that 

may have been discarded at sea. For that an at-sea observer program is needed. An 

observer program could offset to a certain degree the amount of port sampling needed. 

Question 1c. Could you explain the different sorts of data and research necessary 

to improve management (i.e. life history information, population dynamics, surveys, 

etc.)? 

Answer. In order to set appropriate target harvest levels, the Council needs accurate estimates of current biomass of the various fish populations, the age structure 

and distribution, how fast they grow, how old they are when they start breeding, 

how long they live, and other basic information. In addition, it is important to know 

the total amount of fish caught and killed, including the size and age of those fish, 

and size of incoming year classes. Some of this information comes from scientific resource assessment surveys, and some from the commercial and recreational fisheries.

Resource Assessment Surveys. The current west coast groundfish survey strategy is 

primarily based on a triennial schedule that includes a bottom trawl survey of the 

continental shelf resources and a combined acoustic and midwater trawl survey for 

Pacific whiting. The bottom trawl survey design is inadequate for estimating many 

of the nearshore flatfish, does not extend deeper than the shelf, and has too few 

stations to estimate shelf rockfish with the desired level of precision. Annual plankton and larvae surveys off California have been used for coastal pelagic stocks and 

can be used for some groundfish stocks such as nearshore flatfish. An annual trawl 

survey of the continental slope groundfish resources has not had sufficient number 

of days to adequately cover the entire coast line. With the expanding emphasis to 

improve the stock assessments for the groundfish, new opportunities and sampling 

technologies are needed to expand the survey frequency, areas and species.

Fishery Monitoring and Data Collection. One of the most important Council needs 

is accurate assessment of total removals to estimate fishing mortality and accurate 

tally of fishery landings in-season. The benefits of fishing regulations cannot be 

evaluated unless there is good information on the effects of the regulation on harvest. In-season monitoring of catch rates is necessary to ensure that harvests do not 

143

substantially deviate from target levels. Currently, the greatest concerns are accurate estimates of amounts of fish discarded in multi-species fisheries and unreported 

or under reported landings.

Fishery and Productivity Parameters. Assessment models of the productivity of the 

various groundfish stocks depend on good estimates of fishery catch by age, current 

estimates of biomass and recruitment, and also reliable estimates of growth in 

length and weight, fecundity and sexual maturity, natural mortality, and differential location/movement by size, age, and sex. The data for these come from sampling 

fish in commercial and recreational catches and from scientific surveys. Expansion 

of survey activities and increased fishery sampling would improve fishery and biological parameters and result in better stock assessments.

Stock Assessment Modeling. Development of reliable stock assessment models of the 

dynamics of the important fish stocks is critical to evaluating optimum yield and 

MSY control rules for species or species groups for managing annual fisheries. These 

model results are usually presented as updated stock assessment reports. Typically, 

models are more complex when little information is available, or when there is conflicting information.

Habitat. The Sustainable Fisheries Act established new priorities for the consideration of impacts on habitat. More information is needed to understand the impacts 

of different fishing gears on habitat and the importance of different habitats and/

or refugia for maintaining the fishery.

In summary, the following data collection and research activities need additional 

support.

• Fishery independent surveys—estimate total biomass, estimate year class 

sizes, better understand the influence of environmental factors. All major fish 

assemblages and habitats need to be covered as well as various life stages. 

• Port sampling—to determine the species composition of landings and collect 

the biological data needed for stock assessments. 

• Observer program—to determine the composition of catch and better account 

for total mortalities; and to increase the understanding of stock aggregations by 

gathering tow by tow or set-by-set information rather than aggregate trip information. This information would improve stock assessments and provide managers with a better understanding of how regulations influence discards. 

• Recreational fishery surveys—estimate effort, species composition, catch 

rates, and intended target species in order to conduct stock assessments; estimate local income impacts and net economic values; predict effects of regulatory 

changes. More precise information is needed for smaller geographic areas, particularly with respect to management of the rockfish fisheries, assessment of 

community impacts, and assessment of the potential conservation benefits and 

impacts of marine reserves. 

• Habitat studies—determine gear impacts on habitat and identify habitat 

areas of particular concern in order to develop management recommendations 

that take better account of habitat. 

• Economic data collection and an economic and social science program on the 

west coast—project effects of regulations on fisher behavioral response and 

hence fishing mortality, in addition to meeting the regulatory requirements and 

facilitating more socially acceptable management decisions. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR OLYMPIA J. SNOWE TO

JIM LONE

Question. NMFS has been criticized for its lack of compliance with National 

Standard 8 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, which requires NMFS to consider the 

economic impacts of regulations on small businesses. These regulations can be quite 

complex and they can have a tremendous effect on the day-to-day life of fishermen—

the vast majority of which are indeed small, family-run businesses. 

Do you believe that National Standard 8 has been properly considered or do you 

feel that more emphasis should be placed on the socio-economic impacts of fisheries 

regulations? 

Answer. I believe NMFS and the Council have tried to comply with National 

Standard 8 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and they have done a credible job 

with the available information. However, there is definitely a need for improvement 

in the information available on socio-economic impacts of fisheries regulations on 

businesses and communities. The Council is in the process of completing a profile 

of west coast fishing businesses and communities that will help predict the economic 

144

impacts on businesses and communities. However, we are facing declining stocks 

and more stringent requirements to prevent overfishing and practice risk-averse 

management. Increased emphasis on socio-economic impacts should not come at the 

expense of resource conservation. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF W.F. ‘‘ZEKE’’ GRADER, JR., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PACIFIC COAST FEDERATION OF FISHERMEN’S ASSOCIATION

Members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to provide written testimony on the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation & 

Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. (‘‘Magnuson Act’’). I have served as the Executive Director and counsel to the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations (PCFFA) since the organization’s founding in 1976, shortly before the passage 

of HR 200, the Fishery Conservation & Management Act (FCMA). PCFFA represents working men and women in the west coast commercial fishing fleet—mainly 

owner/operators in the small to mid-size vessel fleet, the ‘‘family fishermen.’’ It is 

the largest commercial fishermen’s organization on the U.S. west coast. 

PCFFA is intimately familiar with the Magnuson Act. As you know, some of the 

first efforts at extending U.S. fisheries jurisdiction started here on the west coast 

in the late 1940’s and in 1969, some of PCFFA’s member organizations worked with 

former California Congressman Don Clausen when he introduced the first 200 mile 

limit bill in the Congress. PCFFA member organizations also worked to convince another former California Congressman, Robert Leggett, of the need for extended fisheries jurisdiction. Leggett’s support, as chair of the old House Merchant Marine & 

Fisheries Committee’s Fisheries & Wildlife Subcommittee, was crucial to the House 

passage of Congressman Studds’ bill, HR 200. The newly-formed PCFFA was one 

of numerous fishery groups throughout the nation urging President Ford to sign the 

bill when the FCMA arrived on his desk that spring. The FCMA was to be the ‘‘renaissance of America’s fisheries.’’

In the years since, PCFFA has tried to work with the Pacific Fishery Management 

Council, and has been involved in developing legislative language in most of the reauthorizations of the FCMA (e.g., see PCFFA’s 22 July 1985 testimony to the Commerce, Science & Transportation Committee). Some of our issues have included: (1) 

a requirement that fishery habitat language be included in the act; (2) a requirement that Council members know something about fisheries before being appointed; 

(3) a requirement that Council’s consider fleet safety and fishing community impacts 

in their decision making; and (4) a requirement that fisheries be managed 

sustainably. Indeed, PCFFA was probably the first fishery organization in the nation to argue for the fishery Councils and the National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) to address fish habitat issues in fishery management plans. In the late 

1970’s it was clear to us that unless something was done to protect the in-river 

spawning and nursery habitat of salmon, no amount of regulation of the fishing fleet 

was going to conserve these fish. 

I was one of the original members of the PFMC’s Salmon Advisory Subpanel and 

served as a commercial troll representative on that body before stepping down in 

the mid-1980’s and being succeeded by PCFFA’s then-president, Nat Bingham. Two 

of PCFFA’s officers—Dave Danbom and Nat Bingham—subsequently served on the 

Pacific Council, although it was a real struggle to get Commerce and NMFS to appoint anyone from the salmon fisheries or committed to sustainable fisheries. A 

number of PCFFA’s other officers and board members have also served on various 

PFMC committees over the years. All of this is to say that our organization is as 

well-qualified as any, given its history and participation, to comment on regional 

Council operations and Magnuson Act reauthorization. 

We wish to thank Senator Wyden’s office for their assistance in allowing us to 

provide written testimony to this reauthorization hearing, although we would have 

preferred to have testified in person. The Committee is to be complimented, however, for its witness list and having brought many of those responsible for the current situation in the Pacific Coast fisheries together to offer their oral statements 

and be questioned by members. We are not content to do nothing in this reauthorization round, to simply give the Sustainable Fisheries Act time for implementation. 

It is clear to us that some legislative changes are needed now to the Magnuson Act 

to assure protection of fish stocks and working fishing men and women. It is unfortunate that there is a need to keep amending the Magnuson Act; the original FCMA 

was a well-crafted statute. The problem is it was handed over to those who either 

did not care about, or were incapable of, assuring America’s oldest industry was sustainable. We are resigned to the fact that we will have to keep amending the Magnuson Act until, as former Congressman Studds’ has stated, ‘‘they finally get it 

145

right.’’ PCFFA is a member of the Marine Fish Conservation Network (MFCN) and 

is working with that coalition on proposed Magnuson Act amendments for this reauthorization round. 

PCFFA’s testimony here will focus on five issues: (1) essential fish habitat; (2) 

fishing effort reduction; (3) regional Council membership; (4) the moratorium on individual transferrable quotas (ITQs); and (5) the marine protected areas (MPAs) in 

fisheries management. The positions taken here are PCFFA’s own and do not necessarily include all of the issues that will be raised by MFCN. We believe, however, 

they are consistent with most of the positions that have been developed by the coalition. 

Essential Fish Habitat 

From the PFMC’s earliest days, PCFFA’s warnings on habitat were largely ignored, ‘‘blown-off,’’ by that Council, NMFS and the state agencies until at least 

1993. It was during the coho crisis of 1993 (the PFMC ordered a closure of both 

commercial and ocean sport fishing of coho that year) when it finally dawned on 

some that even complete fishery closures would not save the salmon if dam operations continued ‘‘business as usual,’’ if there were not adequate flows instream, and 

if something was not done to protect forested watersheds—particularly from the impacts of egregious logging practices. 

The salmon fisheries now left under the PFMC’s jurisdiction are largely a result 

of the efforts of a coalition of commercial and sport fishermen, tribes and conservation groups working tirelessly to protect and restore salmon habitat. In fact, the 

salmon fishery that remains offshore the three Pacific states, exists despite the actions of the PFMC and NMFS, not because of them. 

Prior to the enactment of the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA), the Pacific Council 

appointed a ‘‘Habitat Steering Group,’’ largely at the insistence of the late Nat Bingham, and this committee has begun aggressively addressing salmon habitat issues. 

The PFMC has, with some reluctance, been willing to follow the advice of the experts on the salmon issue. The problem we have encountered has been NMFS failure, largely under the Endangered Species Act, to take effective action, particularly 

in the Pacific Northwest, to protect remaining salmon stocks. Initially the agency 

was reluctant to list, after it and the Pacific Council allowed salmon stocks to decline precipitously as a result of habitat destruction. Now the agency has taken 

more of a ‘‘list and run’’ attitude, still focused mainly on what little fishing effort 

is even allowed rather than the clear and obvious losses occurring in the rivers and 

watersheds from habitat destruction. 

In the groundfish fishery, the Pacific Council has failed to date, more than three 

years after SFA passage, to put in place effective measures aimed at eliminating 

fishing gear impacts on groundfish habitat; i.e., prohibiting the use of ‘‘roller’’ trawl 

gear on hard and rocky bottoms. Perhaps the Pacific Council can be excused somewhat by its reluctance to put in place hard measures aimed at reducing the impact 

of fishing gear on essential fish habitat (EFH) given NMFS delay in implementation 

of EFH provisions enacted in 1996 SFA. Habitat damaging fishing practices (e.g., 

roller trawl gear) as well as coastal development and the resultant pollution continue to threaten the sustainability of our fish stocks and fishing industry. Yet, the 

continuing delay in finalizing EFH regulations and the approval of FMPs that do 

not address the EFH mandate raise serious questions about NMFS and the regional 

Councils’ commitment to implementing the EFH requirements of the law. Indeed, 

it raises serious questions about their commitment to sustainable fisheries or to the 

future of this nation’s fishing industry. 

It is clear to us that stronger language will be needed on EFH in the Magnuson 

Act to get NMFS and the regional Councils to do what they should be doing. 

Reducing Fleet Capacity 

The west coast groundfish fishery is a disaster. This one, however, unlike past 

fishery disasters caused by El Ninos, hurricanes and other natural occurrences, was 

of our own making and clearly foreseeable. As early as the late 1970’s while the Pacific Council was actively pursuing its ‘‘weak stock’ management policy for salmon 

(while blithely ignoring habitat impacts) severely restricting the ocean fisheries, it 

was pursuing a policy of knowingly allowing the overfishing of certain species of the 

groundfish complex to allow the industrial trawlers maximum harvests. It failed to 

act in a timely manner to enact a limited entry program for groundfish. Mostly, the 

groundfish limited entry program merely secured a place in the fishery for a trawl 

fleet that was far too large for the existing resource. That program, incidentally, 

was enacted not only at the expense of the resource but to the detriment of the 

smaller hook-and-line groundfish fishermen and small trawl operators. While the 

Pacific Council has allowed itself to get sidetracked on recreational fishing closures 

146

and restrictions on the small-boat (and small) live-fish fishery, remember, it is the 

large trawl fleet that is taking the lion’s share of the groundfish resource and responsible for most of the bycatch (discards) in this fishery. 

To us, one of the first steps needed to be taken to begin reversing the groundfish 

disaster is to reduce the trawl fleet capacity on the west coast by fifty percent or 

more. Whether it is done under the Magnuson Act or some other action, the trawl 

fleet needs to be reduced by at least half of its fishing capacity and half of the active 

fleet of boats. There is, too, we believe, a clear federal responsibility here. First, this 

disaster occurred under federal management. Second, the trawl fleet was encouraged to expand and increase in capacity under the ‘‘Americanization’’ of the U.S. 

fisheries following FCMA passage. Third, much of the trawl fleet expansion was 

funded by federal dollars in the form of loan guarantees. 

A buy-back or retirement from the fishery program for the large trawlers cannot 

simply be a buy-out of the groundfish permit, it must be a complete retirement of 

the vessel from fishing (e.g., scrapping). Unless this excess capacity and excess fleet 

is taken out of the fisheries altogether, it will simply mean ex-groundfish vessels 

going into other fisheries and creating problems in those fisheries—a kind of ‘‘serial 

depletion.’’ We need, as one representative of the trawl fleet testified, ‘‘to find a way 

where they can leave the fishery with dignity.’’ This is no time for Congress to be 

cheap. The quicker the excess trawl capacity issue is dealt with in the groundfish 

fishery, the sooner that fishery will be on its road to recovery, providing jobs for 

small trawlers, longliners, hook-and-liners, and putting dollars back into the economy. 

Regional Council Membership 

In 1985 and 1986, PCFFA was actively involved with the National Wildlife Federation working on Magnuson Act amendments. One of the amendments we sought 

was to tighten up the qualifications for membership on the regional Councils, aimed 

at eliminating the ‘‘dabbling dilettantes’’ being nominated by the governors and appointed by Commerce that knew next to nothing about fisheries. That amendment 

did help the Council process by at least requiring some fishery expertise of Council 

members. The problem that exists today, is the language: (1) may have been drafted 

so tightly (although we do not believe it was) as to eliminate consideration and appointment of knowledgeable representatives of the conservation community; and (2) 

may not fully eliminate potential conflict of interest problems. 

In 1985, there was little interest on the part of the conservation community in 

fisheries or the Magnuson Act. All that has changed in the past 15 years and 

PCFFA finds itself working closely with conservation organizations on fishery issues 

much the same as it worked with many of the same organizations on wetland, forest 

practice, and offshore oil issues two decades ago. If the governors or Commerce are 

reluctant to nominate or appoint conservation representatives because of current 

Magnuson language, then the Act should be amended, making it explicit that knowledgeable conservation representatives are eligible for membership. 

PCFFA is dismayed that some regional Council members have used their position 

for their personal financial benefit. But before rushing to eliminate commercial fishermen from the regional Councils, and the expertise and knowledge they bring to 

the process, Congress needs to consider the potential conflicts of interest of all

Council members and deal with that as a package. Clearly, representatives of organizations, who are staff, whether they be commercial fishing, sport fishing, processor, or conservation, will have a direct and financial conflict if they are forced to 

vote on an issue where commitments have been made to members or funding groups 

and the position of that individual could be in jeopardy as a result of his/her vote 

or votes on an issue. If the problem of having an organization’s executive or staff 

member sit on a regional Council, and their potential conflict of interest is not addressed, the regional Councils are likely to end up being filled with association executives—at least from the fishing industry—with no practical fishing experience or 

expertise. They will sit on the Councils earning their association pay placating the 

most extreme elements within their groups. This is the worst kind of conflict, because such members will be hesitant to take any position that any of their members 

might not agree with out of fear of losing their jobs. 

An even more insidious conflict of interest problem exists with the state fishery 

directors sitting on the regional Councils. The conflict of interest that helped destroy 

the salmon fishery was not from fishermen sitting on the Pacific Council but from 

state fishery directors carrying out their Governors policies of protecting the big 

dam operators, irrigation operators and timber corporations at the expense of the 

fish and fishing men and women. Congress has to come to grips with this very real 

conflict of interest that often exists with the state fishery directors sitting on the 

regional Councils. At the very least, where a state Administration policy is in conVerDate Apr 24 2002 09:41 Jul 25, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00150 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\77585.TXT SCOM2 PsN: JACKF
147

flict with fishery conservation, the state fishery director should be required to recuse 

themselves and not vote. 

Finally, although this is not a Council membership conflict of interest issue, it is 

a clear conflict of interest. It is the continuing problem of having the supposedly 

‘‘independent’’ regional Councils reliant on being represented by attorneys from the 

office of NOAA General Counsel. It is my experience that the regional Councils 

would be far better served and make better decisions were they advised and represented by their own legal counsel and not attorneys bought and paid for by 

NMFS. How can we expect the regional Councils to exercise any type of independent 

judgement if they are being advised by NOAA Counsel? 

Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQs) 

There are always some looking for a ‘‘magic bullet’’ that will cure all that ails a 

problem, despite the complexity. No doubt there are some that have testified before 

the Committee that if only we allow the regional Councils to go to ITQ management 

or establish no-take marine protected areas (MPAs) all will be solved in the fishery. 

We’re here to tell you there is no magic solution for our fisheries and some of the 

bullets that have been proposed can be downright deadly in the wrong hands or 

with a shotgun approach. 

First of all, ITQs can only work for fisheries that are under quota management, 

which many are not under. Therefore, they are not much good for fisheries such as 

many salmon fisheries that are managed by seasons and area closures, not quotas. 

Second, ITQs do not necessarily work as proponents claim, nor do they necessarily 

promote conservation. In some instances, ITQs have made fishermen into sharecroppers. Their lot has not been improved by ITQs, but worsened. 

ITQs are not and should not exist, as many have, for the benefit of processors, 

banks or lending institutions. Unless they clearly promote conservation and unless 

they can help fishing men and women and the fishing communities, they should 

continue to be banned. Unless they are uniformly endorsed by the fishing men and 

women who will be subject to them (not some magic bullet idea from a conservation 

group now seeing blue) they should not even be considered. You should note the Icelandic courts, to the relief of many of its fishermen, have thrown out that nation’s 

ITQ program. 

Prior to any lifting of the ITQ moratorium, NMFS should be directed to prepare 

guidelines for the region Councils to follow in any ITQ scheme and then allow for 

a national debate to determine once and for all whether this is the course that 

should be followed for some fisheries and, if so, what should the ITQ programs look 

like? 

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) 

The other ‘‘magic bullet’’ now being thrown around to solve our fishery problems 

are marine protected areas or MPAs. Marine protected areas or reserves are hardly 

a new thing and have existed in coastal ocean areas of the world, including the U.S. 

for years. Within those where most human activities are precluded, they may be 

useful for baseline scientific research. In other instances, even where certain types 

of fishing and other activities are allowed, these areas can help to protect special 

habitats or certain resident species of fish or shellfish. What is important here, to 

note, however, is that they are not a useful management or conservation tool for 

all fisheries, nor do they necessarily have to preclude take, if their purpose is not 

solely for research. 

We would hope that in the discussion over MPAs, Congress allow the regional 

Councils to proceed with exploring this issue, neither limiting the debate, nor directing the Councils or NMFS to take actions without thorough scientific and fishing 

industry input and review. MPAs may serve a useful purpose in providing us baseline information, or protecting certain habitats or resident species, but they are not 

a substitute for other fishery management measures or tough EFH protections. And, 

if not carefully selected and implemented, MPAs could actually exacerbate some 

fishery problems by unnecessarily closing some fishing areas or forcing fishing into 

areas not capable of sustaining high effort levels. 

Again, PCFFA wishes to thank the Committee for the opportunity to provide 

these written comments. If members or staff have any questions, please contact our 

San Francisco office. Thank you.

Æ