U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

48–663 CC u WASHINGTON : 1998

WEST COAST GROUNDFISH AND DUNGENESS

CRAB CONSERVATION

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION,

WILDLIFE AND OCEANS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

WEST COAST GROUNDFISH

AND

H.R. 3498

THE DUNGENESS CRAB CONSERVATION AND

MANAGEMENT ACT

APRIL 30 AND MAY 7, 1998

Serial No. 105–99

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house

or

Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources
(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey

ELTON GALLEGLY, California

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

KEN CALVERT, California

RICHARD W. POMBO, California

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

LINDA SMITH, Washington

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas

JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona

JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada

ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania

RICK HILL, Montana

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho

GEORGE MILLER, California

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas

OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO ́ , Puerto

Rico

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam

SAM FARR, California

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

ADAM SMITH, Washington

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana

DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin Islands

RON KIND, Wisconsin

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas

LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff

ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel

CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator

JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey, Chairman

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina

JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania

MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas

SAM FARR, California

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

HARRY BURROUGHS, Staff Director

DAVID WHALEY, Legislative Staff

JEAN FLEMMA, Democratic Legislative Staff
(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on April 30, 1998 .............................................................................. 1

Statement of Members:

Saxton, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State of New

Jersey ............................................................................................................. 1

Wyden, Hon. Ron, a Senator in Congress from the State of Oregon ........... 9

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

Young, Hon. Don, a Representative in Congress from the State of Alaska,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 1

Statement of Witnesses:

Anderson, Philip, Pacific Fishery Management Council ............................... 6

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 61

Garrison, Karen, Natural Resources Defense Council, ................................. 24

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 80

Gunnari, Gerald, Coos Bay Trawlers Association .......................................... 22

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 78

Moore, Rod, Executive Director, West Coast Seafood Processors Association ................................................................................................................. 26

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 92

Sampson, David, Oregon State University ..................................................... 20

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

Schmitten, Rolland, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, U.S. Department of Commerce; accompanied by Richard D. Method, Jr., Division

Director, National Marine Fisheries Service; William Robinson, Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Northwest Region, National Marine Fisheries Service ..................................................... 2

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 69

Communications submitted:

Blackburn, Chris, Director, Alaska Groundfish Data Bank, prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 82

Lund’s Fisheries, Inc., Cape May, New Jersey, prepared statement of ....... 103

Hearing held on May 7, 1998 ................................................................................. 35

Statement of Members:

Saxton, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State of New

Jersey ............................................................................................................. 35

Pallone, Hon. Frank, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State

of New Jersey ................................................................................................ 36

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 36

Young, Hon. Don, a Representative in Congress from the State of Alaska,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 56

Statement of Witnesses:

Anderson, Philip, Pacific Fishery Management Council ............................... 39

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 74

Evans, David, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National

Marine Fisheries Service; accompanied by William Robinson, Assistant

Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine

Fisheries Service Northwest Region ............................................................ 37

Prepared statement of Mr. Evans ............................................................ 58

Fisher, Randy, Executive Director, Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission ........................................................................................................... 40

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 61

Furman, Nick, Executive Director, Oregon Dungeness Crab Commission .. 45

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 63
Page

IV

Statement of Witnesses—Continued

Moore, Rod, Executive Director, West Coast Seafood Processors Association ................................................................................................................. 51

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 67

Parravano, Pietro, President, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s

Associations ................................................................................................... 49

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 65

Thevik, Larry, Washington Dungeness Crab Fishermen’s Association/Columbia River Crab Fishermen’s Association ............................................... 47

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 64

Communications submitted:

Beasley, Dale, Commissioner, Columbia River Crab Fisherman’s Association, prepared statement of .......................................................................... 102
(1)

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON WEST COAST

GROUNDFISH

THURSDAY, APRIL 30, 1998

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS, COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES, Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:11 a.m., in

room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Jim Saxton

(chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.

STATEMENT OF HON. JIM SAXTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Mr. SAXTON. The Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans is meeting today to conduct an oversight hearing

on the West Coast groundfish. The main thrust of the hearing is

to explore the methodology used by the National Marine Fisheries

Service to place new restrictions on harvesting of certain species of

groundfish on the West Coast.

As with most issues associated with groundfish, this issue is

complicated. Many of these groundfish, which are long-lived species

with slow growth rates and a very low ratio of production to biomass, are important to both commercial and recreational sectors.

Therefore, it is very important that stock assessments be accurate

and timely.

A number of stock assessment methods have been used by the

National Marine Fisheries Service to determine the status of specific stocks of groundfish. Historically, the National Marine Fisheries Service has gathered stock assessment data through several

methods, including slope surveys, shelf surveys, pot surveys, and

long-line surveys. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses

about the relative benefits and disadvantages of each survey method, as well as other comments on the fishery.

Now, I will move to the first panel for their opening statements.

Mr. Schmitten, why don’t you begin, and we appreciate very much

your being here this morning, and that goes for the whole panel,

of course.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. DON YOUNG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE

OF ALASKA

Mr. Chairman, thank you for scheduling this hearing on west coast groundfish.

As you are well aware, in December of last year, the National Marine Fisheries

Service announced the 1998 harvest levels for 13 species (or species groups) of

groundfish that are managed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council. The har-
2

vest levels for eight of the thirteen species were drastically cut from the 1997 levels—some as much as 60 percent.

While I have always advocated harvest levels that ensure a sustainable harvest,

I am concerned by such a drastic reduction. If the stocks were in such bad shape

that a harvest reduction was in order, why was it not predicted earlier? Was there

a sudden change in ocean conditions that caused a huge decrease in the population

in one year’s time? If not, then what caused such a sudden, drastic cut in the acceptable harvest level?

This is yet another example of the fishery managers not having enough information on the health and status of the fishery resources to make timely, informed decisions. If we are to maintain sustainable populations of fishery resources, and if we

are to maintain a viable fishing industry, we need to provide the fishery managers

with adequate information.

We cannot continue to manage from one crisis to another. It certainly doesn’t help

the fishery resources to have widely varying harvest levels that allow high harvest

levels one year and put the fishery in danger of collapsing the next year. It also

certainly doesn’t help the fishing industry who think they are harvesting at an acceptable level and suddenly find themselves on the beach and looking to the Federal

Government for help.

One of the problems with assessing the abundance of west coast groundfish has

been that the trawl survey is only done once every three years. It is very difficult

for fishery managers to predict trends in the populations without up-to-date information. Two or three year old information may not be adequate.

This Committee, and the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee before it,

have been asking NOAA to develop a plan for fishery research for at least 7 years.

After years of inaction, NOAA finally developed a plan for new fishery research vessels and asked this Congress to appropriate money for design work in fiscal year

1998. We responded positively to that request. Now, however, I find that the Administration’s fiscal year 1999 budget submission contains no funds for these essential

vessels. This is remarkable and incredibly disappointing.

The problem of inadequate fishery data is not unique to the west coast or the

groundfish fishery. This is a problem in almost all of our fisheries. In fact, NOAA

admitted how little data they have in the report to Congress on the status of fisheries of the United States. According to this report, we do not know the status of

almost two-thirds of the species managed by the Federal Government. How can fishery managers make informed decisions without information?

We need to do something about this. I hope we will hear testimony today that

will give NOAA officials some ideas for developing research plans which will give

fishery managers better information so that better, more consistent management

measures can be implemented.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

STATEMENT OF ROLLAND SCHMITTEN, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR FISHERIES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE;

ACCOMPANIED BY RICHARD D. METHOT, JR., DIVISION DIRECTOR, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE; WILLIAM

L. ROBINSON, ASSISTANT REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR FOR

SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES, NORTHWEST REGION, NATIONAL

MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE

Mr. SCHMITTEN. Well, thank you very much, and good morning,

Mr. Chairman. I’d like to thank you for inviting us to testify on the

issue of West Coast groundfish. Just for the record, I am Rollie

Schmitten. I’m NOAA’s Assistant Administrator of Fisheries, and,

as requested by the Committee, I’m accompanied by Mr. William

L. Robinson, the Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable

Fisheries in our Northwest Region and Dr. Richard Methot, the Director of Fisheries Resources, Analysis and Monitoring Division of

the Northwest Fisheries Science Center. Mr. Chairman, these will

be your experts today, and I will introduce—although I’m sure he

will introduce himself—from the Pacific Fishery Management

Council, Mr. Phil Anderson, a representative from the State of

Washington.
3

You have our complete testimony, so let me just summarize that

very briefly for you. I’d like to begin with my conclusion and recommendation to you and the Subcommittee. Mr. Chairman, my

concern for West Coast groundfish comes from the 14 years that I

was a State and a West Coast regional fisheries manager. During

that time, I had the pleasure to serve on both the Pacific Fisheries

Management Council and the North Pacific Management Council,

so I have some knowledge of the issues of groundfish on our West

Coast, and also the process that was used to manage those fisheries.

Let me note, though, that although the Committee’s focus is on

West Coast groundfish, my concern from groundfish in the west extends from California to Alaska, and that the major part of the solution remains the same, whether it’s for California, Oregon, Washington, or Alaska. That is, given the fact that most of these fisheries are overcapitalized, that the competition for each fish has become very aggressive, that technology often outpaces management

and scientific knowledge, that abnormal ocean environmental conditions have existed the past decade, therefore, the accuracy and

timeliness of fishery data is imperative to maintain both healthy

fisheries and fish stocks.

So the solution is simple. We must move from a triennial to an

annual survey basis. And the need for annual surveys applies to

Alaska as well as to the lower, or the southern part of the West

Coast, so as to assure that the largest and most valuable fisheries

in the Nation remain robust and that increased knowledge through

the annual surveys in the lower West Coast help restore the confidence in the system.

Mr. Chairman, just for a moment, I’ll focus on the process of

managing West Coast fisheries. First of all, the term groundfish is

an oversimplification for what these people work with. In fact, the

Pacific Council’s fisheries management plan for groundfish includes

83 diverse species. Currently, the best available information now

indicates that some of the stocks are only at 10 to 20 percent of

their unfished levels, and that reductions in catch were necessary

to allow the rebuilding to safer, more productive levels to occur.

I think the Subcommittee is aware, but, pursuant to Magnuson,

NOAA fisheries is responsible for providing the scientific information on which the Councils base their management decisions, and

we work very closely with the Council on doing that. What is unusual on the West Coast is that the agency’s northwest, southwest,

and Alaska science centers all conduct the research that provides

the scientific basis for the Council’s recommendations on harvest

levels.

Mr. Chairman, just to conclude, let me summarize what we’ve

achieved in the past four years, and you can track that by the document, that I believe each Member has.

[The information referred follows:]
4
5

Mr. SCHMITTEN. While I was still in Northwest, we began to witness major declines in certain Northwest groundfish stocks. Upon

becoming the Director of National Marine Fisheries Service in

1994, I promulgated the need to establish a separate groundfish

unit in the Northwest science center, and to no longer rely on the

Alaska science center to do the data analysis working up to the

stock assessments. It wasn’t saying that they couldn’t do, and

weren’t doing, a good job. It was saying that we wanted to establish

a separate unit in the West Coast for the West Coast.

In January, 1995, we initiated the Northwest Fisheries Science

Center groundfish program at the Newport lab in Oregon, and they

began to provide a coordinated stock assessment program which focused on the important and valuable deep-water species in that

area. We initiated that program with a one-and-a-half million dollar dedication of funds and a staff of seven people that same year.

To make sure of what was needed, we conducted an external review of West Coast groundfish stock assessments, and they identified that the number one weakness was the lack of survey data as

a main cause of the problem. That links back to my solution, that

we have to get away from relying on three years before we go back

in a survey, and move to an annual survey basis.

Many other things have occurred, including providing the

funds—$400,000—to take care of the triennial survey, because the

NOAA research vessel was about to go into drydock. That was the

number one request of industry. Also this year, we added $750,000

in permanent base funding to the Northwest region for the West

Coast groundfish management and research, and that was the

number two request of the industry. An unusual feature that Congress asked us to consider the Magnuson-Stevens Act, was the use

of fish under a new fish-for-research provision, and that will be embraced for the first time in the Nation on the West Coast.

To just close, I want to comment on an issue that we’ve been

working on closely with Senator Wyden. And I want to stress my

admiration for his strong support for the West Coast fisheries industry, and to indicate that the National Marine Fisheries Service

supports the utilization of trip-limit overages for science, as proposed by Senator Wyden. Not only would it reduce the unnecessary

waste, it would also add science that would help provide a better

accounting for the overall groundfish quota. And after extensive

talks with the industry, with the State, with the Councils, we will

propose such a pilot program to the Pacific Fisheries Management

Council in June. To further help facilitate such a proposal, I’ve

agreed with Senator Wyden that a way of closely involving the affected industry is that our agency will sponsor a workshop, under

the auspices of the Council, to develop a draft pilot program.

Mr. Chairman, I think that shows you that in a short four years,

we’ve developed a program, we’ve nurtured it, and it now is a firstclass science program. It’s not without problems yet before it, but

I think we’ve come a long way, and I appreciate this opportunity.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schmitten may be found at end

of hearing.]

Mr. SAXTON. Phil Anderson, go to it. Thank you very much.
6

STATEMENT OF PHILIP ANDERSON, PACIFIC FISHERY

MANAGEMENT COUNCIL

Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning,

and good morning members of the Committee. My name is Phil Anderson. I represent the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife on the Pacific Fishery Management Council, and I’m here today

to testify on behalf of the Pacific Council. The Council appreciates

this opportunity that you’ve provided us to provide testimony on

the management and research needs of the West Coast groundfish

fishery.

The Council and the National Marine Fisheries Service manage

the groundfish fishery consistent with the Pacific Coast groundfish

fishery management plan, which was developed in 1982. The fishery is comprised of three primary sectors, the commercial fishing

sector, processing sector, and the recreational fishing sector.

The commercial fishery harvests primarily Dover sole, sable fish,

Pacific whiting, and a variety of species of rock fish. The majority

of the commercial fisheries to extend landings throughout the year

by setting cumulative trip limits per vessel, and adjusting them in

season as necessary. The recreational fishery harvests a relatively

small portion of the total harvest; however, groundfish does represent an important species for that industry.

Annual management specifications for major species are established each year and are derived from stock assessment. Stock assessments are generally conducted with models which allow the

utilization of information obtained from a number of different fishery and resource survey sources. In addition, beginning in 1995,

National Marine Fisheries Service has made very significant efforts

to improve survey technique. However, given the limited amount of

funding available, and the technological difficulties of estimating

the biomass of groundfish, survey and assessment results are accompanied by substantial uncertainty and imprecision.

The Council recently implemented a new stock assessment process designed to, first, improve public participation, and increase the

level of scientific peer review and to provide greater separation between the science and management. Based on the 1997 stock assessment, the Council recommended very significant reductions in

the allowable harvest of a number of the major species that contribute to the commercial fishery for 1998.

The total ex-vessel, or landed value, of the species that were reduced are projected to decline from a level of 59.8 million in 1996

to 41.4 million in 1998. This substantial reduction in revenue will

further aggravate the depressed economic conditions in both the

fishing and processing sectors, in addition to the overall economies

of the coastal communities where they are based. Reasons for the

dramatic reductions in biomass from previous assessments are unclear. The results of the 1997 assessments raise a number of questions about the adequacy of the science used to manage the fishery.

The industry has been harvesting at levels adopted by the Council,

yet significant declines appear to have occurred in many species.

To increase the accuracy of stock assessments, improve management, and provide for a stable fishery, the Council believes the following steps should be taken.
7

First, National Marine Fisheries Service should increase the frequency and coverage of trawl surveys. The Council also supports

cooperative agency and industry research projects, a tool that was

recently made available through the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation Fisheries Management Act. In

particular, we—I’m sorry, it has the potential to collect needed information at less cost, while providing support to the industry.

Second, we must take a precautionary approach, because even

with improved assessments, there will continue to be a wide confidence interval in the biomass estimates. The Council is examining

a more conservative harvest policy. Exploitation rates would be reduced as biomass levels decline to address management uncertainty. If approved, this management approach should provide

more stable and abundant populations for the future.

Third, we must improve estimates of total fishing mortality. Assume levels of discard are based upon limited and outdated studies.

A comprehensive observer program, and alternative ways of collecting this information are being considered by the Council.

Finally, we must reduce the existing harvest capacity. In 1994,

the Council, through National Marine Fisheries Service, implemented a license limitation program in an effort to curb the growth

in the fishing fleet. However, the capacity still far exceeds the resource available for harvest. Additional measures are necessary to

achieve a stable and economically healthy industry. An industry

developed and funded trawl permit buy-back program is currently

being considered by the Council. Individual quotas are another

method of addressing excessive capacity; unfortunately, this tool is

not presently available to the Council.

The Council looks forward to working with the fishing and processing sectors, and National Marine Fisheries Service to meet the

resource management challenges that lie ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Anderson may be found at end

of hearing.]

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much. Let me just ask a couple of

questions, and then go ahead and turn the rest of the questions

over to the other members.

Why have some stock assessment methods been abandoned, such

as pot surveys in favor of some others, and are there any types of

surveys that are particularly useful to fisheries managers that

should be continued or increased? Dr. Methot?

Mr. SCHMITTEN. Dr. Methot?

Dr. METHOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The survey methods

that are used on the West Coast have included a number of different techniques. The discontinuation of the pot survey that had

been done for sablefish through 1991 was partly based upon the

number of resources available to conduct overall surveys, and also

due to some technical limitations of conducting that particular pot

survey.

The emphasis since then has been on a multi-species trawl survey. The multi-species aspect of the trawl survey provides us information not just on the sablefish, but also the thornyhead species

which are growing in importance, and Dover sole as well. The opportunity to expand our survey efforts to once again include a sur-
8

vey that would be targeted on sablefish, such as a pot survey or

a long-line survey, is an opportunity that we are very interested in

exploring, as we have greater opportunity to expand our resource

survey capabilities.

Mr. SAXTON. You mentioned the trawl survey, which my understanding, you have historically done that every three years. Is that

correct?

Dr. METHOT. There are two trawl surveys that are conducted

upon the West Coast, and they’re independent efforts. One is a triennial survey, every third year, beginning in 1977. And it’s a survey that has been targeted upon primarily the rock fish and other

species that are upon on to the shallower waters of the continental

shelf. Again, that survey’s gone on every third year, since 1977,

again in 1998.

The other survey has been conducted annually since 1988, and

it’s a survey that’s directed more to the deep-water species. It uses

a slightly different trawl, and it’s a survey that’s been conducted

by the NOAA vessel MILLER FREEMAN, whereas the triennial

survey has been conducted aboard two chartered trawl fishing vessels, as well as university vessels.

So these two surveys, together, give us some coverage of the diversity of groundfish species, but even these two trawl surveys do

not cover all of the various species of groundfish that we have

under our jurisdiction.

Mr. SAXTON. Let me just ask, with regard to the trawl survey,

understand that the NMFS vessel that conducts, or that you use

to do the trawl surveys, is going to be taken out of service, at least

temporarily. Is that correct?

Mr. SCHMITTEN. Mr. Chairman, this is one that I’ve been very directly involved in. Yes, for the leg of the triennial survey that it

was going to conduct, it will be laid up in the drydock. I think this

vessel is 32 years old. Industry was extremely concerned, because

that could mean, instead of a 3-year, there could be a 5-year lapse.

They sought for some funding relief. I have guaranteed that the

$400,000 that is necessary to conduct that survey is committed,

and that we will contract with the private sector to get the job

done. That was their number-one request of us.

Mr. SAXTON. Will the methodology and the results of the methodology done by NMFS that you will do through private contracts be

compatible with the results of the surveys that you did?

Mr. SCHMITTEN. It certainly is our intent, and that was part of

the reason that we contracted with the University of Washington

to develop the protocols for allowing and working closer with the

private sector to conduct some of the survey work. I ultimately envision both the private sector doing up to 40 percent of the surveys,

and NOAA conducting the balance, but in partnership. And I think

by doing that, you gain much more believability and reliance, or

support of industry.

Mr. SAXTON. I wonder if you would all mind if I do something

unusual. Senator Wyden has come in, and he was to be our first

panelist. Senator Wyden, we’re going to go vote, and I don’t want

to make you wait until we get back, so maybe if—Rollie, would you

mind letting the Senator take your seat?

Mr. SCHMITTEN. Yes, sir.
9

Mr. SAXTON. And we’ll hear Senator Wyden’s testimony, and

then we’ll come back to you as soon as the vote has been completed.

You may proceed. We’re going to leave here in approximately 10

minutes for our vote, so take your time, but if you could finish up

within 10 minutes.

STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, A SENATOR IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

Senator WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for your

thoughtfulness, and going back to the days when I was a member

of this body, I’ve enjoyed working with you, and I want to thank

you for your graciousness again. And I see old friends Congressman

Farr, and Wayne, and really appreciate your coming. I would ask

unanimous consent that my full statement could be made a part of

the record, and perhaps just touch for a minute or two on a couple

of key points.

Mr. SAXTON. Without objection.

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I just come

today to say that I think the National Marine Fisheries Service has

worked in a very positive and constructive way with those of us in

Oregon who are trying to deal with this groundfish crisis. And it

is truly, you know, a crisis.

Terry Garcia came at my request to the south coast, met with

fishing families, met with a cross-section of industry leaders, and

they are just devastated with these reductions in the allowable

catch. And he vowed then to say that he was going to be able to

come back and show that we’re making some changes. And in fact,

he has brought with the proposal that Mr. Schmitten’s talking

about today something that I think is very, very constructive. In

effect, what they are proposing to do is to use the next few months

to work with fishing families, with the fishing communities, to devise a new approach that would allow for the first time overage,

you know, fishing in excess of the allowable limits to be sold when

it gets to shore, used and overseen by a public entity, to start looking at ways to avoid this problem in the first place, and so that we

can get better stock assessments. Perhaps hire some of those fishers that are out of work as observers. Look at issues relating to

gear and how it’s used.

And what they envisage is essentially what we have been talking

to them about over the last few months, since Terry Garcia came

to the Oregon coast. And the most appealing part of it to me is

something Congressman Gilchrest and I always used to talk about

when we’d talk about these kinds of issues. It is that this would

not be a top-down, run-from-Washington, DC exercise. We’ve decided that this would be something that would be voluntarily. Fishing families could choose to be part of this if they wanted to, and

in the next few months, essentially you would, through some workshops and other sessions on the coast, allow for fishing families to

essentially design this over the next few months, use it through our

regional organization.

So I’m very hopeful that we can go forward on this. The industry

is in support of this. We’ve talked to a lot of people in the commu-
10

nities; they’re for it. Conservationists like the idea of using this as

a chance to test out some new approaches.

My view is, Mr. Chairman, and I’ll really wrap up with this last

point, that this could be a national model. This could be a national

model where we could really study how to deal with this overage

question, how to make sure that we make better use of the resource, and the most appealing part of it is, it wouldn’t be run from

the Beltway. It’d be run from the region, we’d involve the families,

come back with good data on the kind of key elements so you and

others could take a look at it, and perhaps be duplicated elsewhere.

So, I really appreciate the chance to come, particularly to go out

of order. I remember so well having to chase across the street and

make a vote, so I really appreciate the chance to give just a couple

of minutes of input this way.

Mr. SAXTON. Well, Senator, thank you very much. Your testimony is very articulate and we appreciate very much hearing from

you on this issue. I can tell from your testimony how closely you’re

working with the local folks, as well as with the regulators, Rollie

and others. And so we really appreciate the degree of enthusiasm

with which you have approached this issue.

Mr. Farr, do you have any questions at this? But I’d just like to

thank you for being here. Mr. Farr, do you have any questions?

Mr. FARR. I’ll save my questions till after we get back from the

vote, but I do want to thank the Senator for coming over here. It’s

nice to see you here, we miss you in this House, we appreciate your

leadership in the Senate, and we hope the Senate will be as userfriendly for our requests as we are for yours.

Senator WYDEN. You have reciprocity under all circumstances,

and suffice it to say this Committee, you all are really the experts

on this issue. I’ve learned a lot about groundfish in the last few

months, and we’re going to be working real closely with you.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Gilchrest.

Mr. GILCHREST. I just want to say, Ron, it’s good to have you

back here. We really look forward to working with you on this and

many other issues, especially how we, the human species, are trying to figure out the complexity of the fluctuations in other species,

especially this groundfish problem. But working with the community to set up and anticipate problems so they’re not so dramatic

or drastic is a wise idea. Good to see you again, Ron.

Senator WYDEN. You’re being too logical, as always, and that’s

the heart of it, it’s preventive strategy.

Mr. SAXTON. Well, thank you very much, Senator. And we’re

going to take a little break here now so that we can run across the

street, as the Senator said, and vote, and when we come back, it

will be Mr. Farr’s turn to question, and Mr. Schmitten, you can resume your seat there when we get back. Thank you very much.

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Wyden follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, A SENATOR IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

OREGON

Mr. Chairman, if ever there was an issue which called for innovation and new

ideas, fishery management is it. Everyone agrees that something needs to be done

to keep fish stocks from disappearing and keep our fishing communities vital, but

nothing has ever seemed to work.
11

All along my state’s magnificent coastline, from Newport to Astoria, fishing communities are at a moment of serious peril. The groundfish stocks on which they depend may have shrunk to dangerously low levels. And the government, in trying to

protect that resource, has placed limits on allowable groundfish catch which jeopardize livelihoods and threaten entire communities. At the end of last year the Pacific Fishery Management Council approved harvest guidelines which called for a

huge cut in the 1998 allowable catch of many groundfish species. The cuts were

made based on scientific stock assessments, but the data underlying those assessments are extremely limited. The Council said it had no choice under the law but

to reduce fishing.

Oregonians want to manage the groundfish resource wisely. The fishing industry

is an integral part of the culture of Oregon’s coastal communities as well as a major

contributor to the economy. In Lincoln County, for example, the fishing industry

provides around $61 million each year to the local economy and 20 percent of the

total wages earned.

Unfortunately, the measures being taken to protect fish stocks have had a devastating effect on Oregon’s seafood community. The reduction in allowable catch,

which for some species is as high as 65 percent, will result in a 23 percent decrease

in all groundfish-derived contributions to Oregon’s economy. This translates into a

$14 million loss of personal income or the equivalent of about 678 jobs in Oregon.

The cuts will have a disastrous economic ripple effect in coastal communities—from

boat crew members and processing plant workers, to boat and plant owners, to marine hardware suppliers, to port businesses.

Most disturbing to me is the fact that the severely reduced harvest guidelines are

based on inadequate data. As you know, harvest guidelines are determined by stock

assessments, which, in turn, are dependent on the data collected in surveys. Data

used to make stock assessments on the West Coast are considered to be inadequate

by scientists, fishermen, fishery managers, and environmentalists. Without better

data and analysis, stock assessments and harvest guidelines will be subject to skepticism—especially during these times of low harvest levels.

Some of your witnesses may suggest ways to improve the collection and analysis

of data. I would like to highlight two ideas: chartered surveys and retention of overages.

It is crucial that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) perform annual

surveys of grouch stocks so that fishery management decisions are based on the best

data. The Northwest does not have a dedicated research vessel to perform this important work, so surveys have traditionally been performed only every three years.

In place of a dedicated research vessel, NMFS is starting to follow the industry’s

suggestion to charter private vessels to collect data. NMFS should expand the use

of these collaborative surveys—the more experience the agency has in conducting

these surveys, the more effective the resulting data.

Chartered surveys can be paid for by ‘‘fish for research’’—a concept that allows

fishermen to keep the fish caught during chartered surveys as a means of partial

payment for the survey. I am encouraged by NMFS’s indication that they will be

trying out ‘‘fish for research’’ this year. This program can potentially create a mechanism to finance the collection of data giving NMFS more data at less cost to the

taxpayer.

The other program I would like to highlight is a ‘‘retention of overages’’ plan,

which would utilize some of the fish that fishermen are forced by regulations to discard. This idea has been raised by the industry several times in the past. The objectives of a retention of overages plan are to reduce the waste of fish and to increase

and improve groundfish data.

Overages are marketable fish caught in excess of trip limits. Fishermen are fined

if they bring overages to port, so they throw the fish overboard. Most of these fish

die. This is a terrible waste, especially considering the current crisis. Fishermen

have told me that they are angry they are forced to throw ‘‘beautiful’’ fish overboard

to die. I suggest that we utilize these fish and work towards increasing our understanding of the fishery so that we can better manage it.

A retention plan would allow fishermen to keep their overages without being

fined. A fisherman would bring his catch to port and sell the amount of his trip

limit. The overages would be surrendered to a public entity. The entity would sell

the fish to the local processor, take the funds and grant them for specific purposes,

such as scientific research or community assistance.

I suggest this idea be implemented as pilot project for the remainder of this year.

A working group made up of NMFS and industry folks could meet to discuss implementation procedures as well as come up with innovative ideas for using the funds.

If this group is established quickly, it could report to the Pacific Fishery Management Council at the Council’s next meeting this summer.
12

At the end of the year, the working group could reconvene to evaluate the effects

and make recommendations on the possibility of a year-long plan for 1999. The objective of a more extensive plan should be to provide the data needed to eventually

reduce overages and discards in general. Currently, fishery managers estimate the

level of discards and these estimates play a role in determining harvest guidelines.

A more extensive retention plan could even help fund an observer program to provide accurate data regarding total catch thereby reducing the level of uncertainty

involved in setting harvest levels.

I’d like to be clear in saying that I don’t think a retention of overages plan should

be permanent. I don’t want a plan to legitimize or institutionalize overages and discards. Rather, I’d like the plan to provide the scientific basis from which fishery

managers can work to effectively reduce discards.

What I’m advocating here today is implementation of a pilot plan for only this

year, so that we can get an idea of how well this idea will work. Afterwards, if appropriate, we can discuss a longer term plan.

I realize that many people have strong feelings regarding the management of

groundfish. But we are in a crisis situation. We need to get past the finger pointing

stage and start working on solutions. I have been working closely with Terry Garcia,

the Deputy Administrator of NOAA, on West Coast fisheries issues. Terry is a

breath of fresh air. Recently, he traveled with me to the Oregon Coast to attend

two public meetings to discuss groundfish issues. We both left those meetings deeply

impressed by the urgent needs of the fishing community. There are critical needs

which must be addressed on the West Coast and I think Terry understands them.

My suggestions are the result of our meetings on the Oregon Coast.

In closing, I would like to say that as we discuss groundfish management practices, we should remember that the livelihoods of people are directly linked to management decisions. Let’s not forget the fishermen, the processors, and all the other

people linked to the seafood industry.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for calling attention to an issue of such importance

to Oregonians and to all citizens of the West Coast. I would ask that my prepared

statement be printed in the hearing record.

[Recess.]

Mr. SAXTON. If the witnesses would be so kind as to get in their

places and take their seats. When we left, we had just concluded

with Senator Wyden, and thank you very much for understanding

and for permitting the Senator to intervene in this panel. And we

were just about to move to Mr. Farr for his questions.

Mr. FARR. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate

you having this hearing. As you recall, Congressman Miller and

myself asked you, an East Coaster, to hold a hearing on the Pacific

Coast fisheries, and I really appreciate it. And it’s also good to have

you back from last week when you were ill, when we were doing

a mark-up of the Oceans Act.

Let me just paraphrase some of my concerns. I’m sort of frustrated. I’m a public official. I’m elected, and I’m appointed to this

Committee. The Committee is the Resources Committee. And we

essentially have—the major responsibilities are our mining Subcommittee, and those are all the mining resources, oil and gas, and

other mineral deposits. We have a water Subcommittee which is

just meeting down the hall. They essentially have the whole issue

of water and, you know, how much is it and where is it going to

go, and so much so that we have a lot of money invested in futures

of water and saline-making water contracts and so on. And we

have a fisheries Committee. And it seems that it would mean that,

of all the resources that we have out there, this is the one that we

know the least about.

Why—and as a public official, I mean, I’m sitting here thinking,

is this going to be—is fisheries sort of an S and L scandal, that it’s

where the regulators aren’t really regulating very well. Is it that

we don’t know where we’re headed, or is this something where
13

we’re overreacting and we’re having people sit at home on shore,

where there really isn’t a problem? And see, we’re caught between

the two. Because we represent the constituents who are the commercial fishermen, and we represent the public who owns the resources, all the fish stock out there. And I don’t want to lose it.

I represent an area where I grew up with a catastrophic loss of

the fishery, and a lot of people don’t realize what happened. They

know more about the northeast fisheries than they recall of Monterey, which used to be the largest sardine port in the world and

we lost the sardines. And the entire place closed. And it was just

one city and, you know, there wasn’t the kind of programs that we

have now on disaster relief and so on. So here’s the city of Monterey, just for almost 20 years, the Cannery Row just sat there.

And now it’s obviously a thriving tourist venture, but what was lost

in that 20 years was just incredible productivity of people and

lives.

So, here we are. We’re sitting here talking about what we know

is to be a problem on the Pacific Coast. We have created a management Council. But why—and the management Council is, I think,

it’s a good—it’s a combination of private and public sector and

science. Why are we so weak on the science? Why don’t we know

more about this, and what we know, why aren’t we better regulating it? Why are we here worried about depleting a fishery?

Mr. SCHMITTEN. Mr. Farr, let me start with that. First, let me

personally thank you for your interest, even if it’s concern I know

it’s honest concern for the resource, and for asking for this hearing.

Why we know so little, frankly, it goes to my solution, and that

is I think we need to move from triennial surveys, which at one

time was thought adequate. We do have a data base that goes back

into the mid-1970’s, but for today’s demands on these resources,

the uncertainties with the environment, the issues that I raised

with the overcapitalization, we can’t afford to rely on what was

good for the 1970’s and 1980’s. We need annual information. We

need it every year if we’re going to have support of the industry

for our data.

Mr. FARR. Well, why haven’t we had that? That’s the question—

I mean, is there anything broken in the law that doesn’t allow you

to do your job?

Mr. SCHMITTEN. Oh, absolutely not. Why we haven’t had it is we

haven’t been able to afford it.

Mr. FARR. So we haven’t had enough money?

Mr. SCHMITTEN. Let me just tell you. Last year, we lost five million dollars out of the resource information line which supports annual stock assessments. A portion, in fact a big portion, of that was

going to go to the West Coast. We have identified now, since I have

been here, the needs on the West Coast. I have taken money away

from all parts of the Nation to continue to fund and buildup this

program, and we’ve done that to the tune now of about three million dollars. But we do need help.

Mr. FARR. Well, have we—this is a very frank discussion here—

have we done what we need to do to really understand how much

money we’re going to need to solve the problem? I mean, if we put

this on a crisis level, if it is a crisis, Congress loves to respond to

crises. That’s what we do, in fact, we usually don’t respond until

it gets there. And if there’s a crisis in this, and it’s just a matter
14

of inadequate resources, with a concentrated effort and leadership

by the administration, we can do that. I mean, you’ve asked for

$750,000 to supplement the inadequate research funds available

for ground fisheries for this year. Is that going to be a request next

year and the year after, and the year after that?

Mr. SCHMITTEN. Yes. That’s in permanent funds that will be in

perpetuity. I think we know what we need to do, and thanks to the

industry, thanks to the Council, we have developed a plan. We

need to go to annual surveys. We need to use the industry in conducting a lot of those surveys. This will provide the data that we

need, and we’re preparing for that. And that’s forecasted in future

budgets.

Mr. FARR. But if we don’t have enough, OK, it’s money for scientific data. But the annual surveys, that’s a money issue, not a

legal issue.

Mr. SCHMITTEN. Yes.

Mr. FARR. In the meantime, when something’s threatened, are

you really using enough of your authorized controls, enforcement—

is the enforcement adequate?

Mr. SCHMITTEN. First, are we using authorized resources, including enforcement and dollars. I’ve pledged the $400,000 that the industry asked to do the survey. I’ve pledged the $750,000, taken it

from all parts of the country, to continue the stock assessments in

perpetuity. We’ve engaged in the enforcement side of this. We’re

willing to use fish for research, as well as support Senator Wyden’s

concept of avoiding waste in trip overages.

We’re trying to be just as aggressive and proactive as we possibly

can.

Mr. FARR. There’s one ingredient here that’s affected this fishery,

which is technology. The fisherman have available to them some of

the same technology that our military has in being able to discover

why the biomass is with the temperature of satellite data and biomass. I mean, they used to go in search of fisheries. Now they don’t

leave the port until they know where they are and they sell the

fish, you know, before the nets are even dropped in the water because they know they’re going to catch them. And they catch more

than they’ve ever caught.

So you have fewer boats, but they’re catching a hell of a lot more

fish. That’s all technology that they have, and a lot of that’s public

given technology, satellite information and so on. Knowing that

they’re capable of doing that, do you think that you’re doing enough

in the enforcement area?

Mr. SCHMITTEN. We’re at the point where I should turn over to

the experts in the field.

Mr. ROBINSON. Congressman, I think one of the situations that

we find ourselves in is the level of certainty that we get from what

the science is telling us. At one time, when the fish stocks were not

under environmental stress, when the biomasses were larger and

when the capitalization and technology were not so great, the level

of uncertainty in the scientific answers was tolerable.

Times have changed. We have had an environment for the last

decade that there’s some indication that it is telling us that what

we thought were sustainable levels of harvest a decade ago are
15

probably not sustainable levels of harvest. They’re probably something less than that, given the environment.

Mr. FARR. And have you taken appropriate adjustments in enforcement?

Mr. ROBINSON. Yes, the appropriate adjustments are taken

through a precautionary approach, a conservative approach that

the Council must take in setting the harvest quotas. When you

don’t have these stress factors, you can live with the uncertainty

and you can live with setting quotas that are in a less cautious environment. When you have all of these factors combining to put

both biological stress and technological stress and overcapitalization stress, the need for precision is much greater than it has been

in the past. That’s what we’re struggling with. How to make the

science more precise so that we know that when the Council chooses a harvest quota, that in fact it is a safe quota. That is the

charge of the Council in terms of exercising its stewardship.

What we’re struggling with is improving the precision. The program that we began in 1995 at the Newport lab, and the additional

supplementation of that program in 1998 is designed to reduce the

uncertainty, so that the Council can be assured that the decisions

that it makes are truly precautionary and truly conservative, and

result in sustainable harvest levels for the future.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I know that there’s only the

two of us so, the other question I have, and I know Mr. Anderson

wanted to respond, but just explain to me why your Council does

not manage the squid fishery.

Mr. ANDERSON. We are in the process of developing a coastal pelagic species management plan. Primarily, the squid fishery is taking place off the coast of California and has been managed by California Department of Fish and Game.

Mr. FARR. So it hasn’t been managed? There’s no regulation, no

season, there’s no—there’s hours of fishing, but not limits to fishing. Not days or——

Mr. ANDERSON. Once again, we are just in the process of developing a coastal pelagic species management plan, and one of the

species that would be managed under that plan is squid.

Mr. FARR. What’s it take to get a fishery under the management

Council?

Mr. ANDERSON. We have to develop a management plan that

complies with the requirements under Magnuson, and we have

been developing the fishery management plan in this case for

coastal pelagics. Actually, it’s been in development since 1990, and

so it’s been a very long and difficult process. We had a coastal pelagic species management plan developed and actually submitted to

National Marine Fisheries Service, I believe, in 1994. And it was

not approved by National Marine Fisheries Service, and so we’ve

gone back to the drawing table essentially and have developed another plan, and we are in the final stages of development of that

plan, and will be submitting it to National Marine Fisheries Service later this year.

Mr. FARR. Are we coordinating as much as we should be with the

States? My frustration, coming from the State legislature, all I

heard about in the State legislature were fisheries that the State

managed, which mostly was salmon and swordfish. And then we
16

got into a problem with taking of sea urchins and mussels, and sort

of the bivalves—abalone. And then I came here to Congress and I

understand that we manage a whole—they’re all in the same place,

so why do we have two different governments managing them?

Why don’t we meld together what States are trying to do and the

feds are trying to do, and have less duplication and more collaboration?

Mr. ANDERSON. I think we’ve tried very hard to avoid duplication, frankly. I think in the case—the Council has been selective in

the species complexes that it’s developed management plans for,

and we’ve prioritized those that have migratory ranges to cross

State borders. We’ve prioritized species that predominantly reside

outside three miles, in the Federal waters, and have relied principally on the States to manage fisheries which are located primarily in State waters.

Mr. FARR. Let me ask this question: What was the basis for the

Council’s decision to ignore the recommended quota cuts for sable

fish and short spine thornyheads?

Mr. ANDERSON. Relative to sable fish, I do not believe that we

ignored the scientific information that we received. On sable fish,

the stock assessment models that were used to bring the information forward ranged in a recommendation for a harvest guideline

from approximately 2,500 tons up to 7,500 tons. There were five

different pieces of information that were utilized in those models,

and depending on what combination of those five pieces of information, you got a different result and a different recommendation for

a harvest guideline. And I believe in our decision on sable fish, we

used the best information that we received from the scientific community in recommending the 5,200 metric tons for a harvest guideline and allowable biological catch for this year.

Mr. FARR. And what happens if that’s not adequate? I mean,

you’ve already heard that they’re approaching overfished condition

last year, so now you have this new harvest guideline, and you’ll

have new information. What will you do then if they’re still approaching being overfished?

Mr. ANDERSON. First of all, I don’t believe the number that the

Council recommended to National Marine Fisheries on sable fish

approached the overfishing definition. I believe that the model, and

the parameters of the model, that we utilized in setting the ABC

was consistent with an F–35 approach to managing sable fish.

The short spine thornyhead issue is a different issue, and it was

a different set of circumstances. And, with your permission, I’d like

to ask Mr. Robinson to speak to that issue. And I would also ask

that you allow me to come back and respond to some of your earlier

comments if I could, please.

Mr. FARR. Certainly. It’s the chairman’s charge.

Mr. ROBINSON. Congressman, just to elaborate on Mr. Anderson’s

answer a small bit. The Council was faced with taking a precautionary approach to setting the harvest quotas in the face of

substantial uncertainty, which the scientific side of the Council was

really unable to advise the Council on in terms of how to best

evaluate that uncertainty. There was a lack of risk-assessment information that left the Council trying to figure out essentially what

the best conservative approach was. The Council’s response was to
17

reduce the sablefish quota by almost half. It took what I believe to

be a fairly big cut out of the quota, and a fairly conservative approach.

I guess one of the reasons we’re here today—and the outcome of

what we’re talking about—will tell us whether that was a big

enough cut or not, and where we need to go in the future. Fortunately, the harvest rates that we apply to these stocks are not so

great that we’re going to put them in any short-term danger. That’s

not going to happen. Most likely, with additional surveys, with additional stock assessments, we will gain more confidence in the

numbers and more confident that we’re taking an appropriately

conservative approach upon the species. But we’re not going to

know for sure whether we’re conservative enough, or not conservative enough, until we get more surveys and better information.

Mr. FARR. OK. I don’t think any of us——

Mr. SAXTON. Last question.

Mr. FARR. In this room—thank you, Mr. Chairman—any of us in

this room want, on our watch, to lose a fish stock. I mean, that’s

total failure in a modern society with the information we have. So

whatever resources you need, the public wouldn’t tolerate this if it

was in so many other areas. You know, the ocean we still don’t

know enough about. But we stand ready. I’m here to help you. But

I think you’ve got to use us more, us in Congress. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Farr. Let me just ask

a couple of questions and make a few comments, if I may. With regard to the funds that you need for research, in particular research

vessels, my memory tells me that in fiscal year 1998, we authorized

and appropriated, I think it was two-and-a-half million dollars for

the design of six new research vessels. And I believe we did so with

the understanding that we would then move forward with the administration’s request in 1999 and see their request for money for

construction of those vessels. We gave you the two-and-a-half million in 1998, and when your request came through for NOAA funding in 1999, there was no request for construction. Can you tell us

why that is?

Mr. SCHMITTEN. Mr. Chairman, since I’ve been the director, I’ve

been encouraging and supporting the need for replacement vessels,

even though we would reduce the overall number of nine down to

six, and augment with more industry involvement. This is a good

news/bad news story. Finally, the administration has agreed, and

they’ve indicated that starting in 2000—I wanted 1999, and certainly supported that, but starting in 2000—they put approximately $160 million for vessels to be constructed in 2000, 2001,

2002, out to 20003. The very first research vessel constructed in

this Nation will go to the West Coast.

Mr. SAXTON. What?

[Laughter.]

Mr. SCHMITTEN. Yes, sir. It will be dedicated to this problem, and

it will solve both Alaska and the West Coast issues, in that it will

provide annual surveys in the entire West Coast. The East Coast

enjoys those, Mr. Chairman, for the most part. That’s why I say we

should start where the problem is. That first vessel will go to the

West Coast.
18

Mr. SAXTON. Now, if you request funding for these vessels beginning in the year 2000, when will Mr. Farr be able to see this vessel

steaming off shore and doing research off the California coast?

Mr. SCHMITTEN. I believe it’s a two-year construction, so in two

to three years he will have his vessel. In between there, we will

continue to augment the needed surveys between that period of

time so we don’t get behind on gathering the data.

Mr. SAXTON. OK. In regard to Mr. Farr’s general question about

why we know so little about fisheries, I’ve had those thoughts myself. In fact, last night, Mr. Farr and I shared a podium before a

conservation group, and I think we both addressed that question

without knowing the other was going to, and I’m not sure that we

have an answer. But this situation is a good example of more evidence that we really don’t know much about, or enough about,

what we’re doing.

In 1997, for example, you came here and indicated that you

thought the groundfish fishery that we’re dealing with today was

healthy. And in 1998, you indicated through the process that there

ought to be a 60 percent reduction in the take in the fishery. How

do you explain what you thought in 1997 was so incorrect as related to your position in 1998?

Dr. METHOT. The situation we have with groundfish is mixed, because of the great diversity of species we’re dealing with. We certainly have some healthy species in the groundfish complex, and

we have some that now appear to be at much lower levels than we

would desire them to be. The combination of this mix of species,

as we accumulate more information to better track the exact status

of species, has begun to tip us more into the realization that there

are a number of species that have declined to a greater degree than

we had anticipated might occur. And the combination of these species over the last few years has begun to make us realize that we

need to pay greater attention to the entire groundfish complex to

be certain that we do have a good fix on just where they’re at, and

what is the long-term potential for these resources. This situation

of unanticipated declines has grown on us over the last four to five

years, as we look more closely at a number of species.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. Chairman? May also say something to that

question?

Mr. SAXTON. Sure, please.

Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you. I’d urge us not to underestimate the

difficulty of assessing the biomass and the populations of these species. We’re talking about 83 species that live anywhere from 300

to 2,000-plus feet below the surface of the water, that we never see.

And most of them are intermixed with one another. Some of them

are transboundary in nature—yellowtail rockfish, ling cod, Pacific

whiting—migrate north into Canadian waters and are harvested

there.

This is a very, very complex problem of assessing precisely, with

any degree of accuracy, the total numbers of fish, and thereby extrapolating an acceptable amount that may be removed through

harvest. It’s in its infancy, in my opinion. Remember, we’ve been

doing surveys every three years, and we started in 1977. Haven’t

been working at this very long, and as I indicated in my testimony,

National Marine Fisheries Service has taken some extraordinary
19

efforts in recent years to improve their survey techniques. And I

think that’s going to pay dividends to us as we move through the

next years, and we go to an annual survey.

But this is a very difficult group of fish to manage, and assess

the total abundance, and determine what—they’re long-lived. They

sometimes go decades between years when you have good recruitment of new fish into a population. You’ve got some extraordinary

exception—I hope they’re exceptional—ocean conditions on the

West Coast in terms of low productivity, low upwellings, warm

water, exceptionally warm water, much more frequently in the last

decade than in previous decades.

And so all of those dynamics play into the difficulty of coming up

with biomass estimates to determine annual harvest levels that are

acceptable and that will maintain healthy populations into the future. Believe me, we are as frustrated as you are.

Relative to sable fish, we had been managing along at about a

7,800-ton level for seven or eight years. And then, all of a sudden,

we get an assessment that tells us that’s it’s somewhere between

2,500 and 7,800 tons. We go, what’s going on here? This kind of

change simply couldn’t have happened in this short a period of

time. And that was the difficulty in struggling with setting a sable

fish allocation that took a precautionary approach in making sure

that we didn’t overharvest that particular species.

Mr. SAXTON. Let me try to make something clear, and I think I

can speak for Mr. Farr and I both with regard to this, and if I

don’t, Mr. Farr can break in and correct me. But we oftentimes, I

fear, give the impression that we don’t trust what you, as individuals, are doing. And that is a notion that we don’t mean to convey.

Our queries are more in trying to find out what it is that the system needs that it doesn’t have, both in terms of resources and process. And I think that we would both, from our observations, come

to the conclusion that resources are not sufficient, and that process

may need some fine-tuning, or maybe some big changes.

I’ve had this conversation with Rollie Schmitten on numerous occasions. Sometimes we’ve been quiet about it, and sometimes we’ve

been rather noisy about it. But it is frustrating, and I know the

people that serve on the New England Council, I know the people

that serve on the Mid-Atlantic Council. I know that Mr. Young

knows the people that serve on your Council. I deal with the people

in NMFS all the time, and I don’t think I can identify a person

who’s not there for all the right reasons.

And yet, the situation that we’re hear discussing today, unfortunately, is more common than it is unusual. And so we are hopeful

that our well-intended efforts can somehow dovetail with your wellintended efforts to get the proper funding to do the kind of research

that we need to do, and to improve the process. That’s what we’re

striving to do. And I thank Rollie, who was in my office last week,

I guess it was, and we were talking about making some changes

in process that sprung from my urging and his creative thinking.

And hopefully we’ll be able to move forward with some of those,

which may or may not require legislative changes. Hopefully not,

because it’s a lot easier on everybody if we don’t have to do it that

way.
20

So, anyway, I just wanted to say that in conclusion, Mr. Farr,

unless you have something that can take a minute or two, I think

we’ll move on to the next panel.

Mr. FARR. Yes, go on to the next panel. You know, it’s interesting, in the offshore oil and gas, we require the oil companies to

tell us where the oil and gas deposits are, and then they file with

us interest in offshore oil development. And then we tell them

where they can drill, what the conditions are that they can drill,

and for how long they can drill. I mean, that’s a public resource

owned by the Federal Government offshore. Why don’t we do the

same thing for fisheries? It’s essentially a question of putting the

burden on the private sector, and saying you tell us how much fishery is out there and we’ll tell you how much you can take. Rather

than putting the burden on the public sector to say, we’ll tell you—

you just keep fishing until we tell you when to stop.

Mr. SCHMITTEN. Mr. Chairman, I’ve often raised the very same

issue. It’s the only natural resource that I can think of—water, you

require fees; grazing rights, you require fees; and timber permits,

you require fees. The fees usually go into the management of those

resources. This is the one anomaly. Why, it’s constructed in the tenets of Magnuson-Stevens, and I think that we should allow fees

to help with the management. The Administration actually proposed that this year, and hasn’t gotten very far. I agree, part of the

problem there is that we need to work it out with the industry. Ultimately I view that someday there will be fees that help support

the management, and allow the permits.

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much for your comments, and the

information you have brought to us this morning, and for the time

and forbearance that you have demonstrated in being here with us

this morning. Thank you.

I’d now like to introduce our second panel. We have Dr. David

Sampson of Oregon State University; Mr. Gerald Gunnari of the

Coos Bay Trawlers Association; Ms. Karen Garrison of the Natural

Rsources Defense Council, and Rod Moore, an old friend, executive

director of the West Coast Seafood Processors. I’d like to remind

the witnesses about the 5-minute rule. Your written testimony will

be included in the record in its entirety, and when you are in place

and ready, Dr. Sampson, we will begin with your 5-minute testimony.

STATEMENT OF DAVID SAMPSON, OREGON STATE

UNIVERSITY

Dr. SAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, Congressmen, ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for inviting me to testify to you today.

My name is David Sampson. I am an Associate Professor of Fisheries at Oregon State University. I’m also a member of the Scientific and Statistical Committee of the Pacific Fishery Management Council.

I’ll try to describe for you briefly some of the aspects of stock assessment and some of the problems associated with managing West

Coast groundfish. Our groundfish stocks are managed on the basis

of catch quotas that are primarily determined from estimates of exploitable biomass and estimates of the target harvest rate. These

are the two fundamental problems that a stock assessment tries to
21

address. Both of these problems are beset with uncertainties, and

that’s one of the things I’d like to illustrate for you.

The process, as it works on the West Coast, involves State agencies collecting information from the fishermen. Landings of fish

that are brought to the docks are sampled for catch-at-age, maturity, things of that nature. And, in addition, we’ve heard from the

National Marine Fisheries Service of their triennial trawl surveys

that are measuring the abundance.

Together, those sources of information are fed into something

called a catch-at-age analysis, which tries to reconstruct the size of

the stock over time and where we currently stand. This is one of

the fundamental problems of stock assessment. The information’s

also fed into what’s known as yield-per-recruit analysis, or spawning-biomass-per-recruit analysis, which attempt to figure out an appropriate rate of harvest. Those are the two fundamental problems

of stock assessment. Together, those two pieces of information are

brought forward to the managers in the form of recommendations

for catch quotas and the likely consequences of different types of

harvest policies.

We heard a little bit from the others with regard to uncertainty

associated with our stock assessments. Here’s an example with our

deep-water sablefish resource. It’s assessed primarily to coincide

with the triennial surveys. In 1994, there was an assessment which

basically put the spawning stock at roughly one-third of the

unexploited virgin level. And in 1994, we had reasonable catch

quotas based on that assessment. Three years later, we had a new

assessment based on a few additional years of catch history, and

one additional survey. All of a sudden, we have a very different picture of the resource, one that, from the pessimistic view, shows the

stock brought to almost as low as 10 percent of the unexploited

level. So, part of the reason we’re meeting here today was this very

sudden change in perception of this resource.

Here is another example from one of our rockfish species,

yellowtail rockfish. It was assessed in 1993 and a certain level of

harvest seemed appropriate given the size of the stock. In 1996,

three years later, we had new information from one additional survey and additional years of catch history, and we had a very, very

different perception of the level of depletion of this resource.

Partly as a result of complaints about the uncertainty of this resource assessment, it was reassessed in 1997 and, in fact, the 1997

assessment, based on basically one additional year of information,

put us back where we were in the 1993 assessment.

I think the sablefish and the yellowtail rockfish examples illustrate some of the problems and the uncertainties associated with

trying to figure out how many fish there are in the ocean. It’s a

very big ocean, it’s a very difficult job to figure out how much is

out there and how much we can safely harvest.

Mr. SAXTON. May I just interrupt you for a moment?

Dr. SAMPSON. Certainly.

Mr. SAXTON. I’m trying to interpret. I understand the point that

you’re making relative to the difficulty in getting accurate information, or in drawing conclusions therefrom. This chart would tend to

indicate that the later surveys indicated that there was a higher

population than the earlier surveys. Is that correct?
22

Dr. SAMPSON. The 1997 assessment, which is the solid line there,

basically came to a similar conclusion as the 1993 assessment, with

regard to the size of the stock and how it got to that level. The

1996 assessment was the anomalous one, at least with these examples. These are not that unusual. In general, if you put together

a sequence of assessments, the numbers we’re getting from the assessments are bouncing around quite a bit. And I think that’s a

telling feature of stock assessment and the level of imprecision that

we just have to live with when it comes to reconstructing what’s

out there.

I should have mentioned that, you should have written copies of

these same figures in the testimony that I submitted.

Mr. SAXTON. We do.

Dr. SAMPSON. Finally, I thought I’d leave you with a picture of

what’s been happening with the fishermen and the size of the fishing fleet.

[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]

Dr. SAMPSON. This illustrates the growth in the number of hours

of trawling on the West Coast since the implementation of the 200-

mile law in 1976. In the early years of the fishery, most of the fishery was concentrated in relatively shallow water, relatively near

the coast. And over time, especially through the late 1980’s and

into the 1990’s, there was a dramatic increase in the amount of

fishing on the West Coast, and there was a significant expansion

into deeper waters, into areas which previously were essentially

unexploited. The growth of the sablefish fishery, the thornyheads

that we’ve heard about, and Dover sole—those are deep-water species which, prior to the mid-1980’s, were essentially unharvested.

So, some of what we’re seeing, in my view, with the current crisis

is imprecision in our understanding of what’s out there in the

ocean. But also, our Council is handicapped in its ability to control

the growth of the fishing industry itself. Catch quotas do not limit

how many boats there are. We did put a limit on the number of

boats, but it wasn’t put in place until 1994. So, some of what we’re

seeing today, in my opinion, is a natural consequence of the combination of uncertainty about the status of the stocks and overcapacity in the fishing fleet.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Sampson may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Gunnari.

STATEMENT OF GERALD GUNNARI, COOS BAY TRAWLERS

ASSOCIATION

Mr. GUNNARI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I find it interesting

that it does stop in 1994, when we did go into limited entry. I

would like to see a current analogy of 1994 today. I think that the

increase has gone to a decrease.

I wish to thank each of you for allowing me this opportunity to

tell you about the West Coast groundfish crisis. The trawl fleet is

made up of small, independent businesses, mosly family owned and

operated. Many have been involved in the West Coast fishing for

generations, like my family. I’m a fourth-generation West Coast
23

fishing family. We all take pride in supplying our Nation’s tables

with reliable source of fresh fish, providing jobs for our communities—it’s new money, building our economy, and the exports of

our valuable processed products are important to the Nation.

The trawl fleet is the traditional mainstay of supplying our Nation with a dependable source of fresh fish year-round, so restaurants and markets can put fish on their menus. The trawl fleet

is the largest investment in supplying our Nation with fresh fish,

and it costs a lot to operate and maintain a 75-foot fishing vessel

capable of fishing 40 miles offshore in the dead of winter.

Suddenly, with this latest round of surprise cuts in allowable

landings, our West Coast businesses are in crises. This ugly situation is rearing its head in many forms. We are the ones with the

vested interest to see there are fish for our future. We welcome

management measures that ensure this to happen. We need regulations that conserve real fish, not paper fish, to create landing reduction.

Irresponsible practices are now being implemented by NMFS,

such as the ling cod harvest being reduced by 97.5 percent, which

means a 75-foot vessel like mine can only supply 150 pounds of ling

cod per month. The chair of the groundfish management team told

the Pacific Fisheries Management Council that going from a

20,000-pound trip limit to a 500-pound trip limit would not create

increased discards because most of the ling cod was from targeted

ling cod trips, and only by a few vessels.

The results? The Pacific Fisheries Management Council illegally

allocated from the people whose livelihood depends on fishing, to

a few people who might catch some for fun and at the same time

deprive our Nation’s restaurants and markets of supply to the public. And the reality? I am 46 pounds over my monthly quota of ling

cod right now, and I haven’t even fished where ling cod live. All

the ling cod I catch now will go back over the side of my boat, by

law.

There’s no accountability for anything NMFS does. Is Mark Salin

so far, and the GMT so far out of touch that statements they make

to the Council while creating allocations can be made on totally

false information? Is there anyone who cares or is accountable for

any of these actions?

Rick Methot’s interpretation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act should

be disturbing to you as well. Having neglected to gather enough

data to determine proper harvest amounts, and then to use uncertainty in the data to automatically reduce landings of certain species, no matter what the condition that the stock is in, is wrong.

This methodology is creating discards we have never had before,

and should not have now. Their current practices are not utilizing

the best science available, but only what science they want to make

available. More than 90 percent of the sports fish is from inside 30

fathoms, close to river mouths and shore. The only assessment of

ling cod is outside 30 fathoms into central Oregon, so now more

than 50 percent of the ling cod are suddenly shifted from an

unassessed area and taken by the sports fleet from an assessed

area and traditionally caught by commercial fishers.

We do not have conflicts with sports fishermen on the ocean, but

we now have conflicts in Council meeting rooms. At the last PFMC
24

meeting, the desperation of not enough fish to pay the bills is becoming a predominant issue for many. The organized attitudes of

one gear group that started throwing mud and dirt upon another

gear group in attempts to sway the Council to take fish from one

group, who have traditionally caught those fish, and give it to their

group.

These are some tough issues to deal with. We all have to understand fellow fishers have no other recourse than to turn on each

other. It’s the only way some of them could see to increase their

own landings. We get our fish the same way they get theirs. We

earn it by working hard and investing in our vessels and putting

in time over the years. Trying to steal someone else’s fish and investment is not an acceptable solution, but is the result of management efforts. The trawl fleet’s investments are many times greater

than any of their gear groups. The cost of operations are real, and

far-reaching effects into the Nation’s economy.

The cutbacks we are facing proportionately affects our ability to

pay our bills too, destroying generations of hard work and the very

infrastructure dependent upon the fishing community. Over the

past 10 years or more, we’ve been doing exactly what Rick Methot

has recommended, only to find ourselves facing the worst situation

ever, and they still don’t have enough scientific data to make sound

management decisions. Now Rick says there’s not enough fish for

all in the business to survive.

NMFS claims they need five new research boats at over $55 million each. The dock is full of such requests, lying idle in Seattle

now. The fishing fleet has a thousand times the data collection capabilities right now. This money would go farther utilizing existing

resources, and the cost of these research ships could buy out the

entire West Coast fishing industry.

The West Coast fishing industry is at the crossroads now, and the most recent slashes in landings will cost $100 million in losses.

The amount of harvest is calculated. No species is overfished, or

even close to endangered. It’s down to who will harvest the fish allowed. The burden of conservation must be shared equally, and if

PFMC has a blind eye on this issue, we must be certain one man’s

dream come true isn’t a nightmare for the man with the investment and the time on the ocean.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gunnari may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Gunnari, thank you very much for your testimony.

We’re going to move along to Ms. Garrison, the Natural Resources Defense Council.

STATEMENT OF KAREN GARRISON, NATURAL RESOURCES

DEFENSE COUNCIL

Ms. GARRISON. Natural Resources Defense Council. Thank you,

and it’s a pleasure to be here today. We’ve had a wake-up call on

Pacific groundfish. It’s clearly a call to do a better job gathering

and analyzing information, and that includes not just more frequent surveys and stock assessments, but also estimates of bycatch and assessments of habitat that may be at risk.
25

It’s also a reminder of the critical need to apply the new provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act where fisheries are in crisis,

and where they’re considered relatively healthy, as you pointed out

these were about a year ago. The Act has extraordinary power to

transform fishery management for the better, but the habits that

get us into trouble are very tenacious, and you’ve heard some of

them today. You’ll be asked more than once to say you didn’t mean

what you said in the Act. I know Congress never does that. What

happened with groundfish illustrates many of the reasons you

passed the Act, and now need to stick by its original intent.

For example, over the years, participants in the process have

downplayed uncertainty, rather than taking it fully into account, as

the Act’s guidelines require. The fishery suffers from overcapitalization, from high by-catch rates, from increasing use of roller

gear that’s thought to be damaging to rockfish habitat.

So improving the data is important, but more precise data is not

enough. Twice-a-year surveys didn’t help the New England groundfish. We need to be addressing these other related problems, and

I’m going to talk about several of them briefly.

First, the data. In addition to improving our information for species of known status, we need to conduct whatever level of stock

assessment is feasible on most or all of the 68 species of unknown

status, focusing more resources on trouble spots like near-shore

rockfish. This is a high-value, high-pressure fishery headed for a

boom and bust cycle if we don’t attend to it. And it’s not just happening in southern California; it’s happening in Congressman

Farr’s district as well.

More funds are likely to be needed to get the information that

we need, and Congress can help. NRDC and other organizations

are recommending the creation of the ocean equivalent of the land

and water conservation fund to finance applied marine science.

Your support for that would be welcome.

Second, we need a more precautionary approach to taking account of uncertainty, because it will always be there. If we want

to avoid surprises like this one, we have to end what I call the

‘‘conspiracy of optimism’’ in the way we interpret data. We have to

stop assuming that more precise data will allow us to keep shaving

as close as possible to the danger zone. That means acknowledging

the full extent of uncertainty, and not using it as an excuse to reinterpret scientific advice, as we believe the Council did for a couple

of stocks last year.

We support the Council in its consideration of other precautionary steps, like the use of more conservative harvest targets

and the creation of no-fishing reserves for groundfish, which could

serve as an insurance policy against the possibility of being wrong.

While the details of those measures should be up to the Council

and NMFS, Congressional support for more precautionary management is essential.

Third, capacity reduction, as others have said, is a vital step toward relieving the pressure on groundfish, reducing by-catch, and

making the fishery more viable for its participants. To be effective,

the program should retire capacity, not simply shift it to other fisheries. Virtually all West Coast fisheries are overcapitalized now,

and some important State-managed fisheries, (or unmanaged fish-
26

eries, as in the case of squid), are open enough to become easy targets, or maybe we should say victims, for excess capacity.

The current proposal to retire permits, not vessels, fails this and

other tests of a good program. We urge Congress to insist on a buyback program that complies with Magnuson-Stevens and avoids the

risk that removed capacity will resurface elsewhere.

Fourth, current high by-catch rates for the trawl fleet intensify

the pressure on vulnerable groundfish species. The first step toward reducing it is a mandatory observer program, with full coverage for large vessels and partial coverage for small vessels. That

program is needed now. Measures to reduce by-catch are also critically needed, and should include incentives or rewards for clean

fishing.

Finally, protection of habitat is essential if we want to sustain

the long-term productivity and diversity of the groundfish fishery.

NMFS’ initial proposal for groundfish habitat conservation is a

commendable step in the right direction, and the Council should

take it further.

In conclusion, Congress can take a number of steps that will help

avoid unwelcome surprises in the future. They include providing

funding for data collection and analysis, supporting expanded stock

assessment for groundfish, affirming the commitment to the precautionary principle, encouraging the development of a mandatory

observer program and by-catch reduction measures, and insisting

on retiring vessels, not permits.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Garrison may be found at end

of hearing.]

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much, Ms. Garrison.

And now, last but certainly not least, Mr. Moore.

STATEMENT OF ROD MOORE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WEST

COAST SEAFOOD PROCESSORS ASSOCIATION

Mr. MOORE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s a pleasure to be here,

and we appreciate your interest and Mr. Farr’s interest, and Mr.

Miller’s interest, and Mr. Young’s interest in our poor, measly fishery out there on the West Coast. We’re trying hard, and we’re glad

you had this hearing today. It’s already been productive with

Rollie’s announcement this morning of supporting the trip limit

overage program. That’s something the industry has been pushing

for. We’re very pleased to see that NMFS is supporting it, and I’m

glad that this sort of was the occasion for doing that.

And Mr. Farr, you talked a little bit about how Congress responds to crises. Now, unlike New England, our crisis is not no

fish. Our crisis is no science. In my view, the problems we’re facing

today are a direct result of 20 years of scientific neglect, which are

compounded to a certain extent by management policies driven by

paranoia over New England.

Let me read you a very quick quote. This is from a report that

was done by a scientific review panel set up by NMFS on West

Coast groundfish stock assessments from 1995.

‘‘Due to the lack of a reliable index of abundance, many different

interpretations about the status of the stocks are consistent with

the historical data, and it is not possible to choose among them on
27

scientific grounds.’’ In other words, we didn’t know what we’re

doing and we don’t know what’s out there.

Dave Sampson showed you some numbers on yellowtail rockfish,

or some charts on yellowtail rockfish. I’m going to put some numbers to that: 27,784 metric tons, and 85,263 metric tons. Those

were the low point and the high point from different assumptions

of the stock assessment in 1997 on yellowtail rockfish.

Now, Mr. Saxton, if you were running for president, and you

hired a pollster to go out and assess the American people’s support

of your candidacy, and the pollster came back and said, well, either

27 percent of the people support you, or 85 percent of the people

support you, you know what you’d do? You’d have that pollster go

work for your opponent.

Mr. SAXTON. And then I probably wouldn’t run.

Mr. MOORE. And then you probably wouldn’t run.

[Laughter.]

I’m not trying to start any rumors, but that’s the sort of thing

that the Council is having to deal with. And that’s what makes it

real difficult for them, and why we get into all of these disputes

at the Council level.

Then you get into management policy. Now, Karen talked about

being precautionary, and Phil mentioned the new management policy they’re looking at. Well, what that new management policy is,

is that, when you have any sort of uncertainty, which we have all

the time on West Coast groundfish, you have to set the harvest

level at a rate at least 3 percent below the rate that provides MSY.

Now, even when you changed the law in 1996, you didn’t say, never

fish to MSY. Yet some mysterious working group in the National

Marine Fisheries Service has come up with this harvest policy,

which they’re trying out on us and, I suspect, on other Councils in

the near future, which says, hey, you guys are never going to be

able to get even close to there, no matter what you’re doing.

You passed the Sustainable Fisheries Act, not the Stop Fishing

Act, and somebody in Silver Spring needs to be reminded about

that.

Now, the industry has been trying to respond to all of this. We’ve

been trying to find innovative ways to solve the root problem,

which is getting more data. The Oregon Trawl Commission has

been conducting a pilot observer program for several years, funded

by the industry. Our processors are embarked on a project now

with a graduate student out of Newport, Oregon, trying to demonstrate that processing workers can be used to provide data to improve the stock assessments.

Gerald Gunnari was the first of several fishermen who went on

board the Miller Freeman and demonstrated to NMFS how their

survey gear could work a heck of a lot better. We’ve got a port

interview project starting. We’ve got an electronic logbook project

starting. All of these things are ways that we are trying to be innovative and support getting more data, and finding out what’s out

there.

Now, yes, I complain about the National Marine Fisheries Service but, you know, we’ve gotten help from them too. Rollie

mentiond the $750,000 that he put into the budget this year. Rick

Methot and I have attended more meetings together, talking
28

about—trying to figure out ways where the industry and NMFS

can work together to try to do something, and try to do something

positive.

Unfortunately, you know, all of this takes a lot of time and, you

know, we really don’t feel we should have to be here pleading that

the Nation’s fisheries agency be doing more basic research. We’re

committed to keep going until we get the problem solved, or until

we go broke. You know, it’s taking time to do all this stuff, and as

the lights show, for us, time is running out.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Moore may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much, Rod.

Let me just pose a question for any of you who would like to respond. I have another job here. I’m chairman of the Joint Economic

Committee, and every month we hold an employment hearing. And

sometimes we have very high rates of growth in employment, and

sometimes we have negative growth rates in employment. In other

words, we lose jobs. And we would like to, you know, come to each

monthly meeting and say that we’ve had a very steady climb in

employment. We never, ever, ever get that.

It’s much the same pattern that you have, and, you know, obviously, we’re not going to solve that problem because part of it has

to do with real rates of employment and unemployment; other has

to do with flaws in our method of measuring employment and unemployment. And I suspect the same principle holds true in fisheries. So the difficulty in statistics, gathering statistics on fisheries

is partly that we have not funded the activity well enough, partly

because there are flaws in methodology, and partly because, as we

know, there are spikes and valleys in populations, which occur naturally. And, in addition to that, I would submit at least that there

are diminutions of populations that occur because of overfishing. I

hope that we can at least agree on all that.

And so, given the fact that we’re never going to have perfect statistics, it would seem to me that if we had a 27,000 metric ton estimate one year, and 83 million ton, or whatever the big number

was.

Mr. GUNNARI. It was the same year, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SAXTON. Same year. OK. It would seem to me that somebody

would have to somehow conclude that, given those sets of circumstances, that we would have to set, begin to set limits of catch,

or limits of take, based on the full set of parameters that we have

to work with, which are far from perfect. And from Karen Garrison’s point of view, she would not want to have the limits set too

high, because if we collapse the fishery, she would have failed to

do her job. And seems to me that Gerald Gunnari might want to

have a conservative limit on take set as well because, if he’s like

the fishermen, at least in my neighborhood, he’s got mortgages on

his boats, and families, and economic issues to worry about. And

if the fishery collapses, it’s not good for him.

So it seems to me that we ought to be able to conclude together

that, given the statistical base that we have to work with, which

is not perfect, given the fact that we all have economic concerns

and resource concerns, and kind of pull us to a common conclusion
29

that we have got to set limits based on some kind of reasonable

and conservative guidelines.

Now, I would just like to begin with Dr. Sampson and work our

way across the table, and see how you all respond to that, and see

if there is some common ground perhaps. David?

Dr. SAMPSON. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think some of the

problem is that we all have different, in a sense, discount rates. We

all have different degrees of comfort with uncertainty.

Fishermen are, perhaps, dealing with uncertainty in a very fundamental way that most of us don’t even contemplate. They’re putting their lives on the lines, oftentimes, when they go out to sea.

And that’s a regular occurrence for them, and I suspect that they

inherently have a different willingness to take risks, perhaps, than

the rest of us. And so I think some of the discrepancies we have,

and the difficulties we have on agreeing as to what’s a reasonable

policy is a reflection of a different ability to cope with uncertainty.

How you get around that problem, I don’t know. I think the Council process is involved in debating what is a reasonable level of

risk.

I think, historically, the scientific crew has not done a very good

job at making the gamble clear to the managers. If you do this,

there are certain consequences that are likely to follow. If you take

some other course of action, these are the likely consequences. We

haven’t laid things out for the decisionmakers on that basis, and

I think that’s a failing of the scientific community, and we are, I

think, collectively working to remedy that. But ultimately, we don’t

know the certain outcome of a particular course of events. We are

going to be making gambles with our resources. I think that’s an

inherent part of fisheries management.

Mr. SAXTON. Jerry?

Mr. GUNNARI. Yes, I think your assessment is fairly accurate

about the increases and decreases. I’ve been fishing for many years

and watched bocaccios move into our area thick. I’ve watched them

move out of our area, watched true cod come in and go out. Dover

increase and decrease. Sable fish. All of our stocks fluctuate greatly, and we do appreciate good conservation measures that conserve

real fish, not paper fish.

The 97.5 decrease in our ling cod this year, I don’t believe is a

reasonable situation. We’re not seeing this type of decline on the

grounds. In fact, we’ve had some pretty fair year classes a couple

of times over the past 10 years that have not been reflected anywhere in any of the data. So I think that there should be a balance,

and the fact of using the full range as the model outputs.

One thing that I see as a real problem in modeling is the models

can only model the catch. When you drop 97.5 percent of the catch,

of course, the model is going to say there isn’t any. And makes

modeling, I think, more complex than ever, because as the catch

goes down, which it has in recent times, the model goes down. And

so it’s kind of an exasperating situation.

Mr. SAXTON. Ms. Garrison?

Ms. GARRISON. Yes, I also agree with your assessment, and I

agree with David’s suggestion that scientists need to make the

gamble more clear. I think that you’re right at mentioning that it’s

a combination of factors, that we’ve got natural variations in fish
30

populations. We’ve got pressure on habitat. We’ve got long-term climatic and ocean-temperature shifts. And it is often the combination

of these factors that throw us for a loop.

I think in addition to being more careful about the way that we

set catch limits—and we are fine-tuning that process all the time

and, I think, getting somewhat better at it—we need to think about

things we can do outside that process that provide insurance. And

that’s one of the reasons that so many people have gotten interested in the concept of no-fishing reserves. I think they are going

to be an important part of the process, particularly for groundfish,

where there are some species that are quite vulnerable because

they’re long-lived and they’re subject to by-catch. Reserves appear

to be a particularly good tool for species like that, and may be able

to allow catch levels to stay higher on short-lived fish, because we

will have some places where long-lived rockfish can safely breed

and spawn and grow large and keep reproducing at high rates.

Thank you.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Moore?

Mr. MOORE. You know, Mr. Chairman, during the many years I

had the honor of working with you on staff of the Merchant Marine

and Fisheries Committee, there were a lot of times I heard fishermen, processors come in and say, oh, we got problems, you got to

find us more fish. And it’s real easy to do that, to come in and say,

gee, you know, we’re not making any money, we’re all going broke,

you know, so you got to give us more fish. Well, the Congress can’t

legislate fish that aren’t there, and they shouldn’t even try to do

something as silly as that. Which is why, you know, none of us are

here today saying, hey, you know, you got to get us more fish.

What we’re trying to do is address the root of the problem, which

is the fact that we don’t know what’s out there and we don’t know

what’s going on out there. And those are the sorts of things that

need to be done. David is absolutely right in talking about the scientific community doing a poor job of describing the risks of uncertainty. I’ve seen that happen in the Council innumerable times

with the numbers that are presented for final approval by the

Council, versus all of the work that’s gone on by the scientists and

the resource managers before that. That process we’re internally

trying to fix within the Council system. That’s not something you

guys should be involved in. It’s something that we’re all trying to

do.

Yes, you’ve got to be precautionary, but at what point do you

allow yourselves to be precautioned out of business? And that’s the

difficult problem.

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much. We’re going to go to Mr. Farr

now, and I would just like to say at this point that we’re going to

draw to a close about a quarter after, Sam, so you proceed at your

pace. The time is yours.

Mr. FARR. Well, thank you Mr. Chairman. As you can see, I’m

a little bit more on a philosophical level today than I am on a technical level. And one of my questions is how do we get the industry

to be, to respond more to this issue of being involved with the

science. What you’re talking about is the lack of science. My experience is that when an indusry benefits from a resource, it puts a lot
31

of its own money into research, and collaboration with the government.

The point was made here that in all the other resources that this

Committee manages, like timber, water, mining, there’s a partnership. The regulatory responsibility is the government responsibility, but there’s really an area out there where there is a partnership, and that is on trying to get the best data we can so that we

can sustain this over a long period of time. And I think what we’re

in, our generation, you as responsible leaders in your roles and we

in Congress, that in the next 10 years—and Chairman Saxton is

talking about the Joint Economic Committee. The real goal

here——

Mr. SAXTON. In 10 years, I’ll be on my sailboat.

Mr. FARR. But, I mean, in that period, it’s not whether we’ll be

here in 10 years. But I think this next decade, where we have to

use our professional abilities, is to really nail down how can you

sustain an economic enterprise, not just use it and lose it. You

know, I live in the ‘‘Salad Bowl of the Nation’’—I’m also on the Agriculture Committee, and we have a $2.2 billion agricultural industry in one county that I represent. And it’s a county where everybody wants to live, so it’s a land use fight. I mean, we’re going to

bury the goose that lays the golden egg by just paving over agriculture which grows crops that don’t grow anywhere else?

Your fisheries are the same way. I mean, these fisheries aren’t

necessarily all over the planet. It’s not that they can just be picked

up by somebody else. Yes, we can change our diet, we’ll eat a different fish, and that will always be available. But there’s a responsibility here by the private sector to be there. And I agree with the

statement of the young man talking about the ling cod fisheries—

I mean, we ought to be, if there’s capability of having the fishing

vessels rented for, or leased for, scientific purposes, we ought to do

that. I mean, I know in my district—in sport fishery, these guys

usually went broke during the winter time. Now they’re making

more money off whale-watching than they are off sport fishing. So,

there are alternative services that can be provided.

And I, frankly, think that if we’re really smart about this, we’re

going to develop an ecotourism around the ocean that we have not

even yet discovered yet, and we will all benefit from that. But, how

do we bring your industry to be a partnership with it? Because we

can either go out there and do an assessment fee, to which you’d

have to agree. The politicians will never put it on you, because, you

know, it’d be a tax, and so on. But if the industry came along and

could really believe that if you put money together in some kind

of a collection process that could be used solely for the purposes

which you’ve discussed today, could it be possible to do it that way?

Because I think this is an industry where you’ve got to have the

private sector doing a little more heavy lifting than they are. And

the public sector’s got to be more accountable to it.

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Farr, if I can try to answer that question. And,

I can’t resist—I’ve got to say, as far as the—I don’t want to disparage my colleagues in the agricultural community, but if we had 10

percent of the Federal research support that agriculture has got,

we’d be in great shape, we’d know a heck of a lot more about the
32

fisheries. But, if I may, Mr. Farr, just to answer your question,

which is a very good one.

Why shouldn’t the industry be more involved? The fact is we are,

we’re trying to be more and more every day. I went through some

of the stuff in my testimony on things we’ve already done, but, you

know, we’ve put our own money up to try to design an expanded

logbook program and a pilot observer program, something that, you

know, in some parts of the country, is paid for by the Federal Government.

We’ve put, we’ve used our own time and resources and effort to

put people on board the research vessels to help them improve

their research gear. We’ve got processing workers that we’re trying

to train to do the job that right now State and Federal workers,

mostly State workers do. I’ve been talking with the National Marine Fisheries Service about trying to get some more fish-ticket

data to them so they can use it in their stock assessments. The industry’s put together a fund to hire, through an independent contractor, a scientist to do stock assessments and run them through

the peer review process.

You know, there are all of these things that we’re all trying to

do out there, and sometimes, unfortunately, we’ve had to drag the

National Marine Fisheries Service kicking and screaming into it.

And, you know, I understand their point of view, because it takes

a lot longer for the bureaucracy to do something and to come to a

decision, and scientists are by nature cautious, as opposed to the

sort of risk-takers that Dave Sampson talked about that are fishermen and processors. You know, we’ve got to be innovative every

day to stay alive economically.

Mr. FARR. What if we had something in the line of like a duck

stamp for all fisheries? The duck stamp has generated so much

money. It’s gone back into habitat restoration, so much so that we

had a hearing in this room about there’s too many snow geese

around, and we ought to have a better method of taking them.

Mr. MOORE. You know, Mr. Farr, if I remember—I can’t remember the exact year. It was something like 1987 or 1988. Chairman

Young introduced a bill for a minimal fisheries fee, it was like $15,

something like that, on commercial fishing vessels, and another

one, but the same price, on sport fishing vessels, with all of the

money to be dedicated to research. There was nobody who supported it, and that’s——

Mr. FARR. Did the industry support it?

Mr. MOORE. I’m trying to remember back then. Yes, we had gotten some support. I was working for Mr. Young at the time on Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, and we did get some industry support out of it. We unfortunately got none from the recreational community, and the worst case was a letter we got from

the State director of fish and game in Arizona, who was complaining about this marine use tax being put on fishermen. And the

last time I looked, Arizona doesn’t have a marine coastline. But

that was sort of the nature of the opposition that was generated

out there.

The processing sector, within the Pacific Council, is talking right

now about trying to get the Council to put a permit requirement

on groundfish processors. So we have a start of knowing who’s out
33

there, and what they’re doing. And at some point, if the Congress

changes the law and says you’ve got to pay a fee to get a permit,

then we expect we’re going to get charged. And if that money can

be dedicated to fisheries research, great. But right now, what we’re

trying to do is, with our meager resources—none of us are rich, you

know. But we’re trying to pool as much money and manpower and

sweat equity as we can to improve the data base, and work with

the Federal Government to doing that.

Mr. FARR. What’s lacking to do that? Because I think there’s

enough willpower here, if we get everybody in the room. It’s one of

those things where you have a common agenda. Hopefully, we can

work some of that out with this oceans conference in Monterey in

June. I mean, I think we just sort of open the door on these issues,

and then we do the substantive work, heavy lifting, next year.

But, you know, you talked about a lack of scientific data. I’m involved with this oceans conference. I’m just learning of all the incredible opportunities that the Navy’s had. You know, I was kind

of getting a kick out of the National Marine Fisheries talking about

how they don’t know anything. And yet, right across, the building

across the way, they’re sitting there in the Navy committee on the

intelligence, where they say they know everything that goes on

under the ocean. Why does one arm of the government know so

much about what happens under the ocean, and the other arm of

government knows so little? I mean, there must be some data that

can be shared.

Mr. MOORE. You know, Mr. Farr, if I could figure out why one

arm of the National Marine Fisheries Service knows something

about the ocean and the other arm doesn’t, I’d be satisfied at that.

Yes, there’s a lot of synergistic, piggy-backing sort of things that

can go on out there.

For example, the National Oceans Service has got what they call

the GLOBEC program, which is run out of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. And on the West Coast, they’re starting to look

at some basic oceanographic stuff, but it’s dedicated mostly to production for salmon. And we’ve been asking the question, hey, is

anybody looking at that, and seeing if you can turn it into something for groundfish as well. Because groundfish is where the need

is. That is happening. You know, Rick Methot told me the other

day that yes, they’re starting to try to see if they can use some of

that data.

There’s lots of things that are going on, and one of the things

that needs to happen is somebody, somewhere needs to sit down

and look at all of these projects that are being done by the industry, by NMFS, by other arms of NOAA, by the military, by the universities. Put them all together, see where they are duplicating

their efforts, and perhaps they shouldn’t be doing that.

Mr. FARR. Time’s running out. In your opinion, who—what—I

mean, certainly, this Committee could do that, but we don’t have

the time or the resources to do it. Who does?

Mr. MOORE. Could be anybody, you know. You could certainly

ask either NMFS or NOAA to do it. The Council, I know, doesn’t

have the resources. The industry is talking about putting together

a private conference in July, and one of the background things for

this is to try to identify those various things. You know, even if—
34

the Northwest region of the National Marine Fisheries Service has

got couple of hundred people devoted to salmon. You know, if they

could let one of them lose and say, hey, you’re going to go do some

stuff on groundfish, which is going to be so simple as to call people

up on the phone and say, what kind of research are you doing? Tell

me about it. Send me a synopsis. And put it all together so we all

know what people are doing. That would be great.

Mr. FARR. Could you do me a favor on your way back to—are you

here, or in the West Coast?

Mr. MOORE. I’m in Portland, sir.

Mr. FARR. On your way back to Portland, why don’t you just jot

out just what you said about who should be at the table, and we

ought to do it by region. We ought to do it in the West Coast. I’d

be very interested in that. I think this is—we’re at a stage where

we need to mediate between all of these issues. This isn’t just legislating or appropriating.

Mr. MOORE. Great.

Mr. FARR. And I’d be glad to be involved in that.

Mr. MOORE. Well, actually Mr. Farr, I’ll do you one better because I’m going to be here until May 8, so I’ll get together with

your staff between now and then, and be happy to talk to them

about it, and try to get you some ideas.

Mr. FARR. OK.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Farr, thank you very much. One final thought

from Mr. Gunnari.

Mr. GUNNARI. Well, I’d just like to say that trawl fleet did tax

themselves 1 percent to get their own observer program going, and

we will have to probably abandon that this year due to the $100

million crunch that we’re having on the West Coast. There’s no

money from our industry any more. We’ve been totally—our abilities to pay our bills have been taken away.

Mr. FARR. Is that El Nin ̃ o?

Mr. GUNNARI. Negative. It is the current reductions in landed

catch.

Mr. FARR. SBA just opened up a—help for fishers.

Mr. GUNNARI. Maybe they could go for an observer program and

some of these other things.

[Laughter.]

Mr. SAXTON. Well, thank you very much for coming all the way

from the West Coast to be with us, in the case of at least some of

you. We appreciate it very much. I believe we have benefited much

from your testimony, and we thank you and we look forward to

working with you in the future. Thank you. The hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 1:15 p.m, the hearing adjourned subject to the

call of the Chair.]

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
(35)

HEARING ON H.R. 3498, THE DUNGENESS

CRAB CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT

ACT

THURSDAY, MAY 7, 1998

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISH- ERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS, COM- MITTEE ON RESOURCES, Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:03 a.m., in

room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Jim Saxton

(chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.

STATEMENT OF HON. JIM SAXTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Mr. SAXTON. Good morning, Ladies and Gentlemen. The Subcommittee will come to order. The Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife, and Oceans is meeting today to conduct a hearing on H.R. 3498, the Dungeness Crab Conservation and Management Act.

Since the 1960’s, the States of Washington, Oregon, and California have successfully managed the Dungeness crab fishery. In

the early 1980’s, the States signed a Memorandum of Understanding and later amended it to ensure the sound economic and

biological utilization of the crab fishery through cooperative State

management actions.

It wasn’t until 1994 that the State management of the fishery

came into question, based on the States’ lack of management authority in the Federal Exclusive Economic Zone. A Federal court

ruling allocated to Washington State treaty tribes 50 percent of the

harvestable surplus of the shellfish resource in their usual accustomed fishing areas. After the ruling, concerns were raised over the

ability of the States to ensure the tribal treaty allocations in the

Federal Exclusive Economic Zone.

In 1996, Congress authorized limited interim management authority over the Dungeness crab fishery in the Federal Exclusive

Economic Zone to the States of Washington, Oregon, and California. The authority was made interim because Congress believed

that the Pacific Fishery Management Council, the council with jurisdiction over the Dungeness crab fishery, would develop and implement a fishery management plan. However, the council recently

requested that Congress expand the interim management authority

and make it permanent.

Our colleague, George Miller, introduced H.R. 3498, the Dungeness Crab Conservation and Management Act, on March 18 of this

year with seven original cosponsors. The fundamental goal of this
36

legislation is to implement the Council’s request and allow the valuable fishery to remain successful in the years ahead.

The Subcommittee is here today to discuss the merits of H.R.

3498. I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses.

I now recognize one of the Minority Members, whichever. Mr.

Miller, I guess, would—the sponsor of this bill.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SAXTON. It must be a scholarly work for you to be the cosponsor.

Mr. MILLER. It is. It’s a scholarly work. It’s perfection. If you

guys don’t recognize it, don’t speak up.

[Laughter.]

But I want to thank you very much for holding this hearing and

for the witnesses for taking their time to come and testify. Because

I am late, I will put my opening statement in the record and look

forward to the testimony of those individuals in support of the legislation.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Pallone, do you have a statement?

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Mr. PALLONE. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I’ll put my statement in the

record, too. But let me just summarize a couple of these things, because I know that you’ve mentioned already the basic management

structure. The way I understand it, the three States, Washington,

Oregon, and California, have control within the three miles adjacent to their respective states and with regards to the EEZ, they

regulate vessels with permits from their own States. And they have

entered into this Memorandum of Understanding.

What the bill would do would be to basically have Washington,

Oregon, and California manage the crab in the EEZ. To some extent, my understanding is that this is a precedent by having Congress legislate the management plan, rather than a regional council and some questions have been raised as to why the Federal legislation is necessary when these concerns could be addressed by the

Pacific Management Council. And I know that supporters of the bill

have asserted that the unique and historic management of the fishery warrants this particular type of management authority with

the State.

But I’m curious to hear who would be responsible for conducting

the research and the stock assessments on the fisheries, the States

or NMFS, and I would look forward to hearing from today’s panel

in, you know, helping us basically explain why this type of unique

arrangement is necessary and should be carried forward the way

the bill sets forth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM

THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

I would like to thank the Chairman for holding this hearing on H.R. 3498, the

Dungeness Crab Conservation and Management Act.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, Washington, Oregon, and California have managed

the harvest of the Dungeness crab through standardized methods of measurement

for size regulations and opening dates since the 1960’s. These states have control

within the three miles adjacent to their respective state. With regards to the EEZ

(Federal Exclusive Economic Zone), the States are permitted to regulate those ves-
37

sels with permits from their own state. More importantly, to ensure that there is

a consistent harvest of this stock, the three states have signed a Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU).

H.R. 3498 would allow Washington, Oregon, and California to manage the Dungeness Crab in the EEZ. I understand that this bill would set a unique precedent, by

having Congress legislate a management plan rather than a regional council. Questions have been raised as to why Federal legislation is necessary when these concerns could be addressed hy the Pacific Management Council. I know that supporters of this bill have asserted that the unique and historic management of this

fishery warrants the transfer of management authority to the States.

I am also curious to hear who would be responsible for conducting the research

and the stock assessment on this fishery—the States or the National Marine Fisheries Service.

I look forward to hearing from today’s panels in helping us address this very important issue.

Mr. SAXTON. Well, Mr. Miller, I note that Mr. Pallone has some

questions.

[Laughter.]

I ask unanimous consent that all Subcommittee members be permitted to include their opening statements on the record. Without

objection, I would now like to introduce our witnesses.

[The information referred to follows:]

Mr. SAXTON. On panel one is a Mr. Dave Evans, with the National Marine Fisheries Service; Mr. Phillip Anderson, of the Pacific Fishery Management Council; Mr. Randy Fisher, representing

the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. I would like to remind our witnesses that oral testimony is limited to 5 minutes.

However, your written testimony will be included in the record.

OK. Bill Robinson is also with Mr. Evans. Welcome aboard, all four

of you.

I would now like to recognize Dave Evans.

STATEMENT OF DAVID EVANS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR FISHERIES, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES

SERVICE; ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIAM ROBINSON, ASSISTANT REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR FOR SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE NORTHWEST

REGION

Mr. EVANS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for inviting us

to testify before your Subcommittee today on Dungeness crab management. I’m accompanied today, as you noted, by Dr. William Robinson, who’s the Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable

Fisheries in the NMFS Northwest Region.

The National Marine Fisheries Service supports the passage of

H.R. 3498, the Dungeness Crab Conservation and Management

Act, as a unique solution to an unusual set of circumstances. Before the Federal District Court’s 1994 Rafeedie decision, no treaty

fishing operated on an ocean species not managed by a Federal

fisheries management plan (FMP). In the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act, Congress provided interim authority to West Coast

States to regulate all vessels, regardless of the state of origin, in

Federal waters off each State in the absence of an FMP. Congress

also directed the Pacific Fishery Management Council to develop a

Federal FMP.

The Council considered the development of a Federal fisheries

management plan, but concluded that the current tri-State management regime for Dungeness crab was managing the fishery well
38

and was well-suited for dealing with the tribal treaty rights. Section 306 (a)(3)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation

Act recognizes State jurisdiction to manage vessels registered to a

State when those vessels are operating outside of the State waters,

if there is no FMP for the fishery being pursued.

In its report to Congress, the Pacific Council found that there

was a legitimate interest of the three west coast States to continue

to retain management authority that they had exercised over the

Dungeness crab fisheries for over 60 years and to extend the interim authority granted by Congress to allow the continued triState management. NMFS concurs with this finding, with the understanding that, if any time, the Secretary or the Council should

determine the need for a Federal Dungeness crab FMP, a Federal

FMP could then be implemented. At that time, the state authority

in the EEZ that is not provided for in the fisheries management

plan would be terminated.

NMFS believes that the current H.R. 3498 language provides for

this, but proposes clarifying this authority with language similar to

that found in 306 (a)(3)(C) in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, to be

added to the end of paragraph 306 (d) of H.R. 3498, in that: ‘‘The

authority provided under this paragraph shall terminate when a

fishery management plan under the Act is approved and implemented for this fishery.’’

It’s clear from Section 306 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act that

Congress has recognized that a State’s authority extends to its registered fishers when they are participating in a fishery for which

there is no Federal FMP. It is also clear from this section that only

rare and unusual circumstances would support extension of a

State’s authority over vessels from other States operating in the

EEZ adjacent to that State’s waters. NMFS believes that this fishery’s unique circumstances, such as the fact that the fishery is pursued predominately in State waters; the long-term cooperative

State-level management that includes limited entry programs; the

fishery’s tribal treaty obligations; the current historic lack of a Federal FMP; the small number of States with jurisdiction over the

range of the species; the clear latitudinal borders between the

States; and the specific request of the Pacific council for extension

of State authority all merit consideration of extending special State

authority over Dungeness crab, as described in the bill.

Our support for the bill was based on a careful consideration of

the exceptional nature of the management situation of this fishery

and the recommendation of the council. It is our understanding

that the bill does not diminish the Secretary’s authority to develop

an FMP—a Federal FMP for Dungeness crab, in the future. Our

support for this bill should not be interpreted as extending this approach beyond this fishery with its unique characteristics.

We also recommend that, say within three years after this legislation is passed, that the council make a report to Congress that

reevaluates the potential need for Federal management and a Federal FMP.

That concludes my oral testimony this morning, Mr. Chairman.

I’ll be happy to answer any questions that you might have. Thank

you very much.
39

[The prepared statement of Mr. Evans may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Anderson.

STATEMENT OF PHILIP ANDERSON, PACIFIC FISHERY

MANAGEMENT COUNCIL

Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning. I

appreciate this opportunity to testify before the Committee. My

name is Philip Anderson. I represent the Washington Department

of Fish and Wildlife on the Pacific Fishery Management Council

and I am here today on behalf of the council.

The council appreciates the opportunity to testify on H.R. 3498,

a bill to amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fisher Conservation and

Management Act, to authorize, in the absence of a Federal fishery

management plan, the States of Washington, Oregon, and California to regulate the Dungeness crab fishery in Federal waters. If

enacted, the bill would implement the recommendations submitted

by the council in its report of October 1997. We request that the

report be made a part of the record of this hearing.

[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]

Mr. ANDERSON. The council adopted these recommendations by a

unanimous vote after considering, together with the tribes and industry representatives, the most efficient and cost-effective means

of managing the Dungeness crab fishery off the coast of California,

Oregon, and Washington. The management elements incorporated

in the bill represent an agreement amongst industry representatives, tribal representatives, the State, and fish and wildlife agencies captured through the regional council process. The regional

council process was the mechanism that we used to develop this

recommendation.

The basis for the recommendation are as follows. First, it avoids

the duplication of the current management regime. Historically,

the States have managed the fishery and have the technical expertise to continue that into the future. And that addresses the question about where is the expertise and where will it come from in

the future to manage this fishery. Research, biological considerations for management, and monitoring the landings, doing test

fisheries, and we also, the State of Washington, has observers that

we have go on the fishing vessels to monitor the condition of the

resource and the catch per unit of effort. The overlay of a Federal

plan would add an unneeded cost to managing this fishery. In addition, industry representatives would avoid the added cost and timeburden of participating in both a State and Federal management

system.

The bill does not preempt future Federal management. Dungeness crab are not currently managed under a Federal FMP. If, in

the future, the council determine that the management of the Dungeness crab resource would be improved under a Federal management plan, nothing in this legislation would prevent them from

taking such action. It does not preempt Federal authority.

It is consistent with the current cooperative management process

that produces State/tribal management plans. This year we developed four State/tribal management plans for Dungeness crab: one

with the Makah Indian Nation, one with the Hoh Indian Tribe, one
40

with the Quileute Indian Tribe, and the fourth with the Quinault

Indian Nation. Federal District Court Judge Edward Rafeedie’s August 28, 1995 implementation order, in combination with the courtapproved stipulation between the State of Washington and the

Quinault Indian Nation, requires the State and tribes to develop

joint harvest management plans and/or cooperatively manage shellfish resources within the tribes’ usual and accustomed fishing

grounds and stations.

This bill would avoid the need for a duplicative Federal process,

while allowing the State of Washington to implement and enforce

equitable management measures for non-Indian fisheries operating

within the tribes’ usual and accustomed fishing areas that extend

into Federal waters.

Finally, the bill would expand limitations placed on the interim

authority currently provided to the States for Dungeness crab to include any management measure needed, with the exception of the

State limited entry laws. This would allow us to deal with problems

of overcapitalization that currently exist in the coastal fisheries

that the interim authority does not provide. Moreover, the bill

would limit participation to fishing or processing operations licensed by either California, Oregon, or Washington, another consideration that is not included in the interim authority.

For these reasons, the council is recommending that it continue

to focus its efforts and fiscal resources on Federal management

plans for species, such as salmon, groundfish, and coastal pelagics

that have coastwide migration and distribution; have international

implications, such as with the Pacific Salmon Commission and

transboundary groundfish stocks that migrate into Canadian waters; and have implications relative to the Endangered Species Act.

The council urges the House to pass the legislation in a timely

manner. The interim authority provided the States expires October

1, 1999. In the absence of legislation, the council will need to begin

the time-consuming task of developing a Federal plan to avoid a

lapse in the needed management authority in the Exclusive Economic Zone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Anderson may be found at end

of hearing.]

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you, sir. Mr. Fisher.

STATEMENT OF RANDY FISHER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

PACIFIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION

Mr. FISHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning. My

name is Randy Fisher. I am the executive director of the Pacific

States Marine Fisheries Commission. The commission was chartered by Congress in 1947. The compact signed by the States of

Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, and Idaho has the goal of

supporting policies and actions directed at the conservation, development, and management of fishery resources of mutual concern to

the member States. Consistent with that direction, I am here representing the commission and, specifically, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Oregon Department of Fish and

Wildlife, and the California Department of Fish and Game.

Landing of Dungeness crab in the coastal fisheries of California,

Oregon, and Washington have been maintained a cyclic pattern for
41

nearly 50 seasons. Harvest has ranged between 8 million and 54

million pounds, and peak approximately every 10 years. During the

most recent 10 seasons, coastwide landings averaged 33.8 million

pounds, of which 28 percent were landed in California, 31 percent

were landed in Oregon, and 41 percent were landed in Washington.

The total annual ex-vessel value of the coastwide fishery since the

1981–1982 season has ranged between $17 and $70 million.

The total number of vessels landing in each individual State has

increased historically, but since the 1981–1982 season, the number

of coastwide participants has remained relatively stable, between

952 and 1,302 vessels. In any year, an average of 94 percent of

these vessels land in only one State, with only 6 percent landing

in two of the three States, and less than 1 percent landing in all

three States.

Dungeness crab fisheries in California, Oregon, and Washington

are managed under the regimen known as the ‘‘3-S,’’ size, sex, and

season. Only male Dungeness crabs are harvested commercially.

State managers do not make pre-season forecasts of stock abundance, and harvest levels are based on recruitment into acceptable

harvest categories.

The basic management structure has been stable over time. All

three States standardized methods of measurements in the mid1960’s. Season opening dates have generally maintained the same

since the last 1960’s.

Although the regulations governing the fisheries are adopted by

independent administrative processes in each State, they are generally consistent. An interstate Memorandum of Understanding,

first signed in 1980, committed the State management agencies to

take mutually supportive crab management actions.

I mention this background to illustrate the long history of the cooperative nature of crab management between the States.

In 1990, at the request of the crab industry, the Pacific States

Marine Fisheries Commission formed the Tri-State Dungeness

Crab Committee. There are currently 19 members on that committee, representing Dungeness crab fishermen and processors

from the Pacific Coast. The committee was designed to have representation from the entire coast. All recommendations of the committee are based on consensus of its members. The committee itself

is only advisory body; its recommendations can be implemented

only through the separate regulatory procedures established in

each of the member States.

In 1993, the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission was

asked to survey the crab fleet and assess the support for limited

entry among vessel owners. Based on the results of the survey, the

Tri-State Dungeness Crab Committee participants sponsored independent crab licensing limitation efforts in their home States.

These programs became effective in 1995 and the 1995–1996 crab

season was the first in which all coastal crab fisheries operated license limitation.

The Pacific Fishery Management Council considered and declined to develop a fishery management plan for Dungeness crab in

the late 1970’s, suggesting that the States were adequately managing the resource. In April 1995, the State of Washington requested that the Pacific Fishery Management Council again consider a Fed-
42

eral FMP for Dungeness crab. Washington later suspended its request pending the outcome of an attempt to amend the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

That authority allowed the States to apply regulations that

opened and closed seasons, set minimum size and crab meat rates,

and implemented treaty Indian harvest requirements, using area

closures, port limitations to all vessels fishing in the adjacent Federal EEZ. State programs limiting entry to the fisheries were specifically excluded from this extended authority.

September, 1997, after a review by an ad-hoc panel and the TriState Dungeness Crab Committee, the council voted unanimously

to request that the expanded Interim Authority be made permanent. This request is not precedent-setting since Congress and the

National Marine Fisheries Service accepted similar State management of king crab fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska. This legislation

does allow anyone who has an appropriate permit in California, Oregon, or Washington, to fish in the EEZ. This is a coordinated management approach that reflects a long history of State Dungeness

crab management between California, Oregon, and Washington.

This legislation represents a negotiated settlement between the

States and is favored by the vast majority of fishermen, processors,

tribes, the Pacific Marine Fisheries Management Commission, and

the Pacific Fisheries Management Council. The Pacific Fisheries

Management Commission strongly recommends that this legislation be passed and drafted this year. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fisher may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much. I appreciate all of your very

fine and articulate testimony.

Let me ask you an unusual question. We—Mr. Pallone, Mr. Miller, and I—deal here weekly, sometimes on a daily basis, with fisheries management issues, with NMFS and the Councils, et cetera,

et cetera. And it occurs to me, as I begin to learn about this issue,

that there are two fisheries which have been remarkably successful

in terms of our conservation and utilization efforts. One happens

to be the Dungeness crab and the other happens to be the Atlantic

striped bass. And, in both cases, in each case, the major conservation and management role is carried out by the States rather than

by those of us who are responsible for fisheries management on the

Federal level in cooperation with NMFS, et cetera.

Is there some kind of a message here that we might take note

of? I understand that the folks from Oregon, Washington, and California are happy. I understand the Indian tribes are happy. I understand the crabs are all smiling.

[Laughter.]

It’s a great success story, seems like. And, yet, we have a hard

time finding success stories in fishery management and we’ve got

one on the east coast that Mr. Pallone and I are very fond of and

we’ve got, apparently now, one on the west coast that Mr. Miller’s

fond of and I just—Mr. Evans, is there a message here or am I

reading more into this than I should?

Mr. EVANS. I’d like to suggest that you’re reading a little bit

more into it than you should. But I think that there is a message

in that we do believe, and there are other fisheries where this is
43

the case, that the fishery ought to be managed in the waters or

under the jurisdiction where it’s primarily pursued. And, as you

know, striped bass is pursued largely in coastal waters on the east

coast. Dungeness crab fishery is pursued, principally, in State waters on the west coast.

There are a number of mechanisms around the country. They differ in different parts of the country as to how to effect that management. We have the Atlantic Coastal Act on the east coast that

specifically sets up a framework for cooperative State programs to

manage fisheries. We don’t have an analogous piece of legislation

on the west coast, it turns out, so the Pacific Commission operates

in a slightly different fashion.

In principle, I think that managing the fisheries where they’re

pursued is a sensible procedure and I don’t think that there’s a

message there. Sometimes the questions become a little more complicated when they’re out on the EEZ and there are jurisdictional

issues associated with it.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. Chairman, may I respond to your question

also? Thank you.

While I do represent—I work for the Washington Department of

Fish and Wildlife, I’m here on behalf of the council today. But I

want to say that, in the Pacific Fishery Management Council

forum, there is a strong partnership between National Marine

Fishery Service and the State agencies and developing the management plans for species that are covered under Federal fishery management plans. I think the State agencies, certainly our State

agencies, both share the responsibility with National Marine Fishery Service or the successes as well as the failures that may have

occurred in management of the species that are under Federal

FMPs. It is a partnership. We both—we share the responsibility for

the management of those fisheries.

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you. Does the management plan, this very

successful management plan, does it require—is it required in any

way to be consistent with Magnuson-Stevenson Act’s national

standards? There are some 10 stated standards which are referred

to in Section 301 of the Act, called National Standards for Fishery

and Conservation Management. Is the management plan consistent

with these standards or do you have a separate set of standards

in the management plan that are prescribed separately? Or how do

you work with regard to guidelines and standards?

Mr. ANDERSON. We have fishery management objectives that are

described in our State/tribal management plans for preserving and

protecting and conserving the resource. We have, under State statute, a requirement to balance the needs of the recreational and

commercial fishing interests in this fishery as well as other fisheries that the State manages. I’d like to think that the national

standards are standards that we need and should have in mind in

the application of all our fishery management initiatives, whether

they be under State authority or under a Federal authority. So,

while I would stop short of saying that we look at the national

standards when developing our fishery management plan for Dungeness crab, I’m well aware and familiar with what those standards are and, generally, believe that our management complies

with those standards.
44

Mr. SAXTON. Let me ask you just one specific question about the

standards. A standard, which is No. 2 in this section, reads, ‘‘Conservation and management measures shall be based upon the best

scientific information available.’’ Would you say that you comply

with that requirement?

Mr. ANDERSON. I am very confident that all three States comply

with that national standard in managing this fishery.

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much. Mr. Miller.

Mr. MILLER. You want me to—just a couple of quick questions

here. Thank you very much for your testimony and for your support of this legislation. I may have heard the same message that

the chairman heard and that was sort of, you’re all very polite, telling us to keep our nose out of your business, but——

[Laughter.]

It seems to be working, so we’ll probably take the recommendation, as we have in this legislation. With respect to the Indian

tribes, once the take is determined and their share of that is determined, with respect to the rest of the operations of the fisheries,

they operate the same as everyone else in that fishery in terms of

season and in terms of whatever other restraints you have on the

crab fishery? Is that accurate or not accurate?

Mr. ANDERSON. If I understand your question, it’s not accurate.

First of all, we do not have the technology to make a pre-season

estimate of the harvestable abundance of crab. So we have to manage the fishery based on time and area, which equates into opportunity. And so we de—we have devised a management regime that

have used those time, area—time and area basically are the two

mechanisms we’ve used to provide equal opportunity to both the

tribal and the non-treaty fishers for accessing the harvestable numbers of crab in any given year.

Mr. MILLER. But the rules under which they then fish when you

set out the season over an area or a time, time and area, everybody

fishes in the same fashion?

Mr. ANDERSON. The conservation rules are the same, in terms of

the gear specifications, however we do set aside specific areas for

a portion of the time that the non-Indian fishery is open that is for

the exclusive use of the tribal fishery.

Mr. MILLER. All right.

Mr. ANDERSON. So, in that way there’s—to balance——

Mr. MILLER. But that’s to try to make sure that you comply with

the court decision—with the entitlement that’s there in terms of

amount?

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. MILLER. Yes.

Mr. ANDERSON. That’s correct.

Mr. MILLER. But, with respect to conservation and all the rest of

it, the——

Mr. ANDERSON. The rules are the same. Yes.

Mr. MILLER. [continuing] the rules are the same. OK. I appreciate that. Given what’s going on with the salmon, with the

groundfish, and the council’s burdens and activities there, you can’t

manage this at the same time? I mean, in terms of what you see

as your resource allocation here, this is——?
45

Mr. ANDERSON. I think that what the council is saying is that,

for species such as salmon and groundfish and coastal pelagics,

which have a lot of interjurisdictional issues wrapped up in them,

that’s where we need to focus our fiscal and——

Mr. MILLER. So you’re comfortable laying this off on the——

Mr. ANDERSON. [continuing] resources. And so that’s why we believe, rather than take away from those efforts and apply a portion

of those resources to managing Dungeness crab, we don’t think

that’s a good use of Federal dollars. We believe that the Federal

dollars that are——

Mr. MILLER. OK.

Mr. ANDERSON. [continuing] provided to the council are better

used in those areas that have more interjurisdictional implications.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you, Mr. Miller. As you may have heard, we

are being called for a vote and so at this time I’ll just say that we

appreciate very much your being here. And Mr. Miller and I will

go off and vote and, while we’re gone, if the second panel would

like to take their places.

Let me just introduce them before we leave. We have Mr. Nick

Furman, executive director of the Oregon Dungeness Crab Commission; Mr. Larry Thevik—is that pronounced correctly?—representing the Washington Dungeness Crab Fishermen’s Association

and the Columbia River Crab Fishermen’s Association; and Mr.

Pietro Parravo—Parravano, president of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations; oh, and Mr.—this guy with the

funny-looking tie, there in the back of the room—Mr. Rod Moore,

executive director of the West Coast Seafood Processors Association. Thank you. We’ll hurry back.

[Recess.]

Mr. SAXTON. If the witnesses could find their—might find their

places.

Mr. Parravano, let me, first of all, apologize for not having

scoped out your name before I tried to read it. I am sorry. It is time

for us to begin. Mr. Miller will be back with us in just a moment.

I assume that you won’t mind beginning before he gets back. So if

you would like to start, Mr. Furman.

STATEMENT OF NICK FURMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

OREGON DUNGENESS CRAB COMMISSION

Mr. FURMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee. My name is Nick Furman. I’m the executive director of the

Oregon Dungeness Crab Commission. The ODCC is a fishermenfunded commodity commission which operates under the umbrella

of the Oregon Department of Agriculture. The commission is comprised of seven industry members, appointed by the ODA director,

to represent the commercial crab fleets in all of the major ports

along the Oregon coast. Five seats are held by crabbers and two

positions are filled by processors. Collectively, the commissioners

represent 450 Oregon Dungeness crab permit holders, and it on

their behalf that I offer the following.

With the exception of a brief foray into Oregon’s limited entry debate some years back, the commission has historically stayed true

to its primary mission which is to enhance the image and profit-
46

ability of the Dungeness crab industry through market development and promotion. I mention this only to underscore how concerned the present members of the commission are over the future

of the crab fishery as it relates to the legislation before you and

how convinced they are that H.R. 3498 is in the best interests of

their constituents as well as the entire crab industry.

The west coast Dungeness crab fishery is one of the soundest

fisheries in the nation, with an enviable track record dating back

to the late 1800’s. Albeit cyclical, the stocks are healthy and wellmanaged. Only mature male crabs meeting specific size regulations

are landed. Female crabs and sub-legal males are left in the ocean

to reproduce, ensuring adequate recruitment for subsequent years.

Fishing activity ceases during the period of post-molt vulnerability

in the late summer and fall to minimize handling mortality. The

harvest method is targeted and the gear employed is selective. Bycatch, a problem facing so many other fisheries, is not an issue

with respect to the crab fishery. In short, there are no compelling

conservation or biological reasons to alter the fishery’s present form

of state management.

In 1996, Congress amended the Magnuson-Stevens Act, giving

the States of Oregon, Washington, and California interim authority

to manage the Dungeness crab fishery occurring within the Exclusive Economic Zone adjacent to their respective State waters. The

same simple, but highly successful management methods that have

served the fishery well for decades, were expanded into Federal waters off of each State. During that period, the States have demonstrated the ability and willingness to work together in solving

management-related issues associated with the fishery, with memorandums of agreement in place to deal with specific items such as

soft-shell testing, delayed openers, and reciprocity. Regulations are,

for the most part, consistent between the three Sates.

A Tri-State Dungeness Crab Committee exists under the auspices of the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission and is recognized as a legitimate forum to discuss and resolve the socioeconomic issues facing the crab industry coastwide. Recent limited

entry legislation adopted in all three States has curtailed the access to the crab fishery by putting a cap on the number of available

permits, thereby ensuring that fleet size will remain the same and

that the ranks will not swell beyond current numbers. In short,

there are no compelling management reasons to warrant the adoption of a Federal fisheries management plan at this juncture.

While differences admittedly exist between the fleets and fishermen of the three States, all agree that extended State management

within the EEZ is the best way to address those issues by assuring

that regulatory authority will be consistent and, at the same time,

sensitive to specific regional needs.

H.R. 3498 represents two years worth of negotiations by representatives of the entire west coast crab industry, in which all

parties put aside their parochial interests in an effort to preserve

the traditional and historic nature of the Dungeness crab fishery,

while at the same time ensuring that future considerations can be

met in a responsible and cohesive manner. It has the support of an

overwhelming majority of the fishing industry, the tribal interests,

the associated State agencies, and the Pacific Fisheries Manage-
47

ment Council itself, who’s jurisdiction the crab fishery would come

under, should efforts to pass this legislation fail. In short, there is

virtually no opposition to this bill from any party with a legitimate

vested interest in the Dungeness crab fishery.

In the late 1970’s, the PFMC began working on an FMP for Dungeness crab, only to abandon the effort after concluding that it

would serve no purpose at that time. Nothing has changed. If anything, the role of State management within the crab fishery has

only improved since then, with the adoption of limited entry programs and enhanced interstate cooperation. Recently, the Pacific

Council itself voted unanimously in favor of a legislative response

to the suggestion that it revisit the FMP process for Dungeness

crab.

FMPs are complex, cumbersome, and costly. The Dungeness crab

fishery is quite simple. It will not benefit from the data generated

to complete an FMP, nor will it be any better off under the management authority of a fisheries council. The money needed to develop and implement a fisheries management plan for Dungeness

crab would be far better off spent addressing the crucial issues facing other west coast fisheries that do need the help. In short, if it’s

not broken, don’t fix it.

Over the past year, the Dungeness Crab Commission has given

members of the Oregon fleet numerous opportunities to comment

on the Commission’s position on this issue and its role in the attempt to get the resulting legislation passed. Not once have they

received anything less than wholehearted support and encouragement. Anybody familiar with our crab fleet can appreciate how unusual that unanimity is.

The commission is convinced that H.R. 3498 is a good bill, that

it reflect the desires of the majority of the west coast crab industry,

and that the resource and those who depend on it will be better

off in the event of its successful passage. We thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Crab Commission and Oregon’s

450 crab permit holders in support of this legislation.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Furman may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Furman.

Mr. Thevik.

STATEMENT OF LARRY THEVIK, WASHINGTON DUNGENESS

CRAB FISHERMEN’S ASSOCIATION/COLUMBIA RIVER CRAB

FISHERMEN’S ASSOCIATION

Mr. THEVIK. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, good

morning. Is it still morning? It is. My name is Larry Thevik. I am

speaking on behalf of the Washington Dungeness Crab Fishermen’s

Association and the Columbia River Crab Fishermen’s Association.

I want to thank Congressman Miller and the cosponsors who introduced H.R. 3498. I also want to thank the Committee for inviting

me to testify in support of this legislation, authorizing the States

of Washington, Oregon, and California to regulate Dungeness crab

in the Exclusive Economic Zone. This is extremely important and

welcome legislation for crab fishers and for the coastal communities

where we work and live.
48

For 27 years, I have participated in a number of west coast fisheries. Crab fishing has been my primary source of income. I have

fished for crab in Washington and Oregon. The west coast Dungeness crab fishery occurs off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and

California. The directed pot fishery has almost no bycatch. The primary management tools are size, sex, and season. Crab are not

considered a highly migratory species. The fishery is confined to

the eastern one-fifth of the EEZ and to State waters. The largest

extension of the fishery into the EEZ occurs off of Washington

where the edge of the continental shelf extends just under 40 miles

westward of the shoreline. The amount of crab caught in the EEZ

varies between the States and from year to year.

The Dungeness crab fishery has been managed by the States for

decades. The States have coordinated effort on many issues

through the Pacific States Marine Fish Commission’s Tri-State

Crab Committee. In 1979, the Pacific Fisheries Management Council considered the need for the development of a Federal management plan for crab and decided that existing State management

met conservation and management goals. State management has

worked well.

While the States have done a good job, the underlying problems

resulting from their lack of management authority in waters beyond three miles have intensified. Expanding fishing effort in deeper waters, increasing harvest rates, and Federal court orders in

1995 on tribal shellfish treaty rights have forced a renewed look at

the need for management authority in the EEZ.

Except for each State’s limited entry laws, H.R. 3498 will provide

consistent regulations and authority within three miles and outside

three miles off each State. Enforcement issues will be clear. Safety

issues and overcapitalization can be addressed. And the burden of

court-required tribal harvests can be fairly implemented. Without

consistent regulatory authority, Washington-licensed vessels would

bear the burden of tribal allocation while vessels from other States

would not be similarly restricted.

Congress granted limited interim authority in 1996 to provide

short-term management protection while the west coast considered

a more permanent solution. We are grateful for that relief and ask

again for your help. Representatives from all segments of the industry and regional, State, tribal, and Federal representatives have

voiced support for this legislative solution. H.R. 3498 is not the

unilateral action of one State at the expense of another. H.R. 3498

does not dismantle an existing Federal plan, nor does it preclude

development of a Federal management plan for crab should it become necessary. This legislation has the unanimous support of the

Pacific Fisheries Management Council and is the result of a considered and inclusive Federal council process to decide upon a regional

course of action. H.R. 3498 provides additional tools necessary to

manage the west coast Dungeness crab fishery without overturning

the fundamental management regimes that have worked well in

the past and can, with your help, work well into the future.

Both the Washington Dungeness Crab Fishermen’s Association

and the Columbia River Crab Fishermen’s Association appreciate

your consideration of this legislation. Most Washington crabbers

rely on crab for the majority of their fishing income. We depend on
49

a sustainable fishery. We support effective management to ensure

resource health and economic viability. Our organizations believe

this legislation will help us accomplish the management tasks

needed for this fishery. We are hopeful H.R. 3498 will be approved

by this Committee and moved on for timely passage. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Thevik may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much, sir.

Mr. Parravano.

STATEMENT OF PIETRO PARRAVANO, PRESIDENT, PACIFIC

COAST FEDERATION OF FISHERMEN’S ASSOCIATIONS

Mr. PARRAVANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d like to say I appreciate your apology. And I’d also like to say that I was born in

Princeton; I have very fond memories of living in the beautiful city

in your beautiful state.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee.

My name is Pietro Parravano and I’m president of the Pacific Coast

Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, located in San Francisco.

We represent working men and women in the west coast commercial fishing fleet. PCFF of A is the largest commercial fishermen’s

group on the west coast and represents, among others, the majority

of California Dungeness crab fishermen.

I wish to thank you for agreeing to hold this hearing on this legislation of great importance to us on the west and thank Mr. Young

and Mr. Miller for introducing H.R. 3498. I have been a Dungeness

crab fisherman since 1982, operating out of the California port of

Half Moon Bay. It is from the perspective of a California commercial crab fishermen that I present these remarks today.

It is important to briefly review the history of this fishery and

its management so that we can explain why we support H.R. 3498.

Following passage of the Fishery Conservation and Management

Act in 1976, a number of west coast fisheries were considered for

Federal FMPs, including Dungeness crab. After the establishment

of a Crab Advisory Subpanel and over a year of consideration by

the Pacific Fishery Management Council, it was decided a Federal

plan for the crab fishery was not necessary. There were other fisheries needing more attention, such as salmon and groundfish, and

there was good State regulation and cooperation among the States

on the management of the crab fishery. Thus, there was no compelling need for Federal management.

Recent changes, and, undoubtedly, there will be more to come, in

the Dungeness crab fishery now warrant specific management authority for the Dungeness crab fishery in Federal waters. But before to a conclusion as to which crab management plan is best, it

is important to answer the following questions.

One: Are the States capable of managing the fishery within the

EEZ? The answer is yes. The fact is that the States have been

managing their own vessels and fishermen in the past, harvesting

Dungeness crab in the EEZ. It is only the vessels that are not registered by the State that a State has no authority over. It is now

possible, for example, for a large vessel to come from the north, operated with 1,000 or more traps, in the EEZ, ignore State conservation measures, and then unload its catch in another State. This, of
50

course, can be remedied by delegating to the State’s management

authority over this fishery in the EEZ.

Question two: Are there conflicts between the States that require

Federal management of this fishery? The answer is no. As mentioned above, there is a long history of cooperation and coordination

by the three States in the research and management of the Dungeness crab fishery. A Federal FMP would do nothing to improve

upon the current level of coordination and cooperation.

Question three: Will there be confusion about the boundaries if

State jurisdiction is extended over the fishery into the EEZ? The

answer is no. The political boundaries of the three west coast [sic]

are such that it is easy to draw lines westward establishing

straightforward boundary lines, making clear to fishermen which

State authority they are under and making clear to enforcement officials which vessels operating within the EEZ they do and do not

have jurisdiction over at any given time.

Question four: Will a Federal fishery management plan for crab

require additional Federal expenditures? The answer is yes. The

preparation of fishery management plans costs hundreds of thousands of dollars and most require annual updates. In addition to

the regional council costs, there are also costs involved for the National Marine Fisheries Service administrating an FMP. With the

current lack of adequate funds for such things as groundfish research, the restoration of salmon habitat, where are the funds to

come from for the preparation of a Dungeness crab FMP? There is

also a question of staff time. With plans afoot for a coastal pelagic

and, perhaps, a highly migratory species FMP, where is the additional staff for the Pacific Council and NMFS to come from?

At the same time, State management of the Dungeness crab fishery is not costing the Federal treasury, is not costing the Federal

treasury anything. The States are picking up the cost and much of

that is being paid for by industry through landing taxes and permit

fees.

Question five: Is there precedent for delegating to States management of a fishery within the EEZ. The answer is yes. The State

of Alaska has management authority over the crab fishery in the

EEZ in the Gulf of Alaska.

Mr. Chairman, I believe the facts are clear. There needs to be

management authority over the Dungeness crab fishery in the Federal EEZ and it is the three States that are best suited to take on

that authority. Certainly when Congress passed the Fishery Conservation and Management Act in 1976, what we call now the Magnuson-Stevens Act, it did not intend to create a one-size-fits-all

type of management for our fisheries. It did not seek to throw out

a Federal system that provides for diversity and experimentation.

We strongly urge the support of the Subcommittee and the full

House Resources Committee of H.R. 3498 and, for the sake of the

west coast Dungeness crab resource, its multi-million dollars Dungeness crab fishery, and for persons, such as myself, who derive income from this fishery and who enjoy providing consumers the very

best in seafood. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Parravano may be found at end

of hearing.]

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Parravano. Mr. Moore.
51

STATEMENT OF ROD MOORE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WEST

COAST SEAFOOD PROCESSORS ASSOCIATION

Mr. MOORE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the second week in

a row taking an interest in West Coast fisheries issues. Glad to see

your expanded interest. It’s always——

Mr. SAXTON. Your ties get funnier every week.

[Laughter.]

Mr. MOORE. I do this to keep you awake so my testimony won’t

bore you. And also——

Mr. SAXTON. I’m sure it won’t bore me.

[Laughter.]

Mr. MOORE. And I also want to thank Mr. Miller for taking the

lead in introducing this bill and keeping it moving and all the hard

work his staff has put into this. It’s really appreciated, as you can

hear from the testimony today. This is something that you’ve got

a lot of people behind. And we really appreciate the efforts that

have been done on this.

Now it’s not often that you get to see a bipartisan piece of legislation that reduces bureaucracy, saves the taxpayers money, conserves a major fishery, and is supported by all the affected parties.

Well, H.R. 3498 is one of those rare occurrences and I hope you’re

going to recognize that and deal with it appropriately.

Now there’s been questions raised about why are we doing this;

why are we going through State management? And, frankly, it’s

not normal for the members of my association to ask to legislative

fishery management system outside of the council. The vice president of our association has served on the council. One of our directors currently serves on the council. I’m a member of several council committees as are several others of my members.

But, as you’ve seen and heard, the crab situation is unique.

We’ve successfully conserved and managed this fishery by State action, with the participation of the industry, and, with this bill,

we’re accommodating tribal interests, we’re taking care of the final

steps in management, and we think doing something that is positive for the resource and for the country, doing something that’s

going to allow the council to get about its other business which, as

we discussed last week on groundfish, they’re having enough trouble doing. Now we’ve got a good system here and we would like to

keep it working.

The only gap that’s occurred in this success story is the fact that,

because we have a mobile fleet that moves up and down the coast

and the fact that we do need to take care of tribal interests, we

need to make sure that the State authorities to conserve the resource fully extend out to 200 miles so that we don’t have a situation where you’re going to wind up with overfishing or you’re going

to wind up with a problem. And, by providing the States with the

authority to go out to 200 miles, as this bill does, we ensure that

everybody plays by the same rules and we maintain our treaty obligations and we ensure conservation.

Mr. Pallone earlier raised questions about precedents. In my

written testimony I’ve laid out several examples of precedents that

have been taken both by the Congress and by NMFS in providing

similar State authority. Striped bass is certainly one of them, as

you mentioned, Mr. Chairman. You know, here you had a fishery
52

that everything’s been done by the States and it’s keeping the resource in good shape and we’re, in a way, trying to follow the same

example that you’ve seen on your coast. We’re not trying to go

around the council. The bill says quite clearly that, if this management system doesn’t work, the council has the full authority to go

in and develop a fishery management plan. The council itself

looked at the issue and said, hey, you know, the legislative approach of extending the State’s authority is really the best way to

do it.

Last week when we were here talking about groundfish, I talked

about how the industry tends to be innovative in dealing with problems. And the same is true here. You know, we’re trying to follow

an innovative approach to take care of a unique situation and I

was very, very pleased to hear this morning that the National Marine Fisheries Service also agrees with this.

And, you know, quite frankly, this whole system is going to depend on us. We’re part of the management system at this point and

if we screw up, it’s going to be our own fault. And then we’re all

going to wind up going back to the council and saying, OK, we were

wrong, we’ll do it the other way. But we don’t think that’s going

to happen. We think we’re going to do it right, as we have been

in the past, and we appreciate your support and hope you take

quick action on this bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Miller.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Moore may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much. Just to satisfy my curiosity,

the fishery obviously is an inshore fishery as well as an EEZ fishery, is that correct? And, obviously, the State has the authority to

manage a fishery inside three miles, and has done so effectively.

That correct?

Mr. MOORE. That’s correct. They also have the authority, under

the Magnuson Act, to manage their own vessels out—within the

EEZ.

Mr. SAXTON. And what is the method of—is this a crab pot fishery?

Mr. MOORE. Yes, sir.

Mr. SAXTON. And this species does as well in must be relatively

deep waters as it does in relatively shallow water, is that correct?

Mr. MOORE. I would defer to one of the guys who’s out there harvesting them all the time to probably answer that a little bit better.

Mr. THEVIK. They range, basically, from the shoreline and the estuaries along our Pacific coast out to the edge of the continental

shelf, which is approximately 100 to 120 fathoms where it breaks

down into the much deeper waters.

Mr. SAXTON. Are the fishing practices—it would seem as though

the inshore areas would be more easily fished than the areas further offshore. Is that true?

Mr. THEVIK. I think it’s safe to say that the greatest amount of

fishing effort occurs closer to the shoreline, but not necessarily——

Mr. SAXTON. Within State waters?

Mr. THEVIK. Well, it varies between States, depending on weather conditions, time of year, how shallow it is. In the State of Washington, three miles is only about 10 fathoms deep. In other States,

it could be 30, 40 fathoms deep. So there’s a variability between
53

States as to how close that fishing effort, the primary effort is, to

the shoreline or how close it is to the shelf.

Mr. SAXTON. And the annual catch, with regard to the annual

catch, has it been stable?

Mr. THEVIK. One of the characteristics of this fishery seems to

be—when I say that, we’ve been looking at it for several decades—

is it’s cyclical. So, no, that the harvest amounts, year to year, can

vary considerably. I believe the average in Washington, though,

over 10 to 15 years is between 8 to 9 million pounds with a low

of 2.5 million in 1985 and a high of around 22 million, I believe,

in 1989.

Mr. SAXTON. And you’re obviously convinced that the fishery biomass is over the long haul been stable?

Mr. THEVIK. What I’m fairly convinced of is that the conservation

measures that are built into this fishery allow for a sustainable

biomass. I wouldn’t say that the biomass has been the same over

time, but the conservation measures have been sufficient to support a sustainable fishery.

Mr. FURMAN. Mr. Chairman, may I comment?

Mr. SAXTON. Sure.

Mr. FURMAN. In Oregon we have landing records that go back to

approximately 1889 for the Dungeness crab fishery and two years

ago we had our second-best harvest on record, which I think illustrates the fact that, although it is cyclical, that the stocks, the

present stocks, are quite healthy.

Mr. SAXTON. You’re convinced that present stocks are in no way

endangered and that is, at least partly, due to the management

plans that you have cooperatively adopted?

Mr. FURMAN. Correct.

Mr. SAXTON. If H.R. 3498 is not passed, how will the industry

sectors be affected?

Mr. THEVIK. Well, for one, the congressional authority will expire

in 1999 and we’ll be back where we were prior to the granting of

that, which means, especially in Washington, anyway, and that’s

who I’m speaking for fundamentally, the management measures

that would need to be taken to accommodate tribal allocations

would not be consistently applied outside of three miles to the fishers that fish off the coast, if they are non-residents or non-licensed

fishers by the State of Washington. So we would be regulated to

accommodate tribes; out-of-State vessels would not. That’s one of

the primary things that would happen. And we wouldn’t have the

management tools to go ahead and deal with some of the other

issues that have come up over time: overcapitalization enforcement

and safety.

Mr. SAXTON. And Mr. Moore?

Mr. MOORE. I was just going to say that, from the processing sector, what’ll wind up happening is we’ll have to go back into the

fishery management plan mode and work with the council process,

which is a long and sometimes arduous and certainly costly process. And, unfortunately, there are times when allocation issues

wind up creeping in amongst all the good conservation goals. Right

now we’ve got the allocation issues resolved. You know, we—I

think all four of us were fighting each other two years ago on some

of these issues and now we’re here at the same table holding hands
54

and saying, please do this. We’ve got our issues resolved and we

want to move forward on this.

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you. Would the industry support a requirement that the States manage the Dungeness crab fishery consistent with national standards as set forth in the Magnuson-Stevens Act?

Mr. MOORE. You asked that question or a similar question earlier

of Phil Anderson and I was looking through the national standards.

Between this bill and what the States already have in existence—

and there are various State laws and regulations—everything except possibly the safety of life at sea really is covered either under

this bill or under the State regulations. I think they would be concerned if you imposed a requirement that the individual State laws

would somehow have to follow the national standard guidelines

that are put out by NMFS because you’re dealing with two separate—well, in this case, there’d be four separate sets of management entities: the three States plus the National Marine Fisheries

Service. And the national standard guidelines as applied to fishery

management plans, as you know, Mr. Chairman, have been somewhat contentious in their interpretation by the National Marine

Fisheries Service. So I think the States themselves would probably

have a little bit of concern saying, Hey, wait a minute. A bunch of

Federal regulations that apply to Federal fishery management

plans suddenly being imposed on our State lawmaking process.

Now we’d have a little bit of discomfort with that.

But in terms of the——

Mr. SAXTON. Sounds like it’s more the principle of the thing then

it is the——

Mr. MOORE. The principles are all being followed. They’re all

being followed already. And, as Phil indicated, you know, they’re

good principles that everybody should follow all the time anyway.

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you. Mr. Miller.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Do the States have different regulations on size of vessels or numbers of pots, from State

to State?

Mr. THEVIK. Right now, there is no limitation that I’m aware of

on the number of pots. That’s one of the next steps in our management process.

Mr. MILLER. So you can fish the number of pots that your vessel

can hold?

Mr. THEVIK. Basically yes. There is a limitation on the—an

upper limit on the size of vessels that can participate in the fishery. I believe it’s 99 feet and I think that’s consistent across all

three States. It is in Oregon and Washington, anyway. I’m not sure

about California.

Mr. PARRAVANO. Yes. In California there are no trap limits. You

can fish as many traps as you want and I don’t believe there’s a

size vessel limit because I believe I have seen vessels of over 110

feet.

Mr. MILLER. Yes, but the—you don’t think in California there is

a size limit?

Mr. PARRAVANO. Not for vessels. I’m not aware of that.

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Miller, the pot limit issue is one that really has

been considered in all three States on the part of the industry and,
55

you know, there are some allocation issues between larger vessels

and small vessels, obviously, that are involved in that. But it’s

something that’s kind of out there and I think it’s probably going

to continue to come up and be debated and each State try to work

out the best waty to make sure that you don’t have a problem

going on out there with the number of pots.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Parravano, you suggest that the fishery is

changing in that respect, right? That you’re seeing the entry of

larger vessels with more pots who can tank their catch. What’s that

going to mean, over the long haul? I assume that’s a more capitalintensive operation.

Mr. PARRAVANO. It is and I think we’re seeing the whole face of

the fisheries change, that there are vessels that are now being retired from their current operations due to various conservation

measures and these vessels would be capable of getting into the

crab fishery and would be operating many, many more traps that

we are not seeing in the fishery right now. What that ultimately

would do would—it would affect the communities that support the

traditional fisherman, that have been operating for 30, 40 years out

of their own home ports and it most likely would have a negative

effect on the coastal communities that have supported traditional

fisheries.

Mr. MILLER. Well, that’s a very real concern of mine. I sort of

view these traditional fishermen as independent business people

and small business people, in some instances, although it seems

like when you look at some of the debt it looks like pretty big business. But currently limitations really don’t exist in terms of trying

to hold onto the number of fishers that participate in this.

Mr. THEVIK. There is limited entry that has——

Mr. MILLER. There’s limited entry but you can gain entry for a

very large vessel and an unlimited number of pots and——

Mr. THEVIK. Not in Oregon and Washington, you couldn’t license

a vessel over 99 feet. You also—there are restrictions on transfers.

You can only jump up a vessel size about 10 feet at a time in a

limited number of years. And what is fundamental to this legislation and one of our reasons to support it is really we couldn’t move

ahead with any additional restrictions without the authority to regulate consistently outside the State. So this legislation will give us

the tools to go ahead and do some of those things.

Mr. MILLER. Well, I would hope that that would be considered.

I mean, we don’t have to go into all the arguments here this morning but, obviously, to the extent to which this can be a sustainable

resource and also a sustainable economic resource for these communities, I think we’re all enriched, speaking in the San Francisco

Bay Area in Northern California, from having the existence of

these fisheries and I would hate to think that at some point, you

know, we’re reduced to the tourists looking at the boats at Fisherman’s Wharf that do not reflect what’s going on out there on the

high seas, where there might be a couple of people that are left,

fishing thousands of pots at some point to the detriment of independent people who have fished this or want to fish it in the future. But I know the perils of this argument.

But I just think that it’s important to notr that in our State, and

our local economies, fishing communities now have greater attrac-
56

tion than just as fishing communities. Instead, with so many people on the move and a growing tourism industry. They have become a tourist attraction. But we’d rather have real fishing communities as opposed to tourist destinations. And so I would hope that,

if this legislation does provide you the authority to consider ways

to protect fishing communities, that we consider it sooner rather

than later.

Because we all know what later means. Later means you got this

thing split into two groups and then we’re into all of the lobbying

that goes on that has nothing to really do with the merits of what

you’re trying to do. So I would hope that that would happen as a

result of this. Thank you.

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much. We’d just like to thank you

at this point for coming all the way from the west coast to share

your thoughts with us. And you will be pleased to know that we

are tentatively thinking of a mark-up date in early June and so we

hope to do our part to move this issue forward at a relatively early

date. Thank you again for being here.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. DON YOUNG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE

OF ALASKA

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that you are conducting this hearing today on this

important piece of legislation.

The original Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act created eight regional fishery management councils. These regional councils were given

management and conservation authority over marine fishery resources in the Federal Exclusive Economic Zone. The regional councils are responsible for developing

and implementing fishery management plans for the marine species under their jurisdiction.

While I have always been a strong advocate of the regional councils, there are

many fisheries that are not covered by a Council-developed fishery management

plan. In some instances where the majority of the fishery is within State waters,

States have taken the conservation and management of these fisheries upon themselves. For nearly 40 years, this has been the case with the Dungeness crab fishery.

The States of Washington, Oregon, and California have cooperatively managed

the Dungeness crab fishery since the 1960’s. This cooperative management worked

well until a 1994 Federal court ruling caused concern over whether the States could

adequately address the tribal allocations in the Federal Exclusive Economic Zone.

In 1996, Congress authorized limited and interim management authority for the

Dungeness crab in the Federal Exclusive Economic Zone to the States of Washington, Oregon, and California. The management authority was temporary in order

to give the Council time to develop a management plan to address the concerns of

the involved States and tribes before the interim authority expires on October 1,

1999.

After reviewing the various management options, the Pacific Fishery Management

Council, which has jurisdiction over the Dungeness crab fishery, unanimously requested that Congress make the interim management authority permanent. Congressman Miller’s bill, H.R. 3498, would accomplish that goal.

H.R. 3498 would allow the States of Washington, Oregon, and California to retain

management of the Dungeness crab fishery in the Exclusive Economic Zone as long

as a Federal fishery management plan is not developed to supersede this authority

in the future.

While I don’t normally agree with Congressional attempts to step over the Council’s authority to manage fisheries, in this case we are not taking management authority away from the Council, because the Council retains the right to develop and

implement a fishery management plan at any time. In short, if the need arises, the

Pacific Fishery Management Council can act to federalize this valuable fishery.

H.R. 3498 is supported by the Council and all of the constituencies involved in

the Dungeness crab fishery. I look forward to discussing the merits of this bill and

hearing from our distinguished witnesses.
57

[The prepared statement of Mr. Beasley may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. SAXTON. The hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:27 p.m., the Subcommittee adjourned subject

to the call of the Chair.]

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
58

STATEMENT OF DR. DAVID EVANS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR FISHERIES, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to testify before the Subcommittee today

on Dungeness crab. I am Dr. David Evans, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries. I am accompanied by William L. Robinson, Assistant Regional Administrator

for Sustainable Fisheries in NMFS’ Northwest Region.

National Marine Fisheries Service Position on H.R 3498

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) supports the passage of H.R.

3498, the Dungeness Crab Conservation and Management Act, as a unique solution

to an unusual set of circumstances. Before the Federal District Court’s 1994

Rafeedie decision, no treaty fishery operated on an ocean species not managed by

a Federal Fishery Management Plan (FMP). In the Sustainable Fisheries Act, Congress provided interim authority to the west coast states to regulate all vessels, regardless of state of origin, in Federal waters off each state in the absence of a Federal FMP. Congress also directed the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific

Council or Council) to develop a Federal FMP. The Council considered a Federal

FMP, but concluded that tribal treaty rights for Dungeness crab can best be met

and protected within the long standing tri-state management process.

Section 306 (a)(3)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) recognizes State jurisdiction to manage vessels

registered to a state when those vessels are operating outside of state waters, if

there is no FMP for the fishery pursued. Further, Section 306 (a)(3)(C) provides authority to the State of Alaska to manage vessels that are not registered with that

state when pursuing a fishery for which there was no Federal FMP in place on August 1, 1996, and ‘‘the Secretary and the North Pacific Council find that there is

a legitimate interest of the State of Alaska in the conservation and management of

such fishery.’’

In its report to Congress, the Pacific Council found that there was a legitimate

interest of the three west coast states to continue to retain the management authority that they had exercised over Dungeness crab fisheries for over 60 years, and to

extend the interim authority granted by Congress to allow continued tri-state management. NMFS concurs with this finding with the understanding that, if at any

time, and for any reason, the Secretary or the Council should determine the need

for a Federal Dungeness crab FMP, a Federal FMP could be implemented. At that

time, state authority in the EEZ that is not provided for in the plan would be terminated. NMFS believes the current H.R. 3498 language provides for this, but proposes clarifying this authority with language similar to that found at § 306(a)(3)(C)

in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, to be added to the end of paragraph 306 (d) of H.R.

3498, in that: ‘‘The authority provided under this paragraph shall terminate when

a fishery management plan under this Act is approved and implemented for this

fishery.’’

It is clear from Section 306 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act that Congress has recognized that a state’s authority extends to its registered fishers when they are participating in a fishery for which there is no Federal FMP. It is also clear from this section that only rare and unusual circumstances would support extension of a state’s

authority over vessels from other states operating in the EEZ adjacent to that

state’s waters. NMFS believes that the unique circumstances of (1) tribal treaty obligations, in combination with (2) the long-term, cooperative state-level management

that includes effort limitation programs, (3) the current and historic lack of a Federal FMP, (4) the small number of states with jurisdiction over the range of the species, (5) the clear, latitudinal borderlines between the states, and (6) the specific request of the Pacific Council for extension of state authority, merit consideration of

extending special state authority over Dungeness crab, as described by H.R. 3498.

Agency support for this bill was based on very careful consideration of the exceptional nature of the management quandaries of this fishery. Agency support is given

for this bill with the understanding that Federal management authority may be invoked for Dungeness crab at any time, and with the particular expectation that such

authority would be invoked should tri-state management in any way contravene the

fishery conservation and management principles of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Our

support for this bill, however, should not be interpreted as anything more than support for this approach, in this fishery, with its unique characteristics.

NMFS recommends that, three years after this legislation is passed, the Council

make a Report to Congress that reevaluates the potential need for Federal management and a Federal FMP.
59

Fishery Background

Evolution Towards Cooperative Management

Dungeness crab (Cancer magister) are commercially harvested in nearshore west

coast waters from south of San Francisco to the Aleutian Islands. Dungeness crab

are an intertidal and continental shelf species, living off the ocean bottom out to

about 100 fathoms. The three west coast states—Washington, Oregon, and California—have been setting fishing restrictions, such as allowable crab size and fishing season since the early 20th century.

By the mid-1960s, years of management experience with Dungeness crab fisheries

had evolved into the management principles that the three states use today—limiting harvest by size, sex, and season. These principles essentially mean that

crabbers may only keep male crabs over a certain size (6.25 inches minimum, measuring shortest distance across the back), and may only target Dungeness crabs during seasons set by the states to coincide with the hardshell phase of the crab’s

moulting process. Softshell crabs are generally not marketable, and crabs that are

discarded during the fishing process for being an illegal size or sex are more likely

to survive the process of being caught and discarded during the hardshell phase.

The hardshell phase usually begins around mid-November in California, arriving

later in the northern areas, until about mid-January when crabs off all three states

are in the hardshell phase. West coast seafood lovers know to look for Dungeness

crab in the markets and on menus during the year-end holidays.

When the fishery management councils were formed following the passage of the

1976 Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Pacific Council considered the

Dungeness crab fishery as a possible candidate for a Federal FMP. However, Council members decided that the diverse and urgent management needs of the salmon

and groundfish fisheries would be more than enough work for the young council to

coordinate. The Dungeness crab resource was known to be fairly stable; the sizesex-season management principles ensured that no immature crabs would be landed, and that those crabs that were caught and discarded would live to replenish the

crab stocks. The three states agreed to manage Dungeness crab cooperatively, and

in 1980, the three state fishery agency directors entered into their first Memorandum of Understanding to pledge cooperative coastwide Dungeness crab management.

Through the ensuing years, the three states managed their Dungeness crab fisheries with common goals and management principles, but without a direct coordinating body. Over time, the states added to the basic size-sex-season management

with new resource protection measures, such as escape rings on each pot for undersized crabs. All three states also require that pots have biodegradable escape mechanisms to ensure that if a pot is lost during the fishing season, a portion of the pot

will quickly rot open so that the pot does not continue to ‘‘ghost fish’’ while lost on

the ocean floor.

Dungeness crab fisheries in all three states had long histories as open access fisheries. The Dungeness crab stock tends to fluctuate over a ten year cycle, with somewhat predictable high and low levels of larger-sized male crab abundance. Some

fishers would crab only in years of high abundance, or in years when other fisheries

were less profitable, while other fishers would rely on Dungeness crab for a consistent and significant portion of their annual incomes. As west coast salmon became scarce and salmon fisheries restrictions more limiting in the 1980s, many fishers looked to Dungeness crab to make up for lost salmon income. Larger and better

equipped vessels became part of the Dungeness crab fleet, and crabbers no longer

kept to the traditional pattern of fishing for and landing crab only in their home

states.

Despite these changes, the states saw no reason to add a formal, cooperative management body to the Memorandums of Understanding until the early 1990s. The

opening of the 1989-90 season was a turning point in west coast Dungeness crab

management for both crabbers and fishery managers. Oregon Dungeness crab season opened on December 1, 1989, to coincide with the hardshell phase in the southern half of the state. Washington biologists, however, had found that the northern

crab shells were hardening later into the winter, and decided to wait to open the

fishery until January 10, 1990. The tri-state Memorandum of Understanding had

no mechanisms to address staggered season openings. Between December 1 and

January 10, Washington crabbers watched in frustration from shore as Oregon

crabbers legally caught unmarketable, softshell Dungeness crab in Federal waters

off the Washington coast. Following this disaster, crabbers went to their state managers and pressed for a tri-state management body to address issues of management

inconsistencies outside of the three-mile state ocean limits. The Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission responded by offering to convene a pilot tri-state meeting
60

between industry participants and state fisheries agency representatives. This

group, which later became known as the Tri-State Dungeness Crab Committee

(TDCC), ushered in a new era in cooperative state Dungeness crab management.

State Limited Entry Programs: Tribal Treaty Rights to Shellfish

In the early 1990s, the TDCC began to discuss and study the possibility of setting

up limited entry programs for the Dungeness crab fisheries of each of the three

states. Heavy influx of new fishers into the crab fisheries in the late 1980s had

made industry leaders realize that the fishery was overcapitalized and that without

a limited entry program, an open access Dungeness crab fishery could easily become

another coastwide derby fishery. The TDCC asked for support from the three state

agencies for a survey of crabbers’ attitudes towards limited entry programs, with the

expectation that carefully designed programs would avoid many of the traditional

pitfalls of introducing restrictions on the number of vessels licensed to participate

in a lucrative fishery. Positive survey results induced crabbers to begin lobbying

their state legislatures for limited entry programs. By 1995, all three states had set

license limitation strictures in place for their Dungeness crab fisheries.

Although the limited entry programs had not solved all of the inter-state conflicts

over Dungeness crab, crabbers were reluctant to take their management issues to

the Pacific Council because they had invested so much time and faith into the

TDCC process. However, management beyond state boundaries became particularly

problematic for Washington State in 1994, when a determination in a sub-proceeding of U.S. v. Washington (known as the ‘‘Rafeedie decision’’ for its presiding

judge) recognized the treaty rights of coastal Indian tribes to 50 percent of all of

the harvestable shellfish in their usual and accustomed fishing areas. For the four

treaty tribes of the outer Washington coast (Makah, Quileute, Hoh, and Quinault),

the usual and accustomed fishing areas extend out to forty miles off the coast, fully

encompassing the Dungeness crab range for the northern two-thirds of Washington

State. Properly sharing the resource between tribal and non-tribal fisheries became

a new management challenge for the coastal treaty tribes and Washington State,

and highlighted the need for further tri-state cooperation on state regulations beyond the three mile zone.

Dungeness Crab in the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act

The Magnuson-Stevens Act, contains amendments from the 1996 Sustainable

Fisheries Act that include an interim authority at Section 306 to allow the States

of Washington, Oregon, and California to ‘‘enforce State laws and regulations governing fish harvesting and processing against any vessel operating in the exclusive

economic zone off each respective State in a fishery for Dungeness crab (Cancer magister) for which there is no fishery management plan implemented under the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act.’’ This provision recognizes the

unique character of the west coast Dungeness crab fishery, which has been historically managed under state authority, and which must respond to a recent division

of crab resources between tribal and non-tribal fishers. In this same section, Congress invokes the Council process and asks the Council to provide a report by December 1, 1997 to the Congress on progress in developing an FMP for Dungeness

crab.

Immediately following on the October 1996 passage of the Sustainable Fisheries

Act, the Pacific Council began to study development of an FMP for Dungeness Crab.

The Council convened a panel of industry and state agency advisors who debated

the merits of a new FMP and whether to abandon the tri-state management process

and the new license limitation programs in the three states. This panel provided the

Council with a wide range of possible future avenues, ranging from no FMP and

no action after the loss of the interim authority on October 1, 1999, to a full Federal

FMP with no designation of management authority to the states. The Council debated these results at several meetings during 1997, and decided that although the

Magnuson-Stevens Act provides authority for a Council to create a framework FMP

that delegates management authority to the states, it was reluctant to tamper with

the established, well-respected tri-state management process. To meet these two

goals, the Council’s report to Congress requested that Congress extend and expand

the interim authority already described at Section 306 of the Magnuson Act beyond

1999. H.R. 3498 and the complementary Senate bill, S. 1726, would extend that authority until such time that the Secretary or Council might decide that integrated

Dungeness crab management could be accomplished better through a Federal FMP.

This concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to answer any

questions you and the Subcommittee may have.
61

STATEMENT OF PHILIP ANDERSON, MEMBER, PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL

Good morning. My name is Philip Anderson. I represent the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife on the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and

I am here on behalf of the Council today. Thank you for inviting the Council to testify on H.R. 3498, a bill to amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and

Management Act to authorize the states of Washington, Oregon, and California to

regulate the Dungeness crab fishery in Federal waters.

We thank Mr. Miller, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. DeFazio, Ms. Furse, Ms. Hooley, Mr.

Riggs, Mrs. Smith and Mr. Young for introducing this legislation. If enacted, the bill

would implement all of the recommendations submitted by the Council in its report

of October 1997. We request that the report be made a part of the record of this

hearing. The Council adopted these recommendations by unanimous vote after considering, together with the tribes and industry representatives, the most efficient

and cost-effective means of managing the Dungeness crab fishery off the coasts of

California, Oregon, and Washington. The recommendations incorporated in the bill

were reached following an agreement amongst industry representatives.

The basis for the Council’s recommendation is as follows:

Avoids Duplication of Management Effort

Historically, the states have successfully managed the fishery and have the

technical expertise to continue into the future. The overlay of a Federal plan

would add an unneeded cost to managing this fishery. In addition, industry representatives would not have the added cost and time burden of participating in

both a state and Federal management system.

Does Not Preempt Future Federal Management

Dungeness crab are not currently managed under a Federal management

plan. If, in the future, the Council determined that the management of the Dungeness crab resource would be improved under a Federal management plan,

nothing in this legislation would prevent them from taking such action.

State/Tribal Management Plans

Federal District Court Judge Edward Rafeedie’s August 28, 1995, implementation order, in combination with a court approved stipulation between the state

of Washington and the Quinault Indian Nation, requires the state and tribes

to develop joint harvest management plans and/or cooperatively manage shellfish resources within the tribes’ usual and accustomed fishing grounds and stations. This bill would remove the need for a duplicative Federal process while

allowing the state of Washington to implement and enforce equitable management measures for non-Indian fisheries operating within the tribes’ usual and

accustomed fishing grounds and stations that extend into Federal waters.

Expansion of Existing Interim Authority

The bill would expand the limitations placed on the interim authority currently provided to the states for Dungeness crab to include any management

measure needed with the exception of state limited entry laws. Moreover, the

bill would limit participation to fishing or processing operations licensed by either California, Oregon, or Washington.

For these reasons, the Council is recommending that it continue to focus its efforts on Federal management plans for species, such as salmon and groundfish, that

(1) have coastwide migration and distribution, (2) have international management

implications such as the Pacific Salmon Commission and transboundary groundfish

stocks, and (3) have implications relative to the Endangered Species Act.

The Council urges the House to pass the legislation in a timely manner. The interim authority provided the states expires October 1, 1999. In the absence of legislation, the Council will need to begin the arduous and time-consuming task of developing a Federal plan to avoid a lapse in the needed management authority.

STATEMENT OF RANDY FISHER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PACIFIC STATES MARINE

FISHERIES COMMISSION

Good Morning, my name is Randy Fisher. I am the Executive Director of the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. The Commission was chartered by Congress in 1947. The Compact signed by the States of Alaska, Washington, Oregon,

California and Idaho has the goal of supporting policies and actions directed at the

conservation, development, and management of fishery resources of mutual concern

to member States through a coordinated regional approach to research, monitoring

and utilization.

Consistent with that direction, I am here representing the Commission and, specifically, the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and the California Department of Fish and Game.
62

Landing of Dungeness crab in the coastal fisheries of California, Oregon, and

Washington have maintained a cyclic pattern for nearly 50 seasons. Harvests have

ranged between 8 million and 54 million pounds, and peak approximately every 10

years. During the most recent 10 seasons, coastwide annual landings averaged 33.8

million pounds, of which 28 percent were landed in California, 31 percent were landed in Oregon, and 41 percent were landed in Washington. The total annual ex-vessel

value of the coastwide fishery since the 1981-82 season has ranged between $17 million and $70 million.

The total number of vessels landing in each individual state has increased historically, but since the 1981-1982 season, the number of coastwide participants has remained relatively stable between 952 and 1,302 vessels. In any year, an average of

94 percent of these vessels land in only one state, with only 6 percent landing in

two of the three states, and less than 1 percent land in all three states.

Dungeness crab fisheries in California, Oregon and Washington are managed

under the regimen known as ‘‘3-S,’’ i.e., size-sex-season. Only male Dungeness crab

are harvested commercially. State managers do not make pre-season forecasts of

stock abundance, and harvest levels are based on recruitment into acceptable harvest categories.

The basic management structure has been stable over time. All three states

standardized methods of measurements in the mid-1960s. Season opening dates

have generally remained the same since the late 1960s.

Although the regulations governing the fishery are adopted by independent administrative processes in each state, they are generally consistent. An interstate

Memorandum of Understanding first signed in 1980, committed the state management agencies to take mutually supportive crab management actions.

I mention this background to illustrate the long history of cooperative nature of

crab management between the states.

In 1990, at the request of the crab industry, the Pacific States Marine Fisheries

Commission formed the Tri-State Dungeness Crab Committee. There are currently

19 members on the Committee, representing Dungeness crab fishermen and processors on the Pacific Coast. The Committee was designed to have representation

from the entire coast. All recommendations of the Committee are based on consensus of its members. The Committee itself is only an advisory body, its recommendations can be implemented only through the separate regulatory procedures

established in each member state.

In 1993, the PSMFC was asked to survey the crab fleet and assess support for

limited entry among vessel owners. Based on the results of the survey, the Tri-State

Dungeness Crab Committee participants sponsored independent crab license limitation efforts in their home states. These programs became effective in 1995, the 1995-

1996 crab season was the first in which all coastal crab fisheries operated under

license limitations.

The Pacific Fishery Management Council considered and declined to develop a

Federal fishery management plan for Dungess crab in the late 1970s, suggesting

that the states were adequately managing the resource. In April 1995, the state of

Washington requested that the Pacific Fishery Management Council again consider

a Federal FMP for Dungeness crab. Washington later suspended its request pending

the outcome of an attempt to amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation

and Management Act.

That authority allowed the states to apply regulations that opened and closed seasons, set minimum sizes and crab meat recovery rates, and implemented treaty Indian harvest requirements using area closure or port limitations to all vessels fishing in the adjacent Federal EEZ. State programs limiting entry to the fishery were

specifically excluded from this extended authority. The Interim Authority is effective

through October 1, 1999.

In September of 1997, after a review by an ad-hoc panel and the Tri-State Dungeness Crab Committee, the Council voted unanimously to request that the current

Interim Authority be made permanent.

This request is not precedent setting since Congress and the National Marine

Fisheries Service accepted similar state management of king crab fisheries in the

Gulf of Alaska. This legislation does allow anyone who has an appropriate permit

from California, Oregon, or Washington to fish in the EEZ. This is a coordinated

management approach that reflects a long history of state Dungeness crab management between California, Oregon and Washington.

The legislation represents a negotiated settlement between the states and is favored by the vast majority of fishermen, processors, tribes, the Pacific States Marine

Fisheries Commission and the Pacific Fishery Management Council.

The Commission strongly recommends that this legislation be passed as drafted

and enacted this year.
63

STATEMENT OF NICK FURMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OREGON DUNGENESS CRAB

COMMISSION

My name is Nick Furman and I am the Executive Director of the Oregon Dungeness Crab Commission (ODCC). The ODCC is a fishermen-funded Commodity Commission that operates under the umbrella of the Oregon Department of Agriculture

(ODA). The Commission is comprised of seven industry members, appointed by the

ODA Director to represent the commercial crab fleets in all of the major ports along

the Oregon coast. Five seats are held by crabbers, and two positions are filled by

processors. Collectively, the Commissioners represent over 450 Oregon Dungeness

crab permit holders, and it is on their behalf that I offer the following.

With the exception of a brief foray into Oregon’s limited entry debate some years

back, the Commission has historically stayed true to its primary mission which is

to enhance the image and profitability of the crab industry through market development and promotion. I mention this only to underscore how concerned the present

members of the Commission are over the future of the crab fishery as it relates to

the legislation before you, and how convinced they are that H.R. 3498 is in the best

interests of their constituents as well as the entire crab industry.

The West Coast Dungeness crab fishery is one of the soundest fisheries in the nation, with an enviable track record dating back to the late 1800’s. Albeit cyclical,

the stocks are healthy and well-managed. Only mature male crabs meeting specific

size regulations are landed. Female crabs, and sub-legal males are left in the ocean

to reproduce, insuring adequate recruitment for subsequent years. Fishing activity

ceases during the period of post-molt vulnerability in the late summer and fall to

minimize handling mortality. The harvest method is targeted and the gear employed is selective. Bycatch, a problem facing so many other fisheries, is not an

issue with respect to the crab fishery. In short, there are no compelling conservation

or biological reasons to alter the fishery’s present form of state management.

In 1996, Congress amended the Magnuson-Stevens Act, giving the states of Oregon, Washington and California interim authority to manage the Dungeness crab

fishery occurring within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) adjacent to their respective state waters. The same simple, but highly successful management methods

that have served the fishery well for decades, were expanded into Federal waters

off each state. During that period, the states have demonstrated the ability and willingness to work together in solving management related issues associated with the

fishery, with ‘‘memorandums of agreement’’ in place to deal with specific items such

as soft-shell testing, delayed openers and reciprocity. Regulations are, for the most

part, consistent between the three states. A ‘‘Tri-State Dungeness Crab Committee’’

exists under the auspices of the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission and is

recognized as a legitimate forum to discuss and resolve the socioeconomic issues facing the crab industry coast wide. Recent limited entry legislation adopted in all

three states has curtailed access to the crab fishery by putting a cap on the number

of available permits, thereby insuring that fleet size will remain the same and that

the ranks will not swell beyond current numbers. In short there are no compelling

management reasons that warrant the adoption of a Federal Fisheries Management

Plan (FMP) at this juncture.

While differences admittedly exist between the fleets and fishermen of the three

states, all agree that extended state management within the EEZ is the best way

to address those issues by assuring that regulatory authority will be consistent, and

at the same time, sensitive to specific regional needs. H.R. 3498 represents two

years worth of negotiation by representatives of the entire West Coast crab industry, in which all parties agreed to put aside their parochial interests in an effort

to preserve the traditional and historic nature of the Dungeness crab fishery, while

at the same time, insuring that future considerations can be met in a responsible

and cohesive manner. It has the support of an overwhelming majority of the fishing

industry, the tribal interests, the associated state agencies and the Pacific Fisheries

Management Council itself, who’s jurisdiction the crab fishery would come under

should efforts to pass this legislation fail. In short, there is virtually no opposition

to this bill from any party with a legitimate vested interest in the Dungeness crab

fishery.

In the late 1970’s, the PFMC began working on an FMP for Dungeness crab, only

to abandon the effort after concluding that it would serve no purpose at that time.

Nothing has changed. If anything, the role of management within the crab fishery

has only improved since then with the adoption of limited entry programs and enhanced inter-state cooperation. Recently, the Pacific Council itself voted unanimously in favor of a legislative response to the suggestion that it revisit the FMP

process for Dungeness. FMP’s are complex, cumbersome and costly. The Dungeness

crab fishery is simple. It will not benefit from the data generated to complete an
64

FMP, nor will it be any better off under the management authority of a Fisheries

Council. The money needed to develop and implement a fisheries management plan

for Dungeness crab would be far better spent addressing the crucial issues facing

other West Coast fisheries that do need the help. In short, if it’s not broken, don’t

fix it.

Over the past year, the Dungeness Crab Commission has given members of the

Oregon crab fleet numerous opportunities to comment on the Commission’s position

on this issue, and it’s role in the attempt to get the resulting legislation passed. Not

once have they received anything less than whole-hearted support and encouragement. Anyone familiar with our crab fleet can appreciate how unusual that unanimity is. The Commission is convinced that H.R. 3498 is a good bill, that it reflects

the desires of the majority of the West Coast crab industry, and that the resource

and those who depend on it will be better off in the event of its successful passage.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Crab Commission and Oregon’s 450 crab permit holders in support of this legislation.

STATEMENT OF LARRY THEVIK, BOARD MEMBER, WASHINGTON DUNGENESS CRAB

FISHERMEN’S ASSOCIATION

My name is Larry Thevik. I am a lifetime resident of Washington State and have

been a commercial fisherman for twenty seven years.

I want to thank Congressman George Miller and the Co-sponsors who introduced

H.R. 3498. I also want to thank the Committee for inviting me to testify in support

of this legislation authorizing the States of Washington, Oregon, and California to

regulate Dungeness crab in the EEZ.

This is extremely important and welcome legislation for crab fishers and for the

coastal communities where we work and live.

Over the years I have participated in a number of West Coast fisheries including

salmon and albacore trolling, longlining for groundfish and halibut, pot fishing for

prawns, and pot fishing for Dungeness crab. Crabbing has been my primary source

of income. I have fished for crab in Washington and Oregon.

I am submitting this testimony on behalf of the Washington Dungeness Crab

Fishermen’s Association and the Columbia River Crab Fishermen’s Association.

WDCFA is based in Westport, Washington on Grays Harbor and CRCFA is based

in Ilwaco, Washington at the mouth of the Columbia River. WDCFA and CRCFA

are the largest organizations of Washington Coastal crab fishers. The majority of

Washington crabbers depend on crab for most of their fishing income.

The West Coast Dungeness crab fishery is conducted off the Coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California. Except for a small trawl ‘‘bycatch’’ allowed in California the fishery is conducted with pots. The directed pot fishery has almost no ‘‘bycatch.’’ Only males of a specified size are retained. Undersized males and all females

that do not escape from ‘‘escape rings’’ required in each pot are immediately returned to the sea. The fishery occurs from the shoreline out to the edge of the continental shelf. Most fishing effort occurs in depths less than 70 fathoms. The primary

management tools are size, sex, and season. Crab are not considered a highly migratory species. The fishery is confined to the eastern one-fifth of the EEZ and to state

waters. The largest extension of the fishery into the EEZ occurs off Washington

where the edge of the continental shelf extends just under 40 miles westward of the

shoreline. The amount of crab caught in the EEZ varies between the States with

California catching the majority of crab within state waters while over half of the

crab landings in Washington originate from beyond the State’s three mile limit.

The Dungeness crab fishery has been managed by the States for decades. The

States have coordinated effort on many issues through the Pacific States Marine

Fish Commission, (Tri-State). In the 70’s the newly created Pacific Fisheries Management Council considered the need for the development of a Federal Management

Plan for crab and deemed that existing state management met conservation and

management goals. Although Dungeness crab is one of the least regulated fisheries

on the West Coast it has also been one of the most successful. State management

has worked well.

While the States have done a good job, the underlying problems resulting from

their lack of management authority in waters beyond three miles have intensified.

The extension of the crab fishery into deeper waters, the expansion of vessels and

gear, the passage of limited entry in each of the three States, and Federal court rulings on shellfish in 1994, requiring increased tribal harvest opportunities in Washington State, have forced a renewed look at the outstanding issue and need for management authority in the EEZ.
65

With the exception of each State’s limited entry laws H.R. 3498 will provide consistent regulations and authority within three miles and outside three miles off each

State. Enforcement issues will be clear. Safety issues and overcapitalization can be

addressed. And the burden of court required tribal harvests can be fairly implemented. Without consistent regulatory authority Washington licensed vessels would

bear the burden of tribal allocation while vessels from other states would not be

similarly restricted.

Congress granted limited interim authority in order to provide short term management protection while the West Coast considered a more permanent solution. We

are grateful for that relief and ask again for your help. Representatives from all segments of the industry and regional, state, tribal, and Federal representatives have

voiced support for this legislative solution. H.R. 3498 is not the unilateral action of

one state at the expense of another. H.R. 3498 does not dismantle an existing Federal plan. H.R. 3498 does not preclude development of an FMP for crab should it

become necessary. This legislation has the unanimous support of the PFMC and is

a reasonable, economical, and timely solution to a complex regional fishery problem.

The legislative request by the Council on behalf of the West Coast Dungeness crab

fishing industry is the result of a considered and inclusive Federal process to decide

upon a regional course of action. H.R. 3498 provides additional tools necessary to

manage the West Coast Dungeness crab fishery without overturning the fundamental management regimes that have worked well in the past and can with your

help work well into the future.

Both WDCFA and CRCFA appreciate your consideration of this legislation. As

fishers we depend on a sustainable fishery. We do not support management for

management’s sake but we do support effective management to ensure resource

health and economic viability. WDCFA and CRCFA believe this legislation will help

us accomplish the management tasks needed for this fishery. We are hopeful H.R.

3498 will be passed out of this Committee for timely enactment.

STATEMENT OF PIETRO PARRAVANO, PRESIDENT, PACIFIC COAST FEDERATION OF

FISHERMEN’S ASSOCIATIONS

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. My name is Pietro Parravano and I am the president of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s

Associations (PCFFA), which represents working men and women in the west coast

commercial fishing fleet. PCFFA is the largest commercial fishermen’s group on the

U.S. west coast and represents, among others, the majority of California’s Dungeness crab fishermen.

I wish to thank you for agreeing to hold this hearing on this legislation of great

importance to us on the west coast and thank Mr. Young and Mr. Miller for introducing H.R. 3498. I have been a Dungeness crab fisherman since 1982 operating out

of the California port of Half Moon Bay. It is from the perspective of a California

commercial crab fisherman that I present these remarks today.

Members may ask why is this legislation necessary? What is the problem? Why

give these three states extended authority over this fishery? Why not put Dungeness

crab under a Federal Fishery Management Plan (FMP)? To answer these questions

and for you to understand why we support H.R 3498, it is important to briefly review the history of this fishery and its management.

Historically most Dungeness crab fishing occurred in nearshore ocean waters,

much of it in state waters. States regulated the fishery by seasons, size limits (including a prohibition on the take of female crab in the commercial fishery), and

specifications on gear requiring ‘‘escape ports’’ (allowing undersized crab to escape

the trap) and ‘‘destruct panels’’ (cotton or other degradable material mesh in the

traps that will prevent the trap from continuing fishing if it is lost). Because most

crabbers operated out of the port (and state) where there crab gear was located,

state vessel registration and fishing license requirements meant the states had control over most Dungeness crab fishing, even that occurring offshore in Federal waters. Although the fishery has been highly cyclical, all evidence points to it being

sustainable, state management of the crab fishery has been successful.

Following passage of the Fishery Conservation & Management Act in 1976, a

number of west coast fisheries were considered for Federal FMPs, including Dungeness crab. After the establishment of a Crab Advisory Subpanel and over a year of

consideration by the Pacific Fishery Management Council, it was decided a Federal

plan for the crab fishery was not necessary. There were other fisheries needing more

attention, such as salmon and groundfish, and there was good state regulation and

cooperation among the states on the management of the crab fishery; thus, there

was no compelling need for Federal management.
66

There has been a long history of active state management of fisheries in California, Oregon and Washington. In California, where our Department of Fish &

Game is primarily funded by user fees, including our commercial licenses, vessel

registrations, permits, stamps and landing taxes, the state has actively managed

fisheries in state waters. It has also regulated fishing in Federal waters offshore the

state where a vessel held a California commercial fishing vessel registration (available to vessels from any state), or the person or persons on board held a California

commercial fishing license (again, available to a person from any state). This has

been true, as well, for managing Dungeness crab.

Moreover, there has been close coordination and cooperation among the three

states on certain fisheries, including Dungeness crab, through the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. Indeed, it has been through the PSMFC’s Tri-State Crab

Committee, that the states have coordinated on their response to the domoic acid

threat and developed limited entry programs for the crab fishery. That cooperation

and coordination between the three states’ agencies and industry, through the TriState Committee, continues to this day.

Recent changes in the Dungeness crab fishery, we believe, now warrant specific

management authority for the Dungeness crab fishery in Federal waters. First, as

other speakers will testify to, there has been the court decision allocating half of

the harvestable amount of shellfish in Washington State to the treaty tribes. In

order to protect that state’s non-treaty Dungeness crab fishery, the state must have

the authority to regulate beyond its state waters to assure a fair and equitable allocation of the crab.

Second, there has been a gradual change in the harvest of Dungeness crab. Increasingly, vessels are fishing in deeper water further offshore, mainly in Federal

waters, with more and more traps. That in itself is not a problem where states can

exercise jurisdiction over vessels registered in those states. It is a problem, however,

with larger vessels, with no connection to the state they are fishing off, that are

able to tank their crab and travel long distances from the place where the crab were

caught to the place of delivery. It is now possible, for example, for a large tanked

vessel to come from the north, operating with a thousand or more traps to fish in

the EEZ off Eureka, Fort Bragg, Bodega Bay or even San Francisco, ignore state

conservation regulations and then unload its catch in another state.

Given the scenario above, it may seem that it is now time for a Federal plan for

Dungeness crab. But before jumping to that conclusion, it is important to answer

the following questions:

1. Are the states capable of managing the fishery within the EEZ? Yes.

The fact is the states have been managing their own vessels and fishermen in

the past harvesting Dungeness crab in the EEZ. It is only the vessels that are

not registered by the state that a state has no authority over. This, of course,

can be remedied by delegating to the states management authority over this

fishery in the EEZ.

2. Are there conflicts between the states that require Federal management of this fishery? No. As mentioned above, there is a long history of cooperation and coordination by the three states in the research and management

of the Dungeness crab fishery. A Federal FMP would do nothing to improve

upon the current level of coordination and cooperation.

3. Will there be confusion about boundaries if state jurisdiction is extended over this fishery into the EEZ? No. The political boundaries of the

three west coast states are such that it is easy to draw lines westward establishing straightforward boundary lines making clear to fishermen which state

authority they are under, and making clear to enforcement officials which vessels operating within the EEZ that they do and do not have jurisdiction over

at any given time.

4. Will a Federal fishery management plan for crab require additional

Federal expenditures? Yes. The preparation of fishery management plans

cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and most require annual updates. In addition to the regional council costs, there are also costs involved for the National

Marine Fisheries Service administering an FMP. With the current lack of adequate funds for such things as groundfish research or restoration of salmon

habitat, where are the funds to come from for preparation of a Dungeness crab

FMP? There is also a question of staff time. With plans afoot for coastal pelagic

and, perhaps, a highly migratory species FMP, where is the additional staff for

the Pacific Council and NMFS to come from? At the same time, state management of the Dungeness crab fishery is not costing the Federal treasury anything. The states are picking up the cost and much of that is being paid for by

industry through landing taxes and permit fees.
67

5. Is there precedent for delegating to states management of a fishery

within the EEZ? Yes. The State of Alaska has management authority over the

crab fishery in the EEZ in the Gulf of Alaska. Giving management over the

Dungeness crab fishery in the EEZ to California, Oregon and Washington is not

without precedent elsewhere.

Mr. Chairman, I believe the facts are clear. There needs to be management authority over the Dungeness crab fishery in the Federal EEZ and it is the three

states that are best suited to take on that authority. Certainly when Congress

passed the Fishery Conservation & Management Act in 1976, what we now call the

Magnuson-Stevens Act, it did not intend to create a one-size-fits-all type of management for our fisheries. It did not seek to throw out our Federal system that provides

for diversified experimentation.

We need conservation and management authority for our crab fishery in Federal

waters, but that does not mean we need Federal management for this fishery. Admittedly, where there are conflicts between states, or where state commissions are

dominated by recreational or processing sectors, Federal management may be the

only way to protect stocks and those whose livelihoods depend on fisheries. But here

there is cooperation between users and the agencies; the states have demonstrated

they are capable of managing the Dungeness crab fishery in an effective and cost

efficient manner.

We strongly urge the support of this Subcommittee and of the full House Resources Committee of H.R 3498 for the sake of the west coast Dungeness crab resource, its multi-million dollar Dungeness crab fishery, and for persons, such as myself who derive income from this fishery and who enjoy providing consumers the

very best in seafood. Thank you. I will be happy to answer any questions.

STATEMENT OF ROD MOORE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WEST COAST SEAFOOD

PROCESSORS ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I want to thank you for holding

this hearing on H.R. 3498, the ‘‘Dungeness Crab Conservation and Management

Act.’’ Special thanks are due to Congressman Miller for sponsoring the bill, and to

those Members from Alaska, Oregon, Washington, and California who provided

their bi-partisan co-sponsorship.

For the record, my name is Rod Moore, I live in Portland, Oregon, and I am the

Executive Director of the West Coast Seafood Processors Association (WCSPA). Our

Association’s members—who are all American-owned, on-shore processors—operate

facilities in California, Oregon, and Washington which process the majority of Pacific groundfish, Dungeness crab, and pink shrimp landed in those States, along

with salmon, swordfish, albacore tuna, and other species. Several of our members

operate processing facilities or vessels in Alaska, and several are involved in transportation and distribution of seafood products.

It is not a normal occurrence for me or the members of my Association to ask Congress to legislate a fisheries management system which does not involve the Pacific

Fishery Management Council. We support the Council system, the Vice President

of our Association is a former Council member, and one of our directors currently

serves on the Council. I and several of our members serve—or have served—on

Council committees.

However, with west coast ocean Dungeness crab, we have a unique situation—a

fishery that has been successfully conserved and managed by the States of California, Oregon, and Washington for decades. A forum for management cooperation

is already in place which involves fisherman, processors, and the States, under the

umbrella of the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. Access limitation programs are in place in all three States. Biological studies and enforcement are conducted by the States. Tribal treaty concerns are accommodated by the State of

Washington. In short, we are successfully conserving and managing the resources,

so we see no reason to establish a new management system which will impose additional costs on the taxpayers.

Perhaps it would be helpful to look at the law and at other fisheries to determine

whether passing H.R. 3498 is the best way to go.

Section 302(h) of the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management

Act (MSFCMA) says that Councils will establish a fishery management plan for

‘‘each fishery under its authority that requires conservation and management . . .’’

In practice, the Councils, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Congress

have treated this requirement flexibly, tailoring actions to particular regional needs.

On the east coast, several fisheries are managed jointly by the States through the

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. In some cases, this involves the Com-
68

mission setting minimum standards for conservation and leaving particular management measures to the appropriate State authority. This arrangement has been

blessed by the Congress even though the fish stocks involved may migrate through

the waters of several States and the exclusive economic zone.

In Alaska, the Dungeness crab fishery is managed by the State. The king and tanner crab fisheries in the Bering Sea are managed under a joint State-Federal fishery

management plan. Those same species in the Gulf of Alaska are managed solely by

the State of Alaska. Salmon—other than troll salmon in Southeast Alaska—is under

State management, as is Pacific herring.

On the west coast, pink shrimp, Dungeness crab, herring, and swordfish are all

under State authority.

In addition, Pacific albacore tuna and Atlantic bluefin tuna are managed under

international treaties.

How do we decide if a fishery requires conservation and management under a

fishery management plan? First, of course, we look at whether there are appropriate

restrictions on harvesting and processing to ensure a sustained yield of the species

in question. If conservation cannot be ensured, then a fishery management plan

needs to be put in place.

Second, we need to look at the characteristics of the fishery and the existence of

other authority. Are there treaties in effect? Do the fish travel into international waters or the waters of other countries, so that a Federal presence is required? Can

States effectively enforce conservation rules? These are all considerations.

Third, we look at allocation among participants. While fishery management rules

cannot have allocation as their sole purpose, the need to allocate among users—

sport, commercial, domestic, foreign, tribal, different gear types—certainly influences the decision.

And last, we look at cost. Can existing authority manage more efficiently and with

less cost, or do we need to impose a fishery management plan?

Although none of these considerations are explicitly stated in the law, they are

in fact the reality with which we deal when deciding how fisheries are going to be

conserved and managed.

If you apply this four-part test to west coast ocean Dungeness crab, you will find

that the existing system of State management is successful with the exception of

one small gap which this legislation covers. Crab are harvested both within State

waters and the exclusive economic zone. Because the crab fleet is mobile, it is common practice for a fisherman from one State to fish in the exclusive economic zone

adjacent to another State and land his catch in his home State. However, if the

State off whose coast he is fishing enacts conservation rules, this mobile fisherman

can choose to ignore them as long as he is fishing only in the exclusive economic

zone. By extending State authority for conservation purposes throughout the adjacent exclusive economic zone, H.R. 3498 solves the problem.

This bill, like other actions of the Congress and the National Marine Fisheries

Service before it, deals with a unique situation in a straight-forward, practical manner that recognizes the realities of an important fishery. In the past, the Congress

has provided State authority over sections of the exclusive economic zone under section 306 of the MSFCMA. Congress has provided east coast States with authority

to manage certain fisheries through the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. Congress provided interim authority for State management of Dungeness crab

under the Sustainable Fisheries Act in 1996, authority that will expire next year.

NMFS has recognized the practicality of State management on king crab in the

Gulf of Alaska. In fact, NMFS has twice turned down attempts by the Pacific Fishery Management Council to adopt a fishery management plan for coastal pelagic

species, a fishery which—due to its international extent—requires a Federal presence. NMFS reason for doing so was that the fishery should more appropriately be

under State management.

H.R. 3498 is widely supported, as you can see from the witnesses here today. Getting to this point has not been easy. The Council conducted public hearings on the

issue of Dungeness crab management, established a committee to look at management options, asked the Tri-State Dungeness Crab Committee to further refine options, prepared a report to the Congress, and considered in public session what draft

legislation might look like. The result of these efforts was a unanimous vote by the

Council on a motion offered by the member representing northwest tribes to ask

Congress to consider this legislative solution.

What happens if this bill is rejected? First, the gap in management authority in

the exclusive economic zone that I previously mentioned will have to be addressed.

The Council will have no choice but to develop a fishery management plan. That

will cost the Council and NMFS—and ultimately, the taxpayers—some money.
69

Given that neither the Council nor NMFS has enough funds right now to do even

basic research on Pacific groundfish, I don’t know where the money will come from.

Second, we will have to put in place a new management system under the authority of the MSFCMA. All of the allocation fights that we have put aside in order to

develop a rational legislative solution will come up again. NMFS will have to figure

out overfishing levels, MSY, and essential fish habitat, among other things, for a

fishery that is currently conserved by allowing the harvest of only male crab on a

minimum size during a specific season. Existing State limited entry laws may have

to be examined. We could conceivably have a separate management scenario for the

exclusive economic zone than we have for State waters. It would be expensive and

it would not be a pretty sight.

Keep in mind that H.R. 3498 does not preclude the Council from stepping in at

some point in the future if State management no longer effectively conserves the

crab resource. Under the bill, State authority stays in effect only so long as there

is no fishery management plan. The burden will be on us, if we don’t want a fishery

management plan, to ensure that State management works. We recognize that and

we are willing to accept the challenge.

Mr. Chairman, it is not often that you can pass bipartisan legislation that reduces

bureaucracy, saves the taxpayers’ money, conserves a major fishery, and which is

supported by all affected parties. With H.R. 3498, you have that opportunity. I urge

you to act quickly to move this bill through the legislative process. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF ROLLAND A. SCHMITTEN, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR FISHERIES

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

NOAA FISHERIES’ COMMITMENT TO WEST COAST GROUNDFISH

Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to testify before the Subcommittee today

on West Coast groundfish. I am Rollie Schmitten, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries and Director of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). I am accompanied by William L. Robinson, Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable

Fisheries in NMFS’ Northwest Region, and Dr. Richard Methot, Director of the

Fisheries Resource Analysis and Monitoring Division of NMFS’ Northwest Fisheries

Science Center.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is deeply and unequivocally committed to the sound stewardship of ocean fisheries and the marine

and coastal environment. There are two essential building blocks to making that

commitment a reality: the strong and unwavering support of leaders in the executive and legislative branches to that commitment; and a sustained investment in

sound science to generate the information that will enable us to translate that commitment into good decisions.

Our topic today is the challenging West Coast groundfish fishery and our opportunities to improve our stewardship of it. We at NOAA recognize that substantial improvements are needed. We have made solid progress over the last several years to

develop the capacity to realize those improvements, and more importantly, we continue to gear up to ensure that progress continues.

Pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NOAA Fisheries is responsible for providing scientific information on which to base fishery management decisions and

working with the Pacific Fisheries Management Council to structure an effective

management of that fishery. The agency’s Northwest, Southwest and Alaska Fisheries Science Centers conduct research that provides the scientific basis for Pacific

Fishery Management Council recommendations to NOAA on harvest levels for West

Coast groundfish stocks. This information is provided via stock assessments conducted by NOAA Fisheries, state, and university scientists using data from surveys

and state fishery monitoring programs.

We fully acknowledge that members of the commercial fishing industry have criticized the NOAA Fisheries’ stock assessments that led to reductions in the commercial harvest of several important groundfish species in 1998. The fundamental limitation on those assessments is the paucity of data upon which they are based. Our

challenge, simply put, is to improve the quality and quantity of survey data that

go into the stock assessment. As stated in a recent National Research Council report, NOAA Fisheries’ stock assessment methods are the best available, but, nevertheless, could benefit from improved data. Sparse and/or difficult to calibrate data

lead to high level of uncertainty in these assessments.

NOAA Fisheries, in the last few years, has moved aggressively to expand the

West Coast groundfish program in the Northwest Fisheries Science Center
70

(NWFSC). In addition, we are taking advantage of increasing opportunities to develop cooperative data collection programs which will utilize fishers’ experience,

knowledge, and time-on-the-water.

Reflecting that priority, in January 1995 the NWFSC’s groundfish program began

to provide a coordinated stock assessment program focusing on the important and

valuable deep-water species (sablefish, Dover sole, thornyheads). The program had

a budget of $1.5 million and a staff of seven, most of whom moved from other NMFS

Centers. In 1997, the program delivered new stock assessments for these deep-water

species, heightened its dialogue with constituents to develop cooperative data collection projects, and developed methods in conjunction with the University of Washington to conduct trawl surveys with local fishing vessels.

In 1998, coaxing still more from an overtaxed budget, NOAA Fisheries added an additional $750,000 in permanent funding to its Northwest Region for West Coast

groundfish management and research. The majority of the $750,000 will be used to

support several new staff positions and new major cooperative projects with the

commercial fishing industry and other scientists, both of which will improve NOAA

Fisheries stock assessments. Also, NOAA provided an additional $400,000 to the

NWFSC in 1998 to continue the deep-water slope survey by chartering commercial

fishing vessels while the NOAA vessel Miller Freeman is in dry dock. These funds,

plus first-tmne use of compensation with fish under the new ‘‘Fish for Research’’

provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, will be used to prepare for and conduct the

resource survey.

Implementation of the ‘‘Fish for Research’’ provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens

Act in West Coast groundfish will set precedents in an important new phase of fisheries management. ‘‘Fish for Research’’ will allow NOAA fisheries to compensate

fishing vessel owners who conduct chartered resource surveys with the harvest of

additional groundfish in order to offset the cost of the survey. This will stretch the

NWFSC’s budget further and allow greater amounts of scientific data to be collected

each year. We are excited about the prospects and are pushing hard to implement

‘‘Fish for Research’’ quickly. We will set aside a small fraction of the annual total

allowable catch to be used as compensation for vessels that are chartered by NOAA

Fisheries to conduct the scientific survey, and thereby achieve the objective of generating additional valuable data. We anticipate that this program will be an exciting

prototype for the management of the nation’s fisheries.

NOAA Fisheries sees the West Coast groundfish research program as a great opportunity to develop cooperative data collection programs which will take advantage

of fishers’ experience, knowledge, and time-on-the-water. This cooperative program

is critical to providing the best available scientific information on which to base decisions on annual harvests to achieve optimum yield while conserving the long-term

health of the stock.

BACKGROUND

What are West Coast Groundfish?

The term ‘‘groundfish’’ oversimplifies the complexity of the biological and fishery

situation. In fact, the Pacific Fishery Management Council’s Fishery Management

Plan for groundfish includes 83 species. Examples are Pacific whiting (hake) which

is an abundant migratory, schooling fish; yelloweye rockfish which is a sedentary,

nearshore reef-oriented rockfish; and grenadiers which are bottom-dwelling, deepwater fishes. The fishery is equally complex with catcher-processors using midwater

trawls to target on whiting; bottom trawlers targeting flatfishes, rockfish and other

species; various hook and line and pot gears targeting sablefish and rockfish; and

recreational fisheries targeting nearshore rockfishes.

It is convenient and useful to categorize groundfish into five groups based upon

their habitat and target fishery. These include: (1) midwater (principally Pacific

whiting); (2) deepwater (sablefish, dover sole, 2 thornyheads, grenadiers); (3) shelf

(principally trawl-caught rockfish and lingcod); (4) nearshore rockfish (principally

other rockfish species caught by hook and line or by recreational fishermen); and

(5) nearshore flatfish.

This diversity of species and users requires a wide range of monitoring tools and

a multi-faceted management system to achieve management goals. Many of the

groundfish species are long-lived (50+ years). Thus, the recent 15-20 year history

of full exploitation and intensive management under the Magnuson-Stevens Act is

not much more than one generation time for many species. We are just beginning

a course of sustainable management for the long-term.

Management System

The annual acceptable biological catch (ABC) is set for each major species largely

on the scientific advice provided in the stock assessments. A harvest guideline (HG)
71

is set for a target level of landed domestic catch. Expected levels of non-landed catch

(discard) are generally subtracted from the ABC when setting the HG. Other adjustments include set asides for expected catch by Canada and coastal tribes.

A Limited Entry (LE) system was implemented in 1994. Federal permits were established based on vessel catch history during 1984-1988 period. Permits are endorsed for gear-type (trawl, pot, longline) and for vessel length. Permits are transferable, and permits from smaller vessels can be combined into a permit for a larger

vessel according to an established formula.

Catch allocations are calculated to better achieve the social and economic goals

of the PFMC, in that:

a. Set asides for Treaty Indian and expected recreational catch are deducted

from the harvest guideline (where appropriate).

b. An established formula sets the allocation between the Open Access and Limited Entry sectors.

c. Some further allocations occur within the LE sector (shoreside vs. at sea delivery of Pacific whiting; trawl vs. fixed gear sablefish catch).

Pacific whiting and fixed gear sablefish are managed primarily as derbys, with

relatively unconstrained fishing until the HG is attained, then cessation of largescale directed fishing. Other species support a fresh fish market, and processors/

marketers have strong desire for a year-round supply. Trip limits were first instituted in 1983 to slow the pace of the widow rockfish fishery. Today cumulative

monthly vessel landing limits are used for about 10 species in order to slow the pace

of the fishery and delay HG attainment until near the end of the year. Unfortunately, declining ABCs and overcapitalization in the fishery have caused these landing limits to substantially decline.

In addition, size limits, gear restrictions and area/season closures are set to improve biological and economic yield or to reduce adverse impacts of fishing.

Stock Assessments

Groundfish stock assessments are the technical evaluation of the status of the fish

stock and the level of yield that will come closest to achieving maximum sustainable

yield while avoiding overfishing. The most accurate assessments include three categories of information: (1) life history (natural mortality, growth, maturity); (2) fishery total catch; and, (3) trends in abundance from resource surveys or fishery catch

per unit effort. These three types of information are complementary and all are necessary. For example, bycatch studies will improve estimates of total catch, but even

perfect knowledge of total catch is not sufficient to determine if that level of total

catch is appropriate. Conversely, no matter how accurately at-sea resource surveys

determine trends in the level of abundance, they alone will not be able to determine

if these trends are due to fishing or natural causes.

The report of the National Research Council concluded that the models used by

the NMFS to conduct stock assessments were adequate, and that the primary shortcoming of the assessments was the amount of resource survey and fishery monitoring data available to include in the models. As we engage in development of the

next generation of stock assessment models, primary goals will be characterization

of the uncertainty in assessment results, and clarity in the communication of assessment results to fishery managers and constituents.

Resource Surveys

NOAA Fisheries has used a combination of trawl, acoustic, plankton, and fixed

gear methods to provide some survey coverage for many groundfish species. Basically there is a triennial acoustic survey for whiting using the NOAA vessel Miller

Freeman; triennial bottom trawl survey for shelf rockfish and lingcod using two

chartered trawl vessels; a midwater trawl survey for young rockfish off central California using the NOAA vessel David Starr Jordan; an annual, but sparse, bottom

trawl survey for the deepwater complex using the NOAA vessel Miller Freeman; incidental coverage for nearshore flatfish in the shelf rockfish survey; and no coverage

for nearshore rockfish. In no case is this coverage completely adequate, and for several species it is nearly lacking.

The adequacy of survey information depends upon several factors: representation,

calibration, length of time series, and degree of natural biological fluctuations. Frequent (i.e. annual) surveys are more necessary when the biology of the stock causes

short-term natural fluctuations in stock abundance, or when technical or biological

factors limit the precision of the survey. Here, precision refers to the degree to

which each survey is expected to be perfectly representative of (i.e. proportional to)

the stock’s abundance. Even precise, annual surveys are of limited value until they

are calibrated to the stock’s abundance. In some cases, a technical approach can directly measure a calibration factor to relate the survey gear’s catch to the absolute
72

abundance of the stock. However, this technical calibration is rarely possible. Alternatively, it is only through patient development of a long time-series of surveys that

we are able to calibrate the survey index to the actual performance of the stock over

time. It is important to note that the level of confidence in this calibration increases

with the degree of standardization of the vessel and the sampling method.

The survey needs just described would be best met through a combination of chartered fishing vessels and a long-term, dedicated fishery research vessel (FRV). The

FRV will provide all weather capability, cost effective use of scientific staff, standardized and acoustically quiet vessel operations, and capability for simultaneous

multiple missions. The chartered fishing vessels will provide additional days-at-sea

in coordination with the FRV to achieve adequate and timely coverage of the several

groups of groundfish species. Neither a program based solely on one FRV, nor a program based solely on charter of local fishing vessels could meet the needs alone. In

the absence of an improved survey program, more conservative management of the

fishery will likely be necessary, and some of the potential value of this fishery will

be lost. We are starting now to increase the level of survey effort based on chartered

fishing vessels and using ‘‘Fish for Research’’ to cover some of the costs. In the longrun, an FRV will provide a stable, dedicated platform to conduct surveys and improve the inter-calibration of chartered surveys.

Fishery Monitoring

Monitoring the West Coast groundfish fishery landings is accomplished through

a long standing state-Federal partnership. Funding provided through PacFIN provides NMFS, the states, and the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission with

the capability to turn the states’ fish landing receipt systems into a comprehensive

fish catch database which provides weekly catch reports for major species to fishery

managers. In addition, state and commission biologists sample the landings at each

major port to provide biological data to stock assessment scientists, and a coastwide

trawl logbook program administered by each state provides fishing effort data which

figured prominently in some recent stock assessments. A separate, but coordinated,

observer program administered by the Alaska Fisheries Science Center monitors the

at-sea catching and processing of Pacific whiting.

As successful as this fishery monitoring program has been, major gaps remain.

Opportunities for underreporting increase as portions of the fishery evolve to a highly geographically distributed hook-and-line fishery. There is no routine monitoring

of discards outside of those in the at-sea whiting fishery. There is insufficient biological sampling of the landings, and little economic information collected.

CURRENT SITUATION

Stocks in Decline

Some level of decline in stock abundance is an expected consequence of fishing.

The harvest policy typically used by the Pacific Fishery Management Council to set

the level of ABC is one that would reduce long-term average stock abundance to

about 35 percent of its average unfished level. Current knowledge indicates that this

level is a reasonable approximation of the level that can produce maximum sustainable yield (MSY). Application of this approach over the past 10-20 years has been

responsible for some of the decline in catch quotas as the stocks have gone from a

more abundant, lightly exploited level to a fully exploited, less abundant level.

We recently discovered that several stocks (including sablefish, bocaccio, canary

rockfish, lingcod) unexpectedly have not stabilized at the anticipated level of abundance and potential yield. Current estimates of low and declining levels of abundance for these stocks were completely unexpected by many who were confident the

stock assessment process would guide us to sustainable harvest level. Several factors contributed to this circumstance. First, early estimates of potential yield were

less accurate. As information accumulates over time, the estimates improve. In the

long run (decades), we will be able to better determine the appropriateness of the

35 percent target level. Second, the current amount of survey and fishery information has now been found to be insufficient a sufficiently high degree of accuracy in

tracking stock abundance trends. With only triennial updates in most stock assessments, the rate of improvement was slow, and the potential for overshooting the target abundance level was too high. Third, without a comprehensive observer program, the level of total catch is likely to have been underestimated, and this higher

catch has exacerbated the decline. Fourth, over the same 20 year time period, a

shift in the ocean climate has occurred. With warmer, less productive conditions

prevailing off the west coast since about 1978, some of the reduction in the level

of recruitment to these stocks could be part of a natural cycle.

Whatever the causes of the decline and the limitations in our ability to forecast

such a decline, the best available information now indicates that some stocks are
73

at only 10-20 percent of their unfished level and that reductions in catch are necessary to allow rebuilding to safer and more productive levels. Furthermore, this situation illustrates the need to apply more cautious harvest levels until adequate information is available to confidently determine that a particular level of harvest is

sustainable.

Excess Fishery Capacity

The number of vessels participating in the West Coast groundfish fishery was

capped in 1994 with implementation of the Limited Entry program. There are now

200+ trawl permits, and approximately 300 permits for either hook and line or pot

gear. Even with this system in place, the number of participants is too high to allow

a year-round fishing opportunity without severely limited bi-monthly cumulative

landing limits for individual vessels. Thus, the industry is actively pursuing a

buyback program. We are working with the industry in the development of an industry-funded vessel buyback program.

Discarded Bycatch

A goal of the Pacific Fishery Management Council is a year-round fishing opportunity for most sectors of the fishery. Since 1983, trip landing limits have been used

to cap per vessel landings to slow the rate of total landings for the entire fleet in

order to sustain the year-round fishery. This system largely achieves the goal, but

the limits are economically adverse to fishers, difficult to comply with and to enforce, and the cause of substantial levels of discard. Estimated levels of discard

range up to 20 percent for trawl-caught sablefish, but these estimates are based on

12-year-old studies, so contemporary measurement of discard levels is badly needed.

Over time these landing limits have been extended to nearly 30 combinations of species/areas/gear types. Specification of most of these limits has evolved from per trip

limits to cumulative monthly and bi-monthly limits in order to provide more flexibility to vessel operations and to reduce discard. Even with these changes, the limits

have become increasingly complicated and restrictive as ABCs decline and the level

of capitalization by the fleet increases. This has been the impetus behind the permit

buyback initiative, and has sparked a plea for implementation of a management

system that would allow landing of trip limit overages.

Cooperative Industry Willing to Engage in Cooperative Data Collection

The West Coast groundfish industry recognizes the shortcomings in our stock assessment data and has been a strong proponent of cooperative research and data

collection projects. Over the past few years, several workshops and discussion opportunities have helped to generate specific project ideas and to bridge the cultural gap

that too often exists between the fishing and scientific communities. Development

of the groundfish program in the Northwest Fisheries Science Center in 1995 increased the critical mass of NOAA Fisheries staff working on West Coast groundfish, and thus helped create an agency infrastructure to design and conduct these

projects. Now the Magnuson-Steves Act has redefined the legal landscape on which

we can develop these cooperative projects. An allocation of the total allowable catch

can now be used to compensate vessels that are chartered to do scientific resource

surveys. We look forward to using these opportunities to partner with the groundfish constituents to improve the quantity of stock assessment data, and thus to enable a less conservative harvest policy.

NEW PROGRAMS IN 1998

Resource Survey with Fish for Research

A new trawl survey will be conducted in late summer 1998 to provide additional

stock assessment data for sablefish, Dover sole, and thornyheads. This survey will

utilize four chartered local-sized fishing vessels to conduct the work, and will use

the new Fish for Research provisions of the Magnuson-Steves Act to offset some of

the direct charter costs. Such a summer survey takes advantage of better weather

for smaller vessel operations and less fish movement during the survey. Results will

be comparable, but not identical, with past and future slope surveys conducted in

the late autumn by the NOAA vessel Miller Freeman.

Cooperative Fishery Data Collection

Enhanced fishery logbooks and at-sea biological data collection by cooperating

fishers can improve stock assessments. The enhanced logbook project will allow collection of more detailed data from cooperating fishers. It will provide fishers an opportunity to report on factors that influence their fishing patterns, and the frequent

interaction with these participants will greatly improve communication between the

agency and the industry. Year-round biological sampling from a range of fishing

depths cannot be obtained from traditional shortage sampling programs. This infor-
74

mation can be efficiently obtained through cooperation with the industry, and will

be important for analysis of fishery logbook data and for interpretation of surveys

that are conducted in only one season.

Improved Stock Assessment Models

Stock assessments will be improved immediately. First, we are implementing recommended improvements in the stock assessment model from the National Research Council review. This will allow a clearer presentation of uncertainty in model

results which will enable better understanding of the benefits of a precautionary

management approach. Second, we will ensure improved access to stock assessment

databases and increased frequency of stock assessment updates. In particular, we

will update in 1998 the sablefish and shortspine thornyhead assessments and will

initiate studies to provide further improvements in the future. Third, we are improving coordination and communication of all West Coast groundfish stock assessments to improve public understanding and trust in the assessment process.

Electronic Fish Catch Logbook

A project funded by the Innovative Technology Committee is designed to develop

and demonstrate an electronic fish catch logbook system. The system will allow for

collection and analysis of fish catch and related information collected by fishers. The

goal is to increase the quantity and quality of data collected, increase the uses of

the data, and better coordinate the expression of the data for more efficient and sustainable utilization and management of the fishery resource. The core products of

the project are technology development and demonstration. The first stage of the

project involved interviews and workshops with West Coast groundfish fishers, processors, scientists, and managers to determine the unmet needs.

OUTSTANDING RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT NEEDS

We conclude by providing a brief recap of the major research and management

needs for West Coast groundfish. Each of these is designed to bring us closer to our

goal of fisheries managed to provide maximum benefit to the nation with minimum

risk of overfishing. Such a dual goal cannot be achieved without good information.

West Coast groundfish can be a valuable, sustainable fishery if we can:

1. Provide adequate monitoring of trends in all groundfish species through annual resource surveys for each of the five major groups of groundfish. A combination of chartered fishing vessels and a dedicated Fishery Research Vessel

is the best mix to accomplish this need.

2. Expand upon the resource surveys and oceanographic studies to provide advance prediction of future recruitment to these groundfish stocks.

3. Measure the contemporary level of bycatch in the groundfish fishery.

4. Increase the accuracy of fishery monitoring through logbooks, port sampling, and other means. Involve industry in cooperative projects to leverage

these fishery monitoring programs.

5. Increase the level of economic information collected from the groundfish

fishery so that impact of trade-offs in management can be more fully evaluated.

6. Improve the capabilities of stock assessment models so that fishery managers and constituents will be more fully informed of the potential benefits and

risks of alternative levels of harvest.

7. Implement capacity reduction programs that will improve the economic, social, and biological situation of the West Coast groundfish fishery.

8. Review management objectives for the fisher and develop management programs that reduce bycatch.

9. Implement all aspects of the Magnuson-Stevens Sustainable Fisheries Act,

including provisions regarding prevention of overfishing, bycatch, and essential

fish habitat.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I again thank you for the chance to

appear here today and I welcome any questions you may have.

STATEMENT OF PHILIP ANDERSON, MEMBER, PACIFIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL

Good morning. My name is Philip Anderson. I represent the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife on the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and

I am here on behalf of the Council today. Thank you for inviting us to testify on

the issues of groundfish management and research.

Background

The Council and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) manage the

groundfish fishery consistent with the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Manage-
75

ment Plan which was implemented in 1982 and has been amended ten times. The

management unit consists of 83 species of flatfish, rockfish, roundfish, sharks,

skates, raffish, morids, and grenadiers. The more important commercially harvested

species include Dover sole, sablefish, Pacific whiting, and various species of rockfish.

The amount of recreational catches of most groundfish species is small compared to

commercial catches. Most of the commercial catch is taken by trawl, longline, and

pot gear in the limited entry fishery with trawl gear accounting for over 90 percent

of the catch. There is also an open access fishery with relatively small catches by

a large number of vessels.

Management measures, including mesh-size restrictions and harvest limits, for

major species are established each fall for the following fishing year. Most harvest

limits are based on stock assessments which are written by NMFS, a state agency,

or university scientists, and are based on trawl surveys conducted by NMFS, and

data from the fisheries. The trawl fisheries, other than whiting, are managed to extend landings throughout the year as much as possible by setting bimonthly cumulative limits per vessel and adjusting them as necessary during the season.

In 1994, a license limitation program was implemented for trawl, longline, and

pot gears in an effort to control the amount of growth in the number of vessels participating in the fishery. However, the harvest capacity still exceeds what is needed

to harvest the allowable catches. The shoreside processing sector is also overcapitalized which creates less-than-optimum economic conditions in the fishery and intense

competition for the fish.

In response to these conditions, the Council has discussed additional measures to

reduce fishing effort and to directly allocate certain species among competing gear

groups and certain treaty tribes. Direct allocations have been adopted for Pacific

whiting and sablefish. Sablefish is allocated between trawl and fixed gear fisheries,

and additional measures have been adopted for the fixed gear segment to limit capacity and allocate the fixed gear share among participants. Recent declines in annual harvest limits and bimonthly cumulative limits have greatly exacerbated the

situation, and allocations are being considered for rockfish and lingcod. These measures, however, will not solve the fundamental problem of excess capacity.

An individual quota program for the fixed gear sablefish fishery was developed,

but was abandoned in 1994 when Congressional sentiment in opposition became evident. Individual quotas are now prohibited by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson Stevens Act). A trawl permit buyback

program is being considered by the Council, which has the potential to directly reduce capacity in the trawl fleet. This program was developed by trawlers and would

be funded by a self-imposed tax on trawl landings if approved by the fleet in a referendum pursuant to the new provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Reduction

of capacity is a high priority for the Council.

1997 Stock Assessments and Decisions

Each year, assessments are conducted on five to ten species, typically as part of

a three-year rotation, and Pacific whiting is assessed every year. Stock assessments

are prepared by staff scientists of NMFS, California Department of Fish and Game,

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Oregon State University. In 1997, new assessments were completed for Pacific whiting, yellowtail rockfish, lingcod, widow rockfish, Dover sole, sablefish, and

the two thornyhead rockfish species (longspine and shortspine).

In recent years, stock assessments of West Coast groundfish have generally been

conducted with the stock synthesis model which allows simultaneous examination

of information from a number of different fisheries and surveys. The surveys are

largely conducted by NMFS and include the following: •Triennial acoustic/mid-water trawl survey of whiting

•Triennial bottom trawl survey on the continental shelf to assess rockfish,

lingcod, young sablefish, and other species

• Annual bottom trawl survey of the continental slope to assess deepwater species such as Dover sole, sablefish, and thornyheads

•Pot survey for sablefish

Except for the pot survey which was discontinued, all of these surveys will be conducted in 1998. The trawl surveys of the shelf and slope will be conducted using

chartered commercial fishing vessels, while the acoustic survey will use the NOM

ship Miller Freeman.

The assessments for the deepwater species were reviewed by a panel of independent experts in 1995. The panel was critical of the slope surveys which were

used as a basis for assessment of these species. Since 1995, NMFS has made significant efforts to improve the slope survey. Given the limited amount of funding resources available and the technological difficulties of estimating the biomass of

groundfish
76

species, survey and assessment results are often accompanied by a substantial

amount of uncertainty.

In 1996, the Council implemented a new stock assessment process to improve

public participation in the process, increase the level of scientific peer review, and

provide greater separation between the scientific and management processes. This

procedure was reconsidered and expanded for the 1997 assessment cycle. In April

1997, a pre-assessment workshop was held to review and evaluate data and identify

problems and modeling assumptions. Stock assessments were prepared by Stock Assessment Teams (STATs) and then reviewed by three Stock Assessment Review

(STAR) Panels at three week-long workshops in July. The STAR Panel workshops

were open to the public. The Council’s Groundfish Management Team then met with

the STAR Panel and STAT Team representatives and developed recommendations

to the Council for annual harvest limits. The 1997 process was a substantial improvement over the previous year’s, but several problems were identified during its

implementation in 1997. The Council made further improvements to the process for

1998 which addressed these problem areas.

Based on the new estimates of biomass from the 1997 stock assessments, the recommended harvest levels were significantly reduced for some species:

• Sablefish reduced from 7,800 mt to 4,680 mt.

• Dover sole reduced from 11,050 mt to 8,955 mt.

•Longspine thornyhead reduced from 6,000 mt to 3,733 mt.

• Widow rockfish reduced from 6,500 mt to 4,276 mt.

•Lingcod reduced from 2,400 mt to 838 mt.

In addition, a substantial reduction in the harvest limit for shortspine thornyhead

was proposed by the STAR panel, but the Council believed the assessment should

be rewritten to address numerous questions raised by both scientists and the public.

The harvest levels adopted for 1998 are very similar to the 1997 levels.

The total ex-vessel (landed) values of the species for which harvest levels were changed in 1998 have declined from $59.8 million in 1996 to $55.4 million in 1997

(preliminary), and are projected to decrease to $41.4 million in 1998. These substantial reductions in revenue are occurring in an industry that is already overcapitalized which will further aggravate its depressed economic condition.

The industry was particularly surprised and skeptical of the 1997 sablefish stock

assessment. The assessment used information from the slope surveys, pot surveys,

and trawl logbooks and several different model runs which emphasized different

types of data sources which produced a wide range of possible harvest levels. Problems have been identified with all of the data sources, and there is a substantial

amount of uncertainty regarding sablefish abundance. Reasons for the dramatic

change in estimated biomass levels between the current and previous assessment

are not clear. Recruitment of new fish into the population appears to have been poor

since 1992, which may be caused by environmental conditions, but may also be a

result of low stock size. Given the concerns relative to the 1997 sablefish assessment, the Council requested a re-assessment in 1998 using the most recent survey

data and additional sources of information.

While some resource decline was expected as stocks were fished down to levels

which would provide the maximum sustainable yield (MSY), the results of the 1997

assessments still raise a number of questions about the adequacy of science and

management. Did the previous assessments overestimate abundance, resulting in

harvests which were too high? Are recent assessments sound? Are environmental

conditions in the ocean largely responsible? Are trip limit- induced discard rates

higher than estimated? The industry has been harvesting at the levels adopted by

the Council and implemented by NMFS, yet significant declines in resource abundance appear to have occurred. For assessed species, the Council has been setting

harvest limits based on assessment results and by applying the exploitation rate

that is expected to achieve MSY.

Recommendations

The Council makes the following recommendations to improve research and management of West Coast groundfish:

Increase the accuracy of stock assessments for West Coast groundfish

Reducing uncertainty involves improving the science through increasing the

number of observations and thereby improving accuracy. NMFS should increase

the frequency and coverage of surveys to measure adult biomass and the magnitude of the recruitment of incoming year-classes. Surveys need to be done annually at a minimum, and need to cover the entire range of the species. We appreciate the commitments made by NMFS Director Rolland Schmitten to permanently add $750,000 to the base budget of the Northwest Fisheries Science

Center for this purpose, in addition to the $400,000 provided for 1997 only. We
77

also appreciate the efforts of the West Coast Senate delegation and especially

Senator Ron Wyden for requesting additional amounts beginning in fiscal year

(FY) 1999.

As an integral part of the effort to improve science, the Council supports cooperative agency/industry research projects. The industry has proposed a number

of such projects, and NMFS is beginning to implement some of them this year.

In particular, the ‘‘Fish for Research’’ program authorized by recent amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act has the potential to collect needed information at less cost, and starting this summer, NMFS will contract with commercial vessels to conduct the slope survey. The vessels will be reimbursed with a

combination of cash, fish caught during the survey, and fish caught after the

survey under an exempted fishing permit.

Improving science will go a long way toward establishing credibility of the

stock assessments, but it is also important to improve the stock assessment

process so that the Council members and the stakeholders have confidence in

the results. This year, the Council and the state and Federal agencies have

committed to an improved process which was adopted by the Council at its

March 1998 meeting and is currently underway.

Be precautionary

Even with improved science, there will continue to be more uncertainty in

biomass estimates and stock assessments than decision-makers are comfortable

with. Estimating abundances of marine fish species is challenging at best since

we cannot observe the fishery resources directly and it is difficult to sample

them. Some species of rockfish are particularly difficult to survey and assess

primarily because of their slow growth rates, longevity, and geographic distribution. It is entirely possible that the recent stock assessments are indeed accurate. Other than for sablefish and shortspine thornyhead, there was little disagreement over stock assessment results. Given the uncertainty of the stock assessment and the possibility of low stock sizes, it is prudent for the Council to

be precautionary in setting harvest levels on these resources which can take

decades to rebuild.

As part of the effort to amend the groundfish plan to make it consistent with

new provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Council is examining a more

conservative harvest policy. Under this policy, exploitation rates would be reduced as biomass levels decrease, and rates would be adjusted downward to

deal with uncertainty. This policy, if approved, should provide for more stable

and abundant populations for the future.

Reduce effort

Fishing and processing capacity is larger than necessary to harvest and process the available groundfish and the recent reductions in harvest limits have

exacerbated the situation. License limitation programs and allocation regimes

have not solved this fundamental problem and additional measures are necessary to achieve a stable and economically healthy industry. The trawl permit

buyback program being developed by the industry is an example of a more direct way to address excess harvest capacity. The program as drafted has caused

some concern regarding impacts to other fisheries; however, the trawl fleet

should be commended for taking the initiative to develop this program. The

Council is continuing to work with the industry on this program and will address it again at its June meeting.

Individual quotas are another means of addressing allocation and effort problems. This tool is presently not available to the Council. When the moratorium

on individual quotas has expired, I expect the Council to evaluate individual

quotas for certain fisheries such as sablefish.

Improve estimates of total fishing mortality and reduce discards

Groundfish caught in excess of cumulative vessel limits must be discarded.

These regulatory discards most likely increase as limits decrease, but we do not

know the true magnitude of discard mortality. Assumed levels of discards are

based upon limited and outdated field studies. It is critical that we have reliable

estimates of discard mortality in order to incorporate accurate estimates of total

fishing mortality into stock assessments as well as evaluate the impact of our

management measures upon discard levels. A comprehensive, ongoing observer

program and alternative ways of collecting this information are being considered. One of the obstacles to establishing an observer program is funding. Federal funding is not available at this time and charging a fee and spreading the

cost of a program throughout the groundfish industry is not authorized by the

Magnuson-Stevens Act. These limitations have prevented the Council from pursuing an observer program in the past.
78

One alternative being discussed is to require vessels to land all catches of cumulative limit species. The fishers would not be penalized for exceeding the

limit nor would they be compensated for the overage. Monies from overages

would be deposited in a fund to help defray the cost of research programs. Such

a program could achieve multiple objectives by reducing waste, improving estimation of total catch, and providing funds for needed fishery programs, but a

mandatory program requires amendment to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and it

also raises a number of concerns. The Council continues to examine this concept.

This concludes our testimony and thank you for this opportunity.

STATEMENT OF GERALD GUNNARI, PRESIDENT, COOS BAY TRAWLERS’ ASSOCIATION,

INC.

I have been asked to give testimony on the science used by the Pacific Council

to make management decisions and the adequacy of the data used to establish quota

levels on the west coast groundfish. I thank each of you for this opportunity.

The Sustainable Fisheries Act calls for measures to reduce discards and not to

manage a complex or multi-species fishery by lowering one species in that fishery.

Doing so creates discards, not reduces it! This is exactly what NMFS IS doing.

Currently the NMFS’ interpretation of uncertainty and the precautionary approach

is when you don’t know enough about a specie it is to automatically reduce the landings of that specie no matter what condition the stock is in. This practice is destroying the ability of the west coast fleet to be good stewards of the ocean forcing discards we have never had in the past. Example: Lingcod from December 31, 1997

to January, 1998 our monthly quota went from 20,000 lbs. to 500 lbs. a 97.5 percent

reduction in landings. The commercial sector went from harvesting 95 percent of all

Lingcod to less than 50 percent. This shift made by NMFS and PFMC is

undoubtably an illegal allocation. Shifting to sports from commercial fishers means

that a seventy-five foot vessel can now only produce 150 pounds of filets per month

creating discards we never had before and denying the public access to eat Lingcod.

On top of all this, we are not seeing the reported decline in fish out on the ocean.

There are no surveys or actual accounting of Lingcod inside 30Fm out here, now

over 50 percent of the 1998 quota is being taken from an assessed area from an

area not assessed. 98 percent of the Lingcod caught by sport fishers is from inside

30Fm and very little commercially caught ling is from inside 30Fm. We do not have

a sport/commercial conflict on the ocean. However, we now have one in council’s

meeting rooms and it’s not very pretty.

In the most recent PFMC meeting in Portland the desperation of not enough fish

to pay the bills is becoming a dominant issue for many. The organized attitudes of

one gear group throwing as much mud and dirt upon another gear group to sway

the council to take fish from one group, who have traditionally caught those fish

and give it to their groups. These are some tough issues to have to deal with. We

all have to understand with financial pressures, fellow fishers have no other recourse than to turn on each other. It is the only way some of them can figure out

how to increase their landings in order to survive.

We get our fish the same way they get their fish, we earn it by working hard,

investing in our vessels, and putting in time over the years. The current situation

is killing us too, but trying to steal someone else’s fish and investment is not an

acceptable solution.

The trawl fishery is the mainstay of supplying our nation’s fish markets and restaurants with a steady source of fresh west coast fish in the past and hopefully in

the future. Investments and our bills are many times greater than other gear types.

It costs a lot to maintain a vessel and crew capable of fishing forty miles off shore

in the dead of winter. These bills are real and we support many of the business in

our coastal communities. These cutbacks are proportionately affecting our abilities

to pay our bills too. It is destroying generations of hard work and the very infrastructure dependent on fishing. We’re not attacking their business practices, they’re

attacking ours.

Over the past decade or more, we’ve been reducing catches and the number of vessels doing what NMFS has recommended and now another surprise cut by 40 to 60

percent and over 97.5 percent on Lingcod. It is now to the point that we have an

East Coast style disaster here, not due to real stock abundance levels but due to

poor science creating uncertainty in data causing regulation changes. If we are

catching 60 percent of 2 months trip limits of Dover Sole in 35 minutes of fishing

time or have problems with avoiding abundant Sablefish and can only produce 150

pounds of Lingcod filets per month, it is not a stock biomass problem.
79

Essential Fish Habitat seem’s to be the new growing buzz word; refuges, deep sea

ocean parks, NO TAKE FISHING RESERVES, and on and on. Sounds great but

where will it end? My natural concern is: Who will it effect?; Are they needed?; Will

it concentrate effort to smaller and smaller areas?

Important habitat must mean where the fish are. Who and how will this information be determined? Obviously fishermen’s own log books are the easiest source to

gather this information and HAS ALREADY BEEN COLLECTED BY THE

GROUPS WHO ARE PUSHING THESE IDEAS. What concern’s me is the only information being collected by officials is from the trawl fleet. NO OTHER GEAR

TYPES or EVEN THE SPORT FISHERS ARE SCRUTINIZED FOR DATA COLLECTION. So their important fishing areas are potentially not effected. Area closures will concentrate effort into smaller and smaller areas creating conflicts with

gear types and sport and commercial. If commercial fishermen can no longer fish

where they have been fishing they’ll have to find new spots. This is not beneficial

to the resource or the users.

Trawlers’ have been fishing off our west coast over sixty years and we go back

to the same places over and over again. If we were destroying important fish habitat, we would NOT still be fishing there. Off shore marine sanctuaries, no fishing

zones, potentially 20 square miles to me is a very serious concern being that our

information is the only information. We have years of time and thousands of dollars

invested in developing trails and areas we fish today. Will traditional users of a now

closed area be compensated? It would be no different than closing off city blocks

from people doing business after they have invested in their businesses there. At

night, we drift sometime over twenty miles or if we’re passing through one of these

areas and are just accused of being in an area illegally the legal costs could be financially devastating. The people who come up with these ideas are not effected by

the outcomes.

Solutions:

• Better data is needed in order to reduce the uncertainty, assessment authors

should have to be involved personally in the harvest of the species they assess.

• Vessels involved in these fisheries already are capable and willing to be included in gathering data.

• Coded wire tagging with tetracycline projects is the cheapest and, the fastest

solution to the aging problem, migration patterns and percentages of removals

from a given stock. Thorny heads and Sablefish need this now and it has been

recommended to NMFS since 1993. Local vessels are capable of carrying out

this project while fishing.

•Larval studies-recruitment estimates are extremely important we found out

from this last round of cuts on Sablefish in particular. NMFS made no observations of recruits so they assumed that there weren’t any. This is valuable information not being done now, local vessels are capable of this work for the best

value.

• Annual trawl surveys from 10 fm to 1,000 fm using local vessels. This is the

most reasonable costs for the return.

•Long Line surveys should be conducted every year. These will pay for themselves, Alaska is doing this now.

• Oceanic conditions should be monitored carefully as to migration patterns due

to environment conditions such water temperature, etc

•Fish for research to help in funding cooperative projects.

• Improve the lines of communications. Attempts by industry to provide NMFS

with coastal meetings have been boycotted in the past by NMFS. Another attempt is underway at this time and has been put off by NMFS. Now NMFS

says it is not needed. This is not cooperation in management and must be rectified. Deputy Secretary Garcia assured us February 19, 1998, what is happening now will not happen. It is now April 25, 1998 our attempts to help reduce uncertainty in the data through an industry based meeting is receiving

negative support from NMFS.

• We need true outside peer reviews, The NMFS, STAR, SAT reviews are NOT

an outside peer review. The west coast seafood industry has been forced to organize a true outside international review panel, and are currently looking at Sablefish and Thornyheads. LET’S MAKE SURE THESE EFFORTS ARE NOT

STOPPED AS WELL.

• International exchange of ideas, methodologies and advice is desperately needed on the west coast to help rationally utilize our fishery resources. Work is now

well underway to put together such a meeting. The date and location and international participants have already been arraigned and now Dr. Richard

Methot’s group is trying to stop this exchange. Why?
80

STATEMENT OF KAREN GARRISON, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL

My name is Karen Garrison. I am Co-Director of the Natural Resources Defense

Council’s Ocean Protection Initiative. NRDC is a national environmental organization with about 350,000 members. We have a long-term commitment to protecting

the diversity of species and habitats in the ocean and encouraging stewardship of

living marine resources. NRDC collaborates with the Center for Marine Conservation, the Environmental Defense Fund, and the National Audubon Society in much

of our Pacific marine work. We appreciate the interest of the Resources Committee

in the management of Pacific Groundfish, and the opportunity to speak here today.

Your hearing addresses questions that are critical for Pacific groundfish, but are

also broadly relevant for other fisheries around the country. In this International

Year of the Oceans, we encourage your support for improving conservation of these

important resources, through better science and other tools. At the end of this testimony is a ten point action agenda developed to encourage a conservation focus for

the Year of the Oceans. Several of its points offer useful guidance for West Coast

groundfish, as well as the management of ocean activities nationwide. We will provide details on request.

A year and a half ago, most species of Pacific groundfish—the highest value commercial fishery in the Pacific Exclusive Economic Zone—were considered relatively

healthy. That picture changed dramatically with last year’s stock assessments. Coupled with other warning signs, such as trends toward smaller average fish size and

a halving of groundfish landings (other than Pacific whiting) over the past two decades, the National Marine Fisheries Service’s 1997 stock assessments tell a disturbing story: nine of the fifteen most valuable groundfish species in the region are

now at a small fraction of their historic levels. One species is still depleted despite

a 20-year ‘‘rebuilding’’ effort.

This news underscores the importance of new measures required or encouraged

by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, including steps to avoid overfishing, minimize bycatch, protect habitat, and retire excess capacity from the fishing fleet. But it also

underscores the shaky nature of our information on groundfish. Why did some of

this news come as a sudden revelation? How can we avoid such surprises in the future?

Need for Better Data and a Precautionary Approach

Part of the answer lies in providing better survey information and analysis. Data

are limited even for the 15 groundfish species NMFS assesses in detail. Key pieces

of information, such as accurate assessments of bycatch, are missing.

Furthermore, fully 68 of the groundfish species managed by the Pacific Fishery

Management Council (PFMC or Council) are of unknown status, because we have

little information about their abundance or how they are affected by fishing. Yet

fishing is allowed on these species as if we were sure they were in good shape. Some

of these stocks, like the group called ‘‘near shore rockfish,’’ now support lucrative

and rapidly growing fisheries. In cases like this one, the combination of lack of data

and lack of management caution could be disastrous.

A proposal from NMFS’ annual stock assessment workshop to conduct a stock assessment of the near shore rockfish group in 1999 deserves Congress’ strong support, as do proposals to assess all other groundfish at whatever level is feasible. In

the meantime, steps should be taken to limit fishing in cases where problems are

indicated or suspected.

An equally important part of the answer, however, lies in finding less risky ways

to deal with uncertainty. Our ability to understand the abundance and reproductive

rate of most ocean species will always be subject to uncertainty. Groundfish, and

particularly the reclusive rockfish, are notoriously difficult to sample accurately. A

standard response in the past has been to put the most positive possible face on

the data, from the perspective of someone who wants the biggest possible catch. The

phrase ‘‘conspiracy of optimism,’’ coined for other resource issues, aptly describes

what happens in fisheries. When managers and scientists routinely downplay uncertainty and interpret data too hopefully, it should come as no surprise that groundfish depletions were discovered only after the populations had taken a huge dive.

By then, the necessary catch cuts took a heavy toll on the fishing community.

Sablefish provide a useful example of how easy it is for estimates of population

size to be wrong. For many years, managers set what they thought were protective

catch limits. But as more data were collected, it became apparent that the abundance estimates, on which catch limits are based, had been wrong for about two decades. Managers had been protecting paper fish. The main error lay in managing as

if the information was certain, when it was not. Scientists need to be clear about

the extent of uncertainty, and managers need to be more cautious until more infor-
81

1 National Standard 5 says conservation and management measures shall consider efficient

utilization of fishery resources, except that no such measure shall have economic allocation as

its sole purpose.

mation is available. As recently as last year, however, when scientists acknowledged

uncertainty in the data and recommended cuts in catches of two deepwater groundfish, the PFMC failed to heed their advice.

Uncertainty also exists because fish populations wax and wane under the influence of long-term fluctuations in ocean temperatures and other environmental conditions. The effects of these shifts are often difficult to distinguish from the effects

of fishing. But unless management takes this uncertainty into account, the combination of fishing and climate impacts can cause deep depletions.

The Magnuson-Stevens Act aims to reduce these kinds of risks by instructing

managers to take uncertainty into account. That shift will not come easily. Congress’ full support of the precautionary approach implied in that provision is essential if the Councils are to avoid painful surprises in the future.

In many parts of the world, no-fishing reserves are being used as a means of ensuring that baseline information is available, boosting vulnerable populations in

mixed stock fisheries, and providing insurance in the face of uncertain information.

Several small reserves in state waters on the Pacific Coast have demonstrated their

value as havens where fish can grow large and highly productive. NRDC urges your

support for the Council’s use of reserves as a tool for groundfish management and

habitat protection.

Although the main focus of this hearing, and our testimony, is the adequacy of

groundfish data and assessments, the PFMC faces several intertwined management

challenges. We address those issues briefly below.

Reducing Overcapacity

No controls were placed on entry or capitalization as American boats took over

from foreign fleets in the late 1980s and new markets developed for groundfish species. As a result, the top problem in the groundfish fishery today, besides the uncertainty of our knowledge about them, is overcapitalization of the fleet. A limitedentry program adopted in 1994 to address excess capacity has not sufficiently decreased the number of participants or the amount of fishing power aimed at these

fish. Excess capacity can encourage high bycatch levels, create pressure to ignore

warning signs and to overfish, and make it difficult for people in the industry to

make a living.

To be effective, buy-back and gear-limiting programs aimed at solving this problem must meet certain standards. Such programs must prevent the replacement of

the removed capacity through a moratorium on new entrants, restrictions on vessel

upgrades, and other effort control measures, as required by the Magnuson-Stevens

Act (See 312. (b)(l)(B)(i)). They should ease the economic strain on those who remain

in the fishery, but, consistent with National Standard 5 of Magnuson-Stevens,

should also serve a conservation function, relieving the excess pressure on the resource.1 They should avoid intensifying the pressure on other fisheries. And, as recommended by the Pacific Marine Conservation Council (PMCC), an organization of

commercial and recreational fishers, marine scientists and conservationists, such

programs should have clear goals that can be evaluated.

Judging by those standards, the buy-back proposal currently before the PFMC has

serious flaws. It would purchase permits, not boats, leaving open the possibility that

the retired capacity could in fact enter other fisheries. That poses a serious problem,

since virtually all West Coast fisheries are overcapitalized. Key fisheries like squid

and crab have no entry limits, thus are targets for excess capacity. Nor does the

proposal adequately guard against vessel and gear upgrades in the remaining fleet.

Without such limits, overcapacity is likely to recur in the groundfish fleet, and no

conservation purpose will be served. All parties should work together to make sure

a Pacific groundfish buy-back program complies with Magnuson-Stevens, setting the

right precedent as one of the first under the Act. We agree with PMCC and the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations that an effective program must

remove vessels from the fleet.

Minimizing Bycatch

Bycatch rates average about 30 percent for the Pacific groundfish trawl fleet.

Many groundfish are long-lived and can support only low harvest rates, yet they

often mix with shorter-lived species. Managers face the challenge of devising controls that protect low productivity species, while allowing full catch of high productivity ones. The current high rates of bycatch intensify the pressure on vulnerable
82

species, while measures that reward clean fishing and reduce bycatch rates can help

relieve that pressure.

Mandatory observer programs are a first critical step toward obtaining accurate

assessments of bycatch. Such programs should provide representative coverage of

the whole fleet, while spreading the industry share of the cost proportionally to revenue generated. To minimize bycatch, as required by Magnuson-Stevens, the current system that spreads fishing throughout the year may need to be modified, since

the resulting low trip limits encourage unacceptably high rates of bycatch. Other bycatch reduction options include time and area restrictions, gear modifications, and

incentives for clean fishing. The Council should encourage efforts like Oregon’s voluntary program to reduce bycatch of rockfish in the shrimp fishery through the use

of fish excluder devices.

Requirements that all bycatch be retained, when coupled with an observer program, can be an incentive to reduce unintended catch. But to avoid institutionalizing bycatch, full retention should be required, not just retention of the marketable

portion of the catch. There may be potential to generate funds in the short-term by

processing retained bycatch, but minimizing the bycatch must be the primary goal.

The focus of the program should be on rewarding vessel operators who achieve consistently low bycatch levels, through revocable exemptions from observer coverage,

extended fishing seasons, or other means.

Habitat Protection

Another challenge facing the Council is the need to protect essential habitat for

groundfish. Of particular concern on the West Coast is the long-term effects of recently introduced roller gear. This gear allows trawl nets to maneuver in formerly

inaccessible rocky ocean floor, and is believed to pose a threat to valuable rockfish

habitat. NMFS has proposed a range of measures to address these issues, including

the development of a framework fish management plan amendment that could include the use of marine ecological reserves. We urge Congress to support the use

of innovative strategies by the Council and NMFS to protect spawning and breeding

grounds and other essential habitat for groundfish.

Year of the Ocean Recommendations

We urge you to consider and support the steps summarized below:

1. Review America’s efforts to conserve its ocean waters and wildlife.

2. Protect and restore America’s ocean waters.

3. Expand marine protected areas.

4. Protect America’s coral reefs.

5. Invest in the future of America’s oceans.

6. Revitalize America’s marine fisheries.

7. Protect endangered marine wildlife.

8. Take stock of America’s marine wildlife and ocean waters.

9. Promote ocean stewardship and education.

10. Spur international efforts to protect the oceans.

Conclusion

The declines of Pacific groundfish present West Coast fishery managers with a

major challenge. We commend the Council and NMFS for taking the first important

step toward meeting that challenge last year, by promptly cutting catches for most

of the depleted populations and securing additional funds to improve data collection.

We urge Congress to support a number of additional steps we believe will help

avoid similar surprises in the future, and lay the groundwork for rebuilding these

fisheries. Information-related measures include: additional funding for groundfish

data collection and assessment; an intensified effort to assess the status of groundfish stocks (of known and unknown status); a strong commitment to the precautionary approach in interpreting the data and applying it in management decisions; and development of a mandatory observer program to assess bycatch levels.

Conservation measures will also be essential. They should include the development of a buy-back proposal that removes vessels and serves a conservation as well

as an economic purpose; adoption of bycatch minimization measures; and creation

of pilot marine reserves aimed at protecting groundfish habitat, providing baseline

information, and helping rebuild depleted fish populations. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

STATEMENT OF CHRIS BLACKBURN, DIRECTOR, ALASKA GROUNDFISH DATA BANK

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on West Coast Groundfish issues. The

Alaska Groundfish Data Bank (AGDB), located in Kodiak, Alaska, represents
83

groundfish fishermen and processors operating primarily in the central Gulf of Alaska. A central mission of the AGDB is improvements in stock assessment and applied

fishery science.

Our comments will address issues germane to Alaska resource surveys and stock

assessments, research vessel needs, and resource utilization. Adequate funding levels and research efforts in each of these areas are necessary to meet requirements

under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and to provide an effective, comprehensive management program for northwest marine resources.

Surveys and Stock Assessments

Currently, NMFS annually surveys in March one pollock spawning biomass (the

Shelikof Strait pollock spawning aggregation) in the Gulf of Alaska using

hydroacoustic technology to determine stock size. During alternating years, NMFS

expands the survey to more closely examine biomass in a single spawning aggregation in the Western Gulf. However, there are additional spawning aggregations in

the Eastern Gulf and the East Side of Kodiak Island, the size of which remain

unquantifiable.

The health of these additional aggregations could be determined by expanding the

survey to include one new area each year. Thus, each aggregation would be surveyed every third year while the Shelikof survey would continue on an annual basis.

These additional surveys are essential to developing a comprehensive understanding

of pollock biomass.

Furthermore, NMFS surveys Gulf Groundfish via a summer triennial bottom

trawl survey. Unfortunately, the survey has suffered long term attrition under fiscal

constraints, sampling fewer stations at more inshore locations. This has resulted in

surveys that are not sufficient to monitor the populations status of pollock, cod,

rockfish and other groundfish in the near shore and deep water areas.

In the Bering Sea/Aleutians (BSA) area, NMFS currently conducts annual summer hydroacoustic surveys on pollock spawning biomass, along with an annual bottom trawl survey targeting crab stocks. In addition, NMFS conducts groundfish surveys once every three years, a protocol similar to the Gulf area. Likewise, AGDB

remains concerned that triennial surveys are not sufficient to facilitate a sound

management program. We also suggest increasing the groundfish survey periodicity

to a biennial program to improve our conservation potential.

We urge the Subcommittee to recognize the lack of stock status information and

long term implications on groundfish fisheries and take steps necessary to address

these concerns. AGDB is seeking to improve fish stock assessment programs by increasing the frequency of the surveys from once every three years (‘‘triennial’’) to

once every two years (‘‘biennial’’), and adding information from locations not currently being surveyed. We believe that improved stock assessments will reduce the

potential of overfishing and, for some poorly assessed species, increase the allowable

quotas, increasing economic activities for fishing communities throughout the GOA.

Research Vessels

NMFS employs the Research Vessel (RV) Miller Freeman for hydroacoustic surveys in the GOA. The vessel is uniquely suited for this type of research compared

to commercial fishing vessels which lack the appropriate equipment or design to

conduct sonar surveys. Hence, the RV Miller Freeman is a critical component of the

fisheries research program off Alaska.

Currently, the RV Miller Freeman is in need of shipyard repairs. It is essential

that funding be available to ensure this vessel, or one with similar capabilities, is

continually available to conduct the necessary pollock surveys in the GOA. We urge

the Subcommittee to recognize the value of maintaining this vessel.

In addition, NMFS actively charters commercial fishing vessels to conduct groundfish bottom trawl surveys in the GOA. The AGDB recognizes NMFS’ efforts in this

regard and encourages this cooperative activity as it provides employment opportunity and brings fishermen directly into the management process. We believe

NMFS should aggressively use the competitive procurement process to supplement

the West Coast fisheries research activities.

Resource Utilization

In the past, NMFS staff in the northwest and Alaska regions were very active in

the area of utilization, devoting considerable effort into improving fish waste systems, product stability, and increasing the value of fish meal. However, research

and development in the area of utilization has received short shrift during the recent period of shrinking budgets.

Ironically, utilization has become more of an issue subsequent to the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act which is clear in requiring reduced bycatch and

efficient utilization of marine resources. Accordingly, NMFS has issued regulations
84

mandating increased efficiency in the area of utilization. AGDB is concerned that

reduced Federal funding will impede the industry’s ability to develop new ways to

meet increased these increased demands.

The industry has stepped in to fill the void left by NMFS and is working

proactively to address improved utilization. Recently, the National Fisheries Institute, filed a petition with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to allow processors to carry just one type of packaging for multi-species use in the formulation

of surimi. If successful, processors would increase their efficiency by using several

finfish species to make surimi, rather than using just one species and then having

to process others differently. We understand the FDA is moving very slowly if at

all, and any support the Subcommittee can provide to move this issue along will be

extremely helpful.

Furthermore, AGDB is supporting the efforts of the Fishery Industrial Technology

Center at the University of Alaska Fairbanks to improve industry’s utilization of

fish resources. The Center currently has funding requests into the Department of

Agriculture for several projects designed to efficiently handle fish-byproducts and

develop new value-added products. Here again, the industry could use the help of

this Subcommittee to ensure these proposals are given due consideration.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these critical programs. Please do

not hesitate to contact the Alaska Groundfish Data Bank should you our the members of the Subcommittee have any questions.
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104