U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

23–227 PDF 2017

S. HRG. 114–523 

THE MAGNUSON-STEVENS ACT AT 40: SUCCESSES, 

CHALLENGES, AND THE PATH FORWARD 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, ATMOSPHERE, 

FISHERIES, AND COAST GUARD 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

FEBRUARY 23, 2016 

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

( 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

BILL NELSON, Florida, Ranking 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts 

CORY BOOKER, New Jersey 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia 

GARY PETERS, Michigan 

NICK ROSSI, Staff Director 

ADRIAN ARNAKIS Deputy Staff Director 

REBECCA SEIDEL, General Counsel 

JASON VAN BEEK, Deputy General Counsel 

KIM LIPSKY, Democratic Staff Director 

CHRIS DAY, Democratic Deputy Staff Director 

CLINT ODOM, Democratic General Counsel and Policy Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, ATMOSPHERE, FISHERIES, 

AND COAST GUARD 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida, Chairman 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

CORY BOOKER, New Jersey, Ranking 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

GARY PETERS, Michigan 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on February 23, 2016 ....................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Sullivan ............................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Booker .................................................................................. 3 

Statement of Senator Nelson .................................................................................. 4 

Statement of Senator Cantwell .............................................................................. 16 

Statement of Senator Ayotte ................................................................................... 18 

Statement of Senator Schatz .................................................................................. 20 

Statement of Senator Blumenthal .......................................................................... 22 

Statement of Senator Markey ................................................................................. 24 

WITNESSES

Hon. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory 

Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce .................................... 5 

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

APPENDIX

Hon. Marco Rubio, U.S. Senator from Florida, prepared statement ................... 35 

Written Testimony on behalf of the Alaska Longline Fishermen’s Association 

(ALFA), the Alaska Marine Conservation Council (AMCC), the Central 

Bering Sea Fishermen’s Association (CBSFA), the City of Saint Paul Island, 

AK, (the City), and the Halibut Association of North America (HANA) ......... 35 

Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Samuel D. Rauch III by: 

Hon. John Thune .............................................................................................. 40 

Hon. Roger F. Wicker ....................................................................................... 42 

Hon. Kelly Ayotte ............................................................................................. 45 

Hon. Bill Nelson ............................................................................................... 46 

Hon. Cory Booker ............................................................................................. 52 

Hon. Richard Blumenthal ................................................................................ 54 

Hon. Gary Peters .............................................................................................. 62 

(1) 

THE MAGNUSON-STEVENS ACT AT 40: 

SUCCESSES, CHALLENGES, AND 

THE PATH FORWARD 

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2016 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, ATMOSPHERE, FISHERIES, 

AND COAST GUARD, 

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:36 p.m. in room 

SR–253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Dan Sullivan, presiding. 

Present: Senators Sullivan [presiding], Wicker, Ayotte, Nelson, 

Booker, Cantwell, Blumenthal, Markey, Schatz, and Peters. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAN SULLIVAN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

Senator SULLIVAN. The Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, 

Fisheries, and the Coast Guard will now come to order. Good afternoon. 

The purpose of today’s hearing is to recognize the 40th anniversary of the enactment of what is known as the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the MSA, as we call it 

in Alaska, and to examine this law’s impacts on managing our Nation’s fisheries, its successes, and possible areas of improvement. 

As I have mentioned at this committee many times before, Alaska’s fisheries are by far the largest in the Nation. I know my colleague from Massachusetts was just here. We refer to ourselves as 

the superpower of seafood. Almost 60 percent of all landings in 

America come from the shores of Alaska or Alaskan waters. 

But this was not always the case. Before President Ford signed 

the MSA legislation on April 13, 1976, residents in many of Alaska’s coastal communities could see a wall of lights off their shores 

emanating from the large foreign ships that were catching Alaska’s 

fish, America’s fish, and taking our economic potential as a state 

and as a country back home with them. 

The MSA has successfully Americanized our fisheries and built 

the fishing industry in the United States that today is one of our 

largest employers certainly in Alaska and in many other States 

throughout the country. 

Through the MSA’s guiding principles, the 10 National Standards as applied by the eight regional fishery management Councils 

who manage the fisheries off America’s coasts in a science-based 

2 

and open and transparent stakeholder-driven process, the MSA has 

resulted in the world’s best managed fisheries, particularly in Alaska where we have no overfished stocks resulting from fishing. 

Nationally the impacts have been similar. Today the Council and 

NMFS manage 469 stocks through 46 fishery management plans 

and only a small fraction of these are impacted by overfishing, 

fewer than ever before. The value derived from harvesting these 

species in our country is near an all-time high. 

Bottom line, today’s hearing is about a good news story. Congress 

recognized a problem, studied it, focused on balancing economic 

and sustainability issues, and acted in a bipartisan long-term way 

that has dramatically and positively impacted our Nation. 

Today maintaining economics without jeopardizing conservation 

is the great charge that Congress has assigned to NMFS and all 

of the councils, and it is a requirement that can obviously be a 

strained balancing act. But we must ensure that our Nation’s fisheries management system supports a stable food supply, recreational opportunities, and plentiful fishing and processing jobs 

for vibrant coastal communities. 

Conservation and management must go hand in hand, and we 

cannot allow a desire for preservation to replace a productive domestic seafood industry. Already today under the law, the North 

Pacific and other Councils are managing with conservation in 

mind, considering habitat protections, ecosystems management, 

and time, area, and gear closures to protect other fisheries and protected species. While some regions have had better and more abundant science than others and some Councils function more effectively than others, separating fish politics from science and allowing those closest to the fisheries to make decisions rather than 

someone back in Washington, D.C. is a true hallmark of the MSA. 

And it is Congress’ job to provide the tools and resources to get this 

job done. 

The MSA has gone through two major reauthorizations, one in 

1996 and another in 2006. And like anything else, from time to 

time, it may be appropriate and necessary for updates to respond 

to current conditions. Last year, the House of Representatives did 

just that with its MSA Reauthorization Act. 

Similarly, NMFS has proposed rules to update the National 

Standards guidelines, but the National Standards guidelines are 

not law and only serve as guidance to the councils. It is also worth 

mentioning that NMFS updates track similar issues as what is proposed in the House bill. 

At the same time, I have heard from Alaska’s fishermen that our 

role as the steward of the MSA should largely be that of a doctor 

practicing the mantra ‘‘first do no harm.’’ And that is a great testament to the vision and hard work of those who crafted the act 40 

years ago, including the dozens of Alaskans that camped out in the 

offices of Don Young and Ted Stevens back in the 1970s as they 

and others like Congressman Gary Studds of Massachusetts and 

Senator Warren Magnuson of Washington crafted the law that 

would manage our Nation’s fisheries for future generations. And as 

Congressman Young is fond of saying, the Young-Studds Act has 

a much better ring to it than the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

[Laughter.] 

3 

Senator SULLIVAN. But we did not call it that. 

Finally, this past year, this committee proved that we can do 

very important work on fisheries that is bipartisan and brings together support from industry and the environmental community as 

well. After almost a decade, we passed legislation, comprehensive 

legislation, to curb illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing, the 

IUU fishing problem that the President signed a few months ago. 

With that, I would like to thank our witness, Mr. Sam Rauch, 

the Deputy Administrator for NMFS, for being here and recognize 

now my good friend and ranking member for any opening statement that he may have. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CORY BOOKER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY 

Senator BOOKER. I am really, really grateful to Chairman Sullivan for having this hearing and for his leadership on this subject 

and for always looking for a way to bring Senators together on 

issues of this kind of importance. 

The success of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act has been considerable to date, and I am happy 

that we are here to see how we can make the act even better and 

stronger moving forward. 

I would like to welcome our witness, Mr. Rauch. And am I pronouncing that right? 

Mr. RAUCH. Yes. 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you very much. And thank him for his 

testimony today. 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act seeks to prevent overfishing and to 

rebuild overfished stocks. On both fronts, again, the MSA has been 

successful. NOAA’s most recent status of U.S. fisheries report to 

Congress shows that the number of domestic fish stocks listed as 

overfished or subject to overfishing has dropped to an all-time low. 

As of December 31, 2015, 91 percent of stocks for which we have 

assessments are not subject to overfishing, and for our rebuilt 

stocks, we are seeing many of them generate substantially more 

revenue now than they did when they were being overfished. 

The commercial fishing industry nationally employs more than 

one million people. Recreational fishing adds an additional 327,000 

jobs. A recent report by the National Ocean Economics Program 

found that the ocean economy shows overall growth in the United 

States of America, actually outpacing our national economy. So 

continuing to build on the success of the MSA is critical not only 

for the health of our fisheries but also to the health of our great 

American economy. 

Ocean fish have inherent value beyond fishing and seafood, 

though. Fish populations are an integral part of a larger marine 

ecosystem, which includes corals, seabirds, marine mammals, and 

sea turtles, important living resources that provide ecological benefits, as well as economic value, for activities such as tourism. 

But our oceans and our fisheries currently face many, many 

threats. One threat is bycatch. Bycatch results in the death of millions of fish, sea turtles, whales, dolphins, and other marine mammals each and every year, wasting important food resources, damVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:48 Jan 09, 2017 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\DOCS\23227.TXT JACKIE
4 

aging the economic success of our fisheries, and threatening the future of inherently vulnerable, though valuable, marine species. 

Another threat is climate change. Climate change is causing our 

oceans to warm and become more and more acidic. Numerous climate studies have shown that the oceans are warming. A new 

study, released just last week, demonstrates how warming waters 

have increased the prevalence of diseases that are killing lobsters 

by burrowing under their shells and causing lesions. According to 

the study, the outbreaks are so lethal that the lobster fishery, already decimated in southern New England, may soon be threatened in Maine as well. 

Thirty percent of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere 

ends up in oceans, leading to acidification, which is harming shellforming organisms such as coral, sea urchins, mussels, clams, and 

plankton, all of which depend on balanced chemical conditions 

within our waters to form their structures. These species are critical to the future health of our fisheries because they serve as food, 

and corals provide a critical habitat. 

Last year, in order to protect sensitive areas of deep sea corals, 

the Mid-Atlantic Council moved to designate over 38,000 square 

miles of Federal waters off limits to bottom tending fishing gear. 

The Council relied on authority included in the last reauthorization 

of the MSA and provides Councils the discretion to protect deep sea 

coral habitat, provisions championed by the late Senator Lautenberg. Just last week in a fitting tribute, the Council named the 

area for Senator Lautenberg, whose multiyear efforts to protect 

cold water corals culminated in the enactment of this important 

MSA authority. 

Important MSA provisions such as these must be preserved and 

strengthened as we move forward. Mr. Chairman and my friend, 

the MSA Act has a long history of bipartisan cooperation. I appreciate the sentiment with which you are advancing the cause, and 

I look forward to working with you on these issues and hope to 

hear some really important things from our witness. Thank you. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Senator Booker. 

I now want to welcome our main witness, Sam Rauch, the Deputy Assistant Administrator—— 

Senator BOOKER. Mr. Chairman, if I may ask if it is possible to 

let the Ranking Member from Florida maybe have some—— 

Senator SULLIVAN. Absolutely. No problem. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA 

Senator NELSON. Just to what you gentlemen have said, it was 

Maggie and Ted in 1976 that passed this, signed into law by President Ford. It has been so important, and we have got to rebuild 

on it to make sure that we save the fish. 

Thank you. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Senator Nelson. And I think you 

will see here the interest of this issue already with a strong bipartisan group of Senators. 

So without further ado, our main witness will have 5 minutes to 

deliver his oral statement, and I believe a longer written statement 

will be included in the record. 

5 

STATEMENT OF HON. SAMUEL D. RAUCH III, DEPUTY 

ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR REGULATORY 

PROGRAMS, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, 

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Mr. RAUCH. Thank you and good afternoon, Chairman Sullivan, 

Ranking Member Booker, members of the Subcommittee. Thank 

you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Sam Rauch. 

I am the Deputy Director of NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries 

Service. 

And I echo everything that you both said about the success of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act. We have been at this for 40 years. Congress laid down an important structure that has been preserved for 

us today. It is the strength of the structure, the dedicated nature 

of the participants that have led to the success. 

Currently the United States fisheries are among the world’s largest and they are the most sustainable. For 40 years, the MagnusonStevens structure that Congress put in place has taught us that 

dynamic, science-based management process, transparent stakeholder engagement is fundamental for managing fisheries to be 

sustainable. 

This is not something that the National Marine Fisheries Service 

does alone. The bulk of the work is done through the fishery management councils. They are the key linchpin to all the successes 

that we have done. The states participate through the Council process. The states are a key partner in every facet from data collection 

to policy setting. The stakeholders are present. It is an open and 

transparent and science-based process, and it is because of that 

process that we have achieved the success that we have. 

I do want to echo some of the great things. Every year we do set 

near records, either records or near records, in recent years in 

terms of landings, in terms of economic value from the fisheries, in 

terms of jobs from the commercial and recreational sector of the 

fisheries. There is over $100 billion in revenue generated by the 

commercial and recreational fishery, around two million jobs generated by those two sectors. And at the same time, as was indicated, we continue to meet standards for ending overfishing, for rebuilding stocks. We have rebuilt a record number of stocks since 

the early 2000s. 

My testimony today will focus on the progress we have made toward implementing the key provisions and talk about the National 

Standard guidelines. 

One of the things that we have done that I wanted to focus on 

is rebuilding. We take stocks that have been overfished or, for 

whatever reason, are depleted, and through the partnership that I 

mentioned, we have achieved success. One of them is the Atlantic 

sea scallops. In the early 1990s, the abundance of sea scallops was 

near record lows, and the fishery mortality rate was at a record 

high. Working through the Council process, we implemented a 

number of measures to allow the stock to recover, including an innovative management system which allowed the fishermen to rotate where they fish. Through this process, the stock was declared 

rebuilt in 2001, and in real terms, the gross revenues in New EngVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:48 Jan 09, 2017 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\DOCS\23227.TXT JACKIE
6 

land increased almost sevenfold from 44 million in 1998 to 298 million in 2014. 

Another example is the Bering Sea snow crab. In 1999, scientists 

found that the snow crab was overfished. In response, the managers reduced harvests to a level that would allow the stock to rebuild, and the stock was declared rebuilt in 2011. And in subsequent fishing years, managers have been able to actually increase 

that limit by 65 percent, to nearly 66,000 metric tons, such that in 

2013 revenue from the fishery was at $236 million, an almost 

threefold increase from its low in 2005 before being rebuilt. 

As part of the process, we periodically host a large meeting called 

Managing Our Nation’s Fisheries in which we canvas our partners, 

the States, the NGO communities, the fishermen to find out how 

we are doing in terms of the Magnuson Act, whether things need 

to be changed. We hosted one several years ago. Traditionally this 

is a venue for people to argue for congressional changes. We were 

very pleased that at the last meeting, the vast, overriding sentiment was that the Magnuson Act was working, the structure was 

inherently good. There are certain fisheries in certain parts of the 

country that experience difficulties. I am sure we will talk about 

some of those. But in general, the fishery nationwide is a success 

and it should be preserved. 

There were some things that people suggested that we change. 

We looked at the numbers of suggestions. Most of them could be 

done through regulation, which was the genesis for why we decided 

to go through what we call National Standard 1 and provide guidance to the Councils on different ways that they could do—different 

things that they could do to help promote more stability and more 

flexibility while at the same time preserving those critical pieces 

that led to the success that we have. We were absolutely adamant 

that we will continue to end overfishing. We will not allow it to 

occur. We will rebuild stocks. That is the basis for which everything is based on, and we will continue to do that. 

So that rule was out for comment. We are hoping to finalize it 

in the coming months, and I look forward to continuing to work 

with Congress as it decides what it wants to do on the remaining 

issues in front of us today. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rauch follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SAMUEL D. RAUCH III, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR

FOR REGULATORY PROGRAMS, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, NATIONAL

OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Introduction 

Good afternoon, Chairman Rubio, Ranking Member Booker, and Members of the 

Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today about the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) 

and proposed revisions to the Act’s National Standard 1 guidelines. My name is 

Samuel D. Rauch and I am the Deputy Assistant Administrator for the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in the Department of Commerce. From daily weather forecasts, severe 

storm warnings, and climate monitoring to fishery management, coastal restoration, 

and supporting marine commerce, NOAA’s products and services support economic 

vitality and affect more than one-third of America’s gross domestic product. NOAA’s 

dedicated scientists use cutting-edge research and high-tech instrumentation to provide citizens, planners, emergency managers, and other decision makers with reliable information they need when they need it. Today, I will describe our work under 

7 

1See NOAA Annual Commercial Fisheries Landings Database, available at http:// 

www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/commercial-fisheries/commercial-landings/annual-landings/index. 2See Fisheries Economics of the U.S. 2013. NMFS Office of Science & Technology, available 

at: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/economics/publications/feus/FEUS–2013/fisheriesleconomics 

l2013 

3See Fisheries Economics of the U.S. 2013. NMFS Office of Science & Technology, available 

at: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/economics/publications/feus/FEUS-2013/fisheriesleconomics 

l2013 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which sets forth standards for conservation, management, and sustainable use of our Nation’s fisheries resources. 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act has been a success. U.S. fisheries are among the 

world’s largest and most sustainable. For forty years, Magnuson-Stevens has taught 

us that a dynamic science-based management process is fundamental for managing 

fisheries to be sustainable. The goal of fisheries management is to achieve fisheries 

that are both environmentally sustainable and economically important. In partnership with the regional fishery management councils, interstate fishery commissions, 

and our stakeholders, and driven by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 

and Management Act (MSA), the agency has ended overfishing and made significant 

progress rebuilding domestic fish stocks. By preventing overfishing and rebuilding 

stocks, we are strengthening the value of fisheries to the economy and communities, 

and also ensuring that marine ecosystems are able to provide a sustainable supply 

of seafood for the Nation in the future. 

Marine fish and fisheries—such as tropical tunas in the Western and Central Pacific, salmon in the Pacific Northwest, halibut in Alaska, cod in New England and 

red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico—are vital to the prosperity and cultural identity 

of coastal communities in the United States. U.S. fisheries play an enormous role 

in the U.S. economy. Commercial fishing supports fishermen, contributes to coastal 

communities and businesses, and provides Americans with a valuable source of 

local, sustainable, and healthy food. Non-commercial and recreational fishing provides food for many individuals, families, and communities; is an important social 

activity; and is a critical economic driver of local and regional economies, as well 

as a major contributor to the national economy. Subsistence and ceremonial fishing 

provides an essential food source and has deep cultural significance for indigenous 

peoples in the Pacific Islands and Alaska and for many Tribes on the West Coast. 

Our most recent data show that after adjusting for inflation the landed volume 

and the value of commercial U.S. wild-caught fisheries remained near the high levels posted in 2011. U.S. commercial fishermen landed 9.4 billion pounds of seafood 

valued at $5.5 billion in 2014, the third highest landings value over the past decade 

and in nominal terms, the second highest landings value on record.1 The seafood 

industry—harvesters, seafood processors and dealers, seafood wholesalers and seafood retailers, including imports and multiplier effects—generated an estimated 

$142 billion in sales impacts and $40 billion in income impacts, and supported 1.4 

million jobs in 2013, the most recent year economic impact numbers are available. 

Jobs supported by commercial businesses increased 6 percent from the previous 

year.2

At the same time, recreational catch remained stable. Recreational fishing generated an estimated $52 billion in sales impacts and $18 billion in income impacts, 

and supported 370,000 jobs in 2013. Jobs generated by the recreational fishing industry represented a 13 percent increase over 2010.3

The advancement of our science and management tools has resulted in improved 

sustainability of fisheries and greater stability for industry. Key requirements in the 

2007 reauthorization mandated the use of science-based annual catch limits and accountability measures to better prevent and end overfishing. The reauthorization 

provided more explicitly for market-based fishery management through Limited Access Privilege Programs, and addressed the need to improve the science used to inform fisheries management. 

The U.S. has many effective tools to apply in marine fisheries management. Yet, 

as we look to the future, we must continue looking for opportunities to further improve our management system. While significant progress has been made since the 

2007 reauthorization, progress has not come without a cost to some. Challenges remain. Fishermen, fishing communities, and the Councils have had to make difficult 

decisions and absorb the near-term cost of conservation and investment in long-term 

economic and biological sustainability. 

We all share the common goal of healthy fisheries that can be sustained for generations. Without clear, science-based rules, fair enforcement, and a shared commitment to sustainable management, short-term pressures can easily undermine 

progress toward restoring the social, economic, and environmental benefits of a 

8 

4These statistics were compiled from the quarterly stock status reports at: http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/fisheriesleco/statusloflfisheries/statuslupdates.html 

healthy fishery. Although challenges remain in some fisheries, the benefits for the 

resource, the industries it supports, and the economy are beginning to be seen as 

fish populations grow and catch limits increase. 

My testimony today will focus on NMFS’ progress in implementing the MagnusonStevens Act’s key domestic provisions, how our proposed revisions to the National 

Standard 1 guidelines could further facilitate, provide additional flexibility, and improve compliance with the Act, and some thoughts about the future. 

Progress in Implementation 

Working together, NMFS, the Councils, coastal states and territories, treaty fishing tribes, and a wide range of industry groups and other stakeholders have made 

significant progress in implementing key provisions of this legislation. 

Ending Overfishing and Rebuilding Fisheries 

U.S. fisheries are producing sustainable U.S. seafood. The Federal fishery management system has effectively ended overfishing and is rebuilding overfished fisheries. We continue to make progress toward long-term biological and economic sustainability and stability. Since its initial passage in 1976, the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

has charted a groundbreaking course for sustainable fisheries. When reauthorized 

in 2007, the Act gave the eight Regional Fishery Management Councils and NMFS 

a very clear charge and some new tools to support improved science and management. We are now seeing the results of those tools. As of December 31, 2015, 91 

percent of stocks for which we have assessments are not subject to overfishing, and 

84 percent are not overfished. The number of stocks subject to overfishing was highest in 2000, when 47 stocks were on the overfishing list. In 2002, 55 stocks were 

overfished. Nationally, we have rebuilt 39 stocks since 2000.4

We expect the number of stocks on the overfishing list to continue to decrease as 

a result of management under annual catch limits. Ending overfishing allows stocks 

to increase in abundance, so we expect to see further declines in the number of overfished stocks and increases in the number of rebuilt stocks. 

Flexibility is inherent in the Magnuson-Stevens Act’s rebuilding requirements. 

The Act requires that the period to rebuild a stock not exceed 10 years, but it permits a longer time period in certain cases where the biology of the fish stock, management measures under an international agreement in which the United States 

participates, or other environmental conditions dictate otherwise, although this period still must be as short as possible. Current rebuilding time periods for stocks 

with active rebuilding plans range from four years to more than 100 years. Of the 

36 active rebuilding plans with a target time to rebuild, 22 of them (61 percent) are 

set longer than 10 years due to the biology of the stock (slow-growing, late-reproducing, long lived species) or environmental conditions. For example, Pacific yelloweye 

rockfish has a rebuilding timeline of 71 years. The remaining 14 rebuilding plans 

are set for 10 years or less. Of the 39 stocks rebuilt since 2000, 35 stocks were rebuilt within 10 years or less. 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides flexibility to adjust rebuilding plans when a 

stock is failing to make adequate progress toward rebuilding. In these situations, 

the Councils can amend the rebuilding plan with revised conservation and management measures. The Act requires that the revised plan be implemented within two 

years and that it end overfishing (if overfishing is occurring) immediately upon implementation. 

Rebuilding plans are also adaptable when new scientific information indicates 

changing conditions. For example, the target time to rebuild Pacific ocean perch off 

the Pacific Coast was lengthened based on information within a rebuilding analysis. 

The rebuilding analysis, conducted in 2011, revised our understanding of the Pacific 

ocean perch stock status and productivity and showed that, even in the absence of 

fishing, the time it would take to rebuild the stock would be longer than the previously established target time to rebuild. Given this information, NMFS worked 

with the Pacific Fishery Management Council in 2012 to modify the rebuilding plan 

and extend the target time for stock rebuilding from 2017 to 2051. 

Rebuilding timelines can also be shortened based on new information. As one example, the original rebuilding plan for cowcod, a Pacific Coast groundfish, was 95 

years. The rebuilding time has been modified based on updated scientific information, and is currently 67 years. 

Rebuilding fisheries brings significant biological, economic, and social benefits, but 

doing so takes time, persistence, sacrifice, and adherence to scientific information. 

Of 26 rebuilt stocks for which information is available, half of them now produce 

9 

5Garber-Yonts, B., and J. Lee., 2014. Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Report for 

King and Tanner Crab Fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Regions: Economic Status of the BSAI Crab Fisheries, 2014. P. 79. 6 North Pacific Fishery Management Council. 2015. Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation 

Report for King and Tanner Crab Fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Regions: 

2015 Final Crab SAFE. P. 12 7See Fish Stock Sustainability Index. This report was the source for the underlying data, but 

the numbers presented here were compiled specifically for this hearing. The report is available 

at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/statusoffisheries/2012/fourth/Q4%202012%20FSSI%20Sum 

mary%20Changes.pdf 

at least 50 percent more revenue than they did when they were overfished. Seven 

stocks have current revenue levels that are more than 100 percent higher than the 

lowest revenue point when the stock was overfished. 

Atlantic sea scallops provide one example of rebuilding success. In the early 

1990s, the abundance of Atlantic sea scallops was near record lows and the fishing 

mortality rate was at a record high. Fishery managers implemented a number of 

measures to allow the stock to recover, including an innovative area management 

system. The stock was declared rebuilt in 2001. In real terms, gross revenues in 

New England increased almost seven-fold from $44 million in 1998 to $298 million 

in 2014, making New Bedford the Nation’s top port by value of landings since 2000. 

Another example of rebuilding success can be seen with Bering Sea snow crab. 

In 1999, scientists found that Bering Sea snow crab was overfished. In response, 

managers reduced harvests to a level that would allow the stock to rebuild, and the 

stock was declared rebuilt in 2011. In the 2011–2012 fishing year, managers were 

able to increase the harvest limit by 65 percent to nearly 66 thousand metric tons. 

In 2013, revenue from the fishery was $236 million, an almost three-fold increase 

from its low in 2005 prior to being fully rebuilt.5,6

Benefits of Annual Catch Limits 

One of the most significant management provisions of the 2007 reauthorization 

of the Magnuson-Stevens Act was the mandate to implement annual catch limits, 

including measures to ensure accountability and to end and prevent overfishing in 

federally managed fisheries by 2011 (an annual catch limit is an amount of fish that 

can be caught in a year such that overfishing does not occur; accountability measures are management controls to prevent annual catch limits from being exceeded, 

and to correct or mitigate overages of the limits if they occur). This is an important 

move away from a management system that could only be corrected by going back 

through the full Council process in order to amend Fishery Management Plans— 

often taking years to accomplish, all while overfishing continued. 

Now, when developing a fishery management plan or amendment, the Councils 

must consider, in advance, the actions that will occur if a fishery does not meet its 

performance objectives. As of December 31, 2015, overfishing had ended for 70 percent of the 33 domestic U.S. stocks that were subject to overfishing in 2007 when 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act was reauthorized.7

Ending overfishing is the first step in rebuilding. Prior to the implementation of 

annual catch limits, a number of rebuilding plans experienced difficulty in ending 

overfishing and achieving the fishing mortality rate called for in the plan. As a result, rebuilding was delayed. Conversely, stocks where overfishing has ended quickly have seen their stock size increase and rebuild more quickly. For example, Widow 

rockfish in the Pacific was declared overfished in 2001. Fishing mortality on Widow 

rockfish was immediately substantially reduced resulting in a corresponding increase in stock size. The stock was declared rebuilt in 2011, ahead of the rebuilding 

deadline. 

Most major reductions in allowable catch experienced by fishermen when stocks 

enter rebuilding plans are predominantly from the requirement to prevent overfishing—which is now required through annual catch limits for all stocks, not just 

those determined to be overfished. When unsustainably large catches have occurred 

due to high levels of overfishing on a depleted stock, large reductions in catch will 

be needed to end overfishing, and the stock must rebuild in abundance before 

catches will increase. 

Because ending overfishing is essential to rebuilding, annual catch limits are a 

powerful tool to address prior problems in achieving rebuilding. Overfishing has 

ended for nine of the 14 stocks currently in 10-year (or less) rebuilding plans. Annual catch limits, which are now in place as a mechanism to control catch to the 

level specified in the rebuilding plan, are working and we anticipate the next stock 

assessments for these species to confirm that overfishing has ended. With that result, we will begin to see stronger rebuilding for these stocks. In addition, preliminary data show that annual catch limits have been effective in limiting catch and 

10 

preventing overfishing for the majority of stocks. Fisheries have successfully stayed 

within their annual catch limit for 89 percent of the stocks for which we have catch 

data. 

Ensuring Transparency and Stakeholder Engagement 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act created broad goals for U.S. fisheries management 

and a unique, highly participatory management structure centered on the Councils. 

This structure ensures that input and decisions about how to manage U.S. fisheries 

develop through a ‘‘bottom up’’ process that includes fishermen, other fishery stakeholders, affected states, tribal governments, and the Federal Government. By working together with the Councils, states, tribes, and fishermen—under the standards 

set in the Magnuson-Stevens Act—we have made great strides in ending overfishing, rebuilding stocks, and building a sustainable future for our fishing-dependent communities. 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act guides fisheries conservation and management 

through 10 National Standards. These standards, which have their roots in the 

original 1976 Act, provide a yardstick against which all fishery management plans 

and actions developed by the Councils are measured. National Standard 1 requires 

that conservation and management measures prevent overfishing while achieving, 

on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery, which is the average 

amount of harvest that will provide the greatest overall ecological, economic, and 

social benefits to the Nation, particularly by providing seafood and recreational opportunities while affording protection to marine ecosystems. 

The Councils can choose from a variety of approaches and tools to manage fish 

stocks to meet this mandate—e.g., catch shares, area closures, and gear restrictions—and, when necessary, also determine how to allocate fish among user groups. 

These measures are submitted to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce for approval and 

are implemented by NMFS. Thus, the Councils, in developing their plans, must 

carefully balance the need for stable fishing jobs, ecological conservation, and societal interests to create holistically sustainable fisheries. A key aspect of this effort 

is to ensure that overfishing is prevented, and if it occurs, to end it quickly and rebuild any stock that becomes overfished. Other National Standards mandate that 

conservation and management measures be based upon the best scientific information available, not discriminate between residents of different states, take into account variations in fisheries and catches, minimize bycatch, and promote the safety 

of human life at sea. 

Effects on fishing communities are central to many Council decisions. Fishing 

communities rely on fishing-related jobs, as well as the non-commercial and cultural 

benefits derived from these resources. Marine fisheries are the lifeblood of many 

coastal communities in the Pacific Islands and West Coast regions and around our 

Nation. Communities, fishermen, and fishing industries rely not only on today’s 

catch, but also on the predictability of future catches. The need to provide stable 

domestic fishing and processing jobs is paramount to fulfilling one of the MagnusonStevens Act’s goals—to provide the Nation with sources of domestic seafood. This 

objective has even greater purpose now than when the Act was passed, as today 

U.S. consumers are seeking—more than ever—options for healthy, safe, sustainable, 

and local seafood. Under the standards set in the Magnuson-Stevens Act—and together with the Councils, states, tribes, territories, and fishermen—we have made 

great strides in maintaining more stocks at biologically sustainable levels, ending 

overfishing, rebuilding overfished stocks, building a sustainable future for our fishing-dependent communities, and providing more domestic options for U.S. seafood 

consumers in a market dominated by imports. Thanks in large part to the strengthened Magnuson-Stevens Act and the sacrifices and investment in conservation by 

fishing communities across the country, the condition of many of our most economically important fish stocks has improved steadily over the past decade. 

Successes and Challenges 

There are many examples of what fishermen, scientists, and managers can do by 

working together to bring back a resource that once was in trouble. In the Pacific 

Islands Region, NMFS, the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council, the State 

of Hawaii, and fishing communities have ended overfishing of the Hawaiian archipelago’s deep-water bottomfish complex—a culturally significant grouping of seven 

species of snapper and grouper. This has enabled NMFS to increase annual catch 

limits for these stocks for both commercial and recreational fishermen and ensure 

these fish are available year-round. 

On the West Coast, NMFS and the Pacific Fishery Management Council, the fishing industry, recreational anglers, and other partners have successfully rebuilt a 

number of once overfished stocks, including coho salmon, lingcod, Pacific whiting, 

11 

8SAFMC (South Atlantic Fishery Management Council). 2013. Regulatory Amendment 19 to 

the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region. 

South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place, Ste 201, North Charleston, S.C. 

29405. 

widow rockfish, canary rockfish, and petrale sole. These and other conservation 

gains, including implementation of the West Coast groundfish trawl rationalization 

program, enabled NMFS to increase catch limits for abundant West Coast groundfish species that co-occur with groundfish species in rebuilding plans. 

In the Southeast Region, NOAA, the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery 

Management Councils, the fishing industries, recreational anglers and other partners have successfully rebuilt a number of once overfished stocks, including red 

grouper and king mackerel in the Gulf of Mexico, black sea bass in the South Atlantic, and yellowtail snapper, which is shared by both the Gulf of Mexico and South 

Atlantic regions. These and other conservation gains enabled NMFS to increase 

catch limits for six stocks or stock complexes and eliminate or reduce two fixed seasonal closures over the last year. The additional harvest opportunities attributed to 

rebuilding the South Atlantic black sea bass stock alone have increased 2013 gross 

ex-vessel revenues for commercial fishermen and annual profits for for-hire vessels 

by about $1 million and $15 million, respectively, relative to their low point prior 

to being fully rebuilt.8

Many fisheries in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic are also a significant part of 

the national success story. Of the 39 stocks rebuilt nationally since 2000, 21, more 

than half, were rebuilt by NOAA, the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils, the fishing industries, recreational anglers, and other partners on 

the Atlantic coast. In addition to Atlantic sea scallops, these include other important 

stocks such as summer flounder and Atlantic swordfish. 

But meeting mandates to prevent and end overfishing and implement annual 

catch limits can be very challenging where data is scarce, which is the case for 

many of the stocks in the Pacific Islands region and the Caribbean, particularly 

those species being fished in the coral reef ecosystem. We also face formidable challenges managing recovering stocks to benefit both commercial and recreational user 

groups with fundamentally different goals and objectives. 

Looking to the Future 

Remaining Challenges 

Amid these successes, challenges remain. It is critical that we continue meeting 

the mandate of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to end overfishing and rebuild overfished 

stocks. Annual catch limits have been an effective tool in improving the sustainability of fisheries around the Nation, but managing fisheries using annual catch 

limits and accountability measures was a major change for some fisheries, and the 

initial implementation has identified some areas where we can improve that process. To address these issues, the agency has begun the process of revising the National 

Standard 1 guidelines, which were modified in 2009 to focus on implementing the 

requirement for annual catch limits. This was a major change in how many fisheries 

were managed, and we want to ensure the guidance we have in place reflects current thinking on the most effective way to meet the objectives of National Standard 

1 and builds on what we, together with the Councils, have learned. In January 

2015, NMFS requested public comment on a proposed rule to revise National Standard 1 guidelines (and related guidelines) to enhance their utility for managers and 

the public. The objective of these proposed revisions is to improve and streamline 

the National Standard guidelines, address concerns raised during the implementation of annual catch limits and accountability measures, and provide flexibility within current statutory limits to address fishery management issues. 

The proposed rule included the following significant proposed revisions: 

• A recommendation that Regional Fishery Management Councils reassess the 

objectives of their fisheries on a regular basis, 

• Consolidated and streamlined guidance on determining which stocks are in 

need of conservation and management, 

• Additional flexibility in rebuilding plans and managing data limited stocks, 

• A recommendation on the use of indicator stocks within stock complexes, 

• Guidance on the use of aggregate maximum sustainable yield and a definition 

for depleted stocks, and 

• Revised guidance on optimum yield, accountability measures, and Acceptable 

Biological Catch control rules to provide additional flexibility in carrying over 

12 

unharvested catch to a subsequent year and providing more stability in catches 

from year to year. 

The agency received a significant amount of input on our proposed rule and we 

are in the process of responding to the comments and developing a final rule. 

We will continue to work with the Councils to achieve the best possible alignment 

of science and management for each fishery to attain the goals of the MagnusonStevens Act. We will continue to develop our science and management tools, improve our stock assessments and monitoring efforts, and create more effective annual catch limits and accountability measures. In so doing, we must continue to ensure solid, science-based determinations of stock status and better linkages to biological, socioeconomic, and ecosystem conditions. 

We value the important partnerships we have formed with the states, territories, 

tribes, fishermen, and other interest groups in helping address these challenges. 

These partnerships are critical to developing successful management strategies. Together with our partners, we continue to explore alternative and innovative approaches that will produce the best available information to incorporate into management. 

It is also increasingly important that we better understand ecosystem and habitat 

factors, such as the effects of climate change, interannual and interdecadal climate 

shifts, ocean acidification, and other environmental regime shifts and natural disasters, and incorporate this information into our stock assessments and management 

decisions. The agency has recently taken steps to further address these challenges. 

In August, NMFS finalized a Climate Science Strategy as part of a proactive approach to increase the production, delivery, and use of climate-related information 

in fulfilling our mandates. 

In September 2015, we also released a draft policy, which outlines a set of principles to support implementation of Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management at 

NMFS. We are currently reviewing comments and will finalize the Ecosystem-Based 

Fishery Management policy in the coming months. Resilient ecosystems and habitat 

form the foundation for robust fisheries and fishing jobs. The Magnuson-Stevens Act 

currently provides flexibility for bringing ecosystem considerations into fisheries 

management. This flexibility in the Magnuson-Stevens Act is one of the Act’s 

strengths, allowing us to meet our responsibilities under the Act in concert with related legislation, such as the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered 

Species Act, to reduce bycatch of protected species to mandated levels. The alignment of measures to conserve habitat and protected species with measures to end 

overfishing and rebuild and manage fish stocks will be a key component of NOAA’s 

success in implementing ecosystem-based fisheries management. 

NOAA supports the collaborative and transparent process embodied in the Councils, as authorized in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and strongly believes that all viable management tools should continue to be available as options for the Councils 

to consider when developing management programs. 

Conclusion 

Because of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the United States is sustainably and responsibly managing U.S. fisheries, to ensure that stocks are maintained at healthy 

levels, fishing is conducted in a way that minimizes impacts on the marine ecosystem, and fishing communities’ needs are considered in management decisions. 

Fisheries harvested in the United States are scientifically monitored, regionally 

managed, and enforced under 10 National Standards of sustainability. But we did 

not get here overnight. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, our Nation’s journey toward sustainable fisheries has evolved over the course of 40 years. 

In 2007, Congress gave NOAA and the Councils a clear mandate, new authority, 

and new tools to achieve the goal of sustainable fisheries within measurable timeframes. Notable among these were the requirements for annual catch limits and accountability measures to prevent, respond to, and end overfishing—real game 

changers in our national journey toward sustainable fisheries that are rapidly delivering results. 

This progress has been made possible by the collaborative involvement of our U.S. 

commercial and recreational fishing fleets and their commitment to science-based 

management, improving gear-technologies, and application of best stewardship practices. We have established strong partnerships with states, tribes, Councils, and 

fishing industries. By working together through the highly participatory process established in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, we will continue to address management 

challenges in a changing environment. 

To understand where we are, it is important to reflect on where we’ve been. We 

have made great progress but our achievements have not come easily, nor will they 

be sustained without continued attention. This is a critical time in the history of 

13 

Federal fisheries management, and we must move forward in a thoughtful and disciplined way to ensure our Nation’s fisheries are able to meet the needs of both current and future generations. When final, we expect the revisions to our National 

Standard guidelines to address concerns raised during the implementation of annual 

catch limits and accountability measures and provide additional flexibility within 

current statutory limits to address fishery management issues. We look forward to 

working with Congress on fisheries management issues in a holistic, comprehensive 

way that builds on its success and considers the needs of the fish, fishermen, ecosystems and communities. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss implementation progress of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act. We are available to answer any questions you may have. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Great. Let me start off with a few questions. 

Do you have a more specific timeline with regard to the final rule 

in terms of the National Standard guidelines that you were just 

talking about? 

Mr. RAUCH. Yes, sir. It has to go to OMB for review. We hope 

to do that in the coming month or so. That will be for a 90-day internal review period, and we hope to have it out by June or July— 

the final rule. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Great. 

You mentioned the stakeholder model as a really key element of 

the success of the MSA, and I think another key element that we 

can all agree on is that the management decisions are based on the 

best available data. But as you know, in data-poor regions or datapoor stocks, sometimes that can result in artificially low annual 

catch limits or even closures. Is there something that Congress can 

do to assist in ensuring that there are robust stock surveys and assessments in all the different regions? And if there are specific regions that you think have challenges with robust data, it would be 

good for us to know. 

Mr. RAUCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Every year, we have to allocate the fishery resources we have to 

try to match the survey, the science resources to the areas of the 

greatest need where we see either the most important commercial 

and recreational fisheries or the biggest conservation challenges. 

We do that. We are recently going through a stock assessment 

prioritization process where we are trying to, working with the 

Councils and the states, align our stock assessments to match the 

needs of the stakeholders and the councils. 

Senator SULLIVAN. And do Councils come to you and say we are 

data-poor here, we need more data for our best decisions? 

Mr. RAUCH. They do. Every Council has a research plan which 

identifies their highest research priorities. We work with them to 

try to meet those needs. We could always use more effort, but we 

think that we are largely meeting the kind of needs in response to 

the Councils for their highest priority actions. We work with them. 

For instance, in the Northeast, we meet every month—not every 

month, but periodically with the states, the two councils, the Atlantic States Marine Fishery Commission and try to plan out when we 

are going to do these stock assessments, which ones are the highest 

priorities. We plan our surveys along with the states. Many of our 

surveys are joint between the Federal Government and our State 

partners. And so we work with them closely on when we are going 

to do which surveys and how often we are going to do them. So we 

work very closely to do that. 

14 

We understand that not every fishery has the same amount of 

emphasis put on it, but we do try to give the most resources to the 

fisheries that are of the highest economic commercial and recreational value or present the biggest problems. 

Senator SULLIVAN. And are there assurances that you can provide the Committee that the agency will not redirect funds from 

well managed fisheries to data-poor fisheries? Is that a challenge 

that you have to deal with? 

Mr. RAUCH. That is often a challenge that we—— 

Senator SULLIVAN. How do you address that? 

Mr. RAUCH. We try to be very transparent about that. I was articulating there are situations in which we have—let me back up, 

sir. We have just gone through with our science centers an extensive process in which we look at the science streams that are coming in and try to determine which streams are serving management purposes well and which are not. It is possible that through 

that process we identify data streams that we no longer need. So 

we would take those resources and shift them around. We do that 

in a very public and transparent process. 

So I cannot guarantee you that the science that we are doing 

today we will always do, but what I can guarantee you is that we 

will try to be very transparent about our decisions, include all the 

stakeholders, and try to, with the resources that are available to 

us, make sure that they are maximized to meet the greatest need 

of the country. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Let me talk about the maximum sustainable 

yield issue real quick as my final question. Your written testimony 

reported that in 2014, that was the third highest commercial landing in terms of value that we have had in the past decade. So 

again, I think that goes to the broader theme here of well managed 

fisheries based on the MSA. 

Are you able to generate an estimate of what the precautionary 

management has cost in terms of the inability to achieve maximum 

yield on a continuing basis? So in other words, are we under-harvesting any stocks that are not achieving the maximum sustained 

yield to any significant degree particularly due to the amendments 

that were passed in 2006? 

Mr. RAUCH. I do not know that we can provide any such numbers 

on a national level. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Can you do it on a Council or—— 

Mr. RAUCH. Well, I think in Alaska they can tell you that if you 

make an investment in the science and you can decrease the scientific uncertainty surrounding their estimates, they can actually 

put a dollar figure to that so that you can—for that fishery, the 

Alaska pollock fishery, which is the second largest fishery in the 

world, they can articulate what an investment in science will give 

you in terms of economic return, and vice versa, what not investing 

in that science will mean. I have not seen us been able to do that 

for any other fishery of that level, but we can do it for the Alaska 

pollock fishery. I have seen those numbers. I do not have them 

with me off the top of my head, but we have made those. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you. 

Senator Booker? 

Senator BOOKER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. 

15 

Mr. Rauch, as mentioned in my opening remarks, I am pleased 

that our region was the first to use the coral habitat protection authority to protect and preserve 38,000 square miles of Federal waters. This is critical. The Lautenberg provision in the MSA is something I think has been wonderful and has been codified in law for 

about 10 years. 

And I guess my question is, given the importance of protecting 

habitat, are there opportunities to establish similar protected areas 

elsewhere in the United States waters? And broadly speaking, do 

you think we are doing enough to protect fish habitat under current law? 

Mr. RAUCH. So every council, I believe, has a suite of closed areas 

that they have been managing for years for various purposes. For 

instance, much of the fishable territory in the Pacific Islands is 

closed to bottom trolling. You can fish on the surface, but you cannot disturb the bottom. In Alaska, there are closed areas. Those are 

to prevent fishing for a certain stock of fish. 

The unique thing about the Mid-Atlantic canyon is nobody was 

fishing for them. This was a precautionary preservation to eliminate the potential that fishing could destroy these unique characteristics at the bottom. 

There are potentials to do that elsewhere. Many Councils are interested in and continue to look through those kind of lenses at 

things. We see the Councils time and again willing to close areas 

that are sensitive to protect them from fishing. The Mid-Atlantic 

canyon is unique in terms of the size and scope and the purpose 

of it, but it is not unique in that it is the only fishery closed area. 

There are many, and the Councils have expressed willingness time 

and again—— 

Senator BOOKER. But I guess my question is do you think we 

could be doing more under current law. 

Mr. RAUCH. I think the law is sufficient under that. I think the 

issue there is—we did not know 10 years ago that many of these 

resources existed out there. And so we survey for a lot of them. As 

we find them, the Councils have been very willing to protect them. 

But knowing where these deep water corals are is something we 

were not even looking for a decade ago. So this is a really new area 

of research, and so we are looking to find them. But as we find 

them, I think the law is sufficient to protect them. 

Senator BOOKER. OK. 

The recent proposed guidance for National Standard 1 included 

a proposal to remove accountability requirements for fish populations that are so dangerously low that their annual catch limit 

has been set at zero. I am concerned that eliminating reporting requirements on the zero catch fish populations will result in missing 

things like bycatch or accidental take of the most dangerously low 

fish populations. Can you address this at all? 

Mr. RAUCH. I do not think we ever meant to eliminate any reporting requirements. Most of these are fisheries for which we 

have—there are only a very few fisheries in the country which are 

so dangerously low that we ban fishing for them entirely. For 

those, the accountability measures—there is nothing that the fishermen can do because they are prohibited from catching them. If 

they start catching them, we will have to deal with other issues. 

16 

I do not believe that we ever intended that the reporting be obviated for those. I think almost every fisherman in the country is required to report their catch in some manner. We would continue to 

do that for these species. The question is do we preset a management response if there is illegal fishing going on, and what we told 

the Councils is they did not have to presume illegal activity. If that 

occurs, we will deal with it through other enforcement mechanisms, 

but we do not necessarily need the Council to take an action and 

say if there is widespread illegal activity, because fishing is banned 

for these, then here is what happens. 

Senator BOOKER. Just real quick. I am concerned about the problem of bycatch in some of our Nation’s fisheries. In October, several 

of my Senate colleagues and I sent a letter to your agency regarding the overfishing of the dusky sharks. In that letter, we urged 

the agency to quickly take action and steps to halt and reverse the 

species’ disastrous decline and asked the agency to let us know 

when we can expect the agency to implement strong measures, including establishing an annual catch limit and accountability measures so that the North Atlantic dusky shark population can have 

a chance to rebuild. 

What actions does the National Marine Fisheries Service intend 

to take to help the dusky shark to rebuild and to prevent further 

bycatch? 

Mr. RAUCH. So in bycatch in general, I think we share your 

views about the significance of bycatch. And I would encourage you 

that in the next week or so I think we plan to release our national 

bycatch strategy, the newest iteration, in which we echo some of 

the things that you have just articulated about bycatch. The Councils in general have been dealing with bycatch and trying to minimize those for some time. 

In dusky sharks, the situation was in 2012 we implemented some 

measures for duskies that it remains to be seen exactly how effective they will be. We believe that although they were not directed 

at dusky sharks, they have had a lot of beneficial effect about limiting bycatch. Nevertheless, we continue to look at that. We know 

that additional measures may be warranted we hope this year—in 

the coming months actually—I should not say ‘‘this year’’—in the 

coming few months to actually promulgate I think it is amendment 

5B—I think that is right—which would address those concerns that 

you have raised for the dusky sharks. 

Senator BOOKER. My time has expired. I want to be respectful of 

my colleagues. I just want to say if we could get a formal response 

to the letter that we sent with part of that strategy, I would really 

appreciate it. 

Mr. RAUCH. Yes, sir. 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Senator Cantwell? 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think for both 

you and I, when it comes to fisheries management policy, there is 

probably no more important words than Magnuson-Stevens and 

17 

making sure that we continue the tradition of good fisheries management for both our states. 

For us, the issue of salmon is particularly important, and I wanted to ask Mr. Rauch particularly about the issue of our hatcheries 

and making sure that we have good plans in place to review our 

hatchery system. So you know that we have had unbelievable requirements as it relates to both protecting wild and producing 

hatchery salmon. And yet, we have had something like only 52 

plans reviewed. So do you think that this is a challenge and a 

threat if we do not have these plans reviewed by NOAA? 

Mr. RAUCH. Thank you, Senator, for the question. 

We are concerned about the hatcheries for many respects. A significant portion of the wild ocean harvest for salmon comes from 

these hatchery programs. And so the hatcheries are key to promoting economic viability, but they also, if they are not managed 

correctly, can pose a threat to our wild salmon. Recently there have 

been a lot of major improvements in the hatcheries such that they 

are managed correctly. 

Since 2006, we have required under various different types of authorizations that the hatcheries have hatchery genetic monitoring 

plans, to make sure that they are operated at the highest levels so 

they minimize the impact. They were supposed to come in and get 

those approved for many years. For various reasons, those issues 

were delayed, and now we have got 328 plans that all came in at 

the same time. We have managed to clear through 50 of them, but 

we are having trouble clearing through all of them. We increased 

our staff such that we could increase the throughput to about 55 

a year. The President’s recent budget proposal, which just came 

out, asked for additional funds to increase our staff again to help 

clear these out. We do understand the importance of hatcheries to 

the region for various issues, and we do want to clear these out. 

We have been working with the states and the various entities 

to try to prioritize which ones do you want to see us do first. So 

we hope to get the very important ones out first, but we are behind. And I do not expect that by the end of the year we will get 

all of them done, but I do expect that we will increase the throughput. 

Senator CANTWELL. What are the consequences of not getting 

them done? And do you think that NOAA has the funds it needs 

to proceed in a timely manner? Because at 55 a year, that would 

take us another 6 years to process those. 

Mr. RAUCH. We do not have the funds, which is why the President has asked for an additional—I do not remember the exact 

number, but there is an increase in the salmon budget to help us 

process through this. We did get a small increase last year, which 

we are going to use for processing through this. So we do not have 

the current resources that we need to address these. 

There is some risk to the salmon, the risk that they have been 

facing for a while, if the plans are not approved. But the real issue 

is have the hatcheries actually made the changes. If the hatcheries 

have made the changes and are just seeking the approval of the 

changes, then the risk is relatively minor. If the hatcheries have 

not made the changes that we look for, some of these others, then 

the risk to the salmon could be greater. 

18 

But we have seen a number of lawsuits, not brought by us but 

brought by third parties, seeking to stop hatchery production. That 

is of concern to us. We are a co-defendant with the states on—— 

Senator CANTWELL. Which would bring havoc on a lot of different 

issues, and that is why it is important to have the funds. So I will 

look forward to following up with you on a question about how that 

budget would actually affect a timeline so that we can look at this 

and look at an answer. 

A second related question is just on the issue of ocean acidification. My colleague, Senator Wicker, and I have been proposing legislation to make sure that ocean acidification’s impact on our fisheries jobs is well understood particularly as it relates to salmon 

and a food source. Do you think we have all the information we 

need there to make assessments about how ocean acidification is 

going to impact the food chain? 

Mr. RAUCH. I do not think we have all the—I cannot tell you 

right now how it will affect the food chain. I know that we are very 

concerned, particularly with shellfish. The shells themselves are 

very susceptible to ocean acidification. I think we do not have as 

good an idea as to how ocean acidification will affect other fish 

stocks. 

We work with other colleagues at NOAA and throughout the 

Government on ocean acidification and looking at those kind of 

issues. I think we share the sentiment that we do not know enough 

about those. I do not know that the administration has a position 

on the bill, but this is an issue that the Fisheries Service takes seriously. We are concerned about the impacts. We have worked with 

industry like we worked with the Washington State shellfish industry when their shellfish reproduction was harmed by—— 

Senator CANTWELL. I see my time has expired. So thank you so 

much for that. 

And I am going to submit a question about financing of fishing 

vessels and making sure that people do not believe that we are 

overcapitalized and that way we should not invest. I want to make 

sure that we get a financing that works. But I will submit that for 

the record. Thank you. 

Mr. RAUCH. Thank you. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Senator Ayotte? 

STATEMENT OF HON. KELLY AYOTTE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you. 

Mr. Rauch, we have heard a lot today of discussion about the 

success of the MSA, but I can assure you that for my ground fishermen, it has been an unmitigated disaster. Literally as I look at 

what my ground fishermen have faced—and I think about putting 

out of business people who have often fished our waters for generations and really are so hard-working. I have had the chance to visit 

them personally. 

But as of March 1, your agency has announced that you are not 

going to fund the at-sea monitoring. And just to put this into perspective, for your average ground fisherman in New Hampshire, 

which, for example, on cod over the last 4 years has faced a 95 percent reduction in what they can catch, on top of that, now they are 

19 

going to have to pay at-sea monitoring, which is contrary to what 

I think many of us believe the 2015 appropriations provided. In 

fact, your agency received a letter from many of us describing that. To put it in perspective, average fisherman. I catch $1,500 worth 

of fish. After covering all my boat’s expenses and paying my crew, 

I take home $300. That is not a lot, but I make a living. But then 

when you put an average of $710 per trip, a cost for at-sea monitoring, that they now have to put in place, 60 percent of my ground 

fishermen cannot make any money. They lose money. So we want 

to talk extinction. This is extinction of fishermen. 

And so I want to ask you—I look at your budget, $5.4 billion for 2015, and you cannot find $3.78 million to fund at-sea monitoring 

which is consistent with what many of us have written in the 2015 

appropriations bill for you. I think you have gotten a letter from 

myself, Senator Collins, Senator Markey on this committee, Senator Warren, Senator Reed, many of us. 

As far as I can see, there are articles of the MSA that require 

you to think about the economic impact. I believe article 1 does. 

So can you explain to me why we cannot find this small amount of money, $3.78 million, for fishermen that are going out of business that we have dramatically reduced their shares? These are not 

large fishermen. Talk about too big to fail. I have said this before. 

But this is essentially going to put the little guy out of business. 

So tell me why can we not fund this. 

Mr. RAUCH. So we are very concerned about the declining status 

of the cod fishery. We believe that it is caused by many factors, including the fact that the Gulf of Maine has been the warmest it 

has ever been. 

Senator AYOTTE. I do not have a lot of time. But why can we not fund the $3.78 million of monitoring so they do not go altogether 

out of business? That is what I need to know. 

Mr. RAUCH. The other provision of the Magnuson Act that is relevant to this is that we have to provide for standardized bycatch 

reporting methodology, and we lost a court case. We have been traditionally funding this amount of money. 

Senator AYOTTE. So no other place in this agency you can find 

this money so that these fishermen do not go out of business. And 

by the way, I think we have written you the letter saying that that 

should not be prioritized based on the appropriations bill over atsea monitoring. 

Mr. RAUCH. I understand that, Senator, but—— 

Senator AYOTTE. So are you telling me there is no other place in 

this agency we can find $3.7 million so fishermen do not cease to 

exist in my community? 

Mr. RAUCH. The court found that we have to spend the money 

on other priorities before we spend it on at-sea monitoring. 

Senator AYOTTE. But anywhere else in your budget, you cannot 

find $3.78 million to keep fishermen in place because otherwise I 

say the Magnuson-Stevens Act is an absolute failure in this regard. 

Mr. RAUCH. As I said, the court said we have to fund other priorities. 

Senator AYOTTE. So just the question, yes or no, there is no place 

else in this budget you can find that. 

Mr. RAUCH. Not that we are allowed to fund. 

20 

Senator AYOTTE. OK. Well, please submit for the record what 

language we need to put in to give you the authority to make sure 

that these people have the at-sea monitoring funded because I cannot believe that we would have a system where we are going to put 

iconic fishermen out of business, no longer in business. The large 

folks—they are going to be fine. The small fishermen—they are 

done. Seven hundred bucks is more than they make after this. So 

I would ask for a follow-up on that. 

And I have a number of follow-up questions. I would like to know 

with regard to the reauthorization, what specific language is necessary to ensure that National Standard 1 and National Standard 

8 are considered with equal importance. 

Mr. RAUCH. If you are asking for technical drafting assistance, 

I would imagine—— 

Senator AYOTTE. Well, there are two provisions, National Standard 1 and National Standard 8. And as far as I can see for the fishermen that I represent, they are not being weighted equally. And 

when it comes to the economic impact on our fishermen, if you combine the dramatic cut in shares, if you combine the concerns they 

have about the science, if you combine the fact that they now have 

to fund this at-sea monitoring system themselves, I do not see how 

their economic vitality is being taken into consideration at all here. 

Mr. RAUCH. So it is clear that National Standard 8 is subordinate to National Standard 1 based on the terms of it. If you would 

like us to provide you language that would alter that, I think we 

could do that. 

Senator AYOTTE. I think that it would be reasonable for this committee, as we look at this reauthorization, to put forward language 

that does not put every small ground fisherman in my state and 

the New England States out of business because that would be 

doing a real disservice to the fishery as a whole. So thank you. 

I have some additional questions that I am going to submit for 

the record. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Senator Ayotte, and I share your 

concerns on the monitoring and the balance between the different 

National Standards. So I appreciate that line of questioning. 

Senator Schatz? 

STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN SCHATZ, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII 

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I wanted to ask about National Standard 1, which we all know 

is essentially to prevent overfishing and achieve optimum yield. 

And I want to understand how you see aquaculture fitting into that 

because on a sort of common sense level, to the degree and extent 

that recognizing that different regions have different concerns regarding aquaculture, that this seems to be a strategy that could 

achieve optimum yield and prevent overfishing. And I am wondering how we might pursue amendments to MSA in the future 

that would enable aquaculture to flourish where the FMPs and 

where the different regions think that is a good strategy. 

Mr. RAUCH. Thank you, Senator. 

We have just worked through this issue in the Gulf of Mexico 

where we did the first-ever large-scale commercial aquaculture perVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:48 Jan 09, 2017 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\23227.TXT JACKIE
21 

mit in Federal waters. We do believe that aquaculture is fishing. 

So it is part of the Magnuson-Stevens Act purview to regulate. We 

did have to set optimum yield for aquaculture. It is a little bit awkward to do that because usually you set optimum yield trying to 

determine how much of the fishery you can take out of the otherwise wild population. Aquaculture is not really that same metric. 

You take a little bit out of the wild population and then you sort 

of create another population. 

But we did work through that. We set an overall cap on the 

amount of fishing, 20 large-scale operations in the entire Gulf of 

Mexico, with the understanding that if we actually achieve that 

limit, you go back to the Council, we might increase it. 

So we have been able to work through that issue. It was not 

without some difficulty trying to conceptualize it, but we do think 

within the Magnuson Act, as it is currently written, you can regulate aquaculture. You can do things like setting optimum yield. It 

is important to the country to continue to do that. 

Senator SCHATZ. Do you need any clarification from the Congress 

in terms of this optimum or maximum yield question when it 

comes to aquaculture? Because I guess it seems to me a little bit 

of a square peg in a round hole. 

And then the other question is do you feel like it is settled that 

aquaculture is fishing rather than farming. 

Mr. RAUCH. For us, it is settled. There are a number of fishery 

management plans going back 2 decades or so that include aquaculture, that authorize aquaculture, nothing on the scale of the 

Gulf. But as the Senator may be aware, we are subject to a lawsuit 

that challenges that very principle. And I am not aware, other than 

some very preliminary rulings, that we have had any court uphold 

us. From our perspective, though, it is a position we have had for 

well over a decade, and we think it is settled. 

We do think, as I said, it works well within the Magnuson Act, 

that there is no need to change the statute to give us that, but if 

Congress would like to work with us, I am sure it could be clearer. 

Senator SCHATZ. OK, thank you. 

The second question I have is regarding coastal habitats. As you 

know, they face increasing pressure from growing populations and 

environmental damage. As coastal habitat degrades, fisheries suffer. But on the positive side, obviously, maintaining healthy coastal 

habitats will help fisheries to be more productive. 

So how can MSA reward stewardship, and what other agencies 

need to be involved in this conversation? 

Mr. RAUCH. We do know that there is a close link between habitat and fishery production. We have an entire habitat division 

within the Fisheries Service that is designed toward protecting 

coastal habitat with the aim towards increasing fishery production. 

Currently the Magnuson Act includes an authorization for the 

community-based restoration programs so that we can work with 

local communities to do that. It also includes essential fish habitat 

provisions such that we can work with other agencies, agencies like 

the Corps in terms of their Clean Water Act dredge and fill permits. As they try to assess the amount of modification that is allowable, they come and consult with us so that we make sure that 

the fishery impacts are working well. 

22 

So we work well with a number of agencies. It is the agencies 

that you would expect, the Corps, the military, those folks that 

work on the coastal development. And we have a really good working relationship with them to make sure that as they authorize 

projects, they are taking into account the fishery needs. 

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Senator Blumenthal? 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

This hearing is vitally important to Connecticut and our country, 

particularly so because the Magnuson-Stevens Act can be effective 

only if the latest science is brought to bear on decisions that are 

made and only if the people who are affected by this law have representation so they can bring a real-world sense of what is happening to bear on these decisions. 

I have met often over the past years, when I served as Attorney 

General and most recently as Senator—last week with our Connecticut fishing community, I met with them in a town hall in 

Stonington and heard their perspectives and concern as they relate 

to the Magnuson-Stevens Act. And frankly, I strongly believe that 

the goals of conserving and rebuilding fish populations and promoting the growth of the fishing industry are two goals that should 

be and are compatible, not mutually exclusive. 

But unless the best science is brought to bear and unless the 

views of that fishing industry have some say, the system will run 

amok. And right now, it is running amok in their view. And I think 

their views are very persuasive and convincing. 

They tell me that the sea bass and flounder, among other species, have migrated north, are available in much greater abundance 

than ever before because of the effects of warming. And so the system that gives primary say in determining the catch numbers permissible to the Mid-Atlantic Council and management organization 

is not only inequitable but ineffective. And their industry is under 

extreme economic stress, and that matters to the entire state of 

Connecticut. The commercial and recreational fishing industries involve 6,600 jobs in my state and has an economic output of $763 

million. These are numbers that are approximate, but even if they 

are off by a little bit, the magnitude of the effect is certainly significant. 

So my hope is that we can have smarter, more efficient targeting 

of resources in these programs and greater effort to take into account the effects of climate change and shifting fish populations 

and other environmental issues and we can make this system work 

well for fishermen and protect and rebuild vulnerable species at 

the same time. 

So my question to you is, what can be done to take account of 

those moving fish populations? I know I am probably stating it in 

imprecise layman terms, but the sea bass and the flounder do not 

speak our language anyway. They are just going to do what they 

are going to do based on water temperatures, and those water temperatures are driving more of them north. 

23 

And here is the really egregious and unacceptable outcome. 

These fishermen are throwing overboard tons of fish that are dead 

when they hit the water. So they are of no use to anyone, least of 

all people who are hungry, literally hungry in Connecticut and 

around the country, who could benefit by having those fish available. So there is extraordinary unnecessary waste in this system 

right now, and I want your view about what we can do about it. 

Mr. RAUCH. So there are two aspects of that question. 

One is on the science side, all the science that we work with in 

this instance is done through the Northeast Fisheries Science Center which serves both Connecticut, the Mid-Atlantic. So there is 

some uniformity there so we can make sure that the science views 

are not influenced by the technical geography, which Council is 

managing it. 

In terms of the Council, the actual management advice—as you 

know, the Council boundaries are set by statute. There are some 

provisions—and you are absolutely correct that the stocks appear 

to be moving north. There are some other ones that are moving 

south. The fish are moving, and we are not sure why. We suspect 

it is climate change. That is going to create over time—this may 

be the first of many of these kind of issues in which you have fish 

showing up where they traditionally were not, and we have to set 

appropriate management measures. And these are issues that both 

the Councils work with. 

Under the Magnuson Act, we have two main tools to do that. The 

Council of jurisdiction—as I said, it is not something that we can 

change, but we can make sure that the New England and the MidAtlantic Council are working together. They do have liaisons. We 

have traditionally designated a lead council. In this case, it is the 

Mid-Atlantic. There is always opportunity to change the lead council. I am not sure that would be advisable here. But occasionally 

we also require joint management plans. This happens a lot in the 

Keys where the fish do not care particularly whether they are in 

the north or south, whether they are being regulated by the Gulf 

Council or the South Atlantic. And we have a number of joint plans 

where we have asked the Councils to work together on those kind 

of things. 

So all of those are options that are available as this continues, 

and my suspicion is this is not the only instance in which this is 

going to occur. The stocks are moving all over the country, and we 

will see this happen more and more. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. But you would agree with me that the 

system right now has really run amuck and needs to be set right. 

Mr. RAUCH. I do not know how long-term this is. I do know that 

there are issues with new fishing opportunities in old fishing 

grounds and we have to deal with those. We are working through 

the Council process. I think the tools are there. But it is an issue 

that all the Councils have to start facing. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And the fishing opportunities, to use your 

euphemism, which means to me there are fish to be caught, they 

are being thrown overboard, they are hitting the water dead, they 

are wasted, and fishermen are deprived of their livelihoods and 

people’s lives are diminished because they go unnecessarily hungry—would you disagree with that summary? 

24 

Mr. RAUCH. I do not know that that is what is happening with 

summer flounder or black sea bass. I know that is one of the reasons we are very concerned about bycatch issues in general, that 

we would like to avoid those kind of wasted situations. And we are 

required to minimize bycatch. I would rather minimize it by increasing fishing opportunities for those. I mean, if they are going 

to be dead anyway, we might as well look for opportunities to catch 

them. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. In other words, increase the catch quotas. 

Mr. RAUCH. If that scientifically can be done. These are thorny 

issues in terms of what the implications for increasing catch quotas 

might mean for others. You cannot just increase catch quotas without there being consequences. It is often a zero sum game. Somebody would have to decrease somewhere. And that is an issue traditionally that we work out through the Council process, often 

where two Councils meet together and try to reach an agreement 

on what should happen. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, I would just emphasize for what it 

is worth as a message to take back to NOAA and to all the agencies that have authority here that science has a very important role 

to play. These decisions ought to be fact-based and founded in good 

science, but clearly in the real world what is happening is unacceptable because fishermen are losing livelihoods and people are 

losing food that otherwise could be extraordinarily nourishing and 

healthy. And I want to make sure that we in no way compromise 

the goal of preserving and enhancing the populations of fish, consistent with good environmental science, but common sense dictates a change here. 

So thank you. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Senator Markey? 

STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Chairman Sullivan, very much. 

And thank you for mentioning Massachusetts, along with Alaska, 

as the seafood superpowers in the United States. 

Senator SULLIVAN. I will note that next time. Oh, I did. 

Senator MARKEY. You complimented Massachusetts. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Absolutely. No doubt about it. 

Senator MARKEY. He went to Harvard. So maybe he is subconsciously doing it and then forgetting that he did it. But in your 

opening statement, Alaska and Massachusetts were mentioned. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Should I get in the middle here? 

Senator MARKEY. A Yale man in the middle. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator MARKEY. And the truth is that my mother is a Sullivan. 

You are a Sullivan. We were probably fishing in Ireland. Then we 

went to the two states. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Probably, once the potatoes ran out. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator MARKEY. And then we went to the two states that are 

the seafood superpowers. 

So our story, though, is one of the declining seafood, and we have 

to basically try to do our best to figure out the issue because the 

25 

namesake of the iconic arm of Massachusetts is the cod that is 

found just off of the Cape’s coast. Cape Cod and the rest of Massachusetts have a strong and a rich history of fishing and science. 

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

brings together these two subjects to support healthy fisheries and 

the fishermen and coastal communities that depend upon them. 

We have seen how fishermen, managers, and scientists have 

worked together to revive the Atlantic sea scallop fishery. Due to 

their success, New Bedford continues to be the leading U.S. fishing 

port based on dollar amount of fish and seafood landed. And I hope 

that this model of collaboration can extend to the other fisheries 

that are struggling in New England and support a vibrant seafood 

industry in Massachusetts in the 21st century and beyond. 

But given the immense challenges we face with the ever-growing 

effects of climate change and ocean acidification, today we must 

begin to acknowledge that we cannot solely plan on what happened 

in the past. Cod, which used to be so plentiful, is less so now. There 

is an ever-important need to focus on science and provide fisheries 

managers with the proper data to make well informed management 

decisions. 

There are many challenges, though. Carbon dioxide levels in the 

atmosphere are the highest in recorded history. We have reached 

over 400 parts per million. The last time carbon dioxide levels were 

this high, the world was a very different place. The earth is warming and our oceans are too. Not only are our oceans taking up some 

of the global warming, but carbon dioxide dissolving in our oceans 

is causing them to acidify. Study after study details the changes occurring in our climate in the Gulf of Maine in New England and 

are looking at some of the most adverse changes in the near future. 

Without action to reduce carbon pollution, we could face a New 

England without lobsters and a Cape without cod. 

But there is hope. Our fishermen have made it through many 

past challenges, and the hearing today is exploring ways that we 

can ensure a strong, vibrant fishing industry and healthy oceans 

for generations to come. 

So, Mr. Rauch, as you know, New England ground fishermen 

have faced significant economic challenges in recent years, and 

Senator Ayotte raised the cost of at-sea monitoring earlier. Can 

NOAA prioritize certain fisheries for standard bycatch reporting 

methodology coverage at a higher rate? 

Mr. RAUCH. Thank you, Senator. 

In New England, we set the priority for standardized bycatch reporting methodology through the system laid out by the Council in 

their fishery management plan amendment. So they have articulated—we are required by statute to establish a standardized bycatch reporting methodology for the fisheries in New England. We 

do not believe it has to be the same for every fishery, but it does 

have to be standardized. 

Senator MARKEY. Would you need changes to Magnuson-Stevens 

to enable the agency to prioritize certain fisheries for SBRM coverage? 

Mr. RAUCH. I do not believe you would need it to—you might. I 

do not know the answer to that question. I do know that the answer—given the court cases up there, if we wanted to prioritize atVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:48 Jan 09, 2017 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\23227.TXT JACKIE
26 

sea monitoring over SBRM, we would need that. I do not know that 

we would need that to prioritize SBRM funding, but it would take 

at this point Council action because we do have a Council amendment that dictates how we were going to do that. 

Senator MARKEY. And what criteria would NOAA use to identify 

priority fisheries? 

Mr. RAUCH. I think we would look at—you would look at which 

fisheries have a history of bycatch, which fisheries is the bycatch 

that you are concerned about. There are some stocks that are 

healthy that you would be less concerned about bycatch and some 

stocks that, if you catch them, you would be very concerned. So you 

would make an assessment about the different fisheries, if you had 

limited bycatch monitoring resources, which we do, and decide 

which ones you want to allocate those resources to. So those are 

the kinds of criteria that we would look at, but it would be largely 

with the Councils that we would be doing that. 

Senator MARKEY. Well, the New England fisheries are already 

feeling the effects of climate change. The Gulf of Maine sea surface 

temperature is rising faster than almost anywhere in the entire 

world. And these changes pose significant challenges to our fisheries. 

How does NOAA plan to allow for adaptation of management 

strategies to changes in ocean conditions due to climate change? 

Mr. RAUCH. We just put out a report which echoes much of what 

you just said and which indicates that certain stocks are perhaps 

more susceptible than others. And we were very concerned that the 

economic driver behind New Bedford is the scallop fishery. They 

have calcium carbonate shells, and so they are potentially very vulnerable to climate change. 

So we have articulated which ones are perhaps the most vulnerable. I think it is imperative there—the Fisheries Service does not 

control climate change, but we can work with the fishermen to try 

to diversify portfolios to try to make sure that they account for potential downturns if they are going to be in those fisheries. 

Senator MARKEY. Well, the cod and lobster—they need cold 

water. 

Mr. RAUCH. Exactly. 

Senator MARKEY. And the lobster are voting with their claws as 

they move northward, and the cod are voting with their fins as 

they move northward. And so as they chase the colder water, as 

our water becomes warmer, it becomes a real issue economically for 

our region. 

So what additional or new data would NOAA require to help understand the different causes of changing fish populations? 

Mr. RAUCH. We have invested a lot of money recently. I think 

last year we invested about $3 million in Northeast climate science 

to try to get at that exact question. By virtue of the Fisheries Service placed within NOAA, we have a lot of access to our partners 

who do the environmental monitoring that can monitor temperature and other conditions. We are integrating all that now. 

I think it is hard to determine why a fish stock reacts the way 

it does, but we are investing a significant amount of resources now 

and we will continue to do so trying to improve our understanding 

27 

about the way that these stocks may react to various climate scenarios. 

Senator MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, can I have an additional two 

minutes, if you do not mind? 

Senator SULLIVAN. Absolutely. Take as many as you want. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Researchers at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth 

are working on a new video system that will count cod to improve 

the accuracy of the scientific assessment. This is just one example 

of technological innovation with implications for fisheries management. 

Can you speak to how technological innovation, such as the one 

I mentioned, can improve stock assessments not just in New England but around the country? 

Mr. RAUCH. We think it is very important to work with third parties that develop these new systems like that one to work them 

into the science enterprise. It is important for trust. It is also important to have a transparent system, so we need to be open to this 

kind of new information. 

We have a study fleet where we have employed the fishermen. 

They put cameras on the study fleet that look at where—we tell 

them go catch fish where you think the fish are. And then they will 

take the environmental conditions and reports and we will incorporate that into our data set. All that is very important. So we invest a lot of money in our partners to do these. Even if we did not 

fund the initial research, we try very hard to incorporate that data 

into our assessment of the stocks. Sometimes it takes a while to 

incorporate the data into the stocks. Sometimes it is very easy to 

do that. And we work very well with the state of Massachusetts 

and the various institutions there to do those kind of things. 

Senator MARKEY. So it is important for fishermen and women 

and the fisheries management people to have the information—— 

Mr. RAUCH. Absolutely. 

Senator MARKEY.—so they can make timely decisions about the 

future. 

And finally—thank you, Mr. Chairman—illegal, unreported, and 

unregulated fishing may account for up to $23 billion per year loss 

to the global fishing industry. This directly affects the fishermen of 

Massachusetts. However, seafood fraud affects every State. Alaska 

and Massachusetts, of course, would be at the top of the list just 

because of how massive our fishing industries are. 

In order to protect American consumers and fishermen, are there 

specific provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act that can be enhanced to combat illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing? 

Mr. RAUCH. There are. And we are currently using the Magnuson-Stevens, as you may be aware, to create a traceability system 

for both foreign imports. We have a wonderful traceability system 

in the United States. We can as the government agency. It is not 

publicly available. But as regulators work with our states, we basically know where the fish was caught, when it was caught up to 

the point of entry into the market. Using the Magnuson Act, we 

are imposing similar requirements on foreign imports to level the 

playing field. Our fishermen should not be at a disadvantage to 

that. 

28 

The Magnuson Act right now is not a particularly good tool for 

the seafood fraud part. We have other tools. We are working with 

our enforcement agencies. That is mainly economic fraud that is 

going on, and we work with States and local governments to help 

prosecute that. We have some tools available. We are very concerned about that. 

Senator MARKEY. Do you need additional regulatory authority 

that the Magnuson Act can provide? 

Mr. RAUCH. We have indicated that if we are fully going to 

achieve the vision of enforcing against illegal fish and fraud, that 

additional enforcement authorities that would allow us to enforce 

beyond the point of entry—we can do a very good job enforcing at 

the docks. That is where the NOAA fisheries enforcement agents 

go. Once it leaves the docks and enters in the chain of commerce 

domestically, we have very few tools to deal with that. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Does the IUU legislation that I mentioned in 

my opening statement, recently signed by the President—does that 

provide you enough authority? 

Mr. RAUCH. It helps us with certain things. It does not provide 

that authority from the point of entry, once it is into the United 

States, to guard against market fraud that might happen at a local 

distributor. It does not do that. It is a very powerful tool protecting 

us up to the borders and making sure that what is coming into the 

United States is good and sustainable. But the Fisheries Service at 

least would have to rely on our State and Federal partners for that 

enforcement beyond the chain. We do not have any authority right 

now to do that. 

Senator MARKEY. And I have been working with Senator Wicker 

on this issue trying to find a bipartisan way in which perhaps, Mr. 

Chairman, we could work together as we are going forward. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Great. 

Senator MARKEY. So I thank you. 

And can I ask a question? My mother’s family is from County 

Kerry. Where are your Sullivans from? 

Senator SULLIVAN. That is County Kerry as well. So maybe we 

were fishing together. 

Senator MARKEY. Maybe we are cousins. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator MARKEY. Maybe destiny has brought us here to work together. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Well, I look forward to working with Senator 

Markey as we did last year on an amendment that was signed into 

law just recently by the President with regard to helping move forward the fisheries in Alaska, in Massachusetts, and throughout the 

country. In all seriousness, I think we had a lot of work. 

Senator MARKEY. I agree with you. My mother always said the 

Sullivans are a very intelligent people. So this is just further proof 

of that as we work together in the future on new amendments. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator SULLIVAN. So, Mr. Rauch, I just have a few more questions, if that is all right, since I have you hostage here. 

I am going to follow up on a couple questions Senator Markey 

talked about, that Senator Ayotte talked about. The first one reVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:48 Jan 09, 2017 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\23227.TXT JACKIE
29 

lates to Senator Ayotte’s questions on the ranking of the different 

National Standards. 

Is National Standard 1 ranked above all others, and if so, how 

does that position allow you to achieve balance? 

Mr. RAUCH. Thank you, Senator. 

There have been a number of judicial interpretations of the various National Standards. Some of them are explicitly subject to the 

overarching conservation rationales and others. National Standard 

8 is one of those that by its own terms—and I do not have it in 

front of me—refers to the conservation objectives of the Magnuson 

Act, and so the courts have interpreted that to be subordinate to 

National Standard 1. National Standard 1 says we are to prevent 

overfishing while achieving the optimum yield. There is a lot of material in there. We are supposed to be conservation-minded but, at 

the same time, achieve the maximum benefit that we can while 

making sure we do not cross over the conservation objectives. 

Other ones are not so subordinate like the requirement to use 

the best available science. That is not subordinate. 

Senator SULLIVAN. How about the economic impact? 

Mr. RAUCH. The economic one, which is in National Standard—— 

Senator SULLIVAN. Because you are seeing that among the Committee members. It is a concern. 

Mr. RAUCH. The current wording of National Standard 8 does 

make it—you consider the economic—economic flexibility—you consider it once you have made sure that you have not allowed overfishing. And so it has been viewed and the Fisheries Service would 

view it now as subordinate to the requirement to make sure that 

you do not allow overfishing. 

But that still gives an awful lot of flexibility to try to create economic opportunity. So I do not want to leave the impression that 

it is meaningless. It is quite powerful. We are in the Commerce Department. We take it seriously that we are trying to achieve the 

most economic value we can and the least economic harm to our 

coastal communities in everything that we do. It is just that there 

is a line about overfishing that we will not cross. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Let me turn to the issue of the monitoring 

system. And you know, it is a big issue. Obviously, Senator Ayotte 

was very strong and forceful in her comments to you. You know, 

in Alaska, we actually have a bit of a different issue, but in some 

ways it is similar where the monitoring situation—and I have seen 

this with our fishermen. The requirement of a human observer particularly for small-boat fishermen—so for some of the smallest vessels, there is a huge burden. Right? I mean, literally just space in 

terms of the burden that we have. I do not believe anyone in our 

fishing fleet gets subsidized or has been subsidized by the Federal 

Government on monitoring. So there is a bit of an equity issue that 

I will not go into right now. But as you know, different monitoring 

programs have been treated differently in terms of the way the 

Federal Government has actually helped pay for those. We have 

never been paid for at all. So there is a fairness issue there I believe. 

But also in terms of electronic monitoring, I know that you have 

been working for years to develop that kind of program, but I will 

30 

tell you there is just a real strong interest in Alaska for you to get 

to a point where we can deploy electronic monitoring. No one is trying to avoid monitoring, but as I mentioned, it is a real burden 

when you have to have human observers particularly on small vessels. 

Where are we on that, and can I tell my constituents that we are 

getting to a spot where we can have electronic monitoring sometime not in the far, distant future? 

Mr. RAUCH. So you are absolutely right that we are struggling 

with the small boat fleet up there. The Council has determined 

that we need to start—that fleet had been unmonitored for a long 

time, and there needs to be some sort of monitoring. And the initial 

technology is a human observer, which creates all these space 

issues. And we have struggled for years with that fishery because, 

as you said, there is only a limited number of spaces, and in order 

to have a bunk space for an observer, you might have to have a 

crewman sleeping on deck, which is not a good solution. 

Senator SULLIVAN. And that happens, as you know. 

Mr. RAUCH. Yes. 

So we worked for a while on various mechanisms. At the moment, we are offering an experimental arrangement where if they 

agree to take a camera in lieu of an observer, they do not have to 

take the observer. We have got, I think, 59 boats signed up for that 

process right now, give or take a few. We hope to get up to 90 next 

year before the system is fully operational in 2018. Our long-term 

vision is exactly the same. I would much rather have this fishery 

observed with cameras—— 

Senator SULLIVAN. Yes. 

Mr. RAUCH.—than with human observers. 

Senator SULLIVAN. So would we. 

Mr. RAUCH. And I think they are working through the technology, but right now, my understanding is if you sign up for this 

program, you can take a camera instead of a human observer. And 

many of the folks have done that. There are some people that are 

still not part of that system, and we continue to work with that 

segment of industry. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Well, if you can commit here to continuing to 

focus on accelerating that, I think that goes to some of the burdens 

that we have been talking about, certainly a burden on the industry in Alaska. 

Mr. RAUCH. Senator Ayotte is no longer here, but we are continuing to work to develop a camera system in New England similar to that in Alaska to decrease some of the costs that she identified. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Good. 

Let me turn to eco-based fisheries management. In your testimony, you talked about that being used in concert with protected 

species conservation. And I believe you are familiar with the experience we have had in Alaska with regard to the stellar sea lion 

and Alaska fisheries. And it seems to me that a risk-averse ecosystem policy in certain cases could possibly make things worse for 

fishing communities in my state, given that example. 

Do you agree with that or do you disagree and why? 

31 

Mr. RAUCH. I think it is important to recognize the role of the 

fish stock that the fishermen fish for in the ecosystem, as the 

Council has done, as the fishing industry has done. I have talked 

to many of the fishermen in Alaska, and they are conservationists 

at heart, many of them. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Absolutely, they are. That is for sure. 

Mr. RAUCH. And they are willing to make certain sacrifices if 

they believe the science is there, and they have done so. The Council—our latest iteration on the stellar sea lion was to approve the 

Council’s proposal, which the fishermen supported to address that. 

But like many things, there is often only so many fish to go 

around. And so you do have to weigh the balances between the fish 

that we remove versus the fish that you allow to stay. 

My experience has been that once the Councils in general embrace this idea, they are perfectly willing, if they can understand 

the science behind it, to set aside what the ecosystem may need because in that case, we are talking about stellar sea lions, but in 

other cases we are talking about fisheries that may grow bigger 

and feed another segment of the fishery. So you are not setting it 

aside. You are setting it aside for other fishermen. And so these are 

kinds of ecosystem considerations, how removing the stock from 

one part of the ecosystem affects another one, that the Councils 

have been very willing to address and in general have been willing 

to work through these issues. And it is not always that we are setting it aside for a native species. Many times we are setting it 

aside for other fishermen down the line. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Let me ask another question that has caused 

a lot of concern or potential concern with regard to the President’s 

authorities under the Antiquities Act. And as you probably know, 

when the President uses the Antiquities Act, there is no requirement to consult with any stakeholders that are adversely affected, 

including States, including Members of Congress, including even 

NMFS. And as you also know, that is completely different than the 

structure, the MSA, where it is a robust and transparent public 

process that develops the fisheries management plans including, as 

you just mentioned, conservation measures. 

Do you think the Antiquities Act could benefit from similar requirements to be modeled in some ways where there is more input? 

There are a lot of concerns that certain areas of the North Pacific 

region are going to have a unilateral, unbeknownst to anybody, especially the stakeholders, antiquities designation by the time the 

President leaves. And that really cuts against the entire structure 

of the MSA which has been stakeholder-driven, transparency-driven, and stakeholder-approved. 

Mr. RAUCH. So the Marine Fisheries Service does not implement 

the Antiquities Act. 

Senator SULLIVAN. You do not even get consulted either. 

Mr. RAUCH. I do not have a view on the Antiquities Act. 

But I will say in terms of preserving land and presenting harm 

to large sections of the ocean from fisheries impacts, the Magnuson 

Act has been a wonderful tool to that. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Exactly. 

Mr. RAUCH. We heard about the Mid-Atlantic Council, which was 

a very open and transparent stakeholder process. The one limitaVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:48 Jan 09, 2017 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\23227.TXT JACKIE
32 

tion there is that—and the Councils sometimes express frustration—it is limited to fishing impacts. We can close an area to fishing. We can regulate fishing in areas, and that is all that the Fisheries Service really can do. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Well, let me ask a favor, as I wrap up here. 

And I appreciate you taking the time to answer additional questions. But as this Antiquities Act issue starts to maybe rear its 

head, if you can weigh in with the other Federal agencies and say, 

look, we have an act where it is open, it is transparent, where the 

conservation of the stakeholders is undeniably clear when they 

have the information. And a blind-side antiquities designation certainly is not going to help or get a lot of buy-in in my region, but 

I think in most other regions. And I think if agencies like yours can 

remind the other agencies or the White House about this that 

things are working on a conservation objective right now, that that 

could be helpful. 

Mr. RAUCH. So I think we continue to discuss with our partners 

in the administration and with the administration as a whole the 

value of the Magnuson Act, the value of the structure, the transparency, and the strengths of the structure throughout the system. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Well, I appreciate that. If you can continue to 

do this in the final year of this administration, that would be helpful. 

Let me ask one final question. In the North Pacific region, many 

have expressed support for a NEPA sufficiency process within the 

MSA to reduce redundancy and the programmatic burden. Does the 

agency have a position on such a provision? 

Mr. RAUCH. The Council chairs at one point developed a proposal 

led in part by the North Pacific Council. The agency did not take 

a position itself on that one, although I personally have pointed out 

some of the, I think, difficulties in working through that system. 

We did take a position on the NEPA language in the House bill, 

which we opposed. We thought it was unnecessary. We think that 

the Councils have largely made NEPA work, that many of the supposed ills that they cite are not actually true. They cite a lengthy 

EIS process from the mid-2000s that we have never done since. We 

do not anticipate doing again. NEPA has not been an impediment 

to the Councils to do their job. In fact, it has provided important 

environmental analytical capabilities that are very similar to the 

Magnuson Act. Most of the Council documents now are integrated 

NEPA fishery management plan objectives. You cannot tell where 

NEPA stops and the fishery management begins. They have integrated them very well. And so we think it is unnecessary to have 

sufficiency language, and that is why we opposed the House bill. 

But we did not any particular official position on the Council 

Chairs’ position. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Well, listen, I want to thank you again. I 

think you presented us outstanding testimony. And obviously, a lot 

of members on both sides of the aisle are very interested in this 

issue. We look forward to working with you and the agencies as we 

look at the importance of this issue with regard to the MSA. Again, 

I want to thank you for your patience and very thorough answers 

to everybody’s questions. 

33 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:58 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(35) 

A P P E N D I X 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MARCO RUBIO, U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA

The Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) set ten principles, called National Standards, 

for fishery management and conservation. Today, we analyze National Standard 1, 

which stipulates our fishing ‘‘measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on 

a continuing basis, the optimum yield (OY) from each fishery for the U.S. fishing 

industry.’’ It is in the national interest to prevent overfishing while producing an 

optimal yield. However, the underpinning of this goal can only be accomplished with 

sound science. All can agree that timely and accurate data benefits both the recreational and commercial sectors. Together, they contribute significantly to the national economy, employing millions of Americans and providing sustenance to all 

fifty states and abroad. It is because of their importance that I led a bipartisan congressional request to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to examine current data practices used in determining stock assessments. The report found that 

the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) ‘‘does not have a comprehensive 

strategy to guide the implementation of its various efforts. . .Moreover, without 

clearly communicating the strategy to its stakeholders, NMFS may find it difficult 

to build trust, potentially limiting its ability to effectively implement MRIP improvement initiatives that rely on data collection partners.’’ On December 14, 2015, I 

wrote to Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker urging the Department of Commerce use the necessary resources to implement GAO’s recommended changes as 

soon as possible and to begin to rebuild the trust with key stakeholders. I remain 

hopeful the department will take tangible actions to address these issues. 

As I have stated before, it is because of the charter, commercial and recreational 

industries’ importance that fisheries elicit strong emotions. Our nation has a solid 

foundation of fishermen. Livelihoods and favorite past times are spent on the water 

and whether it’s supplying seafood to our restaurants or to our families’ dinner tables, decisions affecting our fisheries must be made by taking all sectors into account. Just last year, this committee reported the Florida Fisheries Improvement 

Act, legislation I authored that would strike a balance and improve fisheries management in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic regions. The bill would amend 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act to give the Regional Management Councils greater flexibility in setting rebuilding timelines, require the Secretary of Commerce to create 

a stock assessment plan to better prioritize stock assessments and report to Congress on how to improve data collection from stakeholders. It would also increase 

the availability of funding for stock assessments, surveys and data collection efforts. 

Should the committee move forward with an MSA reauthorization bill, I urge the 

inclusion of this vital bill. 

I thank Senator Sullivan for chairing this important hearing. 

WRITTEN TESTIMONY ON BEHALF OF THE ALASKA LONGLINE FISHERMEN’S

ASSOCIATION (ALFA), THE ALASKA MARINE CONSERVATION COUNCIL (AMCC), THE

CENTRAL BERING SEA FISHERMEN’S ASSOCIATION (CBSFA), THE CITY OF SAINT

PAUL ISLAND, AK, (THE CITY), AND THE HALIBUT ASSOCIATION OF NORTH AMERICA

(HANA) 

Mr. Chair, Ranking Member, and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for 

the opportunity to submit comments on the Magnuson-Stevens Act at 40. 

These comments are submitted on behalf of the Alaska Longline Fishermen’s Association (ALFA), the Alaska Marine Conservation Council (AMCC), the Central 

Bering Sea Fishermen’s Association (CBSFA), the City of Saint Paul Island, AK, 

(the City), and the Halibut Association of North America (HANA). Together these 

associations, organizations, community development quota (CDQ) groups, and local 

governments represent a diverse group of halibut users including commercial, recreational, and subsistence fishermen, and halibut dependent communities—from the 

36 

1 Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Daley, 209 F.3d 747, 753 (D.C. Cir. 2000) 

Bering Sea, to the Gulf of Alaska to Southeast Alaska—that are concerned with the 

conservation and management of the North Pacific halibut resource. 

The primary strength of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) is its commitment to 

long- term conservation of marine fisheries and resources. While achieving optimal 

yield from the fisheries is clearly important, managers ‘‘must give priority to conservation measures.’’ 1 The signatories to this letter share this priority and oppose 

any action that weakens this long-term commitment to resource conservation and 

sustainable fisheries. 

That said, legal and policy frameworks must evolve to reflect changed conditions, 

participation, and uses over time. The Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) is no different. 

While the MSA through the balancing of the National Standards has clearly had 

many successes in its forty years of existence that have resulted in improved management, conservation, and participation by stakeholders in the nation’s fisheries, 

our comments will be focused on areas that require recalibrating or rebalancing. 

These comments are based on recent challenges in the conservation and management of the North Pacific halibut fishery, which exemplify the shortcomings of current National Standards, as well as the need for additional guidance—either 

through Agency input or Congressional reauthorization—on how regional councils 

are to apply the ten National Standards. 

I. The North Pacific Halibut Fishery 

Halibut is considered one of the world’s premium whitefish. It is popular with consumers and seafood restaurants throughout the United States and around the 

world. Along with red king crab and salmon, it is emblematic of Alaska’s wild fisheries and a key 

commercial, recreational, and subsistence fishery in communities from Alaska 

through British Columbia, to California. Since 1923, the U.S.-Canada International 

Halibut Commission (IPHC) has managed the North Pacific’s halibut stocks, a testament to its historic and commercial importance to communities throughout its international range. 

There are currently 2,714 halibut Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) holders in the 

United States—and 1,965 of the IFQ holders are Alaskans, who employ other Alaskans. In addition, there are a total of 1,157 vessels in the halibut IFQ and CDQ 

fleets. The CDQ fleet is based out of 39 Western Alaska villages. The directed halibut fishing vessels made IFQ landings in 32 different community ports in 2014. 

There are 77 distinct registered buyers that purchase halibut in these ports. 

In addition, halibut is a key subsistence fishery. Residents of 118 rural Alaskan 

communities and areas, and members of 123 tribes, are eligible to participate in the 

federal subsistence fishery. In 2011, 4,705 individuals subsistence fished for halibut. 

Those individuals harvested an estimated 38,000 halibut, comprising 700,000 

pounds—a vital source of food and a critical cultural component for dependent villages and individuals, which must be protected. This is particularly important in 

areas where salmon has been all but removed from the traditional subsistence diet 

in an effort to conserve Chinook. 

II. A Distorted Use of the Halibut Resource 

Over the last 15 years, the IPHC has steadily reduced directed halibut catch limits as a necessary conservation measure in response to a declining available halibut 

resource. This has resulted in the directed halibut fishermen undergoing extreme 

cuts in their quotas. Meanwhile, until last year, the bycatch users in the Bering Sea 

groundfish fisheries have been permitted by regulation to catch and discard halibut 

up to the limit set more than 20 years ago, when the halibut resource was double 

what it is now. In effect, a dramatic reallocation of halibut from the directed halibut 

fisheries to bycatch users has taken place in recent years. 

The impact of BSAI halibut bycatch is felt throughout the range of this great fish, 

but in particular by the directed halibut fishermen in the commercial, recreational, 

and subsistence sectors. These fishermen are primarily based in coastal, and economically less-diversified, Alaskan communities. IPHC studies reveal that halibut 

undertake lifelong migrations from nursery areas in the Eastern Bering Sea to the 

Gulf of Alaska and beyond. Of the under 26-inch—or juvenile—halibut tagged in the 

Bering Sea, 10–30% of the recovered tagged fish were recovered in the Bering Sea, 

while 70–90% were recovered in the Gulf of Alaska. 

The current Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands (BSAI) halibut bycatch limit of 3,515 

Metric Tons (round weight, or weight of the entire fish) legally allows up to 5.81 

million pounds of halibut (net weight, without heads and entrails) to be caught and 

discarded overboard as bycatch mortality in groundfish fisheries. Meanwhile, this 

37 

2 INT’L PAC. HALIBUT COMM’N, 2015 REPORT OF ASSESSMENT AND RESEARCH ACTIVITIES, 251, 

323 3 INT’L PAC. HALIBUT COMM’N, 2015 REPORT OF ASSESSMENT AND RESEARCH ACTIVITIES, 34, 

96 4 16 U.S.C. § 1851(a)(1). 

5 16 U.S.C. § 1802(33). 

6 50 C.F.R. § 600.310(c)(3)(iv). 

7See, e.g., N. PAC. FISHERY MGMT. COUNCIL, FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR GROUNDFISH

OF THE BERING SEA AND ALEUTIAN ISLANDS MANAGEMENT AREA 56 (2015) (explaining that the 

Council rejected ‘‘reductions in excess of [the Preferred Alternative] level [as] no longer be practicable as they would seriously affect jobs and revenue’’) [hereinafter EA/IRFA]. 8See Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. NMFS, 421 F.3d 872, 879 (9th Cir. 2005) (‘‘The purpose 

of the Act is clearly to give conservation of fisheries priority over short-term economic interests.’’); Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Daley, 209 F.3d 747, 753 (D.C. Cir. 2000). 

year, directed commercial halibut fishermen in the BSAI are limited to 4.19 million 

pounds (net weight). In 2015, BSAI trawl fisheries caught and discarded nearly 7 

times more halibut than the directed fishery landed in the BSAI. BSAI trawl bycatch mortality was 3.99 million pounds—at an estimated average net weight of 

3.675 pounds/fish, a total of 1,088,000 halibut.2 The directed fishery landed 3.57 

million pounds—at an average weight of 21.7 pounds/fish, a total of 164,000 halibut.3

Please note the differences in average weight between bycaught halibut and those 

landed by the directed fishery. The longline fleet is constrained from catching halibut less than 32-inches long. Trawl fisheries have no such constraint. Of all halibut 

bycatch in Area 4CDE, 76% is less than 32-inches. These are two to seven-year-old 

halibut that have not yet spawned. These small fish are the future of the halibut 

stock, and must be protected. 

III. Halibut Bycatch Reduction and the National Standards 

In June of 2015, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC), which 

manages the groundfish fisheries and the associated Prohibited Species Catch (PSC) 

or bycatch, took action to reduce overall halibut PSC limits by 21%. This reduced 

actual bycatch by only 1%. Nevertheless, the National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) recently approved the action and will be issuing a final rule in the spring 

of 2016. 

Collectively, the NPFMC action and the corresponding NMFS approval of that action, demonstrate some of the current limitations of the National Standards, as interpreted and applied by the NPFMC and NMFS. A more detailed discussion follows. 

a. The NPFMC and NMFS placed too much emphasis on the economics of the 

groundfish fishery when applying the National Standards 

i. National Standard 1 

National Standard 1 requires that the NPFMC and NMFS establish harvest limits that prevent overfishing while ensuring, on a continuing basis, the optimum 

yield from each fishery.4 The analysis and deliberations from the June meeting continuously mentioned the need to balance bycatch reduction with the mandate to 

achieving optimum yield on ‘‘a continuing basis.’’ Both the MSA and the National 

Standard 1 Guidelines make clear that optimum yield is a blend of factors. The 

MSA defines ‘‘optimum,’’ with respect to the yield from a fishery, as the amount of 

fish that ‘‘will provide the greatest overall benefit to the Nation, particularly with 

respect to food production and recreational opportunities, and taking into account 

the protection of marine ecosystems’’; and ‘‘is prescribed as such on the basis of the 

maximum sustainable yield from the fishery, as reduced by any relevant economic, 

social, or ecological factor.’’ 5 The National Standard 1 Guidelines also provide a nonexhaustive list of potential considerations, which include social, economic, and ecological factors.6 Yet, both the NPFMC and NMFS largely limited their optimum 

yield analyses to the financial needs of the groundfish fleet.7 In doing so, they failed 

to consider optimum yield within the full context of MSA requirements. 

Economic considerations in the groundfish fishery cannot override other priorities 

in the MSA. While achieving optimum yield is an important objective, nowhere does 

the MSA suggest that optimum yield should be prioritized over bycatch minimization measures that are otherwise feasible. Rather, the MSA is conservation focused, 

and conservation standards should be prioritized when applying the National Standards.8 NMFS ‘‘must give priority to conservation measures. It is only when two difVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:48 Jan 09, 2017 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\23227.TXT JACKIE
38 

9 Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Daley, 209 F.3d 747, 753 (D.C. Cir. 2000) 10See 50 C.F.R. § 600.310(f)(3)(i)(B) (‘‘In [National Standard 1], use of the phrase ‘‘achieving, 

on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery’’ means producing, from each stock, 

stock complex, or fishery: a long-term series of catches such that the average catch is equal to 

the OY. . . .’’). 11 It is also worth noting that BSAI groundfish optimum yield is statutorily capped at 2 million metric tons each year, which is generally well below the sum of acceptable biological catches 

for the groundfish species (i.e., where the NPFMC could set the optimum yield). For example, 

in 2015, the sum of acceptable biological catches was equal to 2.85 million metric tons, while 

the NPFMC set total allowable catch quotas well below the ABC levels due to optimum yield 

constraints.11 Thus, the NPFMC never considered the fact that Optimum yield can still be 

achieved because of the 2 million metric ton cap on optimum yield in the BSAI. OY of the 

groundfish harvest is never achieved because of this cap. The NPFMC and NMFS could increase 

other target species to account for reduced groundfish harvest. 12 16 U.S.C. § 1851(a)(4); 50 C.F.R. § 600.325(c)(3)(iv). See also 16 U.S.C. § 303(a)(15)(when conservation measures are necessary, NMFS must consider the economic impact of harvest restrictions and recovery benefits for each sector, and allocate the costs or benefits ‘‘fairly and equitably among the commercial, recreational and charter fishing sectors.’’). 13 INT’L PAC. HALIBUT COMM’N, 2015 ANNUAL MEETING HANDOUT (BLUEBOOK) APPX IV 240 

(2015). 14 N. PAC. FISHERY MGMT. COUNCIL, APPENDIX C PROPOSED BERING SEA/ALEUTIAN ISLANDS

HALIBUT PROHIBITED SPECIES CATCH LIMIT REVISIONS: COMMUNITY ANALYSIS 14–15 (2015). 15See id. at 11, 15. 16 16 U.S.C. § 1851(a)(8). 17 50 C.F.R. § 60.345(c)(4)(‘‘any particular management measure may economically benefit 

some communities while adversely affecting others’’); 50 C.F.R. § 600.345(b)(4)(‘‘sustained participation means continued access to the resource within the constraints of the conditions of the 

resource’’). 18 EA/IFRA at 55, 57. 19 50 C.F.R. § 600.345(b)(3). 

ferent plans achieve similar conservation measures that the Service takes into consideration adverse economic consequences.’’ 9

Similarly, neither the NPFMC nor NMFS acknowledged that optimum yield is 

fluid concept—the average of ‘‘a long-term series of catches.’’ 10 By assuming that 

optimum yield is a fixed amount, the NPFMC and NMFS at least implicitly give 

National Standard 1 priority over the other National Standards.11

ii. National Standard 4 

National Standard 4 mandates that allocative measures must not discriminate between residents of different states and must reflect consideration of other factors, 

including present participant and coastal community dependence and recreational 

fishing opportunities.12 The NPFMC and NMFS’ analysis of the bycatch reduction 

action fails to account for the de facto reallocation that had been occurring for the 

past 10 years under the existing regulations thus skewing its analysis of economic 

effects of bycatch reduction. In 2014, for example, halibut PSC accounted for 77% 

of all BSAI halibut removals.13 This allocation disproportionately benefited Washington residents at the expense of Alaskan residents: Washington State residents 

own 89% of the trawl catcher processors and 75% of the catcher vessels in the BSAI 

groundfish fishery.14 Washington State also received the vast sum of revenues from 

the trawl sectors—the largest recipient of PSC allocation.15

iii. National Standard 8 

National Standard 8 requires the NPFMC and NMFS to establish harvest limits 

that account for the importance of fishery resources to local fishing communities by 

providing for the sustained participation of local fishing communities, and that fishery management decisions be tailored to minimize the economic impacts on communities that depend on fishery resources.16 NMFS and the NPFMC improperly applied this standard. Under the National Standard 8 Guidelines, NMFS and the 

NPFMC should have prioritized the sustained participation of Area 4CDE and other 

halibut dependent communities.17

Instead, they overestimated the economic dependency of Seattle, by treating the 

large metropolitan area as a fishery dependent community (despite the fact that the 

analysis acknowledged that Seattle’s community dependence on fisheries is not even 

a ‘‘salient issue’’ 18). This is contrary to the National Standard 8 Guidelines, which 

define a ‘‘fishing community’’ as one ‘‘that is substantially dependent on or substantially engaged in the harvest or process of fishery resources to meet social and economic needs.’’ 19

By contrast, the NPFMC and NMFS undervalued the dependence of halibut-dependent communities in the Bering Sea by failing to consider ‘‘direct or indirect 

community impacts that may have already occurred due to changes in the status 

of halibut,’’ and underestimating ‘‘the number of communities [that are] dependent 

39 

20 Report of the Scientific and Statistical Committee, June 1–3, 2015, at 9. 21 Id. at 9–10. 22 Id. at 9. 23 16 U.S.C. § 1851(a)(8). 24 16 U.S.C. § 1851(a)(9). 25Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area; American Fisheries Act; Amendment 111, 80 Fed. Reg. 71,650, 71,668 (proposed 

Nov. 16, 2015). 26 ER/IRFA at 376. 27 Id. 

on halibut and those levels of dependency.’’ 20 The Science and Statistical Committee 

(SSC) noted that the analysis treated the PSC and halibut user groups unevenly, 

using metrics that failed to fully capture the level of engagement among Alaskan 

communities.21 With respect to subsistence use, the SSC stated that the treatment 

of subsistence use of halibut in the analysis ‘‘remains insufficient and likely underestimated’’ the potential impacts’’ 22

NMFS and the NPFMC also treated the National Standard 8 requirement that 

it ‘‘provide for the sustained participation of [fishing] communities’’ 23 as if it were 

qualified by ‘‘to the extent practicable’’ and therefore subordinate to National Standard 1. The maker of the NPFMC’s amended motion, for example, explicitly acknowledged that the bycatch reductions he was proposing would not get the fishing communities of the Bering Sea where they needed to be for sustained participation in 

the fishery. This is contrary to the plain language of the statute and begs for further 

clarification by the agency. 

iv. National Standard 9 

National Standard 9 provides that NMFS and the NPFMC ‘‘shall, to the extent 

practicable, minimize bycatch.’’ 24 The recent halibut bycatch action highlights the 

difficulties that regional councils and NMFS have in applying National Standard 9. 

The term ‘‘practicable’’ is inherently ambiguous, and, in light of that ambiguity, 

it has become an industry driven standard that places more weight on the economic 

costs of bycatch reduction than any other factors. For example, the scenarios modeled in the NPFMC’s analysis predicted that bycatch could not be reduced without 

closing groundfish fisheries—an assumption the NPFMC’s SSC identified as an ‘‘unrealistic characterization’’ because the model does not reflect likely behavior changes 

in the groundfish fishery. NMFS similarly states more stringent PSC reductions are 

not practicable because of the foregone harvests and revenues in the groundfish 

fishery.25 This interpretation that the groundfish fleet’s revenue set the boundary 

of practicability does not comport with the MSA. As an Alaskan representative on 

the NPFMC said in voting against the minimal bycatch reductions, ‘‘[National 

Standard 9] doesn’t mandate bycatch reduction at all cost, but it also doesn’t mandate bycatch reduction at no cost.’’ 

b. The NPFMC and NMFS did not take a comprehensive approach to balancing the 

National Standards 

Both the NPFMC and NMFS noted ‘‘[a]n inherent tradeoff in this type of action 

is between National Standard 1 and National Standard 9, where the [NPFMC] and 

NMFS use management tools such as halibut PSC mortality limits to minimize bycatch in the groundfish fisheries to the extent practicable, while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from the groundfish fisheries.’’ 26 The analysis also 

found tension ‘‘between National Standard 8, which requires provision for the sustained participation of and minimized adverse economic impacts on fishing communities, and National Standard 4, which states that management measures shall not 

discriminate between residents of different states, and requires allocations of fishing 

privileges to be fair and equitable to all fishery participants.’’ 27

While it is true that any fishery management action requires the NPFMC and 

NMFS to find balance between the National Standards, the approach taken by the 

agency here improperly restricts that balancing test (e.g., the need to only find balance between National Standards 1 and 9). What should also be required, and clarified by Congress when the MSA is reauthorized, is for NMFS and the NPFMC to 

explicitly take a holistic view at how the National Standards interrelate. In this 

case, the National Standards 4, 8, and 9 all weigh heavily in favor of more stringent 

reductions to halibut PSC limits in the BSAI groundfish fishery; however, because 

of the way NMFS and the NPFMC structured their balancing test, this did not come 

out in the analysis or rationale. 

40 

V. Recommendations 

It is clear from this experience, that a recalibration, clarification, or rebalancing 

of how the National Standards are weighted is required in order to conserve the resource and restore balance among the various stakeholders and user groups. Specifically, we recommend that: 

• NMFS produce guidance on how the regional councils and agency are to balance 

the relationship between National Standard 1 and the other National Standards. 

» National Standard 1 Guidelines already do this, but the guidance is focused 

on the how the requirement to prevent overfishing and rebuild overfished 

stocks relates to the other standards. As demonstrated above, NMFS and the 

NPFMC place continuous achievement of optimum yield as the priority. Additional guidance is needed to determine how that priority fits with the other 

standards. 

• NMFS and the regional councils be more explicit in how they factor social, economic, and ecological factors into its National Standard 1 calculation. 

• National Standard 8 be given more weight when sustained participation of fishery dependent communities is threatened due to bycatch in other fisheries. 

• NMFS provide additional guidance as to how practicality is determined with respect to bycatch reduction. Consistent with the MSA, this guidance should include more than economic factors. Reducing bycatch to the maximum extent 

practicable should involve consideration of a suite of alternative options such as 

prioritizing catch for gear types with low bycatch or modifying the behavior of 

the fisheries with high bycatch. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN THUNE TO

HON. SAMUEL D. RAUCH III 

Cooperative Management 

Question 1. Cooperative management tries to achieve more effective and equitable 

systems of resource management. With respect to fishery cooperative management, 

representatives of user groups, the scientific community, and government agencies 

may share knowledge, power, and responsibility of the fishery. What legislative and/ 

or administrative barriers exist to implementation of cooperative management strategies under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

(MSFCMA)? 

Answer. For several years, NOAA Fisheries has carried out cooperative management and cooperative research under several statutes including MSA. NOAA Fisheries recently completed a White Paper on this issue that can be found here: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/op/docs/cooperativelresearchlandlmgmt.pdf 

NOAA Fisheries determined that successful cooperative management and cooperative research activities have several key attributes. These include: 

• A clear legal framework. 

• An organized stakeholder group, with leadership. 

• Clear roles for partners, stakeholders, and NOAA Fisheries personnel. 

• Clear goals. 

• Buy-in of partners and stakeholders. 

• Trust between stakeholders and NOAA Fisheries personnel. 

• Transparent and clearly understood decision-making process. 

• Strong and regular communication. 

• Matching the scale of the cooperative management system with the distribution 

and mobility of the managed species. 

• Use of results to make fishery management decisions. 

• Funding. 

NOAA Fisheries is currently implementing the recommendations in this White 

Paper. 

Electronic Monitoring 

Question 2. The National Observer Program (established in 1999) is composed of 

11 regional observer programs that use a combination of trained biologists and atVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:48 Jan 09, 2017 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\23227.TXT JACKIE
41 

sea monitors to collect catch data, document fishing gear, conduct safety inspections, 

and monitor fishing efforts. The data collected through the program aids fishery 

managers in conducting stock assessments, reducing bycatch, and obtaining necessary information for many other decisions. Since the establishment of the program, the cost to collect fishery-dependent data has risen dramatically and the number of fisheries to observe has increased. Disproportionate growth between cost and 

the number of fisheries observed has led some stakeholders to call for alternatives 

to the traditional observer program such as electronic monitoring (EM). In the 

United States, there are five active EM programs—four in the Alaska groundfish 

fisheries that are funded by the fishing industry, and one for the Atlantic Highly 

Migratory Species that is funded by NOAA Fisheries. What legislative and/or administrative barriers exist to a more complete or full implementation of EM under 

the MSFCMA? 

Answer. NOAA Fisheries doesn’t believe significant legislative or administrative 

barriers exist that are preventing electronic monitoring (EM) implementation. Expansion to other regions of the fee authorities in Section 313 of the MSA could simplify implementation of EM programs however, it is not absolutely necessary. Developing thoughtful solutions to the cross-cutting issues and numerous fishery-specific 

challenges requires planning, which is why NOAA Fisheries and the Regional Fishery Management Councils are taking a systematic and regional approach toward 

adopting these new technologies. We have implemented EM in five fisheries, and 

planned for implementation in six more, which would bring total EM programs to 

as many as 11 fisheries by 2018. Some of the outstanding issues affecting the pace 

of EM implementation include: (1) efficiently transferring and storing the large 

quantities of EM data involved, (2) determining costs associated with different EM 

program designs, (3) determining who is responsible for paying the costs of EM programs, (4) gaining acceptance of EM by the fishing industry, and (5) developing new 

technologies such as automatic image recognition systems to allow automated fish 

counts and weight estimation for catch and bycatch accounting. 

Overlap with the National Environmental Policy Act 

Question 3. H.R. 1335 would add provisions to change the relationship between 

MSFCMA and other environmental laws such as the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA). The bill would require councils to develop fishery management plans 

and amendments, which would satisfy and replace NEPA requirements. In what 

ways can NOAA help reduce the duplicative NEPA and Fishery Management Plan 

requirements? 

Answer. As outlined in the May 19, 2015 Statement of Administration Policy, the 

agency strongly opposes provisions in H.R. 1335 that would change how the MSA 

interacts with other important statutes. NOAA has worked closely with the councils 

to integrate the processes and analyses required by other statutes such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) into an overall framework that is both 

timely and effective. Section 7 of the bill would incorporate some aspects of this statute into the MSA and could potentially alter the manner in which they apply to 

fishery management actions. Specifically, the bill would establish a new set of 

standards for environmental analysis that are similar to the requirements under 

NEPA. We believe this provision is unnecessary because it is unclear what substantive problem specifically related to NEPA the language seeks to solve. 

On February 23, 2016, the agency issued final NEPA Procedures for MSA Actions 

(MSA NEPA Procedures) which clarify roles and responsibilities of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Regional Fishery Management Councils 

(Councils), explain timing and procedural linkages, provide guidance on documentation needs, and foster partnerships and cooperation between NMFS and Councils on 

NEPA compliance. The MSA NEPA Procedures represent a very successful collaboration between NMFS, the Council on Environmental Quality, and the Councils that 

resulted in a consensus document that has broad support from many of our constituents. The agency believes these MSA NEPA Procedures represent the appropriate 

mechanism for integrating NEPA requirements into the MSA fishery management 

process. You can find more information about these Procedures at http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/lawslpolicies/msa/nepa.html. 

Lionfish 

Question 4. Two lionfish species (Pterois volitans and Pterois miles) represent the 

first non-native marine finfish to become established in Atlantic waters of the 

United States, including the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean. During the course of 

their nearly three-decade invasion, lionfish have demonstrated how challenging a 

marine invasive can be to control once it becomes established. Lionfish are proficient 

opportunistic predators, consuming a wide variety of prey which has led to drastic 

42 

declines in the abundance and richness of native reef fish species. Should lionfish 

be regulated by MSFCMA, and if so, how? 

Answer. NOAA Fisheries does not believe it is appropriate to regulate invasive 

lionfish through the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA). One of the central purposes of 

the MSA is to ‘‘achieve and maintain, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from 

each fishery.’’ If lionfish were to be regulated under the MSA, NOAA Fisheries 

would be required to maintain a fishable population of lionfish rather than act to 

eradicate the species. 

Fisheries Buyback Program 

Question 5. My staff has inquired as to what statutory authorities NOAA requires 

to make and refinance buyback loans in their Fishing Capacity Reduction Programs. 

Their initial inquiry was in January of 2015. My staff has followed up several times. 

Please provide the reason that you have not been responsive to my staff’s questions 

as well as when I can expect you to provide a response to them. 

Answer. (Note: NOAA will also follow-up the response below with a buyback loan 

brief which provides additional details.) 

The Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation Act and the fishing capacity reduction framework regulations authorize NOAA to implement an industry funded capacity reduction program. The Merchant Marine Act, 46 U.S.C. Chapter 537, allows 

the Secretary to make a loan for a capacity reduction program. 

Neither the Magnuson-Stevens Act nor the Merchant Marine Act authorizes the 

refinancing of existing buyback loans. This would require explicit Congressional authorization and appropriations language that includes loan limits, subsidy costs, and 

the cost to refinance. 

Section 312 (b)–(e) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation Act (P.L. 94– 

265, as amended by P.L. 109–479) (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and the fishing capacity 

reduction framework regulations, originally published in 2000 and revised in 2010 

(50 CFR Part 600, Subpart L), provide authority to implement a buyback program. 

Civil Penalties for Gulf Red Snapper 

Question 6. Senator Thune along with Senators Wicker, Sessions, Cassidy, and 

Cornyn submitted a letter to Dr. Sullivan dated January 19, 2016 inquiring about 

NOAA’s position to not issue civil penalties for Mexican fisherman caught illegally 

fishing for red snapper in U.S. waters. This letter builds on prior staff inquires that 

first began over 7 months ago. The Committee has still not been informed of the 

justification for the decision to not pursue civil penalties, and whether NOAA will 

reverse this position. Please follow up with the information requested in our letter, 

or a timeline for when we can expect to be informed of NOAA’s position. 

Answer. The letter is in the final stage of clearance and will be sent shortly. 

Violation of Federal regulations in New England 

Question 7. Last month, Carlos Rafael, the owner of one of the largest commercial 

fishing businesses in the northeastern U.S. was arrested on charges of conspiracy 

and submitting falsified records to the Federal Government to evade Federal fishing 

quotas. Northeast fisheries managers believe that the case has singlehandedly impacted the resource, and the lack of monitoring and enforcement it highlights are 

a threat to the future of fishing in the Northeast. Currently NOAA is monitoring 

very few New England fishing boats. The switch to more cost-effective electronic 

monitoring would increase confidence among fishermen that everyone is playing by 

the same rules. What impacts on Northeast fishery stock assessments does NOAA 

see as a result of the Rafael case, and does this case highlight the need for increased 

electronic monitoring outside of pilot programs in New England? Also, please provide the total amount of Federal fishing disaster funds that Carlos Rafael has received. 

Answer. The case involving Carlos Rafael is an ongoing investigation, therefore 

we cannot comment on or speculate as to whether and how the allegations in the 

Rafael case may have impacted Northeast Multispecies stock assessments. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. ROGER F. WICKER TO

HON. SAMUEL D. RAUCH III 

Question 1. There seems to be a remarkable disconnect between the Integrated 

Coastal and Ocean Observing System ICOOS Program and the National Marine 

Fisheries Service. How effective has MSA been with respect to availability of monitoring and observing technologies authorized under programs such as ICOOS? 

Answer. The Integrated Coastal Ocean Observation System Act (ICOOS Act), 

signed by President Obama in March of 2009, established the statutory authority 

43 

for development of the U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS). By integrating and coordinating a variety of oceanic data sources, IOOS provides public access to data streams that can contribute to the science needed for better understanding and managing the Nation’s living marine resources. NOAA Fisheries utilizes these data in a variety of ways, namely in research and development to better 

our understanding of the oceanic processes that affect fish stock productivity. Thus, 

IOOS data complements NMFS’ primary data collection efforts (fishery-independent 

surveys for estimating stock abundance and fishery-dependent programs to estimate 

catch and discards). Further, NOAA continues to promote partnerships for integrating long-term surveys and ocean observation systems. NOAA is routinely evaluating how best to deploy its limited days-at-sea aboard oceanographic vessels to support NOAA’s survey and ocean observation requirements. 

Question 2. Do you think that the observation monitoring programs and data established under ICOOS should be explicitly referenced in MSA for the purposes of 

fisheries management and stock assessments? 

Answer. We feel that ICOOS or IOOS do not need an explicit reference in the 

MSA. The current statute allows the incorporation of ecosystem and environmental 

data into the fisheries management process, and there are numerous data sources, 

some of which are hosted by IOOS, that fit within this context. However, increasing 

total information will only improve the fisheries management process, so NOAA 

Fisheries supports any efforts to increase monitoring and observing of oceanic systems. 

Question 3. Are there deep water species and habitats currently not included in 

previous MSA language regarding deep sea coral research that are potentially important to the management of living resources? 

Answer. No, the MSA’s broad definition of ‘‘fish’’ includes deep-sea sponges and 

sponge habitats: ‘‘The term ‘fish’ means finfish, mollusks, crustaceans, and all other 

forms of marine animal and plant life other than marine mammals and birds.’’ In 

addition, the MSA section on the Deep Sea Coral Research and Technology Program 

provides authority ‘‘to conduct research . . . on deep sea corals and related species,’’ 

which also covers sponges and their deep-sea habitats. 

Because these deep-sea benthic habitats potentially attract fish and their prey, 

they are of concern to the management of living resources. The lack of explicit mention of sponges and other deep-sea species in MSA does not prohibit NOAA and the 

Fishery Management Councils from managing some fishing impacts to these habitats such as bycatch, in particular, as laid out in the 2010 NOAA Strategic Plan 

for Deep-Sea Coral and Sponge Ecosystems. Regional Fishery Management Councils 

have made significant progress on deep-sea coral conservation since the 2007 reauthorization. 

Question 4. What technologies or technology development programs are required 

to improve understanding of non-coral deep water environments, species, or habitats 

for fisheries management? 

Answer. NOAA Fisheries believes that increased development and use of advanced technologies is key to improving our understanding and management of deep 

water species and the environments they inhabit. New, more capable and cost-effective technologies are needed to address the mismatch between the very small areas 

of deep seafloor that can currently be surveyed in detail and the relatively large 

deep-sea areas we manage. These environments are difficult to access, expensive to 

study, and conventional survey gear such as trawls cannot provide the necessary 

comprehensive ecological information. In addition, these gears can destroy sensitive 

organisms that form many deep-water habitats, such as large benthic invertebrates, 

including sponges, bivalves, and tube worms. Thus, we depend on remote sensing 

and sampling technologies to work in these areas. These technologies include: 

• Acoustics, such as advanced sonars for counting fish and mapping seafloor habitat; 

• Optics, such as high-resolution video and still cameras that can operate in low 

light or total darkness; 

• Sample collections and analyses, including genetic techniques that can aid in 

identifying species and populations; and 

• Platforms for deploying these instruments, such as autonomous underwater vehicles, remotely operated vehicles, towed bodies, and manned submersibles. 

In many cases we need to use a combination of technologies. For example, we can 

map seafloor using sonar, and then use that information to target follow-up camera 

surveys in areas with characteristics that make them potentially suitable for the 

habitats of interest. In addition, these instruments produce extremely large volumes 

44 

of data, creating needs for improved data processing capabilities, such as automated 

species recognition and measurement from optical data, and improved data management to enable our scientists and the public at large to efficiently access the latest 

advanced data products. 

NOAA Fisheries is working with partners across NOAA, other Federal agencies, 

and research institutions through our Deep Sea Coral Research & Technology Program to identify, coordinate and apply technologies for use in deepwater environments. This program conducts multi-year surveys to map and characterize deep-sea 

habitats and their associated fisheries resources in order to provide fisheries managers with information needed to conserve vulnerable biogenic habitats formed by 

sponges, bivalves, tube worms in addition to corals. These surveys regularly combine 

advanced acoustic, optical and sampling technologies deployed off a variety of vessels, as well as analyses of deepwater organisms caught as bycatch on commercial 

fishing trips or in NOAA Fisheries’ scientific trawl surveys. This program does not, 

however, include resources for technology development but is well situated to apply 

these types of advanced technologies developed by others. 

NOAA Fisheries is also actively working to advance our survey capabilities 

through our Advanced Sampling Technology (AST) program. Many deep-sea technologies have been developed for purposes other than fisheries, so our AST program 

is often working on research and development to adapt technologies to meet our 

needs. For example, many platforms that can operate in these environments work 

well for mapping seafloor habitat. However, some platforms, such as towed bodies, 

lack sufficient ability to avoid the obstacles that may be encountered on rough bottoms, and many platforms are far too intrusive to accurately survey fish, which may 

be frightened away by, or sometimes are actually attracted to, these devices. Thus, 

we are working on platforms that are stealthy and can avoid obstacles, and we are 

developing analytical methods that can account for fish behavior. 

NOAA Fisheries is working as effectively as possible to address our technology research and development needs. 

Question 5. Has NOAA or any other government agency developed or applied technologies that can be used in the enforcement of fishing violations on the high seas? 

Answer. NOAA currently uses several systems that collect and analyze identifying 

information broadcasted by fishing vessels on the high seas that help determine the 

vessels location and possible activity. These systems collect technological information from both cooperative and non-cooperative equipment. Cooperative sensing 

equipment (VMS/ERS) are technologies that vessels are aware that they are broadcasting and have agreed to share their vessel information with regulating authorities. Technologies using non-cooperative sensing equipment (AIS/Radar) identify 

vessels without their direct knowledge. Some raw data sources include information 

collected from: 

• Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) 

• Automatic Identification System (AIS) 

• Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) 

• Coastal Radar 

• Maritime Safety and Security Information System (MSSIS) 

• Acoustic 

• Classified Sources 

It is important to note that detecting fishing activity is only one step in the enforcement process. In many areas, fishing in and of itself is not illegal, but the use 

of certain types of gear or fishing practices, or the retention of certain species may 

be prohibited. Technologies that simply confirm the location of a boat are unable 

to provide much value in these circumstances. In addition, there are limitations 

with many of these data sources that prohibit them from being able to be used in 

a criminal/civil trial. 

Question 6. What technologies should be developed to assist agencies with reducing fishing violations on the high seas? 

Answer. NOAA OLE has been using SeaVision, a Department of Defense (DOD) 

front-end system that consolidates multiple data sources into one display; however 

DoD recently let its contract with its largest provider of AIS datasets lapse, which 

significantly reduces its coverage of fishing vessels on the high seas. This gap in 

data presents us with the need for an unclassified front-end system that is able to 

ingest various data sources (AIS/VMS/SAR/Coastal Radar/MSSIS etc.) and run analyses on the data. 

Also, most fishing vessels are not required to transmit any signals while fishing 

on the high seas, which presents one of our largest hurdles. The current IMO reguVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:48 Jan 09, 2017 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\23227.TXT JACKIE
45 

lation exempts fishing vessels from having to carry AIS, although individual nations 

may be able to enforce stricter regulations on vessel that sail under their flag. Recommendation 3 of the Presidential Task Force on Combating IUU Fishing and Seafood Fraud directs the Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security to include IUU 

fishing threat analysis and monitoring as a component of U.S. and international efforts to increase overall maritime domain awareness. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. KELLY AYOTTE TO

HON. SAMUEL D. RAUCH III 

Question 1. As you know, Congress is currently considering reauthorization of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA). In your written testimony, you spoke extensively 

about the successes of the MSA—however, we know the law is not performing as 

intended in many regions. As I understand it, New England groundfish fishermen 

have not exceeded their NOAA Fisheries-approved catch quotas in over a decade. 

Catch shares are destroying small boat fishing communities and my home state of 

New Hampshire may be entirely removed from the fishery if substantial changes 

to the MSA are not soon implemented. How will NOAA offer leadership in authoring 

changes in MSA to put more flexibility in the fishery management tool box so that 

regions, like New England, with multispecies fisheries can achieve Optimum Yield 

across the suite of species, not on a single species basis? 

Answer. The Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) has been the driver of our success in 

sustainably managing our Nation’s valuable commercial, recreational, and subsistence fisheries for the past forty years. The science-based, regional system outlined 

in the requirements of MSA is recognized as a global model for responsible fisheries 

management; the flexibility and adaptability built into the MSA requirements are 

key components to our success. 

Last year, NOAA Fisheries issued a proposed rule to revise the National Standard 

1 guidelines to address concerns about the implementation of annual catch limits 

and enhance flexibility to address fishery management challenges. The proposed 

rule includes revisions to expand flexibility in rebuilding plans and provide for more 

stable fisheries with guidance on how to phase in results of new stock assessments 

and carry over any unused portion of annual catch limits to subsequent years. In 

addition, the proposed rule offers guidance on using aggregate maximum sustainable yield estimates to account for multi-species interactions and other relevant factors. With these aggregate estimates, managers can specify fishery level optimum 

yield and facilitate ecosystem-based fisheries management. When final, we expect 

the revisions to the National Standard guidelines will provide additional flexibility 

in the fishery management toolbox. 

Question 2. As you know, there are ten National Standards included in the MSA. 

By law, according to National Standard 8, NOAA is directed to sustain both fishing 

stocks and fishing communities. I remain deeply concerned about the future of New 

Hampshire’s historic fishing industry, which is critically important to our local seacoast communities and our economy. When I talk with fishermen in New Hampshire, it seems that NOAA is prioritizing National Standard 1 and disregarding the 

other nine standards. What specific language will NOAA offer to make National 

Standard 1 and National Standard 8 of equal importance in the reauthorization of 

MSA for regional fishery management councils? 

Answer. The Magnuson-Stevens Act’s (MSA) ten National Standards embody different policy goals with which fishery management plans and implementing regulations must be consistent. 16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(1)–(10). NMFS and the Councils give serious consideration to all of the National Standards. However, the plain language 

of National Standard 8 clearly gives priority to conservation concerns, as numerous 

court cases have confirmed. For example, in Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. 

v. Daley, 209 F.3d 747, 753 (D.C.Cir. 2000), the court examined National Standards 

1 and 8 and stated that ‘‘[i]t is only when two different plans achieve similar conservation measures that the Service takes into consideration adverse economic consequences.’’ National Standard 8 explicitly refers to conservation and management 

measures being ‘‘consistent with the conservation requirements of this Act (including the prevention of overfishing and rebuilding of overfished stocks).’’ 16 U.S.C. 

1851(a)(8). National Standard 8 also has the caveat that measures shall minimize 

adverse economic impacts on communities ‘‘to the extent practicable.’’ Id. 

Under this construct, the Magnuson-Stevens Act has been a success. The occurrence of overfishing and status of overfished stocks in the U.S. are at historic lows— 

with only 17 percent of stocks determined as overfished and no new stocks added 

in 2014. This investment in environmental stewardship is paying off. We understand that some fishing communities are struggling economically as we work to reVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:48 Jan 09, 2017 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\23227.TXT JACKIE
46 

build stocks to sustainable levels. However the 2013 Fisheries Economics of the U.S. 

report states that overall, commercial and recreational fisheries contributed $195 

billion per year to the U.S. economy and supported 1.7 million jobs. In 2013, U.S. 

fishermen landed 9.8 billion pounds of fish and shellfish—an increase of 245 million 

pounds from 2012—worth $5.5 billion, an increase of $388 million over 2012. These 

numbers illustrate MSA’s success in balancing conservation and economics. Given 

this overall success, NOAA Fisheries believes the current construct of the National 

Standards, which give priority to conservation concerns, is appropriate. 

At this time, NOAA does not plan to put forward a legislative proposal to make 

National Standard 1 and National Standard 8 of equal importance. 

Question 3. I continue to hear from fishermen in New Hampshire regarding the 

serious disconnect between what they are seeing on the water and what NOAA 

science is reporting related to fishing stocks. Recreational and commercial fishermen 

alike tell me the only folks who aren’t seeing fish off the coast of New England are 

Federal regulators. In light of the continued and enormous difference in opinion in 

the status of stocks, especially Gulf of Maine cod, should congress remove the money 

for government trawl surveys from the budget and use that money to fund industrybased surveys, as I understand is the case in other fisheries? If not, why not? 

Answer. NOAA determines stock status using scientific analyses (stock assessments) that incorporate numerous sources of data, including fishery catches as well 

as data collected by government surveys (where available). Thus, a variety of factors 

influence stock status determinations, and on-the-water observations alone are not 

sufficient for assessing the health of a fish stock. In fact, there are several reasons 

why perceptions by fishermen may differ from the results of a stock assessment. For 

example, fish stocks may consolidate their aggregations. In other words, some fish 

may be readily available in specific fishing grounds but absent from other parts of 

their range where they were previously abundant, meaning they remain accessible 

to fishermen where they are fishing but their overall abundance is reduced. Also, 

some fishing vessels may have higher catch rates than NOAA trawl survey vessels, 

which may be perceived as the survey ‘‘missing fish’’. These lower survey catch rates 

do not reduce the accuracy of a stock assessment however, because assessments account for the catch efficiency of trawl surveys. In fact it is more important that a 

survey maintain consistent methodology over time than it is for the survey to catch 

fish at a high rate. 

The time series of consistent trawl survey data is critical for fish stock assessments, as well as for informing other research on changes in marine ecosystems in 

response to climate change and other pressures. Further, NOAA ships have equipment and capabilities for research that are often not available on fishing vessels. 

Nevertheless, we are actively working with industry stakeholders through our recently reconvened Trawl Survey Advisory Panel and through our cooperative research Study Fleet to incorporate industry input into our surveys as well to provide 

more industry-collected data to our assessments and research. 

NOAA places a high value on cooperative research, and in fact relies on chartered 

fishing vessels to conduct surveys of many stocks. However, where there is stronger 

reliance on chartered vessels (e.g., the northwest and North Pacific), surveys were 

established in the 1970s when there was not sufficient time available on NOAA 

ships in these regions. Thus, chartered vessels can be used to fulfill requirements 

for limited types of data collection, but we focus on use of NOAA ships because they 

are configured to support large, multi-disciplinary groups of researchers with all of 

their specialized gear, instrumentation and data processing requirements. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. BILL NELSON TO

HON. SAMUEL D. RAUCH III 

Question 1. State Management of Red Snapper in the Gulf of Mexico.—Mr. Rauch, 

the Gulf Council met at the end of January to consider a number of different measures, one of which was Amendment 39 to the Reef Fish Management Plan. That 

amendment would allow for management of the recreational red snapper fishery in 

Federal waters by Florida and the other four Gulf Coast states. Ultimately, because 

the state regulators and other voting members of the Council couldn’t agree on how 

to allocate red snapper among the states for management purposes, the Council 

voted to indefinitely postpone further consideration of this amendment. Meanwhile, 

a few of our colleagues in the House and Senate have been pushing legislation to 

turn management of Gulf red snapper over to some sort of state-run red snapper 

management council. This begs a couple of questions that I’d appreciate your 

thoughts on. 

47 

If Amendment 39 can already provide the Gulf Coast states an avenue to manage 

red snapper in Federal waters, why would anyone think this red snapper legislation 

is even needed? 

Answer. NOAA Fisheries agrees legislation is not required to establish a regional 

management system for red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico because the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act already provides the regional 

fishery management councils and NOAA Fisheries authority to develop such a system. We continue to support regional management in concept as a way to resolve 

the current challenges created by inconsistent state regulations and better meet diverse management objectives across the Gulf, and believe the best way to develop 

an effective regional management strategy that withstands the test of time is 

through the regional fishery management council process. The Magnuson-Stevens 

Act established that process to ensure fishery management decisions are developed 

from the bottom up, stakeholder-based, transparent, and consistent with all applicable law. We believe it is a good process for working through the types of difficult 

decisions that regional management requires. 

Question 2. If the Gulf Coast states can’t agree on how to allocate red snapper 

among themselves under Amendment 39, why would anyone think they can agree 

sitting on a state-run red snapper council? 

Answer. The various bills proposing state management of the Gulf of Mexico red 

snapper fishery are unclear as to how the red snapper quota would be allocated 

among the states and how such allocation decisions would be made. NOAA Fisheries 

believes allocation decisions are best made through the open, public Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act process which requires such decisions to be fair and equitable to affected fishermen, reasonably calculated to promote conservation, and prevent individual entities or corporations from obtaining 

excessive shares. NOAA Fisheries worked closely with all eight regional fishery 

management councils over the last several years to develop policy guidance regarding when and how to conduct allocation reviews that meet these criteria, including 

best practices to ensure allocations remain current and relevant. 

Question 3. South Atlantic Black Sea Bass.—Mr. Rauch, when we look at the red 

snapper fishery in the Gulf of Mexico, we see a stock that has historically been overfished but is now rebuilding itself as the Council has imposed science-based catch 

restrictions in the fishery. Unfortunately, this has led to some fishermen placing 

pressure on the Council and Congress to increase catch limits before the stock is 

fully rebuilt, and that reminds me of a similar situation on our east coast of Florida 

just a few years ago. Black sea bass was a species in the South Atlantic that was 

experiencing similar levels of overfishing, from both the commercial and recreational 

sectors, leading to severe restrictions in harvest. As the species rebuilt itself, I remember similar pressure from some fishermen to increase catch limits. The South 

Atlantic Council was resolute in maintaining harvest restrictions, because although 

the numbers of black sea bass were increasing, they were not yet of the optimal size 

and maturity to produce enough juvenile fish to maintain the stock. The Council 

trusted the science, and as a result in 2013 the stock was declared fully rebuilt, 

with an allowable annual catch more than doubling from 847,000 pounds to 

1,814,000 pounds, and with fisherman reporting they are catching more large black 

sea bass than they’ve ever seen in their life. What does the story about black sea 

bass in the South Atlantic say to you about the value in holding to the rebuilding 

plan for red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico? 

Answer. The South Atlantic black sea bass rebuilding plan is indeed a success 

story. The catch increase made possible by rebuilding that species increased economic benefits to commercial and recreational fishermen by hundreds of thousands 

to millions of dollars. The Gulf of Mexico red snapper rebuilding plan differs from 

the black sea bass plan in many respects. Black sea bass are relatively short lived 

compared to red snapper (∼9 years versus 55 years), so the black sea bass population was rebuilt on a much shorter schedule (∼10 years versus 31 years). That is 

one reason the South Atlantic Council adopted a rebuilding strategy for black sea 

bass that delayed the distribution of recovery benefits until the end of the rebuilding 

schedule by holding catches constant as the stock rebuilt. 

In contrast, the red snapper rebuilding strategy is designed to distribute rebuilding benefits throughout the rebuilding schedule by allowing catches to increase as 

the stock rebuilds. NOAA Fisheries has increased the combined (commercial and 

recreational) red snapper catch limit from 5 million pounds to about 14 million 

pounds since the rebuilding plan was last revised in 2007. In addition to increased 

catches, fishermen are encountering more and larger red snapper than many have 

seen in their lifetimes—and in places they have not been seen in decades—as the 

population expands back to its historic range. For that reason, we do not expect the 

48 

red snapper rebuilding plan to have a similar impact on catch levels at the end of 

the rebuilding period. However, we do expect to see a much healthier number of 

older larger fish in the population when the stock is rebuilt, which will make the 

population more resilient to both fishing pressure and environmental variables. 

Question 4. South Atlantic Red Snapper.—Mr. Rauch, with so much interest and 

discussion concerning the red snapper fishery in the Gulf of Mexico, I want to turn 

some attention to the same fishery on the east coast of my home state of Florida, 

where fishing is closed entirely this year because red snapper catch exceeded the 

allowable harvest last year by roughly100,000 fish—nearly twice the allowable 

catch. The number of dead discards, the fish that had to be tossed overboard dead 

because they could not be legally kept, was 163,000 fish, nearly four times as many 

fish as were kept. The dead discards alone exceeded the total quota for red snapper. 

Do you have any thoughts on what we can do to reduce this unintentional bycatch 

of red snapper in these fisheries where fishermen are targeting other species that 

live in the same habitat? 

Answer. Minimizing bycatch in multi-species fisheries, such as the South Atlantic 

snapper-grouper fishery, is one of our most challenging mandates. Several years 

ago, the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council initiated a stakeholder-driven 

visioning project to evaluate and refine current management goals and objectives for 

the snapper grouper fishery. One of the resulting recommendations was to better 

align fishery opening and closure dates in a way that best balances the need to minimize discards while providing fishing opportunities. We will continue to support the 

Council in evaluating these and other measures to reduce bycatch, and in exploring 

the potential uses of new technologies, like descending devices, to better minimize 

the mortality of bycatch that cannot be avoided. 

Question 5. Billfish Conservation Act Implementation.—Mr. Rauch, back in 2012 

Congress enacted the Billfish Conservation Act, which prohibits the sale of marlin 

and certain other billfish species. The Act made an exception to this prohibition for 

billfish landed in Hawaii and U.S. territories and possessions in the Pacific, in order 

to protect the traditional fisheries and markets there. Here we are, four years later, 

and the Administration still hasn’t implemented the Billfish Conservation Act. Some 

say the delay is due to confusion about whether Congress intended for Hawaiianlanded billfish to be sold on the U.S. mainland, but commercial sale of billfish to 

the U.S. mainland has never been a part of Hawaii’s traditional billfish fisheries or 

markets. Can you comment on whether there is any truth to this question of Hawaiian sale to the mainland holding up NOAA’s rulemaking? 

Answer. NMFS published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on 

April 4, 2013 (78 FR 20291). We received comments from academia, recreational 

fishing interest groups, environmental non-governmental organizations, individual 

citizens, industry, states and one regional fishery management council. The comments centered around six major themes: (1) whether billfish caught by U.S. fishing 

vessels and landed in Hawaii or Pacific Insular Areas can be sold on the mainland 

United States; (2) the interplay between international trade law and the BCA section 4(c)(1) exemption; (3) the impact of the BCA on recreational billfish activities; 

(4) the effectiveness and cost of the billfish certificate of eligibility (COE) for identification and tracking purposes; (5) the impact of the BCA on recreational versus 

commercial fisheries; and (6) degradation of conservation benefits of the BCA due 

to the exemptions from the general prohibition on sale of billfish. NMFS has been 

carefully considering all of these issues in preparing the proposed rule. 

Question 6. When can we expect to see a final rule issued to implement the Billfish Conservation Act? 

Answer. NMFS is still working to develop a proposed rule to implement the Billfish Conservation Act. Although rulemaking is ongoing, the provisions of the Act 

have been in effect since it was enacted in October 2012, and sale of billfish, except 

as specifically provided for by the statute, has been prohibited since that date. 

Question 7. Preventing Overfishing.—Mr. Rauch, the Magnuson-Stevens Act clearly states in National Standard 1 that fisheries management measures ‘‘shall prevent 

overfishing.’’ 16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(1). This is a cornerstone to the success of the law. 

U.S. fishery exports command higher prices and more respect in the global marketplace because of our firm commitment to well-managed stocks. But the agency’s 

newly proposed guidance for how to implement National Standard 1 would allow 

some years of overfishing to go unaddressed, and would allow managers to make 

riskier decisions when managing stocks. Doesn’t the proposed guidance conflict with 

the Act by increasing the risk that overfishing will occur, and jeopardize our international reputation for stellar management? 

Answer. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA), the U.S. has become an international leader in fisheries management and we are committed to continuing our 

49 

successful efforts to prevent overfishing and rebuild overfished fisheries. To this 

end, the proposed revisions to the National Standard 1 (NS1) guidelines are designed to both strengthen and clarify existing guidance on preventing overfishing. 

The proposed revisions to the NS1 guidelines, if finalized, would allow managers 

to consider multiple years of data in order to make a more accurate determination 

of whether a stock is subject to overfishing. This provision would not increase the 

risk that overfishing will occur because it pertains strictly to reporting requirements. Furthermore, this provision, in no way, would allow overfishing to go 

unaddressed because the management measures such as annual catch limits must 

be established to prevent overfishing every year. Instead, the proposed revisions 

would give managers greater certainty when reporting that a stock is subject to 

overfishing and will help avoid the potential negative market impacts of listing a 

stock as subject to overfishing based on a single year of uncertain data. In developing a final rule, NOAA is carefully considering all comments on the proposed rule 

including those concerning whether a stock is subject to overfishing. 

Question 8. Rebuilding Overfished Stocks.—Mr. Rauch, the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

states that the Secretary is to review rebuilding fisheries every two years, and determine if adequate progress is being made in recovering overfished stocks. 16 

U.S.C. 1854(e)(7). The agency’s proposed guidance for National Standard 1 seeks to 

define ‘‘adequate progress,’’ but the proposed language only examines whether the 

plan is being implemented as intended, or if there is ‘‘unexpected’’ new information. 

This guidance lacks any consideration of whether the health of the stock is actually improving. How does the agency defend suggesting that rebuilding plans can 

be making adequate progress even if no rebuilding is occurring? 

Answer. The Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) has established a rigorous, sciencebased management system that successfully rebuilds overfished fisheries. Since 

2000, 39 fish stocks have been fully rebuilt to sustainable population levels. Biomass 

is the key factor in determining if a stock is rebuilt. However, during the rebuilding 

plan, increases in biomass are often not steady, but are more irregular—several 

years of poor recruitment may yield little biomass increase, followed by a strong 

year or two that significantly increases the biomass. Experts, including the National 

Research Council in its 2013 evaluation of stock rebuilding mandated by the 2007 

Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act, have concluded that rebuilding plans 

should focus on adequate control of fishing mortality. By focusing on controlling 

fishing mortality, managers can avoid issues with updating rebuilding timelines 

that are based on biomass milestones, which are subject to uncertainty and changing environmental conditions that are outside the control of fishery managers. 

Further, NMFS has found that, in most cases where biomass does not increase 

significantly toward rebuilding goals, fishing mortality rates have remained too 

high. Therefore, NMFS believes that emphasizing achievement of the rebuilding 

plans’ fishing mortality goals is essential to ensuring adequate progress in rebuilding. In the small number of cases where fishing mortality is fully controlled to the 

planned level, but the stock fails to increase in biomass, the environmental conditions causing poor stock productivity need to improve before rebuilding will succeed. 

These cases, where a rebuilding plan is being implemented correctly, but the biomass of the stock is not responding with increased biomass, would be considered 

‘‘unexpected’’ and under this circumstance, the proposed National Standard 1 guidance still allows NMFS to determine that the rebuilding plan is not making adequate progress towards rebuilding which would require the Council to re-evaluate 

the rebuilding plan. In developing final revisions to the guidelines, NOAA is carefully considering all comments on the proposed guidelines, including those concerning rebuilding plans. 

Question 9. Timelines for Rebuilding Overfished Stocks.—Mr. Rauch, The Magnuson-Stevens Act says that overfished stocks are to be rebuilt in as short a time as 

possible. 16 U.S.C. 1854(e)(4). Proposed changes to the National Standard 1 guidelines offer new ways to calculate the maximum length of time for a rebuilding plan 

for those stocks that take longer than 10 years to rebuild. Under the new proposal, 

managers would have three different methods to calculate the maximum rebuilding 

time. However, the agency fails to provide any advice for how to choose between the 

three options. This new slate of choices allows managers to choose the most risky 

option, which could undermine rebuilding successes and would be counter to the requirements of the law. How does the agency intend to ensure that rebuilding is occurring in as short a time as possible under the newly proposed guidelines? 

Answer. The Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) and National Standard 1 (NS1) Guidelines require that when a fish stock is determined to be overfished, a plan be put 

into place to rebuild the stock. This is accomplished through rebuilding plans that, 

pursuant to the MSA, must specify a target time period for rebuilding that is as 

50 

short as possible, taking into consideration certain factors, such as the biology of 

the stock and the needs of fishing communities. To calculate this target time period, 

the National Standard 1 Guidelines provide for identifying a minimum time to rebuild (i.e., where there is no fishing mortality) and a maximum rebuilding time, and 

state that the target time period shall not exceed the maximum time period and 

shall be based on the statutory factors. NMFS emphasizes that management measures for rebuilding stocks are developed and implemented based on the shortest 

time possible in which the stock can rebuild (i.e., the target rebuilding timeline), not 

the maximum allowable time. 

Traditionally, calculating a maximum time for a stock to rebuild requires reliable 

information on the life history of the stock. Such information is not available in all 

cases, and even if available, might have a much higher level of uncertainty than 

other sources of available data such as fishing mortality. Thus, the proposed revisions to NS1 guidelines provided two additional scientifically supported methods to 

calculate a maximum allowable time to rebuild that are intended to provide Regional Fishery Management Councils and their Scientific and Statistical Committees options to use a calculation method that is based on the best scientific data 

available. Based on internal analyses, NMFS does not expect that the three calculation options will produce drastically different estimates. Furthermore, the selection 

of a calculation method must be based on what sources of data are determined to 

be the best scientific information available, rather than the outcome of the calculation. In developing final revisions to the guidelines, NOAA is carefully considering 

all comments on the proposed guidelines including those concerning rebuilding 

timelines. 

Question 10. National Standard 1.—While the agency has proposed revising guidelines for how to achieve the goals of National Standard 1 in the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act, the revisions are silent on how to confront climate change and other enormous 

challenges that our fisheries face. How does the agency expect Councils to achieve 

optimum yield and ensure fisheries provide the greatest overall benefit to the Nation without revising the guidance to confront these challenges? 

Answer. Climate-related changes are affecting the Nation’s valuable living marine 

resources and the people, businesses, and communities that depend on them. However, NMFS is taking proactive steps to both produce and use climate-related information to fulfill our statutory mandates in a changing climate. The existing National Standard 1 (NS1) guidelines establish an adaptive, science-based Federal 

fisheries management system that allows Regional Fishery Management Councils 

(Councils) to respond to these environmental changes that may that inhibit their 

ability to achieve optimum yield (OY) on a continuing basis. 

Optimum yield is prescribed on the basis of a stock’s maximum sustainable yield 

(MSY) as reduced by ecological, economic, and social factors. The existing NS1 

guidelines are designed to be responsive to changing environmental conditions and 

other emerging challenges in Federal fisheries management and set forth examples 

of how to apply ecological factors related to climate change when setting a stock’s 

OY. In fisheries where councils are aware of climate change impacts that affect the 

yield available from a stock, they can, and should, reevaluate the OY specification 

for the fishery, consistent with the NS guidelines and the best scientific information 

available. 

Question 11. Are the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the guidelines properly equipped 

to deal with climate change? 

Answer. The Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) and the existing National Standard 1 

(NS1) guidelines establish an adaptive, science-based Federal fisheries management 

system capable of responding to changes in environmental conditions, including 

changes caused by climate change. To further strengthen this system, NMFS proposed revisions to the NS1 guidelines which instruct Councils to manage their fish 

stocks according to the changing needs of the fishery, which would encompass necessary management adjustments in response to climate change. In developing final 

revisions to the guidelines, NOAA is carefully considering all comments on the proposed guidelines including those related to ensuring management responds to 

changing ocean conditions. 

Question 12. Recently, NOAA Fisheries released a draft Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management (EBFM) policy, under which managers weigh existing data about 

where fish live, what they eat, what eats them, and what impacts they face from 

various threats, including climate change. The draft policy intends to and repeatedly 

highlights EBFM’s usefulness in optimizing the benefits from fishery resources, 

evaluating trade-offs, and making better decisions. Why wasn’t this important tool 

included in the NS1 guideline revisions to better address climate change and other 

considerations into management? 

51 

Answer. NMFS supports the incorporation of ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) into Federal fisheries management; the implementation of EBFM 

practices can occur within the current management framework and are supported 

by the National Standard 1 (NS1) guidelines. Further, NMFS’ proposed revisions to 

the NS1 guidelines include several new provisions that facilitate the incorporation 

of EBFM into Federal fisheries management, including a provision that allows 

Councils to take into account multi-species interactions within their management 

frameworks. However, implementing EBFM, as described in the draft NMFS EBFM 

policy, spans multiple national standards within the MSA and the implementation 

of multiple statutes. While the NS1 guidelines can accommodate many specific 

EBFM approaches, they are not the only source of guidance for implementing a 

broader EBFM approach. 

Question 13. Fisheries Enforcement.—Mr. Rauch, how do fisheries dependent 

data, such as catch history, inform the stock assessment process? If a participant 

in a fishery with significant catch history regularly and chronically over-reported or 

underreported catch of a species, or misreported one species as another species, can 

you describe how those actions might affect the accuracy of the stock assessment 

process? What kind of biases might this introduce into the process? 

Answer. Stock assessments rely on accurate information about total catch over 

time to determine the historical effects of fishing. Thus, any misreporting or errors 

in the catch history can result in biases in stock assessment results. In particular, 

estimates of stock size and fishing mortality are most susceptible to these biases. 

However, the magnitude and the direction of biases cannot be generalized and can 

only be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. There are many factors that would affect 

how biased an assessment result would be, including the degree of misreporting, the 

time over which misreporting was occurring, stock-specific biology and productivity, 

and potential interacting effects of changing ecosystems and fishing strategies. 

Question 14. Fisheries Enforcement.—Mr. Rauch, NOAA’s fisheries enforcement 

officers, special agents, Coast Guard boarding officers, and state enforcement officers operating under a Joint Enforcement Agreement are out there, every day, doing 

the tough work of ensuring compliance and a level playing field for our fishermen 

by enforcing our complex Federal fisheries regulations, and I commend their dedication and bravery. However, since 2010 we have seen the number of NOAA law enforcement personnel steadily decline—from 187 in 2010 to just 89 today. In the 

Northeast Region, NOAA has issued zero Notices of Violations from 2010–2013, and 

only a few in the past two years, despite handling over 700 investigations in 2015. 

Has the decrease in fisheries law enforcement capacity in the U.S. opened opportunities for nefarious individuals to operate? 

Answer. The total staff of NOAA’s Office of Law Enforcement (OLE), including 

both sworn and non-sworn members, has gone from 234 in 2010 to 189 today. OLE 

is in the process of hiring 31 new enforcement officers. OLE will continue to manage 

its resources to enforce the Federal statutes under NOAA’s purview to deter violations. OLE continues to conduct investigations of illegal activity and has a number 

of recent successes with both international and domestic investigations. These successes also demonstrate the level of expertise we can bring to bear with current resources. 

Question 15. Are there opportunities for better strengthening relationships with 

partner agencies (i.e., the Coast Guard and JEA partners) to better utilize existing 

enforcement resources? 

Answer. OLE works continuously with our JEA partners to ensure we are maximizing appropriated funds provided to our State partners to help OLE meet its ever 

expanding mission. We recently met with all of our State partners at a joint meeting 

to discuss process and mission priority identification improvements in order to continue to improve the program. OLE continues to have a good cooperative and collaborative relationship with our Federal partners including the Coast Guard and the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Question 16. What is NOAA’s plan for hiring new enforcement officers and placing 

them out into the field? 

Answer. NOAA is using both the normal hiring process as well as special hiring 

authorities like the Veterans Recruitment Act (VRA) to speed up the process of 

bringing on board additional enforcement officers. OLE has recently conducted a 

staffing analysis that has identified the highest priority locations for new enforcement officers. 

Question 17. Do NOAA OLE personnel feel they have the support and tools they 

need to do their job? If not, what could we do to help? 

Answer. Through the Presidential Task Force on Combatting IUU and Seafood 

Fraud, the Administration recommended broader search and inspection authority, 

52 

detention authority, administrative subpoena authority and additional prohibitions 

to address trafficking in IUU fish and fish products. These authorities would help 

OLE combat IUU fish that has entered into the U.S. stream of commerce and that 

promotes unfair trade practices and directly affects and competes with lawfully harvested domestic product from the U.S. fishing industry. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. CORY BOOKER TO

HON. SAMUEL D. RAUCH III 

Question 1. Protecting our Waters.—Mr. Rauch, at the hearing you indicated that 

you believe current law is adequately protecting fish habitat. At the same time, you 

also said that fisheries managers are limited to only addressing impacts of fishing 

on such habitat. Can you explain what tools exist for Councils to impact other activities that could have adverse effects on fish habitat? 

Answer. The Essential Fish Habitat Program under the Magnuson Stevens Act 

has successfully conserved the habitats that are the foundation of the Nation’s fisheries for the past 20 years. Fishery Management Councils seize opportunities 

through this program by commenting on proposed Federal activities with recommendations to NOAA Fisheries and other Federal agencies to protect habitat that 

could be impacted by activities unrelated to fishing. Several Councils have an active 

interest in reviewing these activities and have procedures in place to improve coordination with NOAA Fisheries on such comments. 

Fishery Management Councils also have a voting seat in the Regional Ocean 

Planning Bodies. These Bodies develop regional ocean plans to address healthy 

ocean ecosystems, sustainable ocean uses, and coordinated management. They provide an opportunity for Councils to work with scientists and other stakeholders to 

develop and test applications of ecosystem based management and influence decisions on ocean development. 

Question 2. If a Council or NOAA Fisheries raises concerns about activities that 

occur under the oversight of another agency, how does that agency have to respond? 

Do they need to take any regulatory action? 

Answer. While Federal agencies are not required to implement our advisory conservation recommendations, when they choose not to do so, they are required to 

send a written justification explaining why they are permitting the proposed project 

in a way that is inconsistent with NOAA’s advice. Strong relationships between 

NOAA Fisheries and other Federal agencies, however, frequently result in applicants incorporating conservation measures during the pre-application, early projectplanning stage, leading to efficient and effective habitat conservation. This collaborative process relieves the Federal agency from the burden of lengthy, expanded 

consultations, inspires smart development, and allows activities to move forward 

with as minimal impact to fish habitat as possible. 

Question 3. Do you think there would be a benefit for our fisheries if NOAA and 

the Councils were given additional opportunities to participate in decisions regarding non-fishing activities, such as oil and gas exploration and development that affect fisheries and marine habitats? 

Answer. Councils currently have opportunities to provide this kind of input, and 

many Councils have taken advantage of this. Several Councils have coordination 

procedures with NOAA Fisheries or explicit policy statements on non-fishing activities. For example, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council and NOAA Fisheries’ Alaska Regional Office have an agreement to coordinate comments on Federal 

activities that could have major impacts to essential fish habitat or would conflict 

with fishing operations. The Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic Fishery Management 

Councils have developed policy statements on various coastal and offshore development activities to guide our comment letters and to inform other Federal agencies 

of the Councils’ habitat conservation priorities. 

Question 4. Mr. Rauch, under current law, Councils are required to work with 

NOAA Fisheries to identify essential fish habitat (EFH) in their regions and minimize adverse effects from fishing, but only ‘‘to the extent practicable.’’ How does this 

practicability caveat impact the designation and protection of EFH? 

Answer. The practicability clause has no influence on EFH designations. Councils 

are required to identify EFH based on the best available science. Practicability must 

be taken into account when considering EFH protection. NOAA Fisheries and the 

Councils struggle to quantify the habitat conservation benefits of measures when 

seeking to minimize fishing impacts (e.g., gear modifications), which makes it difficult to evaluate tradeoffs between habitat conservation and impacts to the fishing 

industry. 

53 

1The Final Rule for Amendment 6 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP (80 FR 50073; 

August 8, 2015) changed the non-sandbar LCS trip limit to a default of 45 sharks per trip with 

a range that can be adjusted from 1 to 55 sharks. 

Question 5. Does the practicability caveat result in important fisheries habitat 

from not being protected? 

Answer. In some cases, without quantitative data on habitat conservation benefits, the available data on the economic impact to the fishing industry may lead 

Councils to find habitat protection measures not practicable. 

Question 6. Dusky Shark Bycatch.—What actions does the National Marine Fisheries Service intend to take to help the dusky shark to rebuild and to prevent further bycatch? 

Answer. Both the commercial and recreational harvest and retention of dusky 

sharks has been prohibited since 2000. The stock has been under a rebuilding plan 

since 2008 when Amendment 2 to the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory 

Species (HMS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP) was implemented. Amendment 2 

modified and established regulations in the shark fishery that dramatically changed 

how the directed shark fishery operates and took additional measures to reduce fishing mortality on dusky and other sharks. These regulations included, but were not 

limited to: requiring fins remain naturally attached, reducing the commercial trip 

limit from 4,000 pounds (dressed weight) to 36 1 non-sandbar large coastal sharks 

(LCS) per trip, and prohibiting the retention of sandbar sharks—the primary species 

targeted by the directed shark fishery at that time—outside a limited shark research fishery. These measures have greatly reduced dusky shark mortality in the 

directed shark fishery, in large part because dusky sharks are often caught in areas 

where sandbar sharks are caught. However, only two years of data under these regulations (2008 and 2009) were incorporated in the most recent stock assessment for 

dusky sharks that was finalized in 2011 through Southeast Data Assessment and 

Review (SEDAR) 21. That stock assessment showed that the dusky shark population was overfished and experiencing overfishing. Since the 2011 assessment, updated information and analyses conducted for an Endangered Species Act Status Review in 2014 and for the HMS Advisory Panel meeting in 2015, show positive trends 

in abundance of dusky sharks and reductions in fishing mortality of dusky sharks, 

signifying a significant improvement for the dusky shark population. An update to 

the stock assessment, which incorporates data through 2015, is underway and is expected to be completed in August 2016. Once stock assessment update results are 

finalized, NMFS will take additional action, as appropriate, to continue to rebuild 

the dusky shark population in Amendment 5b to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP. 

Question 7. Recreational Fishing.—What specific, tangible changes is NOAA making in their fisheries management in line with the new recreational fisheries policy 

adopted last year? 

Answer. NOAA Fisheries is working diligently to achieve the goals of the National 

Policy for Saltwater Recreational Fisheries by fulfilling commitments identified in 

the supporting Recreational Fisheries Implementation Plan. The National Implementation Plan identifies more than 60 specific commitments that support the objectives and goals of the Saltwater Recreational Fisheries Policy. The examples of 

recent progress supporting the national recreational saltwater fisheries policy cited 

below represent a limited portion of ongoing work. Progress includes: 

• NOAA Fisheries worked closely with anglers, states, and the Pacific Fisheries 

Management Council to expand recreational fishing opportunities with the recent approval a new six month mid-water long-leader fishery for rockfish of the 

coast of Oregon. 

• NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission will 

jointly host a national workshop examining the potential of artificial reefs as 

a management tool to support or enhance sustainable recreational fisheries 

June 9–10, 2016 (Alexandria, VA). 

• NOAA Fisheries is finalizing a new fisheries allocation policy jointly developed 

by the Federal Fishery Management Councils’ Coordinating Committee and 

NOAA Fisheries (anticipated Spring 2016). Of substantial interest to recreational anglers, the policy will facilitate periodic council review of catch allocations. 

• NOAA Fisheries awarded approximately $2.2 million in grants to recreationally 

fishery focused research projects through the Saltonstall Kennedy Grant Program in FY15. 

• NOAA Fisheries released regionally tailored recreational policy implementation 

plans in late April 2016. These plans, developed with the input anglers, states 

54 

and councils, step down the national policy and plan and facilitate identification 

and resolution of regionally specific recreational issues where anglers live and 

fish. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL TO

HON. SAMUEL D. RAUCH III 

Question 1. Black Sea Bass and Summer Flounder in New England.—Mr. Rauch: 

Warming ocean temperatures are having a significant impact on species distribution 

on the Atlantic coast. Fish that were traditionally in mid-Atlantic waters are now 

migrating further north as ocean temperatures climb. Two of these species that 

have noticeably grown in numbers in waters off of the coast of CT are black sea 

bass and summer flounder. 

Just last week, I had the opportunity to meet with the Connecticut Seafood Council and other representatives of the fishing industry and community within my 

state. What fishermen in Connecticut tell me is that while the number of black sea 

bass and summer flounder found off the coast of Mid-Atlantic States is dwindling, 

New England is experiencing an increase in these species. I don’t want to contradict 

what conservationists and NOAA’s scientists and observers are telling us about the 

reasons for this shift. And whether the cause is due to a recovery of the species or 

a shift northward of species that have yet to fully recover is a separate issue. My 

concern is that, if there are environmental and ecological forces at play that are resulting in a different distribution of fish and in waters of a fishery that doesn’t have 

oversight of the management of those species, does MSA adequately account for 

those changes. 

In November of last year I led a letter to NOAA on this topic. The letter was 

signed by the entire Connecticut and Rhode Island delegations. The letter called for 

NOAA to consider ways to use its ecosystem-based fishery management practices to 

give the New England Fishery Management Council more of a say when population 

distributions shift. NOAA responded in a letter that MSA provides authority to determine when joint management between councils is necessary, but I think this 

issue is worth revisiting in this forum. 

Despite the agency’s assurances that MSA has a mechanism to allow for joint 

management, the fishing community in New England still feels underrepresented in 

the management decisions for black sea bass and summer flounder. Can you explain 

the process by which MSA allows for joint management? 

Answer. MSA section 304(f) states that in situations where the fishery in question 

extends beyond the geographical area of any one Council’s jurisdiction, the Secretary 

may either designate one Council to prepare the FMP or may require a joint FMP. 

The appropriate management approach for shared stocks varies depending on specific circumstances. Ideally, the associated Councils and NMFS work together to determine when joint management is appropriate or should be considered, like in the 

case of black sea bass and summer flounder. These species are currently jointly 

managed through the Mid-Atlantic Council and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 

Commission (Commission). The Mid-Atlantic Council’s area of responsibility includes areas seaward of states specified in the MSA, and voting members of the 

Council include officials from each of those states. The Commission is made up of 

representatives from all Atlantic states, including the New England states; any decisions made about the management of black sea bass and summer flounder are reviewed by all members of both the Commission and Mid-Atlantic Council. 

Question 2. Should this process be re-examined to allow for a quicker adoption of 

joint management plans if species distributions rapidly shift? 

Answer. Joint management requires management measures to be approved by 

both Councils concerned, and thus often result in a slower and more arduous management process. MSA section 304(f) specifies that, ‘‘no jointly prepared plan or 

amendment may be submitted to the Secretary unless it is approved by a majority 

of the voting members, present and voting, of each Council concerned.’’ Therefore, 

creation of a joint management plan may not be appropriate for situations that require a rapid management response, including situations where fish stocks rapidly 

expand or drastically alter their ranges. 

Question 3. In regard to summer flounder and black sea bass, is joint management the answer to this issue? Do you have any other recommendations to make 

sure all parties feel adequately represented? 

Answer. While summer flounder and black sea bass are not jointly managed by 

the New England and Mid-Atlantic Councils, these stocks are jointly managed 

through the Mid-Atlantic Council and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission). Given that the Commission includes representatives from all AtVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:48 Jan 09, 2017 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\23227.TXT JACKIE
55 

lantic states, including the New England states, the current management approach 

allows significant input from New England states. Significant stock-wide decisions, 

including allocations decisions, are made by all the Commission members, including 

those representatives of the New England states, as well as all members of the MidAtlantic Council. 

Through the Commission, the states implement management measures for their 

commercial and recreational fisheries, tailored to individual state needs. In response 

to an increased abundance of black sea bass off of New Hampshire and Maine, the 

Commission has recently added New Hampshire and Maine to the Black Sea Bass 

Management Board. 

The Mid-Atlantic Council and Commission are currently developing a comprehensive summer flounder amendment to review the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) 

in its entirety. This action may result in changes to the state-by-state quotas. When 

established, these allocations were based exclusively on historical proportion of 

catch. The Commission has discussed options for updating allocations that take into 

account the current distribution of the stock, but are still working to determine the 

appropriate actions to take. All states are represented in the Commission, and as 

such, any decisions to adjust allocation formulas for summer flounder will be reviewed and considered by all members of the Commission. 

Question 4. Structure of Fisheries Management.—Mr. Rauch, NOAA’s response to 

my letter also mentioned that summer flounder and black sea bass are co-managed 

by the mid-Atlantic Fisheries Council—which governs Federal fisheries—and the Atlantic State Marine Fisheries Commission which handles state fisheries management and on which Connecticut is represented. The response letter also mentions 

that the New England Council has a liaison to the mid-Atlantic Council, which provides the New England region with input toward the management of mid-Atlantic 

species. 

However, members of the Connecticut fishing community have explained to me 

that the Commission’s authority is subordinate to that of the mid-Atlantic Council 

and that in areas of dispute, the Council’s determination prevails. Additionally, although the New England Council has a liaison to the mid-Atlantic Council, it is one 

liaison for the entire region. And while we are a region that shares many issues, 

there are concerns and conditions specific to each New England state and its fishing 

industry. Can you provide more detail about the co-management relationship between the mid-Atlantic Council and the Atlantic States Commission? 

Answer. The Mid-Atlantic Council and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission) have a joint fishery management plan (FMP) for summer 

flounder, scup, and black sea bass. For stock wide decisions, including setting catch 

limits, the Council and the Commission carefully consider the issues collectively and 

make final recommendations together. For example, in setting the overall level of 

catch for each species, the Mid-Atlantic Council’s Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) makes a recommendation called the ‘‘acceptable biological catch’’ 

(ABC). Pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Council cannot recommend a 

catch level that exceeds the fishing level recommendations (i.e., ABC) of its SSC, 

and the Commission typically votes in coordination with the Council’s recommendation. Changes to the state-by-state allocations of summer flounder must be approved 

by both the Council and the Commission before being implemented. In the case of 

black sea bass, however, the Commission has sole responsibility for the state-bystate allocations. As such, any changes to that measure would only require consideration and action by the Commission. 

Question 5. Can you provide more detail about the New England liaisons role to 

the mid-Atlantic Council? 

Answer. The primary role of the New England Council liaison to the Mid-Atlantic 

Council is to attend Mid-Atlantic Council meetings and report on activities of interest or jurisdictional overlap to the New England Council. In some instances, including for summer flounder and black sea bass specifications and management decisions, the New England liaison participates as an equal member of the Mid-Atlantic 

Council with voting privileges. The New England Council liaison can also participate as a member of management boards and committees, like the Mid-Atlantic 

Council’s Demersal Committee and Black Sea Bass Management Board. 

Question 6. In instances where fish populations shift from the waters of one region to another, is the current system adequate to provide representation to each 

or fair representation to the region that is experiencing the influx of new species? 

Answer. The MSA provides a variety of options to ensure representation of the 

appropriate regions when fish populations shift across Council jurisdictions. For example, as described above, MSA section 304(f) states that in situations where the 

fishery in question extends beyond the geographical area of any one Council’s jurisVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:48 Jan 09, 2017 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\23227.TXT JACKIE
56 

diction, the Secretary may either designate one Council to prepare the FMP or may 

require a joint FMP. Councils also include liaisons from adjacent Councils to ensure 

appropriate representation on issues of jurisdictional overlap. MSA section 302(g) 

provides the Councils with considerable latitude to appoint needed experts to advisory bodies and its scientific and statistical committees. Already, some Councils, 

particularly on the East Coast, share Science and Statistical Committee (SSC) members. This practice can be expanded as the need arises to ensure adequate representation as stocks shift. 

Question 7. Environmental Impacts on Species Distribution.—Mr. Rauch, I want 

to again stress that we should let the best science dictate catch limits and that rebuilding stocks and vulnerable species have the ability to recover are imperative priorities. My argument is that if certain species distributions are shifting, that the 

new region where the species are found should be able to contribute its research, 

scientific findings, and expertise in determining what the proper and appropriate 

catch limit should be. 

In NOAA’s response letter to me, the agency indicated that while black sea bass 

appears to be recovering, uncertainty still exists as to the full recovery of the species. The agency also state that summer flounder abundance is still decreasing although the distribution may be changing. It seems that experts of New England’s 

waters and conditions in the region could help fill out the picture of changes these 

species are undergoing as well as the health status of the populations. Connecticut 

produces tremendous research at UConn and Mystic Aquarium, among other institutes and research facilities. The fishermen in Connecticut who are experiencing 

these conditions daily can also provide much needed perspective and deserve to have 

their voices heard. 

My letter was in response to NOAA’s proposed ecosystem-based fishery management policy, which calls for the reliance on environmental and ecological indicators 

to determine management decisions. 

I know that it is early in NOAA’s development of the ecosystem-based fishery 

management policy and that the agency is still reviewing the feedback it received 

during the public comment period, but are there any preliminary data or findings 

that you can share that could be useful in guiding our MSA reauthorization process? 

Answer. In our work to develop a national policy for ecosystem-based fishery management, it is increasingly apparent that a lot is already being accomplished with 

the authorities we have under the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) and other statutes, 

such as Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Fishery 

management councils have developed 10 Fishery Ecosystem Plans around the country and are tackling a variety of ecosystem-related issues through their regular fishery management process, including issues like deep sea coral protection, multi-stock 

interactions, forage fish, and the impacts of climate change. 

Question 8. Are changing environmental conditions like climate change and sea 

temperature rise adequately provided for in MSA as it currently stands? 

Answer. The Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) currently contains several provisions 

that provide mechanisms for addressing climate change impacts. For example, the 

Act requires that fishery management councils specify optimum yield for the fishery 

and defines optimum yield, in part, as being prescribed on the basis of maximum 

sustainable yield, as reduced by any relevant economic, social and ecological factors. 

Changing ocean conditions resulting from climate change is an ecological factor that 

could be addressed in the setting of optimum yields. The Act also includes direction 

(MSA section 304(f)(1)) for fisheries that cross multiple Council jurisdictions, which 

could help guide decisions as stocks shift due to changing ocean conditions. 

Question 9. How can we improve the inclusion of expertise from new regions as 

those regions see a larger share of certain species? 

Answer. The Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) section 302(g) provides the Councils 

with considerable latitude to appoint needed experts to advisory bodies and its scientific and statistical committees. Already, some Councils, particularly on the East 

Coast, share Science and Statistical Committee (SSC) members. This practice can 

be expanded as the need arises. Further, fisheries management operates within a 

public forum and we encourage stakeholder participation in that process. All data 

and observations are welcome for consideration in stock assessments; however, any 

data source (NOAA or external) is subjected to the same peer-review process to ensure its quality and that it is used appropriately. 

Question 10. MSA and Aquaculture.—Mr. Rauch: The impact of aquaculture to 

the United States economy is enormous. However, while the United States is a 

major generator of research and aquaculture related innovations that contribute to 

the growth of the industry globally, our seafood trade deficit has ballooned to over 

57 

$11 billion annually. Half of the seafood consumed in the United States is produced 

through aquaculture, but only 5 percent of our seafood is produced domestically. 

Despite NOAA declaring aquaculture priority for the Nation’s marine economy, 

less than one percent of the agency’s budget goes to aquaculture research. The nation’s largest contributors to aquaculture research, like the NOAA Northeast Fisheries Science Center in Milford, CT are pioneering groundbreaking aquaculture 

techniques while falling victim to budget cuts and personnel shifting. 

In 1993, through a legal interpretation, it was determined that aquaculture fell 

under the definition of fishing under MSA, thus giving NOAA authority over permitting and other oversight activities regarding aquaculture. Yet, aquaculture is not 

specifically mentioned in MSA statute. This has led to uncertainty in the permitting 

process, discouraging commercial investment and has allowed resources to be shifted away from aquaculture research even while NOAA is stating that aquaculture 

is a priority. What is NOAA’s official stance on the importance of aquaculture and 

its role in the United States seafood and fishing industry? 

Answer. The National Aquaculture Act of 1980 declared that it is ‘‘in the national 

interest, and it is the national policy, to encourage the development of aquaculture 

in the United States.’’ NOAA’s Next Generation Strategic Plan (2010) aligns with 

this mandate and declared that maintaining sustainable fisheries and safe marineorigin foods is a priority for NOAA and that a key component of this objective is 

the development and implementation of a national aquaculture policy that provides 

information and guidance to implement ecologically and economically sustainable 

aquaculture programs. NOAA’s Marine Aquaculture Policy (2011) states that aquaculture is an important component of NOAA’s efforts to maintain healthy and productive marine and coastal ecosystems, protect special marine areas, rebuild overfished wild stocks, restore and conserve marine and coastal habitat, and enable the 

production of safe and sustainable seafood. 

Question 11. What does NOAA currently do to demonstrate that aquaculture is 

the priority that the agency claims it is? 

Answer. NOAA reaffirmed its commitment to promoting sustainable aquaculture 

development in the United States in its Marine Aquaculture Policy (2011) and supports a number of important regulatory, research, and technology transfer activities 

including the following: 

NOAA is implementing the first comprehensive regional regulatory program for 

offshore aquaculture in Federal waters under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

• In January, NOAA published a final rule to implement an aquaculture fishery 

management plan developed by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. 

• NOAA Fisheries’ Southeast Regional Office has developed guidance for permit 

applicants and is ready to accept permit applications and engage in a coordinated permit review process with other Federal regulatory agencies in the region. 

• The Gulf regulatory program provides an example for other regions interested 

in developing a similar regulatory program. 

NOAA staff, research, and grant funds support the advancement of aquaculture 

around the country. Examples include: 

• The National Shellfish Initiative, which was launched in 2011 to get more oysters, clams, and mussels into our marine waters through shellfish farming and 

restoration. 

» Since 2011, industry, NGOs, and state, tribal, and Federal agencies have been 

working together through state initiatives in Washington, Connecticut, Alaska, Oregon, and California. Other states and regions are considering similar 

initiatives. Although each state effort is somewhat different, common objectives include improving regulatory efficiency, science to address ocean acidification and study ecosystem services, public education, and habitat restoration. 

• The annual Milford Aquaculture Seminar (ongoing since 1975), which transfers 

information and technology from NOAA’s Milford, Connecticut lab to the aquaculture industry, the scientific community, and the public. 

• Long-standing collaboration of the Milford Laboratory with two regional aquaculture high schools, which helps train the next generation of aquaculture scientists in shellfish and finfish aquaculture. 

• Federal reviews of shellfish farm permits and programmatic approaches to 

shellfish permitting in Washington and California (e.g., Humboldt Bay). 

58 

• New off-bottom culture of shellfish in Mississippi and Alabama. 

• The first offshore mussel farms off Massachusetts and California. 

• A workshop of scientists, regulators, and shellfish farmers to examine potential 

whale and turtle interactions with offshore mussel farms in New England. 

• Siting and water column/benthic impact models for use in permit decision making for fish farms in Hawaii and California. 

• The new Kenneth Chew Center for Shellfish Research and Restoration at the 

Manchester Research Station in Washington, a partnership with the Puget 

Sound Restoration Fund to restore the native Olympia oyster in cooperation 

with other NGO, university, tribal, state, and Federal partners. 

NOAA also engages in technology transfer, including: 

• External aquaculture grant awards in 2015 through Sea Grant ($4.4 million), 

Saltonstall-Kennedy ($4.8 million), and two Phase 1 and one Phase 2 Small 

Business Innovation Research grants. 

• Cooperative Research and Development Act (CRADA) agreements to transfer 

probiotics and algal culture techniques developed at NOAA labs to the private 

sector. 

• An annual course in algal culture methods for shellfish hatchery technicians at 

the Milford, Connecticut Lab. 

Question 12. What is NOAA’s role in the oversight of the aquaculture industry 

and its management of commercial aquaculture siting and promotion of aquaculture 

research? 

Answer. NOAA’s role in oversight and management. Under several Federal laws, 

including the National Environmental Policy Act, Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, and the National Marine 

Sanctuaries Act, NOAA is responsible for considering and preventing and/or mitigating the potential adverse environmental impacts of planned and existing marine 

aquaculture facilities through the development of fishery management plans, sanctuary management plans, permit actions, proper siting, and consultations with other 

regulatory agencies at the federal, state, and local levels. 

• In Federal waters of the Exclusive Economic Zone, NOAA has a direct permitting role where there is an aquaculture fishery management plan in place or 

if an aquaculture facility requires an exemption from harvest, size, gear, season 

or other restrictions under a Federal fishery management plan. NOAA also has 

a direct permitting role in National Marine Sanctuaries where applicable management plans do not preclude commercial aquaculture activities. 

• For all aquaculture in both State and Federal marine waters, NOAA engages 

in consultations with other Federal permitting agencies (mainly the Corps of 

Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency) under the authority of the 

Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Essential Fish 

Habitat provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and other statutes. NOAA 

also works with other Federal agencies, states, tribes, and local government on 

coordinating permit review processes. 

NOAA’s aquaculture management role includes the review and approval of state 

coastal management programs which have aquaculture components, oversight of 

Federal consistency with these programs under the Coastal Zone Management Act, 

and development of models, tools, and analyses to assist coastal managers and regulators in identifying appropriate sites, evaluating proposed aquaculture projects, and 

monitoring impacts. 

NOAA’s role in research. NOAA is working to address the technical and scientific 

barriers to marine aquaculture in a number of ways including through in-house research at science centers, grants and cooperative agreements with academic and 

other stakeholders, and by coordinating research with other Federal agencies. 

• NOAA’s aquaculture science portfolio comprises complementary and coordinated 

efforts in three NOAA line offices. Together these efforts are critical to achieving the Administration’s goal of supporting sustainable marine aquaculture. The 

Fisheries Service focuses on developing science-based ‘‘tools for rules’’ to help inform permitting and other regulatory decisions, as well as working with industry partners on a range of topics such as hatchery techniques and disease management. The Ocean Service develops coastal planning and management tools 

and services. The Sea Grant program at the Office of Ocean and Atmospheric 

59 

Research provides grants to external partners for industry development, as well 

as technology transfer and extension. These efforts and those of other Federal 

agencies (e.g., USDA) are coordinated under the 2014 Strategic Plan for Federal 

Aquaculture Research, published with NOAA’s assistance and leadership by the 

White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy. 

• Two laboratories house the bulk of the Fisheries Service’s aquaculture science 

portfolio—the Northeast Fisheries Science Center’s Milford, CT lab and the 

Northwest Fisheries Science Center’s Manchester, WA lab. Milford has traditionally been a shellfish aquaculture lab (e.g., siting tools, disease management, 

ecosystem services) and Manchester has been a finish aquaculture lab (e.g., 

feeds development, finfish hatchery and grow-out methods). However there is 

growing coordination and collaboration in certain areas such as some aspects 

of feeds research. Detailed information for each lab’s research portfolio may be 

provided upon request. 

• NOAA also supports aquaculture research through its competitive Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Saltonstall-Kennedy grant programs. The 

SBIR grant program encourages small businesses to leverage Federal funds to 

invest in innovative technologies and next-generation products and processes 

that may lead to commercialization. The Saltonstall-Kennedy grant program 

funds as a priority research projects that encourage the development of environmentally-and economically-sound aquaculture. 

Question 13. What benefits will come of incorporating aquaculture into MSA reauthorization? What recommendations do you have for this committee in terms of 

what that should look like? 

Answer. It has been NOAA’s longstanding interpretation that the Magnuson-Stevens Act provides NMFS the authority to regulate aquaculture as ‘‘fishing’’ and, 

thus, that regional fishery management councils have the authority to prepare fishery management plans covering all aspects of aquaculture in EEZ waters under 

their respective jurisdictions. NOAA is working within the context of current laws 

and regulations to address barriers to permitting of aquaculture in Federal waters. 

Question 14. At-Sea Monitoring.—Mr. Rauch: I have spoken with fishermen in 

Connecticut who have said that the cost of the At-Sea Monitoring program, or ASM, 

could completely erase the total profit from a day of fishing. While it is necessary 

to ensure that catch limits are being adhered to and that discards and other issues 

are limited, the ASM program is in need of reform to be less of a financial burden 

on fishermen in depressed and recovering fisheries. The fishing community in Connecticut has conveyed to me that ASM is not only extremely costly, many times the 

monitors assigned to boats lack adequate training. 

I recently joined a letter with my New England Senate and House colleagues urging NOAA to adopt the New England Council’s recommendations for improving the 

ASM system in the New England groundfish fishery, such as a more strategic allocation of resources from areas of low by-catch to areas of higher by-catch. 

The New England groundfish fishery still has disaster declaration status. It is my 

hope that industry cost sharing will continue to be deferred until reforms can be 

made to limit the financial burden on New England’s fishermen. What steps is 

NOAA taking to reform ASM and reduce the financial burden on fishermen? 

Answer. NMFS approved Framework Adjustment 55 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan, which became effective on May 1. This action modifies the method used to set the target coverage level for the industry-funded ASM 

program to addressing groundfish monitoring program objectives while making the 

program more cost-effective. These changes include removing ASM coverage for a 

subset of groundfish trips that catch little to no groundfish, using more years of 

data to predict the coverage level, and basing the coverage level on stocks that have 

the least risk tolerance for error in discard estimates. 

The changes approved in Framework 55 result in a target coverage level of 14 

percent for the 2016 fishing year, including coverage for the standardized bycatch 

reporting methodology paid in full by our Northeast Fisheries Observer Program 

(NEFOP). Assuming NEFOP covers 4 percent of trips as we have in recent years, 

this will result in sectors paying for ASM on approximately 10 percent of their vessels’ trips in 2016. 

Question 15. Will you give NOAA’s commitment to continue to work with the New 

England delegation to strengthen the ASM program so that it is more efficient, effective, and less costly for fishermen and the fishing industry? 

Answer. We support efforts to evaluate groundfish monitoring programs through 

our membership on the New England Fishery Management Council, its Groundfish 

Plan Development Team, and its Groundfish Oversight Committee. The Council 

60 

made evaluation of groundfish monitoring a priority for 2016, and is expected to initiate a new amendment to consider more extensive changes to the groundfish monitoring program. The Council’s Plan Development Team is already working on analysis to inform this action. 

We also remain committed to working directly with the fishing industry to reduce 

costs where possible through improved administration of the ASM program. 

Question 16. By-Catch.—Mr. Rauch: In my discussions with the Connecticut fishing industry, an issue that was frequently raised was the high levels of by-catch 

that many of them are experiencing. Because of the discrepancy between the numbers of black sea bass and summer flounder the quota setting mid-Atlantic Council 

observes and the population levels that are in New England waters, fishermen in 

New England often end up with high levels of fish that they must discard in order 

to stay below the quota limit. 

By-catch is a significant issue that has far-reaching consequences. By-catch disrupts the connectivity and health of entire ecosystems, slows progress in stock rebuilding, and is economically harmful to the fishing industry. What steps can be 

taken by NOAA or at the Council level to reduce and eliminate by-catch? 

Answer. NMFS agrees that bycatch is an important issue and can be a problem 

in some fisheries. NMFS and the Councils have a long history of addressing bycatch 

with notable success over the last forty years through improved gear technology and 

bycatch monitoring. We acknowledge that there is more work to do. In February 

this year, the agency released a draft National Bycatch Reduction Strategy aimed 

at improvements in bycatch research, monitoring, management implementation, enforcement, evaluation and communication. The goal of the draft strategy is to coordinate NMFS’ efforts under multiple mandates to reduce bycatch and bycatch mortality and increase utilization of discards to maintain sustainable fisheries and recover protected species. The draft strategy is available for public comment until 

June 3, 2016, and once finalized, NMFS will work with our regional stakeholders, 

including the Councils, to develop regionally-specific implementation plans. (http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/fisheriesleco/bycatch/index.html) 

Question 17. Can an increase in communication and cooperation between Councils 

lead to a reduction of by-catch? 

Answer. Cross-Council communication can help improve efforts to address bycatch 

in several ways. First, Councils can learn about effective approaches and gear solutions from each other and apply those in their own fisheries as necessary. For example, in 2004, the U.S. began requiring the use of circle hooks, which are designed 

to reduce sea turtle and mammal bycatch, in the HI longline fishery for swordfish 

and the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery. Circle hooks are now widely used across 

the country by both commercial and recreational fishermen. Another example of the 

success of cross-Council communication is in New England, where scallop fishermen 

use an early warning system similar to an approach used in Alaska to avoid salmon 

bycatch in the Alaska Pollock fishery. The program uses real time communications 

with fishing vessels to determine the location of ‘bycatch hotspots’ to help fishermen 

more accurately target their scallop allocation without triggering bycatch closures. 

Similar programs in the Pacific Islands help fishermen avoid turtle hotspots. Additionally, cross-Council communication is critical when fisheries managed by different Councils are contributing to bycatch of the same stock or species. 

Question 18. Seafood Fraud—Mr. Rauch: In October of last year, Oceana issued 

a report that revealed wide-spread salmon labeling fraud. This issue is not only limited to salmon, but occurs with other species of fish as well. Not only is this problem 

misleading for consumers, as they pay more for what they think is higher quality 

fish, it also harms fishermen and seafood sellers who are supplying fresh caught, 

local seafood. 

I have called for additional steps to be taken to limit seafood fraud and I have 

encouraged consumers to ask questions and educate themselves on the origins of the 

seafood they are purchasing, as well as to buy fresh, locally caught seafood. 

Last Congress, I cosponsored S. 520, the Safety and Fraud Enforcement for Seafood Act. That bill would have required NOAA to increase inspections of seafood 

shipments, strengthened coordination with sea grant colleges—like UConn—on consumer outreach activities, and established penalties under MSA for seafood fraud. 

What is NOAA currently doing to prevent and eliminate seafood fraud? What improvements can be made to NOAA’s efforts? 

Answer. The NOAA Seafood Inspection Program offers professional inspection 

services assuring compliance with all applicable food regulations on a fee-for-service 

basis, for seafood in all forms and regardless of location. The Program works in support of the mandatory Food and Drug Administration inspection activities for seafood. The Seafood Inspection Program has an active Memorandum of Understanding 

61 

1 In this section, the term ‘‘seafood fraud’’ refers to the false identification of seafood by species, e.g., species substitution and intentional mislabeling of seafood. Other types of fraud, including the falsification of catch documentation, trade tracking and other documents, are not 

addressed here. 2 21 U.S.C. § 301 et seq. 3 21 U.S.C. §§ 342 and 343. 

4 18 U.S.C. § 541 et seq. 

with FDA to work collaboratively to cover the large area of seafood certification, 

plant, and product inspection. The Program focuses on the buyer-supplier relationship and as a result a main function of the inspections would be to determine if 

seafood fraud is present; either in simple mislabeling, species substitution, low net 

weights, or added water. This service was mentioned in a 2009 GAO report on seafood fraud where the use of this voluntary program was encouraged. Whenever seafood fraud is detected through Program inspection, and Program personnel cannot 

secure correction of the issue, the product is held and referred to the proper enforcement authority for action. 

NOAA was a co-lead on the Presidential Task Force on IUU Fishing and Seafood 

Fraud and currently serves as co-chair of the National Ocean Council Committee 

on IUU fishing and seafood fraud. In this role it is responsible for, among other 

things, the promulgation of rulemaking to implement a risk-based program to trace 

seafood, both imported and domestic, from point of harvest to entry into U.S. commerce. Publication of the final rule implementing the Seafood Import Monitoring 

Program (NOAA already has access to the traceability data from harvest by domestic fishing vessels to entry into U.S. commerce) is expected to occur in late summer 

of 2016. When implemented, the Program will serve as a valuable tool in identifying 

fraudulently represented seafood presented for entry into the U.S. 

Further, NOAA Fisheries personnel, through the Office of Law Enforcement and 

the Seafood Inspection Program, are working to bolster efforts of fraud detection at 

the border and within commerce in the United States. 

Question 19. What level of consumer outreach and education is being coordinated 

by NOAA? 

Answer. In addition to weekly e-news from NOAA Fisheries related to all agency 

activities, including implementation of Task Force recommendations, NOAA Fisheries established and maintains a webportal (www.iuufishing.noaa.gov) dedicated 

exclusively to implementation of Task Force recommendations for combating IUU 

fishing and seafood fraud. With regard to the broad spectrum of ‘‘seafood fraud’’ activities that can occur along the supply chain, NOAA Fisheries also maintains a 

public information site, FishWatch, focused on U.S. fisheries and seafood, including 

descriptions of the most common forms of seafood fraud (http://www.fishwatch.gov/ 

eating-seafood/fraud). 

Question 20. What enforcement and penalty authority does NOAA currently have 

in deterring seafood fraud? 

Answer. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has primary Federal authority to prevent seafood fraud 1 under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act 2 (FD&CA) 

which, among other things, prohibits the mislabeling or adulteration of seafood.3

FDA’s authority extends to seafood imports as well as domestically-harvested seafood. In exercising its authority, FDA inspects imported seafood products, domestic 

and foreign seafood processors and importers, and assists state and local governments in their efforts to regulate retail establishments, including restaurants. FDA 

also maintains a list of acceptable market names for seafood sold in interstate commerce to assist processors and distributors with proper labeling of seafood products. 

Under the Lacey Act, NOAA also has authority to address fraudulently-labeled 

seafood, including aquaculture products, which have entered interstate or foreign 

commerce. Violators are subject to civil and criminal enforcement, and fish imported 

in violation of the Lacey Act is subject to forfeiture. OLE conducts periodic inspections of imported fish and fish products in collaboration with Federal and state law 

enforcement partners to ensure compliance with the Lacey Act and other statutes 

administered by NOAA. 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has authority to address seafood fraud at the time of import or export. ICE Homeland Security Investigations 

(HSI) special agents have authority to investigate cross-border violations including 

violations of Chapter 27 of Title 18,4 and Title 19, of the U.S. Code. ICE and CBP 

also have authority under Title 19 to pursue seizures, penalties, and civil forfeiture. 

ICE has authority under the Lacey Act and frequently cooperates with OLE in 

Lacey Act cases. Notably, with regard to seafood fraud, a Lacey Act violation may 

62 

5 18 U.S.C. §§ 541, 542, 545 and 554. 

6 7 U.S.C. § 1621 et seq. 

serve as a predicate offense for violations involving misclassification, fraudulent importation documentation, and importation or exportation contrary to law.5

In addition to these authorities, the NOAA Seafood Inspection Program (SIP) conducts voluntary fee-for-service inspections of seafood products and processing facilities under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946.6 In the course of these inspections, SIP may identify cases of suspected seafood fraud, typically involving species 

substitution or incorrect net weight. Where appropriate, SIP refers cases to the 

FDA, OLE, or State authorities, for investigation under their respective authorities. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. GARY PETERS TO

HON. SAMUEL D. RAUCH III 

Question 1. The USGS Great Lakes Science Center has historically led the science 

program for Great Lakes fisheries. Therefore, its role is somewhat analogous to one 

of the six NOAA Fisheries Regional Science Centers (Alaska, Northeast, Northwest, 

Pacific Islands, Southeast and Caribbean, Southwest) that perform fisheries research to support marine fisheries management decisions. What is the average funding level, and the range of funding, that supports fisheries research at individual 

NOAA Fisheries Regional Science Centers (FY15, FY16, and proposed for FY17)? 

Answer. NOAA Fisheries operates six regional science centers throughout the 

country to conduct the required science to prevent and eliminate overfishing, rebuild 

overfished stocks, support sustainable aquaculture, recover and conserve protected 

species, and protect and restore critical habitat. Working with government, academic and other partners, NOAA scientists provide the information needed for effective fisheries management and protected species conservation including assessments 

of ecosystem conditions, fish stocks, protected species populations, and socioeconomic analysis. 

Please see below for the FY 2015 actual funding and FY 2016 estimated funding 

based on the proposed spend plan by NOAA Fisheries Science Center. 

Science Center 

($ in Millions) 

FY 2015 

Actual 

Funding 

FY 2016 

Estimate 

Northeast $65.7 $53.1 

Southeast $63.7 $51.6 

Northwest $60.6 $42.5 

Southwest $44.6 $39.1 

Alaska $72.6 $61.2 

Pacific Islands $29.4 $23.3 

Office of Science and Technology 

(Headquarters)* $38.9 $91.3 

* A large portion of the funding allocated to the Headquarters Office of 

Science and Technology will be distributed throughout the execution 

year to the regions in accordance with science priorities. As seen in the 

FY 2015 actual funding, regional science center receive a large portion of 

these funds from the Office of Science and Technology, as well as other 

regional fishery management offices or headquarters offices. 

Science center funding for the FY 2017 President’s Budget Request is expected to 

be similar to the FY 2016 level, with the addition of the following FY 2017 science 

request initiatives below. The specific regional breakout of these proposed initiatives 

have not been determined for FY 2017. 

• Increase of $5.9 million for Ecosystem-based Solutions for Fisheries Management 

for the NMFS component of this integrated, cross-disciplinary, and cross-line office (National Ocean Service) scientific initiative that will fill information gaps 

in habitat science and connections to fisheries management, and provide economic information that can be used to better inform decision making to benefit 

stewardship and resilience of inshore ecosystems and the living resources and 

human communities that depend on them. 

63 

• Increase of $0.9 million for the Distributed Biological Observatory to expand 

data archiving and visualization capabilities for the Distributed Biological Observatory, a joint project among Federal agencies and international partners 

supporting science to improve detection of changes to Arctic marine ecosystems. 

• Increase of $1.1 million for Observers & Training to provide accurate and timely 

information and analyses on the biological, economic, and social aspects of the 

Nation’s fisheries resources. The scientific data collected by observer programs 

are critical inputs for fisheries stock assessments and to population assessments 

of threatened and endangered species, and for effective management of the Nation’s fish stocks. The requested funding will provide 1,000 additional sea days 

of observer coverage in twelve regional fishery observer programs to increase 

the number of fisheries with adequate observer coverage. 

Question 2. NOAA is not directly involved in Great Lakes fisheries management, 

because the Great Lakes fisheries are excluded from management under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. However, a strong fisheries research program is still important 

since it informs fisheries management in the region. How does NOAA coordinate 

with other entities in the Great Lakes, such as the USGS Great Lakes Science Center, to support Great Lakes fisheries research? 

Answer. The Great Lakes Fishery Commission has partnered with other agencies, 

including NOAA, to advance the scientific understanding of the dynamic environments and the ecology of the Great Lakes in support of resource use and management decisions. Research into applicable technologies is advanced by academic partners supported, in part, by the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act. The NOAA Great 

Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL) supports environmental observing systems in partnerships with the Great Lakes Observing System (GLOS), 

a regional member of NOAA’s Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS). GLERL 

provides a wide variety of data products that are important to fish stocks and to 

fishing activities. These include hydrology, climate, ice cover, algal blooms, hypoxia, 

and invasive species. GLERL’s Great Lakes Coastal Forecasting System provides 

predictions on several parameters that affect fish stocks and fishing, such as water 

temperature, currents, and ice. GLOS and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission 

launched the Great Lakes Acoustic Telemetry Observing System (GLATOS) tool to 

answer fisheries management and ecology questions in the Great Lakes. The system 

can track more than 1,700 fish of four species—lake trout, walleye, sea lamprey, and 

lake sturgeon—tagged between 2010 and 2013. The GLOS system also provides access to a wide variety of historical and real-time environmental monitoring data. 

Question 3. We must ensure that fisheries research and management adapt to future challenges, such as climate change and habitat loss. One way to achieve this 

is to find solutions through development of new and advanced research technologies. 

Are there any advanced technologies, either in use or in development for marine 

fisheries that you think could also be applied to fisheries research in the Great 

Lakes? 

Answer. Technologies used in the Great Lakes are generally similar to those used 

in marine fisheries. These include underwater acoustics (sonar) for seafloor mapping, habitat characterization, and estimating the population of fish in the water 

column. In the Great Lakes, fishery trawl surveys routinely use acoustic technologies, and are conducted collaboratively between NOAA, U.S. Geological Survey, 

and state agencies. NOAA acoustic experts have provided assistance with multi-frequency acoustic methods to improve fish abundance estimates. The NOAA Great 

Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory and NOAA’s Integrated Ocean Observing System support ocean observation systems (moored and unmanned platforms) 

to improve the understanding of the dynamic environments and ecosystems of the 

Great Lakes for resource use and management decisions. Fish tagging, airborne sensors, satellite remote sensing are also utilized. Acoustic seafloor mapping has also 

been used for documenting historical ship wrecks in the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary, and acoustic telemetry technologies have been used for documenting 

the distribution patterns of fish. 

NOAA Fisheries is developing and adapting several technologies for data collection in marine systems that could also have application in the Great Lakes. One 

promising example is automated image analysis, in which digital video and stereo 

still images of fish in their native habitats are analyzed for species identification 

and measurement. This approach is particularly valuable for assessing fish species 

that aggregate on physical structures, such as reefs. Another developing technology 

is unmanned platforms, which can serve as the primary system for deploying acoustic and/or cameras, or serve as ‘‘force multipliers’’ by augmenting surveys conducted 

from conventional platforms such as ships. Towed systems are particularly useful 

for surveying bottom-dwelling species with no or limited mobility. For example, 

64 

NOAA’s Northeast Fisheries Science Center has implemented an optical survey for 

Atlantic scallops using a towed stereo camera system called the Habitat Mapping 

Camera System (HabCam V4). NOAA Fisheries is also conducting research on how 

towed systems affect fish behavior, which is a key step in using data from these 

systems for stock assessments. (Some fish are frightened away by these systems, 

while others are attracted to them.) Underwater Autonomous Vehicles (UAV) can 

augment ship-based surveys and operate in rough or very deep habitats that preclude the use of conventional gear such as trawls (these systems also affect fish behavior). Unmanned surface platforms (e.g., the Waveglider) have also been investigated for expanding survey coverage both spatially and temporally, since they can 

operate for extended periods without human intervention. 

Question 4. Can you elaborate on potential barriers to developing and deploying 

new fisheries research technologies? 

Answer. We are constantly reviewing new technologies to determine suitability for 

deployment and for transitioning promising technologies into broader use. We will 

adopt these technologies as resources and competing priorities allow. 

Æ 

65 

This page intentionally left blank. 

66 

This page intentionally left blank. 

67 

This page intentionally left blank.