U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

73-085 PS 2002

ECOSYSTEM-BASED FISHERY

MANAGEMENT AND THE REAUTHORIZATION OF THE

MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND

MANAGEMENT ACT

OVERSIGHT HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION,

WILDLIFE AND OCEANS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

June 14, 2001

Serial No. 107-38

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://resourcescommittee.house.gov

(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member

Don Young, Alaska,

Vice Chairman

W.J. ‘‘Billy’’ Tauzin, Louisiana

Jim Saxton, New Jersey

Elton Gallegly, California

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee

Joel Hefley, Colorado

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland

Ken Calvert, California

Scott McInnis, Colorado

Richard W. Pombo, California

Barbara Cubin, Wyoming

George Radanovich, California

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina

Mac Thornberry, Texas

Chris Cannon, Utah

John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania

Bob Schaffer, Colorado

Jim Gibbons, Nevada

Mark E. Souder, Indiana

Greg Walden, Oregon

Michael K. Simpson, Idaho

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado

J.D. Hayworth, Arizona

C.L. ‘‘Butch’’ Otter, Idaho

Tom Osborne, Nebraska

Jeff Flake, Arizona

Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana

George Miller, California

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey

Calvin M. Dooley, California

Robert A. Underwood, Guam

Adam Smith, Washington

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands

Ron Kind, Wisconsin

Jay Inslee, Washington

Grace F. Napolitano, California

Tom Udall, New Mexico

Mark Udall, Colorado

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey

James P. McGovern, Massachusetts

Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico

Hilda L. Solis, California

Brad Carson, Oklahoma

Betty McCollum, Minnesota

Allen D. Freemyer, Chief of Staff

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel

Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk

James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director

Jeff Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland, Chairman

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam, Ranking Democrat Member

Don Young, Alaska

W.J. ‘‘Billy’’ Tauzin, Louisiana

Jim Saxton, New Jersey,

Vice Chairman

Richard W. Pombo, California

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey

(III)

CONTENTS

Page

Hearing held on June 14, 2001 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of Members:

Gilchrest, Hon. Wayne T., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Maryland ................................................................................................... 1

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 2

Underwood, Hon. Robert A., a Delegate in Congress from Guam ................ 2

Statement of Witnesses:

Crowder, Dr. Larry B., Professor of Marine Biology, Duke University

Marine Laboratory ........................................................................................ 39

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 41

Fluharty, Dr. David L., Chairman, National Marine Fisheries Service

Ecosystems Principles Advisory Panel, University of Washington ........... 10

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 12

Hinman, Ken, President, National Coalition for Marine Conservation ....... 51

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 53

Hogarth, Dr. William T., Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,

National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Department of Commerce ........ 4

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

Response to questions submitted for the record ..................................... 78

Livingston, Patricia A., Program Leader, Resource Ecology and

Ecosystem Modeling, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, National Marine

Fisheries Service, U.S. Department of Commerce ..................................... 29

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 30

Murawski, Dr. Steven A., Chief Stock Assessment Scientist, Northeast

Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S.

Department of Commerce ............................................................................. 16

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

(1)

ECOSYSTEM-BASED FISHERY MANAGEMENT

AND THE REAUTHORIZATION OF THE

MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT

Thursday, June 14, 2001

U.S. House of Representatives

Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans

Committee on Resources

Washington, DC

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m., in Room

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Wayne T. Gilchrest,

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE WAYNE T. GILCHREST, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

MARYLAND

Mr. GILCHREST. The meeting will come to order. I want to welcome all of the witnesses here this morning. We look forward to

your testimony to discuss a rather fascinating, sometimes mysterious issue that we are referring to as Fisheries’ Ecosystem

Plans, and are they possible? Do we have the technology? Can they

or we put this into the Magnuson Act so that the councils will implement this policy, this scientific understanding? It is my perspective that one of the most important things we can do to save the

fisheries in the Nation’s oceans is to, as best as we can, continue

to try to understand the complex dynamics of the mechanics of natural processes in all of their infinite, varied forms.

And so I guess since E.O. Wilson, in his book ‘‘Consilience,’’ said

that we have a brain that is the most complex organism in the

known universe, we are up to the task. So we have had a series

of hearings on the Magnuson Act, and we will continue to do so

that we understand all of the various aspects of that rather extraordinary piece of legislation, and we want to make sure that all

parties are treated equally and fairly, whether it is nymphs or

NOAA, the fish processors, the fishermen themselves, the scientists, everybody involved in this issue.

So we will do everything we can to make sure that we collect the

best data and that the best data and pieces of information that we

have are disseminated to every interested party, even if that means

holding not only workshops for scientists, but workshops for the

fishermen to explain, for example, the process of a Fishery

2

Ecosystem Plan. And one of the examples of that is agriculture.

Nutrient management plan, best management practices all over

the country, scientists and farmers almost routinely get together to

discuss those issues, and so this is no less important.

But welcome, all of you, and we look forward to your testimony.

I yield now to the gentleman from Guam, Mr. Underwood.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilchrest follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Wayne Gilchrest, Chairman, Subcommittee on

Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans

I would like to welcome our witnesses to the third of what I hope will be a number of hearings on the important topic of the reauthorization of the Magnuson–

Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

This hearing will focus on the important issue of ecosystem-based management

in fisheries. To further this discussion, Congress asked the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to establish an Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panel to assess

the extent that ecosystem principles are currently used in fisheries management

and research, and to recommend how such principles can be further implemented

to improve our Nation’s management of living marine resources.

I think this report provided a good outline for incorporating ecosystem-based principles into federal fisheries management. While there is seemingly broad agreement

on the need for ecosystem-based fisheries management, there may be debate on how

best to implement such measures into existing fishery management plans and research programs. This debate is healthy and I hope that today’s hearing will provide

some examples of how ecosystem-based management is currently incorporated into

fisheries management and provide suggestions for improving fisheries management

through the use of ecosystem-based principles.

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.

STATEMENT OF HONORABLE ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, A

DELEGATE TO CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF GUAM

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for

pointing out that all of us have a brain.

[Laughter.]

Mr. GILCHREST. I was going to say something, but it would sound

partisan, so I won’t say it.

[Laughter.]

Mr. UNDERWOOD. We have bipartisan brains.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that you have raised the

issue of ecosystems, and the ecosystem base management of natural resources. As we all know, everything in the ecosystem is mutually dependent on everything else, and it seems logical that we

apply this concept to fisheries management. The question is whether we have the capability, and the knowledge, and the willpower

to do so.

Unfortunately, ecosystems are not that easily defined. It takes

vast amounts of time and money to conduct accurate research of

where boundaries are between ecosystems and how the living resources within them interact. Research is further complicated by

some species that cross ecosystem boundaries, which may be great

for them, but make things infinitely more difficult for us as we

work to utilize these species in a sustainable manner.

The true interconnectedness of ecosystems is only beginning to

be researched. Over the past 30 years, when total allowable catch

quotas have been set, only the impact of these catches on the stock

itself were evaluated. We are now learning that catching fish not

only affects the species being caught, but their predators and prey

3

as well. We, as fishermen, can throw off the balance of an ecosystem even if fishing only one species.

My own experience with ecosystems is predominantly through

coral reefs. Coral reefs of the Pacific not only enhance the beauty

of the region, but also add to the economy through tourism and

fishing industries. For the good of all people dependent upon them,

as well as for those who have yet to have the thrill of seeing them

firsthand, we must manage the resources of the coral reefs and the

reefs themselves in a sustainable manner. This includes the need

to engage in sustainable development and exploration.

The natural benefits of reefs may extend much further than ever

expected into areas of pharmaceuticals and other research. And if

we do not work to keep what now exists, how would we know what

the future might find and hold for us. And current science leads to

the conclusion that the best way to insure the future is through

managing the ecosystem as a whole. We must learn about the relationship between fishes, between prey and predators, between the

environment itself, and the living resources and our own impact on

that environment.

The ecosystem includes weather phenomena, tides and currents,

and human impact such as pollution, runoff particularly affects

coral reefs, as it does all ecosystems that are in the water. Only

by furthering our understanding of these actions can we truly

begin to utilize our resources in a sustainable manner.

As we are constantly reminded by marine scientists, right now

we know more about the moon than we do about our ocean. Finding future uses for what lies within them is much more than just

a possibility, it is a near certainty. But as I mentioned above with

coral reefs, we must act to conserve now because we might never

know what we have missed if the ecosystems are altered irreparably before we can fully explore in a sustainable manner their

potential.

We will hear views today about the possibility of incorporating

ecosystem management into a fisheries management regime. The

witnesses before us will discuss how costly it may be, how long will

it take for fisheries management councils and the National Marine

Fishery Service to formulate plans of ecosystem management and

how much research has been done and how much more is needed.

If ecosystem management will improve the conservation and management of our resources, then it is incumbent upon us to address

these issues head on.

I want to thank the Chairman for holding this very important

hearing.

Thank you.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Underwood.

Again, thank the witnesses for coming this morning. We look forward to your testimony.

Dr. Hogarth, you may begin.

4

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM T. HOGARTH, PH.D., ACTING

ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR FISHERIES, NATIONAL

OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Dr. HOGARTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the

Subcommittee. It is nice to be here today to talk about an extremely important issue for the future of fishery management. I am

Bill Hogarth, the Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries for

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Landings of many marine fisheries worldwide have declined in

recent years. The causes of these declines include overharvesting,

habitat alteration and loss, pollution, and natural environmental

change. Fisheries managers are increasingly required to address

the potential direct and indirect impacts on fisheries from protected

resources and other values and services the oceans provide.

In addition, we are required to address the impacts of fisheries

operations on protected resources such as sea turtles and marine

mammals. Ecosystem-based management is one approach that will

improve upon single-species management to ensure sustainability

of fisheries and a healthy marine environment. Viewing fisheries in

the ecosystem context, we can begin to understand how multiple

factors affect fisheries and how our fishing activities affect the

broader ecosystem.

Implementing ecosystem-based management requires a more

comprehensive understanding and approach to fisheries research

than traditional single-species management approaches. The stock

assessment models are limited only by our ability to collect and assimilate the relevant data. Successful implementation of ecosystembased management requires considerations of such things as habitat requirements, hydrography, environmental and climate

changes, predator-prey relationships, and physical and biological

processes. It will also require adaptive management and a precautionary approach for recognizing the limits to our understanding of ecosystems.

Information on human influences and impacts is as important as

that for natural systems and must be included in any ecosystem research and management efforts. In particular, we need to more

broadly implement economically and socially efficient management

programs like the cooperatives in the Alaska factory trawling fleet

or the Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) system in the Pacific halibut

sable fish fishery. These programs allow the industry to apply the

appropriate level of capital investment and to make market-based

allocations with unnecessary interference from the Federal Government.

A reduction in capitalization will lessen the pressure to overfish,

will reduce economic impacts, and will increase the safety of fishermen at sea. The complicated legislative and institutional framework that governs resource management decision-making poses a

significant challenge for implementing ecosystem-based fisheries

conservation and management.

Although the Magnuson-Stevens Act is the principal legislation

governing U.S. marine fisheries, other Federal laws, including the

Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act

(ESA), as well as international agreements and state laws, provide

5

for the conservation and management of marine resources. Coordination of these responsibilities, as well as the appropriate involvement of all stakeholders in the decision-making processes, is critical if we are to implement an ecosystem-based approach.

Two recent reports, the National Research Council’s (NRC) ‘‘Sustaining Marine Fisheries’’ and NOAA’s Fisheries’ ‘‘Ecosystem-Based

Fishery Management,’’ provide some excellent insights and recommendations on ecosystem-based management, which are outlined in my written testimony.

NOAA Fisheries applauds the panel’s efforts to develop pragmatic suggestions to incorporate ecosystem approaches in the existing framework of the NOAA Fisheries Council system. NOAA Fisheries will be looking to these reports, and elsewhere, for ideas, as

we continue to move toward ecosystem-based fishery management.

NOAA Fisheries is also beginning to implement ecosystem-oriented approaches to the management of a few living marine resources, including the Fisheries Ecosystem Plan being developed

for the Chesapeake Bay, the Coral Reef Ecosystem Management

Plan that is being developed by the Western Pacific Management

Council, and the ecosystem-related provisions of all Fishery Management Plans (FMPs), particularly relating to essential fish habitat and ecosystem-based habitat restoration.

Last July, the NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office convened a number

of regional and national expert scientists and managers to build a

framework and establish the guidelines of a Fishery Ecosystem

Plan (FEP). Since then, the NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office and the

interagency Chesapeake Bay Program have appointed a technical

advisory panel of 16 prominent Bay scientists to guide the development of the FEP. The draft plan will include such important elements as ecosystem boundaries, a conceptual model of the food

web, and indices of ecosystem health.

Ecosystem effects of fishing and economic and social aspects also

will be included. The draft is expected by the end of 2001, with a

completed FEP by the spring of 2002. The FEP will undergo continual development, as understanding of the Bay ecosystem increases.

Mr. Chairman, details of other ecosystem-based management

plans that I mentioned are also included in my written testimony.

Finally, I want to emphasize where we go from here. Based on

good direction from the National Research Council’s and the NOAA

Fisheries, reports on the merits of an ecosystem approach to fisheries management, plus lessons learned from the Chesapeake Bay,

the Bering Sea and the Northeast, I have asked my staff to host

a national workshop this fall to develop the technical guidelines for

marine ecosystem-based management. This workshop will lead to

a better initial discussion and product as we pursue the ecosystem

approach.

As my testimony outlines, while we have a considerable way to

go in conducting the types of research that would support true ecosystem management plans, some important steps have been made.

I look forward to making additional progress in this area.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. However, Dr. Steve

Murawski and Ms. Patricia Livingston, both of whom are wellknown experts in the field, will provide a more detailed analysis of

6

what NOAA Fisheries is doing in ecosystem management, as well

as a more thorough discussion of the mechanism of this approach

to fisheries management.

Again, thank you for this opportunity, and we look forward to

answering any questions you may have.

Thanks.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Hogarth follows:]

Statement of William T. Hogarth, Ph.D., Acting Assistant Administrator for

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Department of

Commerce

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to

this hearing on ecosystem-based fishery management. I am William T. Hogarth, the

Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

ECOSYSTEM–BASED FISHERY MANAGEMENT

Landings of many marine fisheries worldwide have declined in recent years. The

causes of these declines are complex and include overharvesting, habitat alteration

and loss, pollution, and natural environmental change. At the same time, fisheries

managers are increasingly called upon to address the potential direct and indirect

impacts of fisheries on protected species and other values and services the ocean

provides. Ecosystem-based management is one approach that is being developed to

improve upon single species management to ensure sustainable fisheries and a

healthy marine environment. By viewing fisheries in an ecosystem context, we can

begin to understand how these multiple factors affect fisheries, and how our fishing

activities affect the broader ecosystem.

A basic premise of ecosystem-based management is that the relationships among

living marine resources and the ecosystem within which they exist must be addressed. This requires a more comprehensive understanding and approach to fisheries research than is necessary for traditional single-species management approaches, although single-species stock assessments have become increasingly sophisticated and some now incorporate environmental parameters. The stock assessment models are only limited by our ability to collect and assimilate the relevant

environmental data. Successful implementation of ecosystem-based management

will require consideration of, among other things, habitat requirements, hydrography, environmental and climate changes, predator-prey relationships, and physical and biological processes. It will also require adaptive management and implementation that recognizes the current limits of our understanding of ecosystems.

Humans, too, are part of the ecosystem. The interests, values, and motivations of

participants in a fishery and others who use or benefit from the ocean must be understood and factored into fishery management decisions. Information on human influences and impacts is as important as that from natural systems and must be included in any ecosystem research and management effort. In particular, we need to

more broadly implement economically and socially efficient management programs

like the cooperatives in the Alaska factory trawling fleet or the individual fishing

quota system in the Pacific halibut fishery. These programs allow the industry to

apply the appropriate level of capital investment and to make market-based allocations without unnecessary interference from the federal government. A reduction in

capitalization will reduce the pressure to over fish and its attendant economically

disastrous side effects and increase the safety of fishermen at sea.

In developing an ecosystem approach to research and management, it is important to recognize that a good deal is already known about marine ecosystems. Research into the oceans’ role in climate variability has unlocked new understandings

about how marine ecosystems function. However, this scientific information is not

consistently applied in current management efforts, is insufficient data to construct

the necessary models from which management frameworks can be derived. Therefore, emphasis must be placed on what new information is required and on how to

effectively apply existing information. It must also be recognized that both science

and management are ongoing processes and that new scientific, social, cultural, economic, and institutional information must be incorporated into the management

process as it becomes available.

The complicated legislative and institutional framework that currently governs resource management decision-making poses both a significant challenge to, and an

opportunity for, the implementation of ecosystem-based fisheries conservation and

management. Although the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and

7

Management Act (Magnuson–Stevens Act) is the principal legislation governing U.S.

marine fisheries, other Federal legislation including the Marine Mammal Protection

Act and the Endangered Species Act, as well as state laws and international agreements, provide for the conservation and management of marine resources. Coordination of these legislative and institutional responsibilities, as well as the appropriate

involvement of all stakeholders in the decision making process, is currently conducted on a case-by-case and often ad hoc basis. Implementing an ecosystem-based

management approach requires making this coordination far more integral and explicit.

Ecosystem–Based Management Reports

Two recent reports addressed the use of ecosystem-based management in marine

fisheries. The National Research Council published Sustaining Marine Fisheries and

the National Marine Fisheries Service published Ecosystem–Based Fishery Management. I will briefly highlight the findings from both of these reports.

The National Research Council’s Sustaining Marine Fisheries Report

The National Research Council’s Ocean Studies Board established the Committee

on Ecosystem Management for Sustainable Marine Fisheries (Committee) to assess

the current state of fisheries resources; to determine the basis for success and failure in marine fisheries; and to evaluate the implications of fishery activities for ecosystem structure and function. The Committee’s findings are contained in its 1999

Sustaining Marine Fisheries report. The Committee concluded that the most comprehensive and immediate ecosystem-based approach to rebuilding and sustaining

fisheries and ecosystems is a significant overall reduction in fishing mortality. The

Committee also recommended an ecosystem-based approach to fishery management

that addresses overall fishing mortality. The Committee’s specific recommendations

were to use a conservative approach to single-species management; incorporate ecosystem considerations into management; deal with uncertainty; reduce excess capacity and use assignment of rights; use marine protected areas; reduce bycatch and

discards; develop institutional structures; and get a better understanding of the

structure and functioning of marine ecosystems.

The NOAA Fisheries Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panel Report

An amendment to the Magnuson–Stevens Act in 1996 directed NOAA Fisheries

to establish an Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panel (Panel) to provide expert guidance on how to incorporate an ecosystem approach in NOAA Fisheries’ research,

conservation and management activities.

Composed of individuals with expertise in the structures, functions, and physical

and biological characteristics of ecosystems, as well as representatives from the

Fishery Management Councils, states, fishing industry and conservation organizations, the Panel produced a report that outlines basic principles, goals, and policies

necessary to implement an ecosystem approach. It includes specific recommendations, including the adoption of Fishery Ecosystem Plans (FEP) for each ecosystem

under the Regional Fishery Management Councils’ (Council) areas of authority. The

FEP is envisioned to be a document that serves as an umbrella under which individual Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) would be developed and with which they

must be consistent. An FEP would contain information on the structure and function of the ecosystem in which fishing activities occur, so that managers can be

aware of the effects that their decisions have on the ecosystem, and the effects other

components of the ecosystem may have on fisheries. The adoption of this approach

would help to ensure that individual FMPs do a better job of incorporating ecosystem considerations. The report concluded that the ultimate benefits of adopting

ecosystem-based fishery management and research would be more sustainable fisheries and marine ecosystems, as well as more prosperous coastal communities.

The Panel specified several steps that Councils should take to develop FEPs.

These include: delineate the geographic extent of the ecosystems that occur within

the Council’s authority; develop a conceptual model of the food web; describe the

habitat needs of the significant food web; calculate total removals, including incidental mortality; assess stock assessment uncertainty; develop indices of ecosystem

health as targets for management; describe available long-term monitoring data and

how they are used; and assess elements of the ecosystem that most significantly affect fisheries. Taken together, these provide the information necessary for a Council

to make fisheries decisions in an ecosystem context.

NOAA Fisheries’ Response to the Reports

Based, at least partially, on the Panel’s report and on the NRC’s report, ‘‘Sustaining Marine Fisheries,’’ the concept of ecosystem-based fishery management is

gaining momentum. Taken as a whole, NOAA Fisheries applauds the Panel’s effort

8

to develop pragmatic suggestions to incorporate ecosystem approaches into the

existing framework of the NOAA Fisheries/Council system. NOAA Fisheries is developing plans for a workshop to develop technical guidelines for implementation of

the Panel’s recommendations. NMFS will be looking to these reports and elsewhere

for ideas as we continue to move toward ecosystem-based fisheries management.

For example, NOAA Fisheries focused its National Stock Assessment Workshop

last year on ecosystem based management. About 100 NMFS and academic scientists attended the workshop and evaluated where we are in developing ecosystem

based management, and what research must be done. The research needs are broad

and include economic analyses on the desirability of alternative ecosystem states;

effects of changes in ocean conditions on species and the ecosystem; how fishing affects productivity; effects of discard of undersized or unwanted species on the target

species and on energy flow in the ecosystem. They noted the importance of longterm, fishery independent ecosystem monitoring and research, and on observer programs for tracking ecosystem changes and building predictive models. Because there

is much information needed, they noted the need for partnerships to collect and

share data from comprehensive ecosystem monitoring programs. To have effective

ecosystem based management, there is much we will need to learn and understand

about ecosystems.

NOAA Fisheries and the eight Councils have already begun investigating how ecosystem considerations can be incorporated into the existing fisheries management

structure. Generally, the approach is to conduct detailed single-species assessments

and embed them in an ecosystem context. In other words, consideration of ecosystem effects tends to be qualitative or semi-quantitative, rather than fully quantitative. Multi-species and ecosystem models are being developed in all NOAA Fisheries Science Centers and by a few academic institutions, but they are usually difficult to validate and frequently suffer from lack of adequate baseline biological and

environmental data. Extensive monitoring programs for federally managed species,

associated and dependent species, oceanographic data, habitat mapping, and climate

effects are needed to completely fulfill the data requirements of ecosystem models.

To address such needs and to implement the recommendations of the National Research Council report Improving Fish Stock Assessments, NOAA Fisheries is currently preparing a Stock Assessment Improvement Plan. The Stock Assessment Improvement Plan identifies three ‘‘Tiers of Excellence.’’ In brief, these Tiers are to enhance stock assessments using existing data, to elevate all assessments to nationally acceptable standards (which, among other things, will require adequate baseline

monitoring for all managed species), and to develop and conduct ‘‘next generation’’

assessments involving ecosystem considerations and environmental and spatial effects. As part of the fiscal year 02 Budget Request, NOAA Fisheries has requested

funding that will enable achievement of Tier 2, which includes adequate baseline

monitoring of all managed species. When Tier 2 of the NOAA Fisheries Stock Assessment Improvement Plan is achieved, an important step towards ecosystembased fisheries management will have been made. The next step will be to conduct

the assessments needed to incorporate the baseline information into the decision

making process for ecosystem and fishery management planning.

Examples of Ecosystem Approaches to Fishery Management

Although fishery management based on an ecosystem approach is still a relatively

new and evolving concept, NOAA Fisheries is beginning to implement ecosystem-oriented approaches to the management of a few living marine resources. Some examples of ecosystem-based approaches are: the FEP being developed for the Chesapeake Bay; the Coral Reef Ecosystem FMP being developed by the Western Pacific

Council; the ecosystem-related provisions of all FMPs, particularly relating to essential fish habitat (EFH); and the ecosystem-based restoration planning that guides

many of our habitat restoration projects.

Development of a Chesapeake Bay Fisheries Ecosystem Plan

NOAA is a strong Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) partner and is relied upon as

an objective voice of science. The NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office (NCBO) is leading

an exciting initiative to develop an FEP for the Bay that will result in gradual implementation of ecosystem-based fishery management. The Chesapeake Bay FEP

will clearly describe the structure and function of the Bay ecosystem, including key

habitats and species interactions. It will recommend actions to gradually implement

ecosystem-based approaches to fisheries management for Bay resident and coastal

species, and specific research needed to acquire knowledge of the ecosystem and its

fisheries that will achieve long-range management objectives.

In response to the Ecosystems Advisory Panel’s recommendation to develop a

demonstration FEP, and commitments in the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, the

9

NCBO, together with the Program’s Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee,

convened regional and national experts, scientists, and managers to participate in

the Chesapeake Bay FEP Workshop to build the framework and establish guidelines

from which to develop an FEP for the Chesapeake Bay.

As follow-up to the FEP Workshop, NCBO has appointed an FEP Technical Advisory Panel of sixteen prominent Bay scientists to: (1) develop an FEP for the Chesapeake Bay (with strong support from NCBO), (2) guide the implementation of ecosystem-based management of Chesapeake Bay fisheries, and (3) foster the continual

development of the FEP to reflect expanded knowledge of the ecosystem.

A draft of the initial FEP, which will include such important elements as ecosystem boundaries, a conceptual model of the food web, indices of ecosystem health,

ecosystem effects on fishing, and economic and social aspects, is expected by the end

of 2001, with a completed FEP by spring 2002. The FEP will be an iterative process;

it will undergo continual development as understanding increases of the Bay fisheries within an ecosystem context.

Draft Coral Reef Ecosystem Fishery Management Plan

The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council, with the assistance of NOAA

Fisheries, is preparing a new Coral Reef Ecosystem Fishery Management Plan

(CRE–FMP). Over 90% of coral reefs under U.S. jurisdiction are in the Pacific

Ocean. However, the Council foresees a significant expansion of new fisheries for

food, aquarium fishes, corals, and pharmaceuticals, especially given the increasing

overfishing occurring in state waters. Addressing the potential ecosystem impacts

of fisheries on protected species such as the Hawaiian monk seal is also an increasing concern. Key approaches that are being incorporated in the draft CRE–FMP are:

including all reef species not currently covered by existing FMPs; using a precautionary approach based on a system of permits and reporting; incorporating zoning, which includes fully protected marine reserves as an integral component; prohibiting fishing gears known to damage coral reef habitats; and providing a framework for adaptive management. The Council hopes to finish work on the CRE–FMP

in the near future.

Essential Fish Habitat

The EFH provisions of the Magnuson–Stevens Act emphasize the importance of

habitat in sustainable fisheries and the need to address unintended adverse effects

of fishing activities on important habitats. The EFH provisions require every FMP

to identify and describe EFH, minimize to the extent practicable the adverse effects

of fishing on EFH, and identify other actions to encourage the conservation and enhancement of EFH.

NOAA Fisheries and the Councils have identified EFH for all 41 existing FMPs.

The EFH designations take an ecosystem approach, consistent with the definition

of EFH in the Magnuson–Stevens Act, by encompassing habitats needed throughout

the full life cycle of managed species. Thus EFH designations include important

habitat areas for all life stages of fish and not just the spawning grounds or the

areas where adult fish are found in high densities. To provide additional focus for

conservation and management, NOAA Fisheries encourages Councils to identify

Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPCs) within EFH to highlight priority

areas that have especially important ecological functions, and/or areas that are particularly vulnerable to degradation. Importantly, the Councils are beginning to use

EFH and HAPC information in fishery management decisions. For example, when

the New England Council voted to reopen closed areas on Georges Bank to scallop

harvesting, the Council specifically decided to exclude an HAPC for juvenile cod as

well as other hard bottom habitats that are susceptible to impacts from scallop

dredging. Likewise, the North Pacific Council last year approved a measure to prohibit directed fishing for corals and sponges because it recognized that those living

substrates provide essential habitat for a variety of fishery resources. These types

of ecosystem considerations are becoming increasingly important to the sustainable

management of our nation’s fishery resources.

Habitat Restoration Planning

NOAA Fisheries is also applying ecosystem principles to our habitat restoration

planning. Through the NOAA Restoration Center, we work with other agencies, industries, and interest groups to develop regional restoration plans at the spatial

scale of a watershed or larger ecological unit. We are using regional restoration

plans to restore important coastal and anadromous fish habitats in Washington

State, New York, and Florida. These bay-wide approaches address habitat restoration needs in a comprehensive and systematic fashion, prioritizing and linking individual projects to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of restoration activities.

10

SUMMARY

The need for a much more comprehensive understanding of living marine resources and the ecosystems that support them is clear. While we have a considerable way to go in conducting the types of research and implementing integrated and

adaptive decision making processes that would support true ecosystem management

plans, some important steps have been made. I look forward to continuing to work

with the House Resources Committee and a wide range of stakeholders to make additional progress in this area.

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. With me on the panel today are two

of NMFS’s finest scientists, Dr. Patricia Livingston and Dr. Steve Murawski. Dr.

Livingston is the leader of our fishery ecosystem research in the Bering Sea and

Gulf of Alaska. Dr. Murawski is our chief stock assessment scientist for our northeastern fisheries. They will each give you a synopsis on the state of our ecosystem

knowledge and research in their respective geographic areas. Again, I want to thank

you for the opportunity to testify today and discuss ecosystem management. I am

prepared to respond to any questions that you and other Members of the Committee

may have.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Dr. Hogarth.

Dr. Fluharty, welcome.

STATEMENT OF DAVID L. FLUHARTY, PH.D., CHAIRMAN,

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE ECOSYSTEMS PRINCIPLES ADVISORY PANEL, UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON

Dr. FLUHARTY. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the

Subcommittee, I am Dave Fluharty, associate professor, School of

Marine Affairs, University of Washington, also a member of the

North Pacific Fishery Management Council.

I have prepared three topics that I think may be of interest. I

had the distinct honor to chair the panel that developed the Ecosystem Based Fisheries report for you in Congress, and I am very

pleased to have an opportunity to be here to discuss it with you;

secondly, I wanted to touch on some of the implementation difficulties that we are experiencing and are likely to experience, as we

move ahead with developing Fisheries Ecosystem Plans; and, finally, I would like to touch on some of the recommendations of

where to go from here.

The Ecosystem Principles Panel deliberately chose the term ‘‘ecosystem-based fishery management,’’ as opposed to ‘‘ecosystem management,’’ because we felt that that was something that we could

actually get our hands around, that we didn’t have to let the perfect be the enemy of the good, in terms of our understanding of the

scientific basis and social basis for developing Fisheries Ecosystem

Plans. We felt that ecosystem-based management, where we actually used the knowledge that we do have at the present time, is a

way to get moving much more quickly than waiting until we have

finished everything up. We, of course, acknowledged that there are

many difficulties, many holes that we need to fill in with research.

Secondly, and very importantly, ecosystem-based fishery management does not substitute for good fishery management. We need

good fishery management measures such as have been developed

and are being implemented under the Sustainable Fisheries Act to

actually make progress to go beyond single species approaches and

into a more ecosystem-based approach. So it is an absolute preVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:59 Mar 21, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 73085.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
11

requisite to have full implementation of the Sustainable Fisheries

Act.

Our goal as a panel was not to produce another report that

would land up on the shelf and get dusty. We wanted this one to

get wet, to get in the water, and to make pragmatic recommendations that could be put into effect immediately, and we think that

the Fisheries Ecosystem Plan is one of those measures.

Our goal of sustaining ecosystem health is a shorthand way of

basically expressing a desire for an improved state of the environment compared with today. We didn’t define it, as you probably

have seen, in any great detail, but we did try to make it very clear

that the goal is important. It is one that fishing interests and environmental interests can attach to and find a great deal of meaning

in.

The Fisheries Ecosystem Plan that we propose is a way of starting to move regional fishery management councils, through existing

institutions and processes, into consideration of ecosystem-based

management, and I think will let Dr. Livingston’s testimony explain how that is being done in the context of the North Pacific

Council.

While it should be possible to institute ecosystem-based management in the United States without additional legislation, the fact

is it sometimes is necessary, one, to make clear the intent of Congress; two, to develop enforceable pathway to implementation; and,

three, to provide a vehicle for funding and oversight.

The biggest impediment that we see right now in terms of the

development of a Fisheries Ecosystem Plan is the backlog of compliance with some of the basic environmental and administrative

laws, as well as with the Sustainable Fisheries Act. I observe, and

I think many people would also agree with me, that the Agency is

working flat out. It is overtaxed, and I don’t know quite how we

get around this, but it has been given a lot of major tasks and has

had relatively level funding. And this combination has made us

very vulnerable to not doing the job that we do. I am speaking of

this as a council member right now, watching in the North Pacific

just how difficult it is to get Essential Fish Habitat in places, to

comply fully with the National Environmental Policy Act, and with

developing all of the measures that we need to, to properly manage

the fisheries.

This is really something that it is hard to expect the Agency to

do more, in my opinion, if we don’t provide it with adequate resources, and that is definitely a concern when it comes to the issue

of whether or not to add or how to add the Fisheries Ecosystem

Plan.

In conclusion, I would say that I very much support the recommendation of Mr. Gilchrest and Dr. Hogarth to have more workshops, not only for the fishing industry, but for the council members and others with interest in fisheries management. All of us

need to come to a better understanding of how ecosystem-based

fishery management works. We are transitioning from a basically

flawed system into one that will help us manage fisheries much

better, and it is going to take some time, it is going to take resources, and it is going to take a lot of education.

12

The most critical step I think right now is for Congress to understand, and that is what I understand is the purpose of this hearing,

the need to move forward with developing ecosystem-based fisheries management. A good coach know what a team needs to motivate it and to fuel its performance, and a coach also recognizes

when it is necessary to raise the bar higher, to challenge, but not

discourage the team.

Thank you, sir.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Fluharty follows:]

Statement of David Fluharty, Associate Professor, School of Marine Affairs,

University of Washington

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on ecosystem-based fishery management

and Reauthorization of the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA). I am David Fluharty, Associate Professor, School of Marine

Affairs, University of Washington and voting-member since 1994 of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC). I had the distinct privilege to serve as

the Chair of the Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panel developing the report to Congress, Ecosystem–Based Fishery Management. Most recently, I was a member of the

study committee of the National Research Council that produced the report, Marine

Protected Areas: Tools for Sustaining Ocean Ecosystems. This combination of academic orientation and practical, direct involvement in fisheries management gives

me a unique perspective to offer this Committee. The NPFMC has subvened my

travel costs to this Hearing. However, the views I express are my own. While many

of my views are informed by my work in the North Pacific area, I think there are

similar issues and opportunities in the context of other regional fisheries management councils.

I have prepared a series of talking points that touch on three main topics in response to your invitation to address the benefits and difficulties of developing and

implementing ecosystem-based fishery management plans. First, I review some of

the intent and rationale of the Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panel. Next, I discuss

status of implementation of ecosystem-based fishery management with a focus on

impediments to achieving that goal. Third, I will make observations about the steps

and time frame needed for transition to ecosystem-based fishery management.

The basic theme of this testimony is how to make the ‘‘E’’ word stand for Excellence in fishery management and Excellence in care for the environment. Ecosystem-‘‘anything’’ tends to scare the fishing industry. Similarly, ecosystem-‘‘anything’’ tends to give false comfort to the environmental community. I believe it is

time that we translate ecosystem-based management from an abstract concept into

practical management measures. In so doing, I detect that is a very important need

to recognize a common goal, i.e., to maintain ecosystem health and sustainability.

A healthy ecosystem is good for fisheries and good for the environment.

I regard the benefits to be derived from ecosystem-based fishery management to

be a perpetual, but limited, supply of fish for commercial and recreational use and

an ecosystem that sustains biodiversity and habitats as well as other non-monetary

conceptions of the environment. In the most simplistic sense, a conservative yield

of fish from a healthy ecosystem is most likely greater than the yields currently extracted from stressed and overfished ecosystems. Even within the natural variability

of ecosystem regimes there is greater resilience to effects of fishing and other uses

under healthy versus stressed ecosystems. It is my view that experience over the

last 25 years under the MSFCMA in fisheries off Alaska demonstrates this point,

however, fishery management there is still working hard to more fully incorporate

ecosystem concerns [Attachment]. What achieves success in fishery management in

terms of sustained yield may still have effects on other ecosystem components. Fishery management is increasingly being called to address these other interactions. I

am convinced that the current fishery management institutions if given the right

kinds of legislative mandates, incentives and support can make the transition to

sustainable fisheries in an ecosystem context.

Ecosystem–Based Fisheries

The previous speaker summarized very well the Ecosystem Principles Advisory

Panel report. Some background on the Panel deliberations and intent may be useful

to add. The Panel consciously chose to use the term ‘‘ecosystem-based’’ fishery management instead of ‘‘ecosystem management.’’ To us, ecosystem-based’’ fishery management means using what is known about the ecosystem in the management of

13

fisheries. Ecosystem management is much broader in scope and less defined in

terms of management—especially for the marine environment. Using what is known

about the ecosystem is a main component of scientific fishery management. The

Panel is very aware of the inadequacies of fisheries and ecosystem data. We advise

that precautionary policies be adopted where there is high uncertainty. What we are

calling attention to is the failure to use what we know about ecosystems and the

way they function. Overfishing is a ‘‘no-brainer’’ as far as ecosystems are concerned.

At the same time fisheries managers, using fisheries dependent and independent

data, do have a good understanding of how the fisheries work in an ecosystem context. Thus, ecosystem-based fishery management is using ecological knowledge to

advise the policies under data limited conditions. Clearly, the Panel advises to avoid

making perfect knowledge of the ecosystem the enemy of using the good knowledge

we have.

A second precept of the Panel was that ecosystem-based fishery management is

not a substitute for full implementation of the fishery management requirements

under the MSFCMA and especially the amendments in the Sustainable Fisheries

Act of 1996. The SFA challenges fisheries managers to end overfishing, rebuild overfished stocks, address Essential Fish Habitat and fishing effects, account for and reduce bycatch, etc. If these basic fishery management functions are not carried out,

there is no hope for an ecosystem-based approach being implemented. Ecosystembased fishery management is not a panacea and it has prerequisites.

Third, the Panel’s goal was to make pragmatic recommendations that could be put

into effect immediately without additional legislation and within the existing framework of fishery management councils.

Fourth, the Panel’s goal of sustaining ecosystem health is a shorthand way of describing a more desired state than the current one in most marine ecosystems in

the United States. At a minimum, the benefits of a healthy ecosystem in terms of

fisheries are modest but continuous yields from abundant fish stocks instead of low

yields from overfished stocks. Managing to maintain abundance of fish means stocks

have greater resilience to all forms of stress.

Fifth, while much of the emphasis on ecosystems relates to biological and social

processes, the socio-economic and institutional dimensions of fisheries management

are, in some, respects more important especially with regard to managing human

activities, like fisheries. Without the right kinds of incentives to conserve, fishing

interests tend to ratchet up levels of fishing to compete with each other and this

results in a downward spiral of fish stocks and eventually overfishing. Much discussion has been focused on the combined economic and political pressures to overfish

under current management. The Panel observes that with political support, the necessary measures to start ecosystem-based management are largely economic and social dealing with allocating fishing rights and responsibilities. The Panel recommendation is very broad in this respect ‘‘to make local incentives compatible with

global goals’’. We did not emphasize this as much as we might given the other

charge given to the National Research Council under the SFA to investigate this

component of fishery management [See NRC 1998, Sharing the Fish ; OECD 2001,

Sustaining Marine Fisheries]. Transition to healthy ecosystems demands making

tough decisions, having adequate funding and people committed to making the system work. The strategy for implementing ecosystem-based fishery management depends heavily on economic and social as well as ecological understanding to inform

the choice of measures

Finally, the Panel’s basic recommendation is the development of Fishery Ecosystem Plans [FEP] for each of the US ecosystems under fishery management.

These FEPs provide directions for management into which the regular Fishery Management Plans could be assessed. The reason why the Panel did not choose to utilize

the FMP process is because the FEP must look more broadly at ecosystem trends

and the linkages between fisheries and the ecosystems. Cumulative effects of fishing

for all species must be considered to the best of our knowledge while FMPs focus

on species or groupings of like species..

While it should be possible to institute ecosystem-based management in the

United States without additional legislation, the fact is that it is sometimes necessary 1) to make clear the intent of Congress, 2) to develop an enforceable pathway

to implementation and 3) to provide a vehicle for funding and oversight.

Impediments to Implementing Ecosystem–Based Fishery Management

While there are scientific and other questions about how to move forward with

ecosystem-based fishery management, I believe the largest set of issues concerns the

backlog of implementation of basic environmental and administrative measures as

well as the MSFCMA measures. How much additional work can be expected from

an agency that is, in my view, overtaxed? Further, I believe there is confusion about

14

the management goal for fisheries and ecosystems that needs resolution or, at least,

additional direction. I will focus on the situation with which I am most familiar, the

NPFMC region but I think that much of what I note can apply or soon will apply

to other regions.

Repeated law suits have demonstrated that the National Environmental Policy

Act [developing of PEIS, SEIS] is not fully implemented in the current fishery management context in both its procedural and substantive aspects. NMFS is making

compliance a top priority based on the statements of its leadership. This is a major

task and one that in many cases is overdue. In the North Pacific Fishery Management Council we are literally wrestling with a 3,400 page document weighing in at

27.5 pounds Draft Programmatic Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

for the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands and Gulf of Alaska Groundfish. This is the second update from the first document prepared in 1978 and redone in 1988 although

Environmental Assessments of discrete management actions like annual setting of

TACs and amending the management plans were done. Full Programmatic EIS

work had not been done.

This effort, being done under court order has produced this a tremendous reference document on the fisheries in this region and their management. The process

which produced it and will lead to decisions on policies will help us move further

toward ecosystem-based fishery management. Why did it take a legal challenge to

push us into doing this review? I would argue that it has mostly to do with two

factors. First, the perception that Council/NMFS NEPA was compliant given its

string of EAs and high reliance on scientific analysis and advice in the management

process. Second, given the enormous work load on Council and NMFS staffs it

seemed a luxury we could ill-afford in terms of staff tasking. Development of full

programmatic review of the groundfish fisheries is at least a 3-year process involving nearly every staff member of NPFMC, NMFS Regional offices and Science Centers, Consultants, staff from the States of Alaska and Washington and we hope that

it will pass muster. Why, because, I believe, this same undertaking will be expected

for every major fishery in the United States—as soon as possible. This is reality.

While dealing with this major effort, nothing was taken off of the Council/NMFS

plate and more was added.

A second package of issues is very actively raised by Endangered Species Act and

Marine Mammal Protection Act challenges with respect to Steller sea lions. I will

not dwell on this issue as it is very complex and controversial but I will say that

efforts to deal with findings of jeopardy in three fisheries has required a huge

amount of effort in the development of Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives. This

process also requires the completion of a NEPA EIS to precede final decisions.

Again, not an easy set of responsibilities under other circumstances. This illustrates

the point that conservative scientifically based fisheries management may not take

into account the broader ecosystem issues that would be done in an ecosystem-based

approach. Also, not having the NEPA Programmatic EIS from which to tier off,

makes it difficult and somewhat redundant to perform a separate analysis simultaneously

Again, with a focus on the NPFMC at the same time we were ramping up on the

NEPA compliance issues, SFA was passed with its many requirements to upgrade

fishery management. Implementation of Essential Fish Habitat provisions is a

major stretch for the agency and for the NPFMC in particular. Even before the formal regulations were approved the Council and NMFS started to devote a large

amount of effort to identifying EFH and amending all FMPs to take it into account.

The initial focus was on getting the first part of the requirements done. I know that

finishing the first part was seen as a major accomplishment by the NPFMC. We felt

our record with respect to setting up no trawl habitat areas for red king crab in

the Bering Sea [30,000 square nautical miles, which is considered twice the area

of Georges Bank NPFMC Draft PSEIS 2001] and no trawl zones in the Southeast

Gulf of Alaska [45,000 square nautical miles], plus requirements to use pelagic

trawls, and an FMP banning fisheries on forage fish was a good start. We planned

[and are] building further under the EFH provisions concerning Habitat Areas of

Particular Concern. However, as was quickly pointed out in litigation, the fishing

effects identification and mitigation components of EFH were performed inadequately. Now we are engaged in a major scoping process and NEPA process for actions to further define and mitigate fishing effects.

The foregoing EFH discussion raises a very important point where policy direction

is needed. The EFH and HAPC mechanisms can move the development of Marine

Protected Areas ahead in the fishery management process. I am aware that new

protective measures have been developed with regional fishery management council

involvement in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary [Dry Tortugas] and are

under way in Channel Island National Marine Sanctuary. Further, the State of

15

California has a major initiative to establish a network of marine protected areas

in State waters. More and more interest is being expressed in the use of MPAs in

fisheries management [NRC 2001 Marine Protected Areas: A Tool for Sustaining

Marine Ecosystems]. Time and area closures and gear restrictions have long been

part of fishery management and many measures taken have been significant. These

types of areas are familiar to fishing interests and are one of the many types of

MPAs recognized by the IUCN and in the MPA Executive Order of May 25, 2001.

However, there is a large amount of pressure to discount any MPA that is not a

‘‘fully-protected’’, i.e., ‘‘no-take’’ zone in terms of fisheries. Clarifying the role of

NMFS in developing MPA measures under the EFH/HAPC process could be very

beneficial.

Response to the SFA requirements to halt overfishing and to develop rebuilding

plans is another key provision but one that takes time and resources to accomplish.

Fortunately none of the groundfish stocks in the NPFMC area are overfished under

the SFA definition [one crab species meets the overfishing definition and is so declared, despite scientific questions about the applicability of the definition to invertebrate stocks]. Formal procedures necessitate a couple of years to develop regulations, get regulations approved, develop rebuilding plans, get them approved and

implemented. Then it takes time for the fisheries to respond. Most groundfish species require 3–10 years before results can be observed in the fisheries and, in some

cases, much more time than that is necessary due to the life histories of the fish.

In addition, favorable or unfavorable environmental conditions can accelerate or depress rate of recovery even without fishing taking place.

Implementing the full force of the MSFCMA has proved problematic and the experience from SFA amendments should be instructive as we contemplate the more integrative step of ecosystem-based fishery management. This litany of just some of

the environmental, administrative and MSFCMA issues before councils and NMFS

is provided to illustrate the daunting realities facing fisheries managers [e.g., bycatch, observer programs, Vessel Monitoring Systems, etc. See Council Chair’s Report on MSFCMA Reauthorization, June 2001]. More importantly for the standpoint

of this hearing, it shows how many of the actions are building the information base

and understanding that is needed to take the next steps toward ecosystem-based

fisheries management. And they point to how ecosystem-based fisheries management could be useful in providing a strategic focus for what right now seems like

a series of disparate actions.

Steps to Ecosystem–Based Management

The United States is a leader in the development of theoretical and empirical

studies of fisheries ecosystems. I would venture to say that we have more ecologically trained fisheries managers than any other nation. Does that translate into

full use of what we know? Unfortunately, it does not. What we found in the Panel

is there are very good examples of use of ecosystem knowledge but the application

is inconsistent.

The Fishery Ecosystem Plan is a logical extension of fishery management under

the regional council process. The Panel has provided a sketch of what we believe

to be key elements of how such a FEP could be constructed and put into use. We

anticipate that, as with any new approach, it makes sense to phase-in the FEP concept by a process that allows experimentation and innovation at the regional level.

The NPFMC Ecosystem Chapter, a part of the annual stock assessment and fishery

evaluation documentation is an important example of what could be done. Ideally,

Congress could encourage the further development and implementation of this concept. However, it is important to keep in mind that the success of ecosystem-based

fishery management is contingent upon substantially complete implementation of

the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 an other environmental and administrative

mandates. Fortunately, full implementation of these laws provides the building

blocks for ecosystem-based fishery management.

Adequate funding is critical for success. I do not know much about budgetary

processes or allocations. I can observe that before SFA in 1996 I felt the agency was

already overtaxed in terms of work. SFA added a number of additional tasks and

some modest increases in funding, which, due to budgetary cycles was not in agency

hands until a significant amount of time had passed. In addition, since 1996, the

urgency to deal with the backlog of NEPA compliance has become more acute.

Please understand. This is not a whine. I understand and support the full implementation of federal laws and I believe that the fishery management system is

equally committed, but frankly, NMFS, the Councils, the fishing industry and environmental advocacy groups are swamped with efforts to rapidly respond to the backlog and the new responsibilities.

16

One discreet measure that would give Councils and NMFS more control over

things that go on in the ecosystem would be to do as a few states have done and

preclude new fisheries for species not under an FMP. Councils and NMFS could

open these areas under experimental fishing permits or similar regulations with reporting and other controls that would identify the benefits and costs [ecological and

economic] and would avoid rapid swings of effort into such fisheries

Another set of measures that needs to be considered as well are those that focus

on the human dimensions of fisheries and the need to develop the right kinds of

incentives for support for ecosystem-based management. This is being dealt with in

other legislative proposals, e.g., the IFQ proposal of Senator Snowe and Sen.

McCain. Suffice it to say that the Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panel strongly

urges the interrelationships to be recognized.

The most critical step is for Congress to understand what is needed to move all

of us forward who are involved in developing ecosystem-based fishery management—forward as a team. A good coach knows what the team needs to motivate it

and fuel its best performance. Above all, a coach recognizes when it is necessary

to raise the bar higher to challenge but not discourage the team.

Raising the bar. Congress needs to keep the pressure on fisheries management

reform and to be a great coach for the ecosystem-based fishery management team.

With time, financial support and legislative incentives, I believe US fisheries are already turning the corner and we will have healthy and sustainable marine ecosystems from which all of the natural service benefits can be supplied. Already there

are signs of progress but it takes a lot of pressure, consistently applied, over substantial time to turn a large ship.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much, Dr. Fluharty.

Dr. Murawski?

STATEMENT OF STEVEN A. MURAWSKI, PH.D., NORTHEAST

FISHERIES SCIENCE CENTER, NATIONAL MARINE

FISHERIES SERVICE

Dr. MURAWSKI. Good morning, Mr. Chairman

Mr. GILCHREST. Good morning.

Dr. MURAWSKI. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify before the Committee. My name is Steven Murawski, and I am

the chief stock assessment scientist for the National Marine Fisheries Service in the Northeast Region. Today, I would like to discuss with you and share some insights about the role of ecosystembased management and what it can, and perhaps has done in the

past, specifically related to the Northeast Region.

The Northeast shelf ecosystem supports about four dozen important species that contribute to the fisheries. These include species

groups such as New England groundfish, summer flounder, sea

scallops, monkfish, surfclam, ocean quahog, and a variety of other

species. These species occur in perhaps one of the most well-studied

ecosystems in the world. We have the benefit of a very long-time

series of fishery monitoring data that has collected information

about the abundance of fish species across the board for nearly four

decades. As well, we have significant programs that Congress has

funded in GLOBEC and NOAA’s Coastal Ocean Program that have

generated information on how various species interact between

themselves and also with the environment.

One of the most compelling issues relating to these four dozen

species is that almost all of them have undergone bouts of serious

decline and overfishing in the last two to three decades and one

would ask the question whether the lack of an ecosystem approach

has contributed to that. Generally speaking, it is well-understood

now that had fishery managers followed prescriptive advice for

17

single-species management, we probably wouldn’t be in the circumstances we are. Nevertheless, there is a very compelling reason

for us to go to some form of ecosystem-based management for this

system, and there is a lot of things that are contributed by the development of Fishery Ecosystem Plans that we simply can’t get out

of the current system.

There seems to be a general consensus forming around four basic

questions that we, as fishery scientists and managers, have as it

relates to the potential contributions of an ecosystem basis rather

than simply doing more single-species work. The first of these is

what might be accomplished by developing criteria for defining ecosystem overfishing and what could we get in addition to effective

single-species management?

Secondly, are single-species recovery strategies possible or desirable for complex ecosystems? Can we really restore the fishery biomass and yield potential on a species-by-species basis, given the

limits of ecosystems.

The third question we have is can fisheries research provide a

quantitative basis for defining ecosystem overfishing, as opposed to

single-species overfishing, and what are the standards by which we

could measure ecosystem overfishing, and this is a challenge for us

as scientists.

And, fourth, what are the additional monitoring and research

needs that would be necessary to support an ecosystem basis for

fisheries management?

To the first question, what might be accomplished, we really see

four major things that can be accomplished in a Fishery Ecosystem

Plan, as opposed to the single-species and species group approach.

First of all, we can take a better look at predator-prey relationships. The way that Fishery Management Plans are done in New

England and the Mid-Atlantic, they tend to focus around groups of

interrelated species that are caught together, and that leaves

predator-prey relationships and the tradeoffs between predators

and prey in the margins. A Fishery Ecosystem Plan could certainly

help there.

Secondly, bycatch management. We have numerous examples

where we have target species that are managed in one FMP that

generate bycatch interactions that are regulated in another FMP,

and that is not well-done.

A third issue that we could address in this context is the issue

of comprehensive effort control. We have seen effort regulated, for

example, in New England groundfish and scallops, with the excess

effort being pushed off to different fisheries to create other problems. A comprehensive approach is certainly necessary.

And last, the inclusion of accounting for impacts of mobile fishing

gear is certainly important to issues of habitat research, and that

is not well-covered in the current management approach.

To the second question, single-species recovery strategies, we certainly need to look more deeply at issues related to the possibility

to have BMSY and MSY values for all individual species and is the

whole less than the sum of its parts, which is an important question.

Now, as far as canned fishery science, provide us new insights,

on a quantitative basis, for ecosystem overfishing definition. This

18

is an area of current active research. There are a whole host of

things like species diversity indices that have only started to be applied to these kinds of problems. We see this as an area of great

importance, and certainly in terms of the definitions, a very critical

issue.

And last, what new research should we do? First of all, we think

that predation studies need to be improved and completed, and

that includes things like food habits, estimates of consumption not

only by the fish species, but also marine mammals and other species, and a greater reliance on the spatial processes that happen,

rather than looking at fish, as a group, as if they didn’t spread out

and interact at the margins.

Secondly, we need to develop quantitative measures of biodiversity. We hear a lot about managing for increased biodiversity, but

we, as scientists, and certainly the managers don’t really have a

good working definition of that.

Third, we need more field studies of the Marine Protected Areas

(MPAs) and other closed areas that currently exist. In our region,

we have about 20,000 square kilometers closed. These are providing new insights into the potential use of MPAs as an ecosystem

tool. We need to improve our models of species and habitat interactions and, last, we need to improve our monitoring capabilities

to work across the trophic levels.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Murawski follows:]

Statement of Steven A. Murawski, Ph.D., Chief Stock Assessment Scientist,

National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center,

Woods Hole, Massachusetts

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your kind invitation to provide testimony regarding

ecosystem-based management and specifically aspects related to the Northeast

United States continental shelf. My name is Steven Murawski, and I am the Chief

Stock Assessment Scientist for the Northeast Fisheries Science Center, in Woods

Hole, Massachusetts. In my oral and written testimony I will detail a case history

of overfishing on an ecosystem-wide basis. The Northeast shelf ecosystem is one of

the best-studied areas of the world’s oceans. Fishery-independent monitoring programs have been in place for nearly four decades, and the predator-prey interrelationships and effects of variation in the marine environment on species of the

Northeast have been extensively studied. Had prescriptive scientific advice, based

on traditional models and data, been followed, many of the difficulties we now face

in stock rebuilding could have been avoided. Nevertheless, there is a critical need

for the inclusion of ecosystem considerations in the management of this system, and

ecosystem issues will have an increasingly important and central role in setting biomass rebuilding targets, optimizing yields from interrelated species and fisheries,

minimizing habitat damage caused by gear, and in dealing with overcapacity of a

mobile, efficient, and adaptable fishing fleet.

The Northeast USA: A Case History of Ecosystem Overfishing

Off the Northeast USA (Cape Hatteras to the Canadian Maritimes) there are

about four dozen important finfish and shellfish stocks that require intensive monitoring and scientific advice to support fishery management plans. These stocks include New England groundfish (a complex of about 15 species and 25 managed

stocks), summer flounder, sea scallop, Atlantic herring and mackerel, striped bass,

surfclam and monkfish, to name a few. Virtually all of these important stocks have

undergone dramatic population declines during the past two or three decades, necessitating the development of restrictive management measures to address overfishing

(Exhibit 1). In a number of important cases these plans, which have usually been

developed for individual species or sets of species caught together when fishing,

have resulted in some level of stock rebuilding. Thus, for example, we have seen

increases in the stock sizes and landings of striped bass, summer flounder, sea scallop, and some stocks in the groundfish complex. Rebuilding of these stocks has

19

required substantial cuts in fishing mortality through the imposition of strategies

to reduce fishing pressure (effort), the closure of large areas of productive ocean waters to fishing, in some cases the adoption of low annual landings quotas, and other

measures.

It is often suggested that the depletion of these Northeast fishery resources (and

more generally those throughout the nation and the world) stems in part from our

failure to adopt an holistic ‘‘ecosystems approach’’—fisheries management and resource conservation being too focused on single-species stock status and control

strategies (Murawski 2000). The primary cause of the collapse of many Northeast

stocks clearly was excessive fishing—scientific advice from single-species stock assessments predicted as much. Nevertheless, it is appropriate to consider how systems might be assessed and managed, and what additional benefits could be expected from an explicit ecosystem orientation. The important questions in this regard are, then:

• What might be accomplished by developing criteria for defining ecosystem-level

overfishing and management measures that could not be accomplished under effective single- or multiple species fishery management plans?

• Are single-species recovery strategies possible or desirable for complex marine

ecosystems, and if so, what characteristics of ecosystems should be considered

when developing stock rebuilding targets and thresholds?

• Can fisheries research provide a quantifiable basis for defining ecosystem overfishing and acceptable standards to measure progress against those definitions?

• What additional monitoring and research would be necessary (over and above

that necessary to support species management) to support ecosystem-based fishery management?

The situation off the Northeast USA provides some useful insights into these

questions; as a case history, these fisheries are often regarded as a prime example

of ecosystem-level overfishing (Hall 1999; Fogarty and Murawski 1998).

While overfishing of some species was evident as early as the late 1920s (i.e.,

Georges Bank haddock and Atlantic halibut), overfishing on an ecosystem scale did

not occur in the Northwest Atlantic until the early 1960s, with the massive influx

of effort from European and later Asian distant-water fleets. The scale of the effort

increases in the 1960s and early 1970s was so massive that the system showed

rapid and broad-scale declines in the fish populations off the coast (Exhibit 1). These

fleets of large vessels could not survive on low catch rates and thus the distantwater fleets engaged in a strategy of switching from one abundant target species

to another in a now classic pattern termed ‘‘sequential depletion’’ (Orensanz et al.

1998). In this fishing pattern, multispecies catch rates are maintained, for a while,

by re-targeting fisheries to abundant or valuable resources, with fishery management structures unable to anticipate or keep up with the changes in fishing patterns. The severe depletion of traditional USA groundfish species such as haddock,

whiting (silver hake), red hake, and yellowtail flounder was followed by shifts and

collapses in herring, mackerel, and other species important to the functioning of the

fish component of the ecosystem (Exhibit 1; Fogarty and Murawski 1998). The fishery initially focused on predators and other high level consumers, and later on fish

species of lower position in the food web (Sissenwine et al. 1984), consistent with

a strategy of ‘‘fishing down the food web’’ (Pauly et al. 1998). The collapse of herring

and mackerel stocks—primary prey for a number of predators such as cod, whiting,

dogfish, and pollock, resulted in substantial shifts in diet composition and consumption rates by these predators (Overholtz et al. 2000), and resulted in substantial increases in other species including sand eels (Fogarty et al. 1991).

A comprehensive fishery research strategy to index all the marine fish components of the Northeast ecosystem was introduced in the early 1960s, coincident with

the influx of distant-water fleet effort. The delivery of the R/V Albatross IV in 1962

provided for the first time an adequate platform from which to mount system-wide

bottom trawl surveys in the nearly 250,000 km2 Northeast continental shelf ecosystem. These surveys, undertaken in a statistically rigorous manner for nearly 40

years, provide the basis for single-species stock assessments and other data about

the ecosystem. It is these data (Exhibit 1) that documented clearly the impacts of

fishing on individual stocks and species groups. In addition to abundance and biological measurements of individual stocks, stomach sampling information obtained

from the surveys has allowed for modeling of the impacts of predator-prey interactions (Overholtz et al. 2000).

Fishery management in the 1970s was primarily undertaken through the auspices

of the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (ICNAF).

Eventually ICNAF adopted comprehensive quota management systems for primary

target species, and an overall cap on fisheries removals (similar to that now in effect

20

in the Bering Sea) to address predator-prey and bycatch problems. This regime

ended in 1976 with the adoption of the Magnuson Act.

With the adoption of domestic management programs, most quota-based management of finfish resources was phased-out in the early 1980s in favor of ‘‘indirect’’ controls on fishing such as minimum fish and mesh sizes. Although stock assessments showed increased fishing mortality rates and declining biomasses of the valuable stocks, fishery management responses were too slow to respond and generally

inadequate. Landings of groundfish stocks increased in the early 1980s due to good

recruitment from the mid 1970s, but later declined severely due to high harvest

rates and recruitment failure (Exhibit 2). Beginning in the early 1990s, fisheries

management again instituted systems of direct controls including ‘‘hard’’ quotas for

a number of Mid–Atlantic species (summer flounder, surfclam, ocean quahog, mackerel, scup, squids), and effort control for New England groundfish, sea scallop, and

monkfish. Combined with the large scale closure of productive fishing grounds in

New England (Exhibit 3), management has achieved lower mortality rates for most

valuable stocks and abundance has improved.

For some stocks such as herring and mackerel, domestic fisheries have never generated fishing mortality rates as high as those achieved under the foreign fishing

regime, and these stocks increased rapidly to very high levels after 1976 (Exhibit

1). Currently, herring and mackerel are abundant and relatively productive, and are

consumed by a wide variety of fish, seabirds, and marine mammals. The recovery

of these species was an early indication that the effects of ecosystem-level overfishing were not necessarily irreversible—that important components of the ecosystem could be recovered despite the complexity of species interactions and fisheries.

Studies of the food web supporting the shelf fisheries have demonstrated just how

complex the system is (Link 1999). However, despite this complexity, research has

demonstrated that the system is not so tightly bound that recovery potential is severely limited by dominant predator-prey relationships. One of the most important

observations of the Georges Bank GLOBEC research program is that environmental

variability has a significant influence of the survival of young fish (Fogarty and

Murawski 1998). Other recent studies have also shown that there are substantially

greater odds of getting strong replenishment of groundfish occurring when spawning

biomasses are high (Brodziak et al. 2001). The empirical observations of the recovery of prey species like herring and mackerel, combined with information demonstrating the importance of adequate spawning biomass, and the roles of oceanographic variability, have all strengthened the case for aggressive management for

stock recovery and eventual fisheries sustainability at levels approaching MSY.

The Role of Ecosystem Considerations

All of the stocks regulated under Federal FMPs have, as their fundamental basis,

the definitions of overfishing and attendant control rules set so that fishing mortality rates do not exceed the level that is necessary to achieve maximum sustainable yield (MSY). Further, biomass targets are established for each of the major

stocks, based on the likely recovery potential by using analyses of historical fisheries

and research data. It is clear that the establishment of target biomasses under the

single species approach leaves many unanswered questions. A primary question of

great current importance is: what is the biomass and yield potential for stocks that

have been chronically overfished throughout the period for which there are landings

and population data? It is possible that the yield potentials of some stocks, like

Georges Bank haddock and yellowtail flounder, sea scallop, and summer flounder

are different than those indicated by single-species models of stock recovery and

yield. In these cases we simply may not be able to ascertain these quantities de

novo from the historical data—an adaptive, cautious management approach to exploring the yield and biomass potentials of stocks may be required. By the same

token, a comprehensive approach to defining biomass necessary for MSY for each

stock individually may not be feasible given the limits on fish biomass and yield imposed by primary production (photosynthesis) and zooplankton production. Simply

stated, the whole may be less than the sum of the parts. It is clear that the current

approach, as implemented in Northeast FMPs for individual species and species assemblages, has no mechanism to incorporate ideas regarding predator-prey relationships and the feasibility of biomass goals and possible trade offs. Likewise, bycatch

interactions, wherein the target fisheries regulated in one FMP generate bycatches

of species controlled by another, are also not now addressed in a systematic manner.

An umbrella fisheries ecosystem plan would be a valuable addition to address these

concerns.

Another issue that could be better addressed with an ecosystem focus to FMP development is the effect of effort control programs on non-target species. The depleVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:59 Mar 21, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 73085.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
21

tion of groundfish and other high values species was followed by a more recent

round of shifting fisheries to alternative target species (Exhibit 4). In this scenario,

effort from the traditional groundfish and scallop fisheries was diverted to non-traditional stocks including monkfish, spiny dogfish and squids. In the case of groundfish, effort was halved in the mid–1990s, with some of the remaining effort flowing

to these alternative targets. Managers have had to play catch up to address overfishing concerns of these secondary target species. This scenario could have been addressed through a comprehensive approach to fishing effort and capacity management—the current system recognized the potential of effort movement between fisheries but has not managed capacity in a comprehensive manner. Clearly, recognizing that fishing effort can be deployed in flexible and efficient ways should be

an important consideration in managing fishery ecosystems.

Fishery managers in New England and the Mid–Atlantic have been among the

first to adopt the use of large-scale year round fishery closures in order to achieve

management goals for target species (Exhibit 3; Murawski et al. 2000). Large areas

(over 20,000 km2 in the case of groundfish closures) of productive fishing grounds

were closed beginning in 1994. These areas have proved to be a significant element

in the plan to increase groundfish abundance. At the same time, the enactment of

these areas have had serendipitous effects demonstrating the value of closed areas

as a strategy for increasing the abundance of sea scallop and other species

(Murawski et al. 2000). These closures, although enacted for very specific and limited fishery management goals, have coincided with a heightened interest worldwide in the use of marine protected areas (MPAs). Although most monitoring studies have focused on the overall status of regulated stocks, some limited field study

conducted by the NEFSC and academic partners have revealed changes in the

benthic community structure and habitat associated with the closures (Collie et al.

1997). Prior to the limited resumption of scallop dredging in portions of the groundfish closure areas, comparative habitat studies were initiated—the results of which

are only now being interpreted. Based on preliminary analyses, it is clear that the

cessation of fishing in these habitats has had measurable effects on the biota in the

closed areas. We do not yet know the significance of these changes to either the target species (improved juvenile survival?) or on other non-resource species. There is

an indication of increased biodiversity of the fish component of the resource since

the adoption of these closures, and there are some similar effects outside the closures (Exhibit 5; Brodziak and Link 2001). However, intensive studies of the effects

of these closures and their roles within the broader ecosystem have not been initiated. Closed areas (rotational, seasonal, year-round, and marine reserves wherein

no fishing activity at all is allowed) will be a significant component of fishery and

ecosystem management in the years to come, and programs to evaluate the potential

costs (through lost fishing opportunities) and benefits of such closed areas are a priority. Fishery closures in New England have resulted in trawl fishing effort moving

into habitats that heretofore were not as heavily utilized (Exhibit 6). These effects

need to be better understood as MPAs become more widely established as fishery

and ecosystem management tools.

Summary

Overfishing of Northeast fishery resources occurred primarily as a result of the

lack of direct controls on fishing mortality. As a wider array of species comes under

intensive management, and stocks begin to recover, there is an even greater need

to address ecosystem considerations. It is not clear that we can achieve biomass targets determined based on single-species models and data for all managed stocks simultaneously, and it is likely that species interactions will increasingly modify the

rates of recovery of stocks. Fishery management plans for individual species and

species groups do not allow a convenient forum in which to assess inherent tradeoffs

due to predator-prey or bycatch interactions. Furthermore, the current structure

does not allow a comprehensive effort control and management system. Comprehensive effort management has been identified as an essential component of ecosystembased fishery programs. The effects of mobile fishing gears on the characteristics

and productivity of benthic habitats has also been identified as a priority, but studies of these phenomena and their importance in managing exploited ecosystems has

not been adequately assessed anywhere in the world. The Northeast USA shelf ecosystem has been intensively trawled and dredged for 100 years, and changes in

these habitats have no doubt occurred. Marine protected areas have the potential

to mitigate some of these effects, but the extent and direction of habitat changes

with the cessation of trawling and dredging is only now beginning to be appreciated,

especially in New England. This issue will take on a central role in fisheries management and research in the years to come.

22

In the absence of a quantitative understanding of species interactions and impacts

of habitat alterations, there is a growing consensus of scientific opinion that prescriptive management provided by conservative single-species approaches will provide the balance among ecosystem components and high and relatively sustainable

fishery yields. A better understanding of these issues will allow managers to assess

the potentials and tradeoffs that will result from more active management of the

various components of the ecosystem.

Research Needs to Support Ecosystem Considerations:

Ecosystem approaches, whether implemented as perspectives on traditional overfishing approaches, or through explicit ecosystem-based definitions, require research

and advisory services not typically provided by fish stock assessment science. Regardless of the approach, additional ecosystem monitoring and research is necessary

with increased emphasis on species interactions, diversity (at all levels of organization) and variability (at various temporal and spatial scales). However, this does not

necessarily imply that traditional programs collecting fishery-dependent and fisheryindependent information should be abandoned. On the contrary, existing programs

will need to be expanded to allow monitoring of catches and abundances of a wider

array of species, to complement research and modeling on trophic interactions and

other processes. Such research is necessary if ecosystem considerations are to assume a greater role in resource management, particularly as habitat protection becomes a priority, and measures such as marine protected areas are used more widely to enhance resource and non-resource species protection. Specifically, I foresee

added research emphasis in these areas:

• predation studies

• measures of species diversity and their relation to harvesting

• field studies of closed areas (emphasizing their role as essential fish habitat)

• models of species and habitat interaction (spatially explicit)

• enhanced capabilities to comprehensively monitor components of the ecosystem

through fishery independent surveys

References

Brodziak, J.T.K. and J.S. Link 2001. Ecosystem-based fisheries management:

What is it and how can we do it? Bulletin of Marine Science (in press).

Brodziak, J.K.T., W.J. Overholtz and P.J. Rago. 2001. Does spawning stock affect

recruitment of New England groundfish? Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic

Sciences 58(2): 306–318.

Collie, J.S., G.A. Escanero, and P.C. Valentine. 1997. Effects of bottom fishing on

benthic megafauna of Georges Bank. Marine Ecology Progress Series 155: 159–172.

Fogarty, M.P., E.B. Cohen, W.L. Michaels, and W.W. Morse. 1991. Predation and

the regulation of sand lance populations: an exploratory analysis. ICES Symposium

of Marine Science 193: 120–124.

Fogarty, M.P. and S.A. Murawski. 1998. Large-scale disturbance and the structure of marine systems: fishery impacts on Georges Bank. Ecological Applications

8(1, Supplement): S6–S22.

Hall, S. 1999. The effects of fishing on marine ecosystems and communities.

Blackwell Science, London. 274 pp.

Link, J. 1999, (Re)Constructing food webs and managing fisheries. Ecosystem Approaches for Fisheries Management. Alaska Sea Grant College Program. AK–SG–

99–01. 571–588.

Murawski, S.A. 2000. Definitions of overfishing from an ecosystem perspective.

ICES Journal of Marine Science 57: 649–658

Murawski, S.A., R. Brown, H.–L. Lai, P.J. Rago and L. Hendrickson. 2000. Largescale closed areas as a fishery-management tool in temperate marine systems: the

Georges Bank experience. Bulletin of Marine Science 66(3): 775–798.

Orensanz, J.M., J. Armstrong, D. Armstrong, and R. Hilborn. 1998. Crustacean

resources are vulnerable to serial depletion -- the multifaceted decline of crab and

shrimp fisheries in the Greater Gulf of Alaska. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 8:117–176.

Overholtz, W.J., J.S. Link and L.E. Suslowicz. 2000. Consumption of important

pelagic fish and squid by predatory fish in the northeastern USA shelf ecosystem

with some fishery comparisons. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57: 1147–1159.

Pauly, D., V. Christensen, J. Dalsgaard, R. Froese and F. Torres, Jr. 1998. Fishing

down marine food webs. Science 279:860–863.

Sissenwine, M.P., E.B. Cohen and M.D. Grosslein. 1984. Structure of the Georges

Bank ecosystem. Rapports et Process verbaux des Reunion International de Conseil

de Exploration de la Mer 183: 243–254.

23

[Exhibits attached to Dr. Murawski’s statement follow:]

24

25

26

27

28

29

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much, Dr. Murawski.

Ms. Livingston, welcome.

STATEMENT OF PATRICIA A. LIVINGSTON, ALASKA FISHERIES

SCIENCE CENTER, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE

Ms. LIVINGSTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the

Subcommittee. I appreciate being invited to this hearing on ecosystem-based fishery management. I am Patricia Livingston, the

program leader of the Resource Ecology and Ecosystem Modeling

Program at the Alaska Fisheries Science Center of NMFS. Today,

I want to tell you a little bit about the Alaskan experience with implementing ecosystem-based management.

Our challenge in the last year or so has been how to summarize

our ecosystem knowledge and bring it to the attention of fisheries

management. We have produced three different analyses this last

year that attempt to do that.

The first one is the Ecosystem Considerations Chapter that accompanies our Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Reports

that provide single-species stock assessment advice to the North

Pacific Fisheries Management Council. In this ecosystem chapter,

we have attempted to provide information on the status and trends

of various ecosystem components and ecosystem indicators, including ecosystem management indicators, that we can relate to the

ecosystem-based goals of the Council, which include maintaining

diversity, habitat sustainability, and humans as components of the

ecosystem.

For example, we can compute an index looking at the trophic

level of the catch to see if we are fishing down the food web, which

is an issue related to diversity and sustainability. What is lacking

in this effort is its link to real quantitative ecosystem-based management objectives. Right now it is serving more of an information

service.

We have also produced programmatic Alaska groundfish, SEIS.

It was a very broad-based ecosystem assessment, and it contains

virtually all of the elements of a Fishery Ecosystem Plan, as envisioned by the NMFS Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panel. It covered a broad range of issues from habitat to predator-prey interactions, protected species, target and nontarget species, ecosystem

effects of fishing and socio-economic benefits.

It was clear when we evaluated the present fishery management

regime, using the performance standards of the Sustaining Marine

Fisheries Report of the NRC, that we have made progress in ecosystem-based management. We have conservative single-speciesbased management. Our catches are below the allowable biological

catch levels recommended by scientists. We have established substantial no-trawl zones. There are significant controls not only on

target species discards, but also on the bycatch of prohibited species. We have an overall cap on total catch. There is a prohibition

on new fisheries for forged species, and we have designated sensitive bottom organisms, such as corals and sponges, as prohibited

species.

When we took the next step and tried to identify future possible

improvements to the system, with regard to protecting various ecosystem components or improving socio-economic benefits, it really

30

highlighted our lack of quantitative knowledge with regard to ecosystem processes. For example, when we tried to recommend future

habitat protection, it was unclear, in a quantitative way, how that

might translate into increased fish production. We required more

information on the effects of fishing on habitat. We had inadequate

space/time resolution of our predator-prey information and abundance. We need more information on nontarget species distribution,

taxonomy and life history and improvements in our fishery catch

statistics so that we can track nontarget species catches.

The final document we worked on was our Comprehensive Biological Opinion, looking at groundfish fisheries from an ESA perspective. Again, this was a qualitative analysis that highlighted our

lack of knowledge of the seasonal distribution of key Steller sea

lion prey, such as walleye pollock and Pacific cod, and the seasonal

distribution and foraging needs of Steller sea lions.

In that opinion, we provided some conservation recommendations

that we hope would help us avoid future adverse effects. The primary one was to expand our stock assessments to consider the

space and time distribution of stocks, and the removals, and how

those overlap with protected species, and also to include environmental influences on fish stock distribution and abundance. These

are some of the same recommendations that have been made in the

NMFS Stock Assessment Improvement Plan.

So it is clear that we have made incremental progress toward

ecosystem-based FMPs with various plan amendments we have

had. We have identified some possible policy directions for future

improvements. We require improvements in stock assessments, as

identified by the NMFS Stock Assessment Improvement Plan. We

need to continue in and enhance our long-term monitoring of ecosystem components, and we need more quantitative ecosystembased objectives in order to move forward.

I think the key elements here are the involvement of a broad

spectrum of scientific experts to reflect the concerns beyond target

species and enhancing our research to reflect those concerns.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Livingston follows:]

Statement of Patricia A. Livingston, Program Leader, Resource Ecology

and Ecosystem Modeling, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, National

Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Department of Commerce

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to

this hearing on ecosystem-based fishery management. I am Patricia A. Livingston,

Program leader of Resource Ecology and Ecosystem Modeling at the Alaska Fisheries Science Center of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).

Implementing Ecosystem–Based Fisheries Management: The Alaskan Experience

Implementing ecosystem-based fishery management requires an expansion of our

fishery management advice beyond assessments of species that are targets of fisheries. Although there have been advances in multispecies and ecosystem modeling

approaches, these approaches have not yet been completely embraced by the scientific community for purposes of fishery management. In some cases this is so because of the difficulties in validating these models and in other cases because of the

lack of sufficient data and knowledge of the critical processes to develop an appropriate model.

We are making progress, however, in providing ecosystem advice to managers

while we wait for these approaches to mature. There are many GLOBEC and

GLOBEC-like research efforts going on throughout the world, which bring oceanographers, marine ecologists, and fisheries scientists together to examine the potential

31

impact of global climate change on ocean ecosystems. Coordinated ecosystem research programs along these lines are being conducted in the Gulf of Alaska

through the U.S. GLOBEC program, which is seeking to understand effects of climate variability on marine production, particularly looking at salmon and

zooplankton. NMFS and NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research have

been working together in Alaska to understand the effects of climate on pollock production through its Fisheries Oceanography Coordinated Investigations joint program. These programs have highlighted the significant gaps in knowledge in the

link between zooplankton and fish production. There is also increasing emphasis on

habitat research, ongoing trophic interactions work, and long-term monitoring of

non-commercial species, which all provide useful information on ecosystem status

and trends. Some of this ecological information can be used to gauge the success

of various management schemes that have been put in place to meet ecosystembased management goals that have been put forward by the scientific community.

The Alaska Fisheries Science Center and other collaborators have provided the

North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) with some of this ecosystem

research information in an Ecosystems Considerations document that accompanies

the traditional single-species stock assessment advice to the Council. We have also

just completed a draft programmatic Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for our Alaskan groundfish fisheries that provides a comprehensive

analysis of our present knowledge of the effects of the groundfish fisheries on the

environment. This draft programmatic SEIS takes a broad view of the present fishery management regime and examines policies and potential future actions from a

variety of environmental perspectives. A comprehensive Biological Opinion on Alaskan groundfish Fisheries provides a protected species impacts analysis and management approaches to be used to avoid jeopardy under the Endangered Species Act.

A broad range of scientific expertise is required to provide the ecosystem-based advice in these types of documents. I will discuss aspects of these documents, their

relationship to development of ecosystem-based fishery management plans, and

some of the present gaps in our scientific knowledge.

Ecosystem Considerations Chapter

The North Pacific Fishery Management Council’s Groundfish Plan Teams began

in 1994 to broaden the scientific information provided to the plan teams beyond the

single-species stock assessment advice contained in the Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Report (SAFE) provided to the Council. A new Ecosystem Considerations Chapter was added to this SAFE document. Originally, the chapter contained

information summarizing ecosystem-based management objectives from recent research articles, status and trend information of protected marine mammal species

such as Steller sea lions and northern fur seals, and research summaries of a variety of ecosystem-related research. There was not much standardization of the content of the report from year to year. However, it served as information to the plan

teams and as a vehicle for discussing research priorities.

Three years ago, NMFS proposed that the chapter serve as an ecosystem status

and trends document with a more standardized content from year to year. The idea

was to draw upon a broad range of scientific experts in the areas of physical oceanography and climate, biological oceanography, habitat and effects of fishing research, marine pollution, predator-prey interactions, forage fish and other non-target species, and marine mammals and seabirds. Information would be presented on

the time trends of these ecosystem components in the document and discussion

would include the possible factors influencing change. Experts providing information

to this chapter include those from NMFS, other NOAA components, state agencies,

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, academia, and those representing native or other

local-based knowledge groups.

The purpose of these ecosystem status and trends indicators is to 1) bring the results of ecosystem research efforts to the attention of stock assessment scientists

and fishery managers in order to provide stronger links between ecosystem research

and fishery management and 2) bring together many diverse research efforts into

one document, which would spur new understanding of the connections between ecosystem components and the possible role that climate, humans, or both may have

on the system.

In addition to the ecosystem status and trend information, NMFS proposed that

the document also contain ecosystem management indicators. These indicators

would be ones that measure how we are meeting ecosystem-based management

goals. The indicators would: 1) provide early signals of direct human effects on ecosystem components that might warrant intervention by management or 2) provide

evidence of the efficacy of previous management actions. The North Pacific Fishery

Management Council adopted an ecosystem policy that has the following four ecoVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:59 Mar 21, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 73085.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
32

system-oriented management goals and the indicators are arranged to measure aspects of the management system that could influence achievement of those goals.

1. Maintain biodiversity consistent with natural evolutionary and ecological

processes, including dynamic change and variability.

2. Maintain and restore habitats essential for fish and their prey.

3. Maintain system sustainability and sustainable yields for human consumption

and non-extractive uses.

4. Maintain the concept that humans are components of the ecosystem.

For example, Exhibit 1 shows an ecosystem measure, trophic level of the catch,

that can be used to examine whether we are ‘‘fishing down the food web,’’ an issue

related to system biodiversity and sustainability. We have now completed two annual revisions of the more standardized ecosystem considerations document of the

NPFMC (Livingston 1999, 2000). The documents are available on the web at:

http://www.refm.noaa.gov/docs/ecocons99.pdf

http://www.refm.noaa.gov/docs/Ecocon2000.pdf

NMFS is working closely with the North Pacific Fishery Management Council to

apply ecosystem level information to fishery management decisions. The Ecosystem

Considerations Chapter now contains some parts of a Fishery Ecosystem Plan such

as ecosystem status and trend information for many ecosystem components. It also

has management indicators such as: amount of habitat closed to fishing, changes

in the amount of fishery discards over time, and trophic level of the catch. The document provides a way for ecosystem research scientists from a variety of organizations to inform stock assessment scientists of their results and for managers to link

management actions with ecosystem observations and ecosystem-based management

goals such as protection of habitat, maintaining diversity, and sustainability.

Future work includes the development of more quantitative management objectives and ecosystem indicators linked to management triggers. Semi-quantitative

approaches, such as those used in Environmental Impact Analysis, linked to a prenegotiated set of management actions are now being discussed by the scientific community (e.g., Caddy 1999; Koeller et al. 2000). This is a key step needed to advance

this ecosystem considerations chapter beyond research communication towards a

true ecosystem assessment that triggers ecosystem-based management actions.

Draft Alaska Groundfish Fisheries Programmatic Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS)

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to analyze potential impacts of federal actions on the environment. The draft SEIS examines the impacts of the authorization of the groundfish Fisheries off Alaska. It is

an ecosystem-based assessment in that it covers the broad range of issues from the

effects of groundfish Fisheries on the decline of sea lions and other protected species, the effects of fishing gear on benthic habitat, excess fishing and processing capacity, target and non-target species effects, and the effects of harvesting on the

North Pacific marine ecosystem. The programmatic SEIS identifies and evaluates

combinations of management tools available for improving the fishery management

regime with respect to protecting and conserving various ecosystem components and

increasing socioeconomic benefits.

The SEIS document also contains virtually all of the elements of a Fisheries Ecosystem Plan as outlined by the Report of the NMFS Ecosystem Advisory Panel including:

• Delineation of the ecosystems within Council authority, including characterization of the biological, chemical and physical dynamics of those ecosystems

(Chapter 3)

• Description of the food webs of the ecosystems (Chapter 3)

• Description of the life history characteristics and known habitat needs of different life stages of animals (Chapter 3)

• Total fishery removals including incidental mortality and assessment of how

those relate to ecosystem effects (Chapters 2 and 4)

• A description of the Fisheries management plan policy statements, goals, and

objectives that includes how uncertainty is included in conservation and management actions (Chapter 2)

• Ecosystem indicators are used in the assessment process (Chapter 4)

• Description and, through the cumulative effects analysis, an assessment of the

ecological and human elements of the ecosystem which most significantly affect

Fisheries (Chapter 4)

The status quo fishery management regime is explained and evaluated with respect to the performance standards for fishery management outlined in the Sustaining Marine Fisheries report of the National Research Council. It is clear from

this evaluation that Alaska has already accomplished a great deal in terms of ecoVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:59 Mar 21, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 73085.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
33

system-based management through conservative single species management (Exhibit 2), establishment of substantial no-trawl zones (Exhibit 3), programs to reduce

overcapacity , significant controls on discards and monitoring of bycatch (Exhibit 4),

and reducing fishery interactions with protected species. The North Pacific Fishery

Management Council has established an Ecosystem Committee, whose purpose is to

discuss and recommend possible approaches to incorporating ecosystem concerns

into the fishery management process and to provide the Council and stakeholders

with information on ecosystem-based management in the North Pacific Ocean.

Other precautionary measures that have been taken include a 2 million mt per year

optimum yield upper limit to restrict total allowable catch of the Bering Sea groundfish complex, a prohibition on new Fisheries for forage fish species, and designating

sensitive bottom organisms such as corals and sponges as prohibited species.

It is intended that the programmatic SEIS will serve as the central environmental

planning document for both the BSAI and GOA Groundfish FMPs, which are presently not oriented to promote ecosystems. The full document can be viewed on the

web at: http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/sustainablefisheries/seis/intro.htm

The SEIS is Alaska’s most complete analysis to-date of our scientific understanding of the effects of groundfish Fisheries on the environment and it highlighted

many of our gaps in knowledge in determining ecosystem effects, particularly in a

quantitative way. We had incomplete knowledge of the seasonal distribution and

habitat needs of important groundfish in order to make determinations of how protection of habitat might improve stock abundance. Similarly, lack of knowledge of

both the seasonal foraging requirements of Steller sea lions and the seasonal

changes in distribution of key prey stocks such as walleye pollock and Pacific cod

prevented us from making quantitative assessments of the effect of fishing removals

of these species on Steller sea lions. The effects of fishing on benthic habitat research is just beginning and we require additional work to understand how fishing

gear and fishing removals affect benthic diversity. Increased benthic habitat mapping in conjunction with fishing gear experiments are needed. Although we have a

variety of predator-prey models, we need data at finer space and time scales and

better knowledge of the space/time distribution of prey, particularly forage fish and

zooplankton to determine how predators may switch according to prey availability.

More research on non-target species distribution and taxonomy in association with

improvements to our fishery reporting system are needed to move some of these species into tier 1 assessments defined in the NMFS Stock Assessment Improvement

Plan. Moving towards more quantitative or semi-quantitative analyses on which to

base our ecosystem-based management advice and to advance our stock assessments

beyond tier 1 will require additional research along these lines.

Comprehensive Biological Opinion on Alaska Groundfish Fisheries

NMFS has put considerable effort into analyzing ecosystem level impacts of Fisheries pursuant to the requirements of the ESA. On November 30, 2000, NMFS released a biological opinion which evaluates the impacts of Alaskan groundfish Fisheries on listed species. The purpose was to determine if the FMP framework contained the necessary conservation and management measures to insure protection

of listed species and their critical habitats. The scientific analysis in this opinion

was qualitative and highlighted our lack of understanding of seasonal distribution

of key Steller prey and the seasonal distribution and foraging needs of Steller sea

lions.

The comprehensive biological opinion provides conservation recommendations to

minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action. Key conservation recommendations were first to expand stock assessments to consider space/time distribution of stocks and removals and include environmental influences on fish stock

distribution and abundance. Multispecies considerations and risk analyses would

also be included as part of the growing trend towards a ‘‘comprehensive assessment’’

process. Fishery rationalization programs for all groundfish Fisheries were also recommended to reduce the ‘‘footprint’’ of Fisheries at smaller time/space scales. Appropriate improvements to the existing catch monitoring programs (i.e., observer program, reporting and record keeping requirements, and vessel monitoring programs)

would also be necessary. Many of these recommendations are also being made under

the NMFS Stock Assessment Improvement Plan.

Relationship to Ecosystem-based Fishery Management Plans

As we discussed in the analysis contained in the programmatic SEIS, we are moving incrementally towards ecosystem-based fishery management plans with various

ecosystem-based plan amendments. Both the programmatic SEIS and Comprehensive Biological Opinion for Alaska Groundfish Fisheries have identified possible

policy directions for further improvement of ecosystem-based management under

34

NEPA and ESA and showed the qualitative status of our ecosystem-based scientific

advice. With the addition of a more structured assessment framework similar to

that used in the programmatic SEIS, the Ecosystem Considerations Chapter of our

SAFE has potential for providing year-to-year advice in meeting our NEPA obligations for TAC setting. Improvements in stock assessments identified by NMFS will

advance our ecosystem-based management advice and allow single-species stock assessments to be embedded in an ecosystem context in a more quantitative way. Key

to all these activities is involvement of a broad spectrum of scientific expertise to

reflect concerns beyond species that are targets of Fisheries and enhancing our research to include those broader concerns.

Research and Data Gaps

Some important research and data gaps identified in the programmatic SEIS,

comprehensive Biological Opinion, and Ecosystem Considerations Chapter include

research and data collection on: • structure and functioning of marine ecosystems (including: the role of habitat,

predator-prey interactions, factors affecting stability and resilience including

mechanisms at the population and community levels of organization, and effects

of fishing on benthic habitat and overall ecosystems)

• long-term research and fishery independent monitoring programs on target and

non-target species, oceanography and climate, and habitat mapping

• development of fishery stock assessment models that incorporate unobserved

fishing mortality, environmental variability, spatial distribution of fish and

Fisheries removals, and multispecies interactions • biological effects of fishing on gene pools and population structures

• marine protected areas and using MPAs as research tools

• extent and nature of Steller sea lion foraging habitat

• effects and effectiveness of various forms of rights-based management approaches • improvement in the observer program, reporting and record keeping requirements, and vessel monitoring programs

• overall improvement in the research and data collection efforts with regard to

understanding processes at finer time and space scales

Summary

The Alaska region has done extensive work on analyzing and incorporating ecosystem-based management objectives into its Fisheries management but we still

have far to go. These analyses have many of the components identified in a Fisheries Ecosystem Plan as envisioned by the NMFS Ecosystem Advisory Panel Report.

We have identified policy directions and management actions that need to be taken

to make substantial progress in moving towards more prescriptive and adaptive ecosystem-based fishery management plans. We are broadening our stock assessment

advice to include ecosystem-based research and will be working towards identifying

more quantitative ecosystem-based management objectives and ecosystem indicators

linked to management triggers and actions. Increased ecosystem-based research and

involvement of multidisciplinary analysis and management teams are key to the

process.

Conclusion

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. Again, I want to thank you for the

opportunity to testify today and discuss ecosystem-based management. I am prepared to respond to any questions that you and other Members of the Committee

may have.

References

Caddy, J.F. 1999. Deciding on precautionary management measures for a stock

based on a suite of limit reference points (LRPs) as a basis for a multi–LRP harvest

law. NAFO Sci. Coun. Studies, 32: 55–68.

Koeller, P., L. Savard, D.G. Parsons, and C. Fu. 2000. A precautionary approach

to assessment and management of shrimp stocks in the Northwest Atlantic. J.

Northw. Atl. Fish. Sci., Vol. 27:235–246.

Livingston, P.A. (Editor). 1999. Ecosystem considerations for 2000. Appendix D:

Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Report for the Groundfish Resources of

the EBS/AI and GOA. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 4th Ave,

Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501. 140p.

Livingston, P.A. (Editor). 2000. Ecosystem considerations for 2001. Appendix:

Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Report for the Groundfish Resources of

the EBS/AI and GOA. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 4th Ave,

Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501. 119p.

35

NMFS. 2000. Endangered Species Act -- Section 7 Consultation. Biological opinion

and incidental take statement for Authorization of Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands and

Gulf of Alaska groundfish fisheries based on the Fisheries Management Plans for

Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Groundfish and Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska. U.S.

Dept. Commer., NOAA, NMFS Protected Resources Division. 352p +Appendices.

NMFS. 2001. Alaska Groundfish Fisheries Draft Programmatic Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA, NMFS, Alaska Region,

Juneau, AK.

[Exhibits attached to Ms. Livingston’s statement follow:]

36

37

38

39

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Ms. Livingston.

Dr. Crowder?

STATEMENT OF LARRY B. CROWDER, PH.D., PROFESSOR,

DUKE UNIVERSITY MARINE LAB

Dr. CROWDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify at this hearing on

ecosystem-based management and the reauthorization of the

Magnuson Act.

Fisheries in the U.S. have been managed with increasing rigor

over the past 25 years since the Magnuson Act was passed, but

they continue to be plagued with problems, including overfishing,

habitat damage, and bycatch of valuable resource species, as well

as protected species.

We need to begin thinking about any comprehensive approach to

fisheries management, including ecosystem-based management, by

critically assessing the issues of capacity and resource allocation in

the fishery. One year after the Magnuson Act was originally

passed, Peter Larkin, eminent fisheries biologist, published his famous epitaph for the concept of maximum sustainable yield, but we

continue to make decisions that put severe pressure on these resources and fail to buffer the fish and the fishing industry from

variability rocked by both natural forces and human hands.

Structural engineers have much better reputations for designing

reliable systems. Our society approves of building safety factors

into these manmade systems. Credible engineers simply would

refuse to build the ‘‘Minimum Sustainable Bridge.’’ Why do we not

require similar caution with designing management regimes for

complex ecosystems that support fisheries?

Productive fisheries rely on healthy marine ecosystems. Degraded habitats cannot produce fish. Healthy marine ecosystems

provide society with a wide variety of valuable ecosystem services

that can be altered by a suite of factors, including nutrient enrichment, fishing invasive species and climate change. Fishing that focuses on removal of large predatory fishes and bottom fishes can

lead to marine food webs that enhance small fishes. In highly compromised systems, like we have seen in the Black Sea, they can become dominated by jellyfish predators, yielding little benefit to humans. In the U.S., enriched systems like Chesapeake Bay, the Albemarle-Pamlico estuary, and the Gulf of Mexico are already showing similar signs of stress.

If we are to respond to interactions among multiple stressors,

like fishing pressure and eutrophication, we must use an ecosystem

perspective. Managers must also take a precautionary approach.

This will come at a cost. Building safe bridges simply costs more

than tossing up minimum sustainable ones.

Ecosystem-based approaches to management will have to construct strategies that are robust to both natural and anthropogenic

changes. I want to share with you a case study that I worked on

closely, and that was the estuarine-dependent fishes of North Carolina estuaries. It shows the impact of eutrophication on fish and

fisheries in the context of environmental variation on a scale from

day-to-day changes in the weather to large-scale effects of hurricanes.

40

North Carolina’s coastal rivers drain into Pamlico Sound. This

estuary supports 90 percent of North Carolina’s commercial fishing

and commercial fishing along much of the Atlantic Coast. Pamlico

Sound is also a major fishing ground in North Carolina. All of the

blue crabs, most of the shrimp, and much of the fisheries’ take occurs inside the estuary. The Pamlico Sound is a large lagoonal system that is highly impacted by water inputs and nutrient inputs

from upstream. We have all seen the headlines about the impacts

on the coastal rivers in North Carolina, the Neuse and the Pamlico,

but until recently, the Pamlico Sound itself was assumed to be relatively unaffected.

I want to focus today on the effects on the blue crab fishery itself, which is the most valuable fishery in North Carolina, worth $40.5

million in 1998. The state developed a Fishery Management Plan

modeled after the sorts of things that are required in the

Magnuson Act. Stock assessments were completed which showed

that the fishery was managed at or near capacity. Many managers

expressed doubts about how close to the edge the fishery might be,

and the crabbers resisted effort controls. This was a fishery operating at a full speed in a compromised environment. Like the crew

of the Titanic, we were watching for icebergs, but not expecting a

problem.

In the fall of 1999, however, North Carolina was struck by three

hurricanes, which led to 40 inches of rainfall in the watershed.

Coastal rivers that were at half seawater became fresh for 2

months. Flood waters displaced 80 percent of the volume of

Pamlico Sound, depositing at least half the annual nutrient load in

a 1-month period. The responses that followed included bottom

water hypoxia, physiological stress due to rapid salinity change,

algal blooms, displacement and death of many fishes, crabs and

their food, and an unprecedented rise in fish disease.

By spring 2000, the blue crab fishermen were reporting reduced

catches. Recently released data for fisheries landings in 2000

showed blue crab takes were down 30 percent Statewide and 50

percent in the Neuse River. Blue crabbers reported financial losses,

many stopped fishing, changed fishing operations or took second

jobs.

We have entered a period of increasing storm frequency. We need

to better understand how climate change will interact with eutrophication and fisheries production, but we also need to manage

these systems with appropriate safety factors to buffer both the

fishes and the fishers from the impact of natural and anthropogenic stressors.

To manage exploited populations in the context of healthy marine ecosystems, we will need additional research to better understand the linkages between fish populations and their variable environment. Fisheries are supported by ecosystems that are under

assault from multiple stressors that can interact in unpredictable

ways, but the stressors are also managed by different Government

agencies.

From a scientific perspective, watersheds are part of marine ecosystems, and degraded landscapes yield inputs to the coastal marine ecosystems that can compromise fisheries production. Solutions will require both enhanced scientific understanding and

41

changes in governance, including increasing cooperation across

boundaries.

Thank you very much for the opportunity.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Crowder follows:]

Statement of Larry B. Crowder, Stephen Toth Professor of Marine Biology,

Duke University Marine Laboratory, Nicholas School of the Environment

and Earth Sciences, Duke University

Introduction

My name is Larry Crowder and I appreciate the opportunity to testify at this

hearing on ecosystem-based management and the reauthorization of the Magnuson–

Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. My formal training is in quantitative ecology and since the late 1970s I have conducted research on population

and community ecology, fisheries, and marine conservation. My interests have centered on predator-prey interactions and marine food webs, but I have also conducted

research on fisheries recruitment, bycatch, and fisheries/protected species interactions. I was the lead investigator on a joint NOAA/Academic research project, the

South Atlantic Bight Recruitment Experiment (SABRE), which examined the influence of environmental variation on year class strength of estuarine-dependent fishes

of the South Atlantic Bight. I have been studying food webs in North Carolina estuaries for over 15 years. I have also examined bycatch in trawl and longline fisheries

and worked with NMFS on population assessments of threatened and endangered

sea turtles. I served on the NOAA Coastal Ocean Program Scientific Advisory Panel

on Coastal Fisheries Ecosystems and the NMFS Expert Panel on the Status of Sea

Turtles. I currently serve on the Science Steering Committees for the Global Ocean

Observing System (GOOS), the Global Ocean Ecosystems Program (GLOBEC), and

was recently appointed to the Ocean Studies Board for the National Research Council. I am testifying today as an individual, not representing any organization or interest group. I will comment upon the importance of an ecosystem perspective for

successful fisheries management and outline some of the key issues that may impede implementation of this approach.

Fisheries—The Problem

Fisheries in the US have been managed with increasing rigor over the past 25

years, but they continue to be plagued with problems including overfishing, habitat

damage, and bycatch of valuable resource species as well as protected species (Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panel 1999, NRC 1999). Many of these problems are related to overcapacity in various fisheries. Assessments have suggested that we could

enhance the value of many of our fisheries by fishing less and allowing stocks to

rebuild. Any comprehensive approach to fisheries management (including ecosystem-based management) must critically address the issues of capacity and resource allocation. We continue to manage these resources extremely close to the

edge. One year after the Magnuson Act was passed, Peter Larkin published his famous—An epitaph for the concept of MSY (Maximum Sustained Yield)’’. But we continue to make decisions that put severe pressure on these resources and that fail

to buffer the fish (and the fishing industry) from variability wrought by both natural

forces and human hands. In general, structural engineers have much better reputations for designing reliable systems. This is because our society approves of building

safety factors into these man-made systems—credible engineers simply would refuse

to build the ‘‘Minimum Sustainable Bridge’’. Why do we not require similar caution

with designing management regimes for the complex ecosystems that support fisheries?

Ecosystem–Based Solutions

Because of failures to successfully manage fisheries populations, we began casting

about for solutions. These took two routes—those that sought to control fishing effort and provide for fair and equitable allocation of fisheries resources and those

that sought to understand what supported (or constrained) excess production of fish

for removal by humans. I will focus here on the second point. Productive fisheries

rely on healthy marine ecosystems—degraded habitats cannot produce fish. The

Magnuson–Stevens Act (1996) required that Fisheries Management Plans designate

Essential Fish Habitat. Habitat that supports fisheries has been compromised by a

number of factors including direct effects of fishing gear, marine pollution, invasive

species, and climate change. But habitat itself is but one of the structural features

of a healthy marine ecosystem—we must also be concerned with the functional aspects of ecosystems.

42

Healthy marine ecosystems provide society with wide variety of valuable ecosystem services (NRC 1999) that can be altered by a suite of factors including nutrient enrichment, fishing, invasive species, and climate change. Fishing that focuses

on the removal of large predatory fishes and bottom fishes leads to shifts in marine

food webs, often enhancing yields of small fishes. Highly compromised systems can

become dominated by jellyfish predators and yield little of use to humans as we

have seen in the Black Sea (Caddy 2000). In the US, enriched systems like Chesapeake Bay, the Albemarle–Pamlico estuary and the Gulf of Mexico are already

showing similar signs of stress (NRC 2000, Boesch et al. 2001). If we are to respond

to the interactions among multiple stressors, like fishing pressure and eutrophication, we must manage fisheries resources not only in a multispecies context, but also

with an ecosystem perspective. Further, managers must take a precautionary approach that will buffer both fish populations and the fishing industry from unexpected changes in the ecosystems that support them. This will come at a cost to both

the industry and to the management infrastructure—building safe bridges simply

costs more than tossing up ‘‘minimum sustainable’’ ones. But given that some very

costly changes in fisheries ecosystems (like Georges Bank) may be difficult or impossible to reverse, this cost is fully justified.

Marine Protected Areas provide one tool for protecting the structure and function

of marine ecosystems. MPAs are a valuable part of a comprehensive strategy of ecosystem-based management that could provide substantial fisheries benefits (NRC

2001). But some caveats are, again, necessary. MPAs as with other ecosystem-based

approaches can only be successful if overall fishing effort is constrained. As commonly proposed, MPAs would be promulgated in addition to (rather than in place

of) current fishing regulations. No-take marine reserves (one kind of MPA) close portions of the marine ecosystem to fishing. But displaced fishing effort could do further damage to the structure and function of the fisheries ecosystem that remains

open to fishing. As the citizens of the US become increasingly aware of the whole

range of goods and services provided by ocean ecosystems we will need to more seriously consider the need for zoning or space-based management of these systems.

As we consider ecosystem-based approaches to management we will have to construct strategies that are robust to other natural and anthropogenic changes. Recruitment variability due to environmental variation from year-to-year is a challenge for managers and particularly for fishers who would prefer to operate their

businesses in a more stable, predictable world. But recruitment variability is a fact

of life in fisheries. We can seek to understand it and even to predict it, but we are

unlikely to be able to control it. Recruitment variation is, however, a far less difficult problem for the industry than the wholesale structural changes that occur due

to longer-term climatic variation. At scales from El Nino–La Nina to Pacific Decadal

Oscillations, ocean ecosystems alter the distribution and abundance of fishes in

ways we are only beginning to understand. These changes often come unexpectedly

and fishermen and managers simply have to cope. However, fishing itself can also

play a role in restructuring fisheries ecosystems either through habitat damage from

mobile gear or through food web alternations that may be difficult or impossible to

reverse.

A Case Study: The Neuse–Pamlico Estuary, North Carolina

I want to share a case study that I have worked on closely, the estuarine-dependent fisheries of North Carolina estuaries. It shows the impact of eutrophication on

fish and fisheries in the context of environmental variation on the scale of day-today changes in weather to large-scale effects of three hurricanes that crossed the

North Carolina coast in fall 1999 (Paerl et al. 2001).

North Carolina’s coastal rivers drain into Pamlico Sound, the US’’ second largest

estuary. This system is a major fish and shellfish nursery for the entire Atlantic

coast. It supports more than 90% of North Carolina’s commercial and 60% of recreational finfish and shellfish catches. In addition to serving as a nursery habitat,

it is also a major fishing ground in North Carolina. All of the blue crabs, most of

the shrimp and much of the fisheries take occur inside the estuary. Pamlico Sound

is a large, shallow lagoonal ecosystem with very limited water exchange with the

Atlantic Ocean through four narrow inlets. Although nutrient enrichment has led

to water quality problems, algal blooms, hypoxia, and fish kills in the Neuse and

Pamlico rivers that have made headlines for 20 years, the Pamlico Sound was assumed to be relatively unaffected. However, the system traps particulate and dissolved materials, retaining and processing nutrient inputs from the entire watershed. Nutrient loading and subsequent water quality and fish effects link directly

to landscape modification and to activities in the watershed. We have recently

shown that intermittent hypoxia, which occurs chronically in this system, can substantially reduce the growth rates of fish in this critical nursery habitat. Fish and

43

crabs respond to low oxygen by crowding into the edge of the system where competition and predation can compromise their productivity.

The blue crab fishery is the most valuable in North Carolina. In 1998, hard crab landings totaled 27 metric tons and were worth $40.5 million. In the same year, the

state developed a fisheries management plan, modeled after those required in federal waters under Magnuson. Stock assessments conducted by university scientists

suggested that the fishery was being managed at or near capacity. In fact, removals

had exceeded the estimated MSY for several recent years. Although the crabbers

recognized they were fishing harder for fewer crabs, the state took no action to control the number of pots individual crabbers could fish. Many managers expressed

doubts about how close to the edge the fishery might be and the crabbers resisted

effort controls. This was fishery operating at full speed in a compromised environment. Like the crew of the Titanic, we were watching for icebergs, but not expecting

a problem.

In fall 1999, North Carolina was struck by three sequential hurricanes, Dennis,

Floyd and Irene. They dropped almost 40 inches of rainfall in the watershed, causing 50–500-year flooding. Coastal rivers that were at salinities of half-strength seawater became completely fresh for at least two months. Floodwaters displaced nearly 80% of the volume of Pamlico Sound, depositing at least half the annual nutrient

load in a little over a month. Carbon loading doubled relative to normal conditions.

A series of responses followed including bottom water hypoxia, physiological stress

due to rapid salinity change, algal blooms, displacement or death of many fishes,

crabs and their food, and an unprecedented rise in fish disease (Paerl et al 2001).

Large blue crabs appeared to move ahead of the flooding—smaller ones may have

died. Larval blue crabs that should have been re-entering the estuary in the fall

were met with freshwater flooding out the inlets.

By spring 2000, blue crab fishermen were reporting reduced catches. Bottom oxygen concentrations continued to be reduced in both the Neuse River and Pamlico

Sound. Although salinity had returned to normal, it is likely that benthic foods

eaten by young fish and crabs were still suppressed. Our fishery independent data

suggested that crab populations were down by a factor of ten in the most impacted

areas. Recently released data for fisheries landings in 2000 showed blue crab takes

were down 30% statewide and nearly 50% in the Neuse River. Blue crabbers reported financial losses; many stopped fishing, changed fishing operations or took

second jobs. The good news was that the shortage of crabs led to higher prices to

fishermen, but the excess fishing effort potentially pushed the crab populations still

lower.

The only period of record in North Carolina with similar hurricanes and flooding

was in 1955, when NC was also struck by three hurricanes bearing a similar

amount of rainfall. Analysis of landings data from that period also suggest reduced

landings of 6 of 9 most commonly taken fishes. For most of them landings peaked

in 1952–53 and declined through the rest of the 1950s. Oldtime fishermen remember the losses of the 1950s, and draw parallels with the 1999 storms. These declines

in the 1950s landings were likely to be related to declines in fish populations as

fishing effort over this period remained fairly stable.

If the climatologists are correct, we have entered a period of increasing storm frequency (and perhaps intensity). We need to better understand how climate change

will interact with eutrophication and fisheries production. But we also need to manage these systems with appropriate safety factors to buffer both the fishes and the

fishers from the impact of natural and anthropogenic stressors..

Summary

Ecosystem-based management will be critical to supporting fisheries in the 21st

century. In order to manage exploited populations in the context of healthy marine

ecosystems, we will need additional research to fully understand the linkages between fished populations and their variable environment. We will also need to understand the linkages between target populations and other key species in their food

web. Finally, we will need to develop management strategies that are robust to both

anthropogenic and natural environmental variability. These are all topics that will

need additional research investment to avoid costly losses to fisheries.

We will also need to consider some significant reorganization of the governance

structure. Fisheries are supported by ecosystems that are under assault from multiple stressors that can interact in unpredictable ways. But these stressors are also

managed by different government agencies. For example, landscape development is

managed by cities and counties, nutrients and other pollutants are managed by Departments of Natural Resources at the state level and regulated by the EPA, fisheries are managed by Departments of Marine Fisheries, by the regional councils and

by NMFS. From a scientific perspective, watersheds are part of marine ecosystems

44

and degraded landscapes yield inputs to coastal marine ecosystems that can compromise fisheries production. Solutions will require both enhanced scientific understanding and changes in governance including increased cooperation across boundaries. I would be pleased to answer any questions regarding this testimony, or to

supply additional testimony or information.

References

Boesch, D.F., R.H. Burroughs, J.E. Baker, R.P. Mason, C.L. Rowe and R.L.

Siefert. 2001. Marine pollution in the United States. Pew Oceans Commission, Arlington, VA.

Caddy, J.F. 2000. Marine catchment basin effects versus impacts of fisheries on

semi-enclosed seas. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57:628–640.

Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panel. 1999. Ecosystem-based fishery management. A report to Congress.

NRC. 1999. Sustaining marine fisheries. National Academy Press, Washington,

D.C.

NRC. 2000. Clean coastal waters: Understanding and reducing the effects of nutrient pollution.. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

NRC. 2001. Marine protected areas: Tools for sustaining ocean ecosystems. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Paerl, H.W., J.D. Bales, L.W. Ausley, C.P. Buzzelli, L.B. Crowder, L.A. Eby, M.Go,

B.L. Peierls, T.L. Richardson and J. S. Ramus. 2001. Ecosystem impacts of three

sequential hurricanes (Dennis, Floyd and Irene) on US’s largest lagoonal estuary,

Pamlico Sound, NC. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98(10):5655–

5660.

[An attachment to Dr. Crowder’s statement follows:]

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Dr. Crowder.

Mr. Hinman?

STATEMENT OF KEN HINMAN, PRESIDENT,

NATIONAL COALITION FOR MARINE CONSERVATION

Mr. HINMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the

Subcommittee. I, too, very much appreciate this opportunity to

speak with you about a subject to which I have devoted a large portion of my time over the last 4 years.

My name is Ken Hinman. I am president of the National Coalition for Marine Conservation. Since 1973, my organization, and our

efforts to ensure a healthy future for ocean fishing, have co-evolved

along with the Nation’s fishery management system. I am here

today because we believe that an ecosystem-based approach to

management is a natural progression in the evolution of fishery

management. It is a natural outflow of our increasing knowledge

of the ocean and our expanding circle of concern for all marine species. Its time, we believe, is now.

Mr. Chairman, I am also here today as a co-chair of the Marine

Fish Conservation Network, an alliance of 105 fishing, environmental, and scientific organizations working to reform the

Magnuson-Stevens Act. My remarks reflect the position of our

many allies in the Network.

In 1996, Congress, as was mentioned, appointed a panel to look

at ecosystem principles in fisheries management. As a member of

that panel, and since the publication of that panel’s report in 1999,

I have spent considerable time writing and traveling to meetings

and workshops in an effort to promote its recommendations. In my

conversations with policy makers, fishery managers and congressional aides, the three most frequently asked questions about ecosystem-based fishery management are: do managers want to manage fisheries on an ecosystem basis; can they do it; and will they

do it, and more specifically, how will they do it?

The short answer to the first question, do they want to do it, is

yes. Indeed, they have already begun. As some of the previous

speakers have noted, there are some pretty concerted efforts to

move toward ecosystem-based management being begun by some

State and Federal organizations. Fishery scientists and managers

alike recognize the need to address ecological considerations, and

the question is not do fishery managers want to do this, they don’t

really have a choice. Ecosystem-based management is gaining increased attention and interest because the effect that fishing of one

species has on other related species is an issue in a number of current fishery management debates.

We have the interactions among striped bass, menhaden, and

blue crab in Chesapeake Bay; the perceived competition between

cod and dogfish sharks up in the Northeast; the effect of high harvests of horseshoe crabs on migratory shore birds; questions about

removing an entire tier at the top of the food chain, the large pelagic predators, swordfish, tunas, large coastal sharks, marlins, all

overfished, some severely depleted; and the related concern of increasing catches of squid and herring, a dominant food source for

all of these species, as well as some in-shore species, such as cod

52

and bluefish. Each of these is managed separately, and in some

cases by different management agencies.

The reality is that ecosystem-based management will occur, already is occurring, shaping not only perceptions about the wisdom

of our management decisions, but also the decisions themselves,

and in each of these and in other debates, fisherman and conservationists are demanding action, sometimes conflicting action. Unfortunately, sound responses have been hampered by questions or

misperceptions about the nature and extent of predatory-prey

interactions, inadequate or unavailable data, and most of all, the

lack of an established process for taking interspecies relationships

into consideration.

Mr. Chairman, we are obliged to make sure that ecological issues

are addressed correctly, based on science and agreed-upon goals,

adhering to a process that we can all understand and believe in.

So it is a not a question of whether we take on this challenge, but

how. The most dangerous course is the one that we are on right

now, forced, as we are, to deal with these issues, but with no guidance as to what information is needed, and most importantly, how

it should be used in the real world of making fishery management

decisions.

The next frequently asked question is can we manage on an ecosystem basis, and again I think the answer is yes. The body of information available to fishery scientists and managers is large and

constantly expanding. There is an immensity of raw data out there

that has not been synthesized or analyzed for ecosystem-based purposes. There are also new tools for ecosystem modeling, such as

ECOPATH, into which this information can now be plugged. In

many instances, there is adequate information, if made available to

fishery managers, and the modeling tools necessary to predict fundamental ecological responses to fishing removals and to make informed decisions that might minimize the adverse impacts of fisheries on trophically-related species.

Ecosystem-based management is an ambitious goal, no question

about it, and we will never know or understand everything about

how fisheries operate in an ecosystem context. But as the Ecosystems Principles Advisory Panel stressed, this is not an acceptable excuse to delay implementing an ecosystem-based approach.

Significant relations, in many cases, are known and understood.

We know enough right now to ask the right questions, identify the

critical information and information needs, and to establish a context for considering what we know and applying it to fishery management decisions. Right now fishery managers have the authority

to consider predatory-prey and interspecies relationships in fishery

management. They are not explicitly required to do so, however,

nor are they provided with any guidance as to how.

What we believe Congress needs to do, therefore, is provide both

drive and direction to this process, and by that I mean amending

the Magnuson Act to require that the National Marine Fisheries

Service and Regional Fishery Management Councils, A) carefully

consider the effects of fishing each species on other species in the

food web, and B) begin devising Fishery Ecosystem Plans to serve

as overarching guidance and a context for future management decisions.

53

We believe that Congress should require that all Fishery Management Plans be reviewed and revised to consider predatory-prey

interactions, assess how associated species are affected by fishing

allowed under each FMP, and establish conservation measures that

will protect associated species and their respective roles in the ecosystem as well as the health and integrity of the ecosystem as a

whole.

Fishery ecosystem plans, as was pointed out earlier by another

witness, would not be intended as a substitute for Fishery Management Plans, but rather as a means to augment their effectiveness.

The FEP would be an umbrella document, which would include information on the structure and function of the ecosystem in each

region where fisheries are managed, so that fishery managers are

aware of the potential impacts of fishing on the various components

of the ecosystem, as well as how changes in the ecosystem might

affect certain fisheries. Councils would continue to employ FMPs as

the primary regulatory vehicle for managing marine fisheries, however, each council FMP should be required to demonstrate that its

objectives and conservation and management measures are consistent with the findings and the recommendations of the FEP.

We, also, along with other witnesses, urge Congress to authorize

sufficient funds, new funds, to assist the Secretary and the councils

in applying ecosystem principles to fisheries research and management under the Act.

In our written statement, we have a number of specific recommended changes to the Magnuson Act that reflect these overall

goals. But if I may, in one final comment, I do want to emphasize

that considering fisheries in an ecosystem context, despite what

some people have said, does not diminish the need to regulate fishing conservatively or downplay the effect of fishing on fish populations. It cannot be used to justify overfishing one species in order

to maximize yields of another species, nor does it diminish the need

to fish selectively to avoid bycatch and minimize bycatch mortality.

It supports taking the precautionary approach to conserving and

managing marine fisheries, especially when the ecosystem effects of

fishing are uncertain or unknown. It is our firm belief that an ecosystem-based approach cannot and should not substitute for aggressively implementing existing mandates to prevent overfishing,

minimize bycatch, and protect essential fish habitat. In fact, it

makes achieving these goals and doing more to achieve them even

more critical.

Thank you for considering our views, and we look forward to

working with the Subcommittee and staff during the reauthorization to improve management of all marine fish.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hinman follows:]

Statement of Ken Hinman, President, National Coalition for Marine

Conservation

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I very much appreciate this opportunity to speak with you about a subject to which I have devoted a large portion

of my time over the last four years—promoting ecosystem-based fishery management.

My name is Ken Hinman and I am President of the National Coalition for Marine

Conservation, the nation’s oldest public advocacy organization dedicated exclusively

to conserving ocean fish and their environment. Since 1973, my organization, and

54

our efforts to ensure a healthy future for ocean fishing, have co-evolved along with

the nation’s fishery management system. We would like to think we have played

a role in shaping that system for the better.

I am here today because we believe that an ecosystem-based approach to management is a natural progression in the evolution of fishery management. It is a natural outflow of our increasing knowledge of the ocean and our expanding circle of

concern for all marine species. It’s time, we believe, is now.

Mr. Chairman, I am also here as a co-chair of the Marine Fish Conservation Network, an alliance of over 100 fishing, environmental and scientific organizations

working together to reform fisheries management, specifically by strengthening the

Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. My remarks reflect

the position of our allies in the Network, as laid out in its ‘‘Agenda to Protect, Restore and Conserve the Nation’s Marine Fish.’’ It is widely believed that some fishery declines, or difficulties in restoring overfished species, are caused at least in part by violations of basic ecosystem principles.

In 1996, Congress directed the National Marine Fisheries Service to establish an advisory panel to review and recommend application of ecosystem principles to federal

marine fisheries management. As a member of that panel, I saw how our goal of

developing ‘‘fishery ecosystem plans’’ to guide management decisions would come

about only through an incremental strategy. Not in one giant leap, but in carefully

measured steps. The first step is to understand and preserve the interdependency

of key predator and prey species.

Since publication of the panel’s Report to Congress, entitled ‘‘Ecosystem–Based

Fishery Management,’’ in 1999, I have spent considerable time writing and traveling

to meetings and workshops, in an effort to promote its recommendations. In my conversations with policy makers, fishery managers and Congressional aides, the three

most frequently asked questions are:

(1) Do managers want to manage fisheries on an ecosystem-basis?

(2) Can they do it? and

(3) Will they do it? More specifically, how will they do it?

The short answer to the first question, do they want to do it, is yes. Indeed, they

have already begun. The state and federal agencies that co-manage the fisheries of

Chesapeake Bay are in the initial stages of developing a multispecies, or ecosystem

plan for the bay’s living resources. The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council,

which oversees many valuable commercial and sport fisheries from North Carolina

to the Florida Keys, has also started this process.

The fact is, fishery scientists and managers alike recognize the need to address

ecological considerations, with emphasis on ‘‘need.’’ Actually, the relevant question

is not, do fishery managers want to do this; they really don’t have a choice. Ecosystem-based management is gaining increased interest and consideration because

the effect that fishing for one species has on other, related species is receiving attention in a number of current fishery management debates.

The reality is that ecosystem-based management will occur—already is occurring—shaping not only perceptions about management decisions but also the decisions themselves. Decisions are already being made, often based on misperceptions

about ecological relationships, because there is no established process for making

such decisions. For example:

• The resounding success in rebuilding striped bass along the Atlantic coast has

been followed by worries that the newly resurgent bass are finding too little to

eat because harvests are too high on one of their most important prey species—

menhaden. In Chesapeake Bay, the problem is compounded by fears the low

availability of menhaden is causing stripers to increase consumption of blue

crabs, already in low supply due to over-harvest.

• Concerns about high, unregulated harvests of horseshoe crabs in the mid–Atlantic area, largely for use as bait in other fisheries, have been heightened by fears

that depleted populations of horseshoe crabs would leave shore birds that feast

on the crabs’ eggs without enough fuel to complete their long migrations. State

and federal agencies are moving to limit the number of horseshoe crabs commercial fishermen may land, limits that traditionally are set according to the bait

needs of the fishing industry.

• Some New England fishermen and fishery managers have argued that the target population level in the rebuilding plan for dogfish sharks should be lowered,

and thus restrictions on fishing for dogfish relaxed, because dogfish consume

significant amounts of cod, a higher-value species that is also in need of restoration. Significant predation on cod, however, has not been supported by analyses

of dogfish stomach contents. In fact, scientists advising the Regional Fishery

Management Councils determined that adult cod are more significant predators

of juvenile cod than are dogfish. Nevertheless, the perception of dogfish as an

55

‘‘undesirable’’ species, whose abundance jeopardizes the abundance of other,

more desirable species, not only persists but may influence decisions, even if at

a subliminal level.

• Questions have been raised about the ecosystem effects created by the fisheries

that remove some of the ocean’s apex predators. In the Atlantic Ocean, swordfish, the large tunas (bluefin, bigeye), blue and white marlin and large coastal

sharks are overfished, with several species considered severely depleted. By removing so many of these predators, we are weakening an entire tier at the top

of the food chain, which may have dire biological consequences throughout the

ecosystem. (Predator removal may be more disruptive than prey removal, since

predators are generally longer-lived than their prey, and are thus slower to respond to changes in their environment, or to fill niches left by the disappearance

of other predators.)

• An additional concern is the effect of increased harvest of pelagic forage species

on their large pelagic predators, many of which are overfished and the object

of national as well as international rebuilding programs. Increasing harvests of

squid and herring on the northeast Atlantic shelf raise questions about how this

unprecedented growth in fishing mortality might impact the effectiveness of recovery efforts for species for whom squid and herring are a dominant food

source.

In these and other debates, fishermen and conservationists are demanding action,

sometimes conflicting. Unfortunately, sound responses have been hampered by

misperceptions about the nature and extent of predator-prey interactions, inadequate or unavailable data about them, and the lack of an established process for

taking inter-species relationships into consideration.

We are obliged to make sure that ecological issues are addressed correctly, based

on science and agreed upon goals, adhering to a process that we can understand

and believe in. So it is not a question of whether we take on this challenge, but

how. The species-by-species approach cannot address certain critical issues and

problems that will no longer be ignored. The most dangerous course is the one we’re

on now, forced as we are to deal with these issues, but with no guidance as to what

information is needed and, most importantly, how it should be used in the real

world of making fishery management decisions.

The next frequently asked question is, can we manage on an ecosystem basis, at

least in an informed and effective manner? Again, the answer is yes. The body of

information available to fishery scientists and managers is large and constantly expanding. Most recently, the new bycatch and essential fish habitat provisions of the

Magnuson–Stevens Act have prompted the gathering and synthesis of available information on a wide range of species and habitats, from a broad range of sources.

There is an immensity of raw data out there that has not been synthesized or

analyzed for ecosystem-based management purposes. There are also new tools for

ecosystem modeling, such as ECOPATH, into which this information can now be

plugged. In many instances, there is adequate information -- if made available to

fishery managers -- and the modeling tools necessary to predict fundament ecological responses to fishing removals and natural predation, and to make informed decisions that might minimize the adverse impacts of fisheries on trophically-related

species.

Ecosystem-based management should strive to include as much information as

possible on the structure and function of the ecosystem in which fishing activities

occur, including its biological, physical and chemical dynamics, a description of the

significant food web, and the habitat needs of different life stages of species that

make up the significant food web. This is an ambitious goal, and we will never know

or understand everything about how fisheries operate in an ecosystem context. But

as the Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panel advised, this is not an acceptable excuse

to delay implementing an ecosystem-based approach. Significant relationships are

known and understood. We know enough, right now, to ask the right questions,

identify the critical information and information needs, and establish a context for

considering what we know and applying it to fishery management decisions.

As I said earlier, some fishery management bodies are already taking the first

steps toward an ecosystem-based approach. That’s because they already have the

authority and the discretion, without any changes to current law, to consider predator-prey relationships and species interactions in fishery management plans. They

are not explicitly required to do so, however, nor are they provided with guidance

as to how.

What Congress needs to do, therefore, is provide both drive and direction to this

process. By that I mean, amending the Magnuson–Stevens Act to require that the

National Marine Fisheries Service and the Regional Fishery Management Councils:

56

(A) carefully consider the effects of fishing each species on other species in the

food web; and

(B) begin devising Fishery Ecosystem Plans to serve as overarching guidance and

a context for future management decisions.

We believe that Congress should require that all Fishery Management Plans

(FMP) be reviewed and revised to consider predator-prey interactions, assess how

associated species are affected by fishing allowed under each FMP and establish

conservation and management measures that will protect associated species and

their respective roles in the ecosystem as well as the integrity and sustainability

of the ecosystem overall. This will require determining the effects of fishing on the

food web, setting optimum population levels to account for ecological factors, and

justifying total allowable catches with respect to interspecies relationships.

As the Ecosystems Principles Advisory Panel recommends, Fisheries Ecosystem

Plans, or FEPs, would not be intended as a substitute for Fishery Management

Plans, but rather a means to augment their effectiveness. The FEP would be an umbrella document which would include information on the structure and function of

the ecosystem each region’s managed fishing activities are occurring in, so that fishery managers are aware of the potential impacts of fishing on the various components of the ecosystem, as well as how changes in the ecosystem might affect certain

fisheries. The FEP would also establish indices for measuring ecosystem health.

Councils would continue to employ FMPs as the primary regulatory vehicle for managing marine fisheries, however, each council FMP should be required to demonstrate that its objectives and conservation and management measures are consistent with the findings and recommendations of the FEP.

We also urge Congress to authorize sufficient new funds to assist the Secretary

and the councils in applying ecosystems principles to fisheries research and management under the Act.

Needed Changes to the Magnuson–Stevens Act:

Following are recommended amendments to the Magnuson–Stevens Act supported

by the National Coalition for Marine Conservation and the members of the Marine

Fish Conservation Network:

• Add consideration of ecosystem principles in fisheries management to the Purposes and Policy section of the Act

• Amend the definitions of optimum yield and overfishing to make more explicit

the directive to consider impacts on ecosystems, including predator-prey relationships, in the setting of total allowable catch levels

• Amend the Act to require that all fishery management plans or amendments

describe and assess the likely effects on other species in the ecosystem

• Amend the Act to require that each council develop a Fisheries Ecosystem Plan

for the major ecosystem(s) under its jurisdiction

• Appropriate necessary funds for the application of ecosystems principles to fisheries research and management.

Finally, it is essential to emphasize that considering fisheries in an ecosystem

context does not diminish the need to regulate fishing or downplay the effect of fishing on fish populations. It cannot be used to justify overfishing one species in order

to maximize yields of another species. Nor does it diminish the need to fish selectively to avoid bycatch (the incidental capture of non-target species) and minimize

bycatch mortality. In fact, ecosystem-based fishery management supports taking the

precautionary approach to conserving and managing marine fisheries, especially

when the ecosystem effects of fishing are uncertain or unknown. It is our firm belief

that an ecosystem-based approach cannot and should not substitute for aggressively

implementing existing mandates to prevent overfishing, minimize bycatch and protect essential fish habitat.

Thank you for considering our views, and I look forward to working with the Subcommittee members and staff during the reauthorization to improve management

of all marine species.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much, Mr. Hinman.

The first question I have any single person or anybody on the

panel can certainly answer. Basically, the question is what does

ecosystem-based management mean? Now let me sort of give you

a frame of reference upon which my perspective is for ecosystem

management, and we would like to be able, as a result of this hearing and maybe a few more, to put language in the Magnuson Act

57

that will move us in a very clear, specific direction that will, I don’t

want to say accelerate, but begin the process of implementing and

incorporating Ecosystem Management Plans, Fisheries Ecosystem

Plans with that umbrella concept. So the Fishery Management

Plan can draw on this information to better manage the fishery.

So what does Ecosystem-Based Management Plan mean? Dr.

Crowder, you mentioned Pamlico Sound, the problem in North

Carolina. We heard that about a billion fish died with this huge

outbreak of what some people are calling Pfiesteria, and we’ve had

similar incidents in the Chesapeake Bay with menhaden, and the

NOAA Office of the Chesapeake Bay Program Office is sort of implementing this pilot project I guess I could describe or Ecosystem

Management Plan in the Chesapeake Bay.

Now, my simple understanding of an ecosystem approach is let’s

take menhaden, for example. You have a population of menhaden,

which is a food source for rockfish. Menhaden also are filter feeders

for the Chesapeake Bay, and they eat I guess phytoplankton. Do

they eat zooplankton, too?

Dr. CROWDER. When they are small they do.

Mr. GILCHREST. When they are small.

So the problem with phytoplankton and zooplankton is that the

Bay has become too rich in nutrients, and there has been problems

with oxygen, hypoxia, and then the next step is the growth of

dinoflagellates, which live in a different water quality regime,

which means the menhaden don’t get the type of nutrients they

need because dinoflagellates are less nutritious.

And so if we manage the Chesapeake Bay, we want to make sure

a number of things; one, that land use is a part of the ecosystem

for the fishery, and what are you going to do with the nutrients

being washed into the Bay? So that is an aspect of it. If the menhaden population goes down, the rockfish don’t have as many to eat,

and they will be looking for a new food source, which could be

crabs, which could be something else. So human activity comes in,

and then we sort of, not to mention the huge reduction of oyster

population over the last 100 years, and list of things to understand

and pursue, and then put into a recognizable form so that you can

come up with a Fisheries Management Plan seems, I don’t want to

use the word ‘‘daunting,’’ I want to use the word ‘‘stunningly curious’’ to pursue this fascinating issue of the mechanics of creation.

And so some of what I remember about managing the Bay, especially menhaden, Chesapeake Bay, is that the commercial fishermen will get an allocation of menhaden. The rockfish will get an

allocation of menhaden. The Bay itself, for filtering water quality,

will get an allocation of menhaden, and so on down the line.

Is that some semblance of an Ecosystem-Based Management

Plan that councils would undertake and pursue?

Dr. CROWDER. I would like to comment on that, Mr. Chairman,

you have a very thorough understanding of what is going on in

these systems. They are complex, and there are really two alternatives, in terms of trying to manage fisheries in that context.

What we have done historically is manage fisheries as if they are

isolated from all of those other effects that you catalogued. Clearly,

that is not working.

58

The two alternatives I see from there are to ignore all of those

other issues, but make fisheries management decisions that are extremely conservative. In other words, we need to buffer ourselves

against all of those uncertainties we are not officially taking into

account, like water quality and so on. Or we could make our assessments account for the key complex issues. You have identified

a series of linkages that scientists have become more and more

aware of over just the last 10 or 15 years. So we are in a position

to take into account many of those factors that link landscape practices to fisheries production. So I think that on the science side, we

can do a much better job than we are currently doing, taking into

account ecosystem components. Obviously, we manage people, not

ecosystems and not fisheries, so we have to figure out how one goes

about altering the behavior of people to enhance these habitats so

that they can produce the fish they currently produce.

One of the constraints on that is that the Magnuson Act deals

with managing fisheries and works through NOAA. Many of those

other factors that are having an impact on Chesapeake Bay and

the Albemarle-Pamlico Sound are regulated through entirely different acts, through entirely different Government agencies. So

how to achieve the sort of cooperation it will take to do ecosystem

management will be a daunting task, both from a scientific perspective and from a governance perspective. But I think we have

little choice, but to move in that direction.

Mr. GILCHREST. Now we want to replace the word ‘‘daunting’’ with challenging, and fascinating, and curious.

Dr. CROWDER. Well, for scientists, these are challenging, fascinating, fun tasks to get involved in, but it is also something that

is not inexpensive to jump into. If we could manage these fisheries

at the population level, that would simplify our tasks substantially.

What we have discovered empirically is that we cannot successfully

do that, so we at least have to take something of the ecosystem

context into account when we develop Fisheries Management Plan.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you.

Dr. Fluharty?

Dr. FLUHARTY. Mr. Chairman, I think what you have said has

very well-portrayed the set of issues we wrestled with in the panel.

What you projected is what we would generally term ‘‘ecosystem

management,’’ and I think that that is the broad context under

which a more limited approach which was our focus was how do

you manage fisheries more ecologically. So that is a really a

subtask of the broader task that you have put out before us. I

think there may be—it may be useful to think of these in two related actions: one in terms of Magnuson-Stevens Act, in terms of

the authorities that exist within the management councils; and,

two, within the context of the Ocean Commission that is being established and getting started. I think that what you express is really the leading edge and would be a great organizing principle for

that group is how do you bring the watersheds, the marine pollution, the various other kinds of activities, as well as the natural dynamics of the system into a common management framework. How

do we start looking at that more holistically across Government? So

I would suggest there might be two ways to do this, and two vehicles that would help us move along as quickly as we can.

59

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you.

Mr. Hinman?

Mr. HINMAN. Using your Chesapeake Bay example, every description I have seen and heard of how a fishery ecosystem plan

would operate in those kind of situations would begin with defining

the structure and the composition of the ecosystem and mapping

out the significant food web which, in this case, would include species such as striped bass, menhaden, blue crab, but also on the

predator level the bluefish and weakfish, and at the prey level, the

shad. And I think you would find that certain solutions would arise

out of this. You can do certain things, such as be more conservative

in the harvest of menhaden, do more to restore the runs of shad

in the Bay, which are an important food source for striped bass,

and it is the absence of those species and menhaden or the scarcity

of menhaden that may be increasing the consumption of blue crabs.

I think you would find that there are ways that you can work with

that system and actually produce a variety of abundance of all of

these species in the Bay and provide a lot of benefits for most of

the users of the Bay. It is not a matter, I don’t think, of one user

over another.

I think we are in a situation right now where we have people

saying, ‘‘Let us kill more striped bass so that we can kill more blue

crabs or we can kill more menhaden or whatever,’’ this kind of

micromanaging the system to produce certain yields, levels of

yields which is I think bound to fail. It is extremely risky, and it

is a kind of a micromanipulation of an ecosystem that is the opposite of what we are talking about. Since this issue was raised by

Steve earlier, of rebuilding all of these populations, I don’t know

that there is any scientific reason to believe that an ecosystem in

balance cannot support a variety of species in abundance. I think

they can, and I think by managing for abundance of both predator

and prey species, we will have healthier populations that will provide those commercial and sport, as well as ecological benefits that

we are trying to achieve.

Mr. GILCHREST. I guess when we talk about an ecosystem in balance, to some extent, each of the species in that ecosystem is dynamic and the population goes up and down, depending on who is

eating who and whatever. So it is really, it is moving, and it is dynamic, and it is cyclical. So, when you incorporate humans in

there, they are the, I would suspect, to a large extent, they are the

only aspect, since humans are a part of the ecosystem, of that ecosystem that is not dynamic. It is just steady. You want to catch so

many pollock, and so many crabs, and so many rockfish, and if

your effort is much greater, you still need to come out with that

certain number in order to be financially stable.

So what type of wrinkle does that pose to the ecosystem approach to a very dynamic, natural process?

Dr. Crowder?

Dr. CROWDER. At least in North Carolina, and I think this is true

for many fisheries, historically, fishermen were also fishing those

systems adaptively; that is, they didn’t fish just in one fishery, they

were able to move from one fishery to another. And I think, as our

fisheries have expanded, we have ended up with fisheries that are

highly specialized and require essentially a single resource, based

60

on the gear and the fishing technique, and they have a difficult

time, as resources come and go, making a move from one to another. It is pretty typical for watermen in North Carolina to fish

in five or six different fisheries. This, of course, requires them to

have a lot of equipment of different kinds, and so on, to make those

moves, but they respond to fluctuations in the abundance of prey,

and that generates lots of problems with being permitted and licensed to fish in a variety of different fisheries.

So it could be that as we managed things toward specialization,

we put fishermen in the position of requiring a stable resource

when that is just not physically possible in the world that we live

in. All of these stocks fluctuate up and down naturally, and we can

seek to understand that, but if it is environmentally driven, we

cannot control it. So we have economic processes that would like

nice, stable yields in a world that does not produce nice, stable

yields.

Mr. GILCHREST. Yes, sir?

Dr. MURAWSKI. Yes, it is certainly the case that fisheries can

have a tremendously de-stabilizing effect in complex ecosystems. In

the Northeast, we have seen the effect of fishing on the downside

because natural fluctuations are perturbed even more as fisheries

seek to maintain their catch rates. And so they tend to basically

exert this negative feedback on these populations that drive them

even farther down than they would normally be under sort of a

natural cycling.

One of the things that we have discovered in looking at these

kinds of systems, both in the real world and in computers, is that

if the broad array of fish stocks are fished at reasonable levels, ecosystems tend to be very resilient. A lot of the species that we are

talking about are relatively long lived, and so even if you have recruitment failure for a year or 2 years or 3 years in a row, because

you have got a lot of older adults in the population, you have the

potential to pick up the stocks relatively quickly. But if you have

fisheries that are bouncing around from target to target in a system that we call sequential depletion, which is very well-understood now, that we can destabilize a whole ecosystem in a sequential basis, and that makes recovery in these systems much more

difficult.

Mr. GILCHREST. Sequential depletion, could you explain that?

Dr. MURAWSKI. Yes. The term basically has been defined based

on two interesting examples. First of all, back 30 years ago, we had

large foreign factory fleets show up off the Northeast United

States, and they bounced around from one target to the next because they needed to maintain very high catch rates for these large

factory ships. And so as they depleted haddock, and then cod, and

yellowtail and then started to move down the food chain, as Pat

said, to herring and mackerel, we saw the catch rate stay stable,

although there was a lot of target species shift.

We have also seen this in the Alaskan fisheries for shell fish,

where things like shrimp, and crabs, and others, we had a mobile

fleet that was capable of switching from fishery to fishery, and this

whole concept is very well-understood now, and it argues for a comprehensive effort control across fisheries, rather than just simply

managing one target species in an FMP over here and another one

61

over there, recognizing that that effort is very efficient. It can seek

new targets very effectively.

Mr. GILCHREST. Unfortunately, we are going to have a series of

votes, which means we will probably, rather than keep you here for

a half-hour or 40 minutes doing nothing, and perhaps just myself

coming back, I have just a couple other quick questions. I would

like to stay in touch with all of you, whether I will come to Alaska

the next time, North Carolina or whatever.

In an ecosystem approach, what impact do you suppose we might

have with exotic species, invasive species? Has that been taken into

consideration over the past several years with some of these

projects?

Dr. Fluharty?

Dr. FLUHARTY. I am probably bolder than the scientists who really know this topic. But in these discussions with respect to marine

protected areas and marine ecosystems, an ecosystem that is intact, is healthy, is thought, in simple terms, to be more resistant

to invasion and thus less likely to be invaded—it doesn’t mean it

can’t be, but it is less likely—you haven’t created openings within

the ecological niches by depleting, say, a stock that would allow

something to come in.

I will stop there because that is the limit of my knowledge.

Mr. GILCHREST. There is another comment?

Dr. CROWDER. I would add to that. I think that there is increasing evidence from experimental systems, that conservationists have

worked on in both terrestrial freshwater aquatic systems that systems that maintain a high level of biodiversity, a broad cross-section of species, are more resistant to invasion by nonnative species.

And as we modify these systems with pollutants, with losses of species or severe depletions of species stocks, we actually make them

open to increasing opportunities for invaders.

Many of the invasive species that we have causing problems now

have had many, many opportunities to invade, and didn’t seem to

invade until just recently. So it causes at least some concern that

its alterations to the systems that we have made that, in fact,

make them more vulnerable.

Mr. GILCHREST. It sounds like an ecosystem approach is going to

be beneficial in a number of ways, including a healthy ecosystem

which is more resistant and resilient to exotic species.

One other quick question. With all of the complexities that we

see, that you have mentioned in your testimony, that you have

seen over the last number of years, Dr. Fluharty, in your ecosystem-based fishery management proposal, research document,

you laid out some specific steps that could be taken by the Congress in the authorization of the Magnuson to put in place an implementation plan to the councils for an ecosystem approach.

Now, if anybody on the panel has read those steps, would you

comment on them because they seem to be positive things for us

to do to put in the Magnuson Act, and do you have any reservations about that? I guess we can just lift the language right out of

the report then.

Mr. HINMAN. Well, I was a member of that panel, and I can also

point out that a lot of those recommendations were the basis for

the Marine Fish Conservation Network’s recommendations to ConVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:59 Mar 21, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 73085.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
62

gress for the Magnuson Act changes, and they have also been very

influential in everything from the Chesapeake Bay Program’s approach to multispecies management and some of the councils that

have undertaken this task. So I think there is a broad understanding and support for those recommendations as the way to go.

Mr. GILCHREST. I am sorry. We are a typical Congress day. We

have a vote. What I would like to do is just turn the chair over to

Mr. Underwood. Unless somebody has to catch a plane, I will be

back as fast as I can, and Mr. Underwood can continue the line of

questioning.

Thank you.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. [Presiding] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Since I

am a little out of the flow of the questions, let me just, as a general

question, Dr. Fluharty, you mentioned in your testimony or you

made the analogy that Congress could be the coach for ecosystems

management. How directive do you want this ‘‘coach’’ to be? Do you

want them to be more a manager?

Dr. FLUHARTY. Mr. Underwood, I think that this follows directly

along the line that we were pursuing with the Chairman concerning just what steps could Congress do. I think that the steps

we outlined might be seen as timid by some people who would like

to see us move much more quickly, but the Committee or the panel

talked about this quite a bit and felt like this was pretty much a

sure-fire way, that these are things we could actually get moving

on over a period of years.

The key element of that, as I tried to emphasize, is the National

Marine Fisheries Service, the councils, the environmental groups

that work with us and the industry groups that work with us all

are very much overloaded with implementation of the issues that

have been brought before us by the Sustainable Fisheries Act. This

is rightly so. I am not whining. I think that we are headed in the

right direction and doing the right kinds of things. But I think, as

we add more tasks, as the coach might say we are going to raise

the bar higher, we need to recognize the need to really either get

some new recruits in to help with the effort or to provide more resources so that we can actually, have the energy to be innovative

and to get on with the task.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Well, Dr. Hogarth, do you have a response to

that?

Dr. HOGARTH. I think I just would echo what Dr. Fluharty said.

The 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act put great expectations on the Agency. The manpower and dollars to get the

work done were not there. I think that is one of the reasons we are

paying the price today with many lawsuits, and the other thing we

have is that we have a tremendous increase in what we should be

doing and really not have the means to get it done.

Looking here at what is recommended, I do not think the Agency

has any reservation of undertaking ecosystem-based management.

If you look at some of the requirements, with 900 species or so to

deal with and 540 of those whose status is unknown, implementing

this system into law would create, I think, a tremendous backlash

from industry, in terms of additional lawsuits, questions about having a lot more vessels, or the need to have a lot more people to

really gather necessary data.

63

I don’t think any of us are fighting ecosystem-based management. I think it depends on how much you would put into law that

has to be an impact on the Agency.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. So has the Agency considered costing out what

some of these recommendations might entail?

Dr. HOGARTH. We are in the process of that now. I don’t know

if you heard me say we are going to have a workshop this fall to

try to outline more of the system requirements, what would it take

the Agency to implement the system, what would be the cost, and

what would be the best way to go.

For example, the coral reef ecosystem plan that we are devel- oping in Hawaii right now, costs us about $1 million, with consultants and others just to write the plan. That dollar figure for the

number of ecosystem plans we would be doing, in that district, includes writing the plan. It doesn’t include having all of the data or

filling in all of the holes that you have.

The Groundfish Ecosystem Plan that Alaska prepared is about a

3,600-page document that still has holes in it. People are getting

answers about now, and developing more definite alternatives, especially alternatives for management.

I don’t want to sound negative because I am not negative. What

I am trying to say is it is a tremendous amount of work. It is going

to take a lot of additional data to do these plans and do them properly so that you do not have the Agency back in court trying to defend the plan. My concern is that we have got to have the resources

if we want to go to this process.

We are going to try to work on this in the Agency. We are trying

to do it now. We have several plans that we are working on to see

how it works, but it has not been an easy process. It has not been

a cheap process, and we have lots of holes that we need to fill.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I think the appropriate response to that, Dr.

Hogarth, would be to see some resource statements about what the

costs would entail, what the costs would be to implement some of

these recommendations.

Yes, sir, you had a comment? I am sorry. I cannot see your

nameplate.

Okay. Mr. Hinman?

Mr. HINMAN. In answer to your question of how directive Congress should be on this issue, I have a couple of comments.

First of all, I think Congress clearly has to do a lot more than

just say to fishery managers, ‘‘Consider ecological relationships,

consider the effects on ecosystems.’’ I think those are the kind of

soft mandates that our experience has shown really do not produce

results. They are akin to saying, ‘‘Prevent overfishing. Minimize bycatch.’’ And I think in both those cases, when there is an absence

of some kind of directive of how to do that or some kind of goals

or standards that are set attached to them or some kind of prescriptive measures, very little is done in either case. That was the

case with preventing overfishing for 20 years. Now things are starting to change because some prescriptive things have been put in

there, some ways of holding them accountable.

Minimize bycatch. I do not think a lot is happening, and I think

it is because that is pretty much as far as the act has gone. So if

you do that with the ecosystems approach, I think that will be the

64

result; (A) that very little will be done; or (B) things will be done,

but it will be in an uncoordinated or piecemeal manner or, possibly,

in an improper manner.

I think what Congress has to do is put some requirements in the

act, and it has to require that the Councils look at these issues and

go through a process to show, to demonstrate that they have looked

at the issues of what information is available and give them some

kind of guidance on how they are to consider these things, how

they are to weigh them. And I think both those things can be done

in the Magnuson Act and should be done.

I think that guidance is what people have talked about, in terms

of putting together some kind of FEP, demonstration FEP, and I

am glad to hear that the National Marine Fisheries Service is beginning to look at what kind of guidance they can give the managers. But if you do not give the managers that kind of guidance,

I think we are going to continue on the path we are on right now,

and I think decisions will not be very well-educated and well-informed.

And worse, I think, from Congress’s standpoint and from a political standpoint, we have, as I said in my testimony, decisions being

affected by these kinds of perceptions of what people think is going

on, and they are demanding some kind of action. And if we do not

have a very established process for dealing with that, where we

show people what information was considered, the things that happen or the things that are done are not going to be very credible

either to fishermen or the public, and those problems will continue,

and people won’t have much faith in the fisheries management system, as it gets into those issues, as it must.

And one last point. The Advisory Panel’s report does recommend

that we do this through an incremental strategy, and tries to stress

that we should not be overwhelmed by the enormity of the task or

the amount of information we need, but that there are certain

things that can be done, and we should begin doing things where

we have information available and where we can recognize what

kind of relationships are going on and what the impacts are. And

we can begin doing those things in some fisheries right now, rather

than waiting until we have the resources to collect all of the information to cover every aspect of the ecosystem, which will not happen in our lifetime.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you for that.

Dr. Murawski?

Dr. MURAWSKI. Yes. To your question about developing resources

in order to do the job, the Agency has developed a document called

the ‘‘Stock Assessment Improvement Plan,’’ and this is in reaction

to a National Research Council study to improve stock assessment.

The strategy that we have been pushing forward is a three-tier

strategy to, one, fully analyze the data that we already have collected; two, improve the basic data collection that we do to support

the FMPs, as they are currently constructed, and that would include better observer coverage, more fishery independent surveys,

and better fisheries landings data; and a third tier is to extend

these stock assessments into the ecosystem realm, where we start

to better study the fishery interactions, et cetera.

65

Certainly this is an expensive proposition and one that we see

as an incremental proposition. As was stated before, this kind of

enterprise doesn’t necessarily throw out the basic data that we

need. It really just adds to it, and we see this as our vehicle to improve the ecosystem basis for management.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Dr. Fluharty?

Dr. FLUHARTY. Mr. Underwood, as part of the incremental approach that Ken was mentioning that we, the panel, recommended,

if we look at the thrust right now, in terms of both litigation and

Agency effort, to become NEPA compliant, if we look at the implementation of essential fish habitat, and particularly the habitat

areas of particular concern and the fishing effects components of

that, these are all major activities that involve councils, and the

National Marine Fisheries Service, and users, as well, and environmental organizations.

If we think of that in terms of providing the building blocks that

we are going to need for ecosystem-based fishery management, basically, looking at sort of what we are doing, but recognizing the

significance of those activities right now, I think that that is a really good start for the Fisheries Ecosystem Plan. Even just looking

at what is being done as we go more consciously, in an ecosystem

context, is the kind of thing that really provides some legs to this

concept.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. I am getting the sense, and correct me if I am

wrong, I am getting the sense that part of the difficulty in trying

to perhaps ensure public confidence, and this is one we are constantly assessing, and that is a normal part of the process, and now

we are positing, trying to implement this ecosystem management

plan, and now we are talking about in terms of implementing it incrementally. What do we mean by incrementally? I mean, what is

the time frame that we are hoping to give to this?

Dr. FLUHARTY. Mr. Underwood, I guess I would say that I would

see a time frame, and this is my perspective alone, of 2 to 3 years,

where we, through various workshops, programs, bringing ourselves up to speed on essential fish habitat, especially fishing effects, totally implementing the Sustainable Fisheries Act, and further refining the concept of ecosystem-based fishery management

and building a better concept of the fishery ecosystem plan, we

would be in a position where we would have the wherewithal to get

moving.

This doesn’t mean that I am suggesting we wait until then to

start using the information we have, and I don’t think that will

happen. But it is, in terms of a process, I think we have got about

3 years of ramping up on this and then a year or two of finalizing

the concept and getting it into regulations so that, people can know

what to expect.

That would be my perspective. I expect others may have ideas.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Yes, sir?

Dr. CROWDER. Thank you, Mr. Underwood.

I agree with Dr. Murawski that there is an awful lot of data that

has been collected about these ecosystems and a lot of understanding with these ecosystems not only with Government agencies, but within oceanographic institutions and the academic institutions that have cooperated. Under GLOBEC and under the

66

NOAA Coastal Ocean Program, there have been very useful programs of collaboration across academic/Government boundaries—

we are trying to make them bridges—so that we don’t have to start

over collecting a bunch of new information. We need to look at the

information we have got and figure out what the critical holes are

that need to be filled.

So I think that, in addition to the resources that are available

through Government, there are ample resources in the U.S.,

through the oceanographic institutions, to contribute to these

issues.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Anyone else?

Mr. Hinman?

Mr. HINMAN. Yes. It is hard to say exactly how long it would

take to put together a fishery ecosystem plan, whether it is a couple of years. I think, as soon as—as Larry just said—as soon as we

start trying to put together these plans to gather and synthesize

this information, I think people are going to discover that there is

a lot more information, and we know a lot more than we may think

we do, which I think would probably lead to being able to put it

into implementation sooner, rather than later. But I think part of

the incremental strategy, I firmly believe that a requirement of

taking into consideration some of the significant predator-prey relationships is something that needs to be in the reauthorization, and

I think they are things that can be done right now, that can be

done even before a fishery ecosystem plan is completed. We do

know of some very significant relationships among predators and

prey that are being harvested, being caught at very significant levels, and that we have gathered tremendous amounts of information

on over the years.

Some of the examples we have talked about today, we were talking about them because there is a tremendous amount of information. So I think those things don’t have to wait at all. Fishery ecosystem plans will take probably a couple of years to put together,

but again I think we will find, as we do that, that we know a lot

more than we think we do and that we can do a lot more than

some people think, sooner than we think.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Dr. Hogarth?

Dr. HOGARTH. Just one last point, one of the other considerations

is the human considerations in this effort. We are in a need for a

lot of social economic-type data, and the impacts on communities

and all, not only the biological impacts, but you are going to have

to look at communities, the socioeconomic effects. That is the type

of data that we, in the Agency need, but have had a lack of funding

for a number of years, and I think it is one of the critical issues.

The second thing is that our workshop will look at the process

for ecosystem management. If we can develop a process or a model,

so to speak, that we will use for these type plans, then I think that

you could focus more on the type of data needed, the assumptions

necessary, and this type of thing. It will focus the discussion a little

more once we can come to an agreement on the process or a model

on how these plans will be done. That is what we want our workshop to focus on this fall.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Explain what you mean by socioeconomic data.

67

Dr. HOGARTH. Well, you have to know what the fishery and the

value of some of the ecosystems from a fishery standpoint; if it is

whale watching or if it is, the whole ecosystem in terms of the economics, the social aspects of the ecosystem and what impacts of

management would be. When you look at the ecosystem, you are

looking at it, from a management standpoint, of all the uses, including fisheries, but also the other uses.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Okay. Dr. Fluharty, under this ecosystembased fishery management, when you prepared this report, what

elements of it were perceived in the final recommendations you

made as perhaps the most controversial or what elements did you

leave out, as well, that people wanted?

Dr. FLUHARTY. I think that some of the discussion today reflects

the sort of underlying concerns that we had. As scientists, as managers, and as economists who were involved in putting this report

together, I think there was a real interest in moving this concept

ahead. The question was how quickly could we do it and what were

the best methods? And we gave our best shot at that.

And so I think that, clearly, there were people that wanted us

to move to, as Ken has suggested, to a much more enforceable and

action-oriented Fishery Ecosystem Plan. I mean, what would the

plan be, what kinds of management actions would flow from that

document? We adopted a somewhat more conservative incremental

implementation approach, knowing that it is going to take some

while to gather information together to get people up to speed, understanding there is a lot of education that needs to go on throughout the fishery management process.

I think, if there was any controversy, that might have been it.

I think another area where we struggled quite a bit was on how

to discuss marine protected areas and what were their roles in fishery management. Clearly, fishery management has a wide variety

of what are generally termed ‘‘marine protected areas,’’ but they

are not fully protected areas or no take areas.

And so these were some of the dynamics that were here, and our

approach emphasized the fact that fishery managers already are

using, already are putting marine protected areas together in large

areas like Georges Bank in the North Pacific where you have no

trawl zones to protect habitat or to achieve different kinds of

things. But other people looking at that say, well, you still allow

some fisheries to take place in there. Therefore, they don’t count.

Well, scientifically, they mean a huge amount and really solve

some of the major problems where we have threats.

So just about every debate I am sure you had been brought into

on this Committee relative to fisheries was hashed out—

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Part of the discussion.

Dr. FLUHARTY. —in this discussion.

Mr. HINMAN. Even ITQs came up.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Pardon me?

Mr. HINMAN. Even ITQs.

Can I add something to that?

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Sure, a couple of comments and then—go

ahead.

Mr. HINMAN. Yes, I agree with Dave that we were trying to

strike a balance between how action oriented the recommendation

68

should be and being a little bit more conservative on that and recognizing a lot of the information needs.

One area that was not necessarily controversial, but we really

didn’t get that far into because our mandate was to look for

changes under the Magnuson-Stevens Act was this sort of interjurisdictional ecosystem of institutions that are under a lot of different Federal laws. For example, a lot of the species in the ecosystems that we are going to be mapping out in Fishery Ecosystem

Plans are managed by other laws, such as the Marine Mammal

Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, interstate compacts

and other things.

There was some discussion about eventually needing to somehow

harmonize our ecosystem objectives and considerations among

these various different Federal laws because they are all going to

impact things. Once you get into the habitat issue, you get into a

whole bunch of other laws and agencies, and it becomes pretty, the

word ‘‘daunting’’ comes up again, but I think that was one thing

that we did look at. And I think some of them are more compelling

than others, some of the marine wildlife issues that we need to

harmonize that because we have fisheries issues that are now

bumping up against Endangered Species Act issues and the Marine

Mammal Act issues, and I think those will become even more focused as we get into the ecosystem context, and that will have to

be dealt with.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Dr. Murawski?

Dr. MURAWSKI. You would think, from the witnesses’ testimony

here this morning, that this is rather noncontroversial in terms of

implementing— Mr. UNDERWOOD. I don’t think so.

Dr. MURAWSKI. —Fishery Ecosystem Plans as a tier on the way

we currently do business. If we look at the broader issue, there is

a large dichotomy in people’s approach to this issue. Some would

have us scrap fishery management the way we do it now and go

with a broad and ill-defined ecosystem basis for managing fisheries, recognizing or at least stipulating that what we are doing is

a failed paradigm.

Most of us in the business feel that conservative single-species

management is the foundation that would improve stocks, that

would buffer against unanticipated changes in the ecosystem, and

it is really far along the line. We feel that this approach gives us

a foot in the door, with a lot of the mechanisms that we do know

work, that can recover depleted species, in most cases, and move

forward. But I wouldn’t discount the controversy, particularly

among some of the groups that are out there, that this is not the

way to go.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Thank you for those remarks.

We will stand in recess until the return of the chair.

Thank you.

[Recess.]

Mr. GILCHREST. [Presiding] The Subcommittee will come back to

order.

We appreciate your patience, and I also want to thank Mr.

Underwood for continuing the hearing. It seems as if the most productive time during any hearing is the recess time.

69

[Laughter.]

Mr. GILCHREST. But I guess it is not always that people have an

opportunity to discuss these critical issues with other people from

different parts of the country. And when they do so, it provides a

great benefit.

I, also, want to thank all of you for waiting and being patient

with us. I had just a few more questions to finish up with.

Dr. Hogarth, in this Chesapeake Bay NOAA ecosystem approach,

could you tell me who the collaborative partners are in this.

Dr. HOGARTH. Judith Freeman is here.

Mr. GILCHREST. Judith just stepped out.

Dr. HOGARTH. We will get them right now; Peter Hill is here.

Mr. GILCHREST. That is fine, Dr. Hogarth.

Dr. HOGARTH. If not, we will get those to you. I don’t know all

of them, but, yes, I know EPA is involved, but we will get it to you.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you. The Chesapeake Bay NOAA Office

is that a, the ongoing effort to gather data to an ecosystem approach then is contained within the Chesapeake Bay proper, the

Chesapeake Bay fisheries itself, and not outside the Chesapeake

Bay?

Dr. HOGARTH. There are some outside the Bay, yes, sir.

Mr. GILCHREST. And would that have an impact or could that

have an impact, and is there any collaboration with the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Council on that program?

Dr. HOGARTH. I am not sure at this point. I will have to take a

look at that. I know we are looking at some of the species that migrate in and out of the Bay. I don’t know what we are working with

the Council itself or just the Mid-Atlantic States.

Mr. GILCHREST. We will wait until Judith comes back. Thank

you.

Ms. Livingston, could you give us some idea of what you see— to me, and perhaps to all of you, as well, would you agree that we

are at the very early stages of two things: understanding how to

create a Fishery Ecosystem Plan and then, once you had the scientific data or ongoing understanding of how it all works, what

would you say the difficulties of that would be for us to appropriately place language in the reauthorization bill so that a management council would then be required to proceed with those steps

to implement this umbrella of a Fishery Ecosystem Plan that we

are talking about, upon which information would be drawn for a

Fisheries Management Plan?

Ms. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I think we have somewhat of a

grasp on what is involved in producing a Fishery Ecosystem Plan,

as outlined by the Advisory Principles group.

As I mentioned in my testimony, we have struggled with that in

the last year, although we didn’t use the term ‘‘FEP.’’ What we did

with our last Groundfish SEIS is clear that we did a lot of the work

that would be required under an FEP.

In listening to Mr. Hinman’s recommendation that the Magnuson

Act be amended to include consideration of predatory-prey interactions sounds very good, but when we look at what we have done

so far in our work, trying to develop indicators that look at how

we are performing in terms of protecting forage species, what we

are doing with top-level predators, it is very difficult to say what

70

we should do with it in a quantitative way. I would say that is the

biggest difficulty. How much is enough? And if there is some way

to put it in a framework, that would be the most useful because

I would say we still have a very big lack of scientific knowledge

about how much is enough.

Mr. GILCHREST. You are saying if, when we reauthorize the

Magnuson Act, we create a framework to move in a direction of

ecosystem management, with each council having a clear direction

to go in, but then enough flexibility to deal with all of the various

variables, could you give us some idea, from your perspective, if

and when we move in this direction to give some framework to ecosystem management approaches, to do it effectively, as some of you

mentioned about the backlog of compliance with existing regulation, and part of that is not enough data, part of that is not enough

people collecting that data and so forth, what would it take, you

know, from being on the Council and you want to pursue this new

adventure, what would it take?

Ms. LIVINGSTON. Well, we have heard two things of what it

would take. It would take the manpower to come into compliance,

to do the Environmental Impact Statements on EFH, to have the

other regions do, as we did with our programmatic EISs, to look

very comprehensively at that. That takes a lot of manpower. When

I look at what we did last year, we nearly burned ourselves out trying to do that. So that is one aspect.

Mr. GILCHREST. On the North Pacific Management Council you

need manpower to continue to pursue this.

Ms. LIVINGSTON. On the Council and at NMFS.

Mr. GILCHREST. What does that mean—five people with certain

degrees, ten people with certain experiences?

Ms. LIVINGSTON. I would have to get back to you on the exact

numbers. I haven’t computed that. But given that we have the

EFH EIS, and I know that on the Council itself a lot of action has

been stopped, at the moment, on a lot of our habitat issues and

other things because staff have been so busy with other things.

Mr. GILCHREST. So, besides manpower then, what was the next

thing?

Dr. HOGARTH. One aspect is the manpower at NMFS and on the

Councils to deal with doing these comprehensive assessments; and

the next is, as Dr. Murawski talked about, the research aspects

that are outlined in the NMFS Stock Assessment Improvement

Plan. There are some dollar amounts and manpower associated

with that in the plan itself.

Mr. GILCHREST. Dr. Hogarth, is that a quantifiable number that

we could get from the councils—the manpower to pursue the

process of an ecosystem approach, what is necessary to complete

the implementation of the backlog of existing regulations, and then

what each council would need in terms of scientific expertise? Is

that something that we could actually see? When we implement

this into our amendment, it would be helpful to us if we could say

we need ‘‘X’’ number of dollars to do this appropriately, and here

is where those ‘‘X’’ number of dollars are going to be spent?

Dr. HOGARTH. Yes, I think we can develop estimates of that.

That is what we are planning to do internally. We have not dealt

totally with the councils yet. We are dealing internally, but that

71

would then translate to the councils. But if you give us a time

frame, we will try to get it done.

Mr. GILCHREST. Let us see, what is Monday’s date?

[Laughter.]

Dr. HOGARTH. A little bit more realistic— Mr. GILCHREST. A couple more weeks. We will meet down at

Barrent Island and plant some more marsh grass.

Dr. HOGARTH. That would be great. That was fun.

We are in the process of doing this. We are looking at the existing problems we have in NEPA and trying to resolve that, and we

are meeting with the councils at the end of July, so we are looking

at existing problems.

Mr. GILCHREST. Dr. Fluharty, is that something you think can

be—can you establish a number where you would have people

doing ecosystem approach? What does it take to take care of the

existing backlog? Because I would assume that that backlog of implementation of existing regulations has, I would guess, a negative

impact on the whole picture of the council.

Dr. FLUHARTY. Mr. Chairman, that is correct. I think it has a

number of effects. I have heard staff talking to us in the North Pacific about the Sustainable Fisheries Act essentially tripling the

workload. If you look at numbers keying off that, and dollars keying off of that, that is pretty substantial, but I don’t think that is

entirely out of the question. In part, that is why we proposed a

more incremental approach to this.

One of the things in the council and NMFS process we found to

be extremely effective is the fact that, particularly where you are

integrating across these things, you are using existing personnel

who have specific expertise to contribute to a joint project. So it is

not always just a new position here or there, although you could

conceive of it: If each council had or each region had a Fishery Ecosystem Plan coordinator whose job it was to bring everyone together and work on this, that would be a big help.

This would be just bringing together the information that we do

have available, not going out and doing additional research. I think

that the additional research, we have some good understanding of

what that needs to do, but again it is integrated across everything

that the Agency and the councils are currently involved in. So I

would certainly defer to Dr. Hogarth and the people here in terms

of how you actually think of this, in terms of the management institutions. But I suspect that the number is daunting, as well, and

I think that that is realistic, in terms of what we want to do in

the marine environment.

And I think you, in your leadership role, have seen that we are

far behind what is going on in the terrestrial environment, in

terms of really understanding what it is that needs to be done and

developing the institutions to accomplish that. So there is a

tremendous opportunity and need for moving in these kinds of directions.

Mr. GILCHREST. Dr. Fluharty, you are suggesting that each council would have a possible designated position referred to as an ecosystem coordinator?

Dr. FLUHARTY. I could see it at the council level, but I am also

concerned, and this is why, you know, I would benefit from discusVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:59 Mar 21, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 73085.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
72

sions with others. Since this is an ecosystem-based and scientifically-based concept, much of the work takes place in the science

centers of the National Marine Fisheries Service, as well as with

partner agencies, the various States who are members of council

areas, and tribes and others that are involved. So there is a tremendous effort here, and I am not sure where I would necessarily

think the best place to put such a coordinator would be, but I could

see a regional coordinator position would be extremely valuable.

Mr. GILCHREST. On each council.

Dr. FLUHARTY. At a minimum, yes, and probably one for the

highly migratory species billfish area as well. That is a much different type of ecosystem concern, but I could see that very easily,

as necessary.

Mr. GILCHREST. Dr. Hogarth, does that look like something that

is feasible?

Dr. HOGARTH. I would say I think we can make the estimate.

They will be somewhat ballpark.

The other thing we have got to be concerned about is the State’s

involvement. For example, summer flounder, we need to look at the

problems we have had with summer flounder. When you get into

ecosystem management of summer flounder, you have a number of

states involved. We would have to make sure they were brought

into the fold to work with us.

I think we can give you an estimate of what it takes. And I

think, as Dr. Fluharty said, we have already done some work internally. It is some large number of people and dollars. It is something we have discussed. We have not put it on paper yet, but we

have discussed it and looked at estimates of the cost of the projects.

Because we were trying to figure out how to implement a system,

we may take it in stages that Steve was talking about earlier this

morning, how we would implement it in stages on a trial basis and

this type of thing.

Mr. GILCHREST. Well, we will do everything we can up here to

inform our colleagues of the importance and, to some extent, the

sense of relative urgency. Everything is urgent up here, but it

would be useful for us to understand the picture of ecosystem management as clearly as possible, from all its varied aspects, so that

if we were going to implement this in stages, we would make sure

that that was done in a fashion that moved us in the right direction with reasonable appropriations as quickly as possible.

Dr. Hogarth, you mentioned the states, and if I could, since he

is in the room, I am going to paraphrase something Jack Dunnigan

said I think it was last week or the week before, and he certainly

can stand up if I am missing the mark, but we did have a brief

discussion about menhaden, and crabs, and rockfish at the previous

hearing from the gentleman from North Carolina. And Jack, I

thought, gave a pretty good answer in that he said that there were

many more interested parties in menhaden than there used to be,

and as a result of that, the regime for managing that species had

changed, but it was not for some particular political purpose.

But then I think Jack Dunnigan made a comment, in reference

to ecosystem management, that he said the Atlantic State Marine

Fisheries Commission needs some clear direction as to which way

we are going, and so what we are trying to do at this hearing is

73

to give people some idea as to the direction we would like to go in,

and one of those directions will be to understand how to incorporate an ecosystem management approach to our fisheries.

I was handed a question here. Oh, okay.

Dr. Hogarth?

Dr. HOGARTH. I do have an answer for you on the people that are

working on the FEP. There are representatives from the Maryland

Department of Natural Resources, the Virginia Institute of Marine

Science, University of Maryland, Chesapeake Biological Labs, and

the Academy of Natural Sciences, Maryland Sea Grant, United

States Marine Fishery Commission, the U.S. Geological Survey, the

Mid-Atlantic Council and the South Atlantic Councils. And Judith

Freeman just told me we have a lot of scientists who have given

us time, devoting time to work with it that no one is paying for.

It is just an undertaking they are doing, and NOAA is not paying

them for it. They are just giving their time to help with the

process.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much. We would like to come

down and visit on a somewhat regular basis to see the progress.

Can you have an ecosystem management approach to highly migratory species?

Mr. Hinman?

Mr. HINMAN. Well, since that question sort of crosses over two

issues I spend most of my time on, I hope I have an answer.

Yes. In our written testimony, we pointed out that two of the

issues that are on the table right now in front of managers that

are ecosystem issues, predator-prey issues, involve highly migratory species. We have to take a look at the fact that we have a

whole tier at the top of the food chain, our large pelagic fish, that

are some of our most overfished species. About a fifth of the species

on our list of overfished species in the United States are highly migratory species—coastal sharks, big tunas, big-eye and bluefin,

swordfish and both marlins, and this can have dire biological consequences on the ecosystem. We have taken out so many of those

fish from that part of the food web.

As a number of studies have shown, and something that Dr.

Peter Larkin and some others have published on, is the belief that

actually removing the predator is going to cause more enduring

damage to an ecosystem than removing some of the prey species

because the predators are less responsive, because they are longer

lived, slower growing. They are less quickly responsive to changes

in the environment, openings of niches because of competitors

being overfished or changes of availability of prey. So I think this

is a big concern.

I am answering the question I guess that, yes, we definitely

should consider and should be applying the ecosystem approach to

highly migratory species. So should the related concern that so

many of these species are now the object of rebuilding plans, both

national and international plans, and that we have a lot of their

forage species that we are increasing our harvest of—squid, herring, mackerel. And those catches have gone up tremendously in

the 1990’s, and we are still allowing them, as of decisions being

made right now at the council level, allowing those catches to increase even more, but we are not considering whether that food

74

source is going to be out there on the shelf for the returning populations of pelagic species.

I guess you are getting into the question for highly migratory

species, can we do ecosystem management on an international

level? And that is the institutional question. We can’t effect that,

I don’t think, through the Magnuson Act, except to the extent that

we can require a Fishery Ecosystem Plan to be developed by the

U.S., by the National Marine Fisheries Service, HMS Division,

looking at all of these issues I have been talking about, and others,

and trying to map out those significant relationships within the

highly migratory species community, as well as their important forage species, and make recommendations on what kind of actions

we should be taking, and then they could become the basis of both

domestic actions, as well as U.S. positions when negotiating international treaties.

Mr. GILCHREST. I guess this sounds like something that would

be, at least as far as the Magnuson Act was concerned, appropriate

for an ecosystem manager at each council on a collaborative effort

between the other councils and the State associations, and on an

international arena would have to be obviously an international

agreement for an international treaty.

But I guess if we moved in that direction, and the data was collected and the U.S. took a leadership role in it, it would be more

easily understood and possibly accepted.

Dr. Murawski?

Dr. MURAWSKI. I think your question, in an ironic way, applies

equally to the Chesapeake Bay. We had a scoping meeting that Judith and her colleagues put together several years ago, and we

talked about the first question of what are the boundaries of the

Chesapeake Bay? And we came to the conclusion, obviously, that

you had to include the migratory predators in the system, and so

that it rapidly extends its boundaries out.

Now, large marine predators like the top predators have wide

boundaries. They cross across defined ecosystems. But as Ken

Hinman said, the failure to include them as actors in the ecosystem

leaves a big hole in what we are doing. So we obviously need to

be flexible in those definitions of boundaries.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you.

I have just one more question. In some areas in the United

States, where States or regions are trying to protect wildlife habitat, they have conservation corridors between one hub to another

hub in which the ideal situation is the wildlife, when they are

going from one acreage to another acreage, they will have a path

to travel through.

Is there a mirrored concept, a similar concept in the oceans,

where you can have corridors maybe connecting marine protected

areas to another marine protected area, and is that something of

a consideration now or down the road with ecosystem management?

Yes, sir?

Dr. CROWDER. Yes. Both the Marine Conservation Biology Institute and the National Resources Defense Council have sponsored

workshops within the last year to look at corridors. And we have

been talking about resource species, but many of the protected speVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:59 Mar 21, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 73085.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
75

cies, the sea turtles, for example, undergo extremely wide migrations. And what we have been trying to do is put together what we

know about the habitat they use at various stages in their life history, what their annual migration patterns look like, in an effort

to string together that kind of protection.

We need to know where the organisms are at particular seasons

and which fisheries they interact with as they are moving around

those systems. So I think people in marine fisheries, marine conservation, are starting to think about those issues, and we do have

some information on which to base some preliminary estimates. I

think there is an NRDC report out just recently that deals with the

Atlantic coast that involved the input of 20 or 30 experts on different taxon groups about which portions of the Atlantic coastline

might be appropriate to consider for some sort of protection, and

one of the issues was migratory species.

Mr. GILCHREST. Dr. Hogarth?

Dr. HOGARTH. Judith is back, but she just passed me a note, and

she may want to follow up on this, but she said in the Chesapeake

Bay they are using a corridor-type management for blue crabs to

protect the females move from one area to the other.

Mr. GILCHREST. So the corridor for blue crabs is an area set

aside—

Dr. HOGARTH. So that the females could, yes, move on—

Mr. GILCHREST. So that is an area that you can’t fish in.

Dr. HOGARTH. Right.

Mr. GILCHREST. You can’t catch the blue crabs in.

Dr. HOGARTH. Right.

Mr. GILCHREST. And that goes down through Virginia?

Ms. FREEMAN. It is in Virginia.

Mr. GILCHREST. It is in Virginia.

Ms. FREEMAN. Yes. It is in effect during certain times of the

year, but the intention has been described as a protected corridor.

Mr. GILCHREST. That is great.

I have a few more. I think they are a little bit, they are ecological

questions, El Nino, El Nina, climate change, that kind of thing, but

I think, through conservations you have stated here, I think the obvious answer to a question about El Nino is that it is going to have

a, depending on the size of the El Nino, a smaller, dramatic effect

on a particular species or a number of species.

Yes, sir?

Dr. FLUHARTY. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I know you didn’t ask

that as a question, but I happen to be involved with some work in

the North Pacific, and this whole concept of El Nino, La Nina, Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), longer term fluctuations, are very

relevant to understanding what is going on in the ecosystem, and

it is an area where, for example, in the North Pacific, are we looking at a decline in Steller sea lion populations that it is mediated,

to a large extent, as an alternative equilibrium state or Steller sea

lions, because of change in the ecosystem, and a fair amount of

study has been put into this, and it is a major contributor to what

is actually going on. So you are right on, in terms of the kinds of

things that would have to be taken into account in the ecosystembased approach.

76

Salmon management in the North Pacific, you have a very strong

North-South signal in Nino years and with the Pacific

(Inter)Decadal Oscillation, where you have an inverse production

regime between Washington State, and Oregon, and California

versus Alaska. So, when things are really bad in Western Oregon

and California, as they have been for the last 20 years, they have

been extremely good, i.e., world record catches of salmon in Alaska.

This inverse regime may be breaking down now. We may be seeing some recoveries along the Pacific Coast, Columbia River stocks,

that is related to this shift. So there is a lot to be understood, and

it really does need to be brought into the fishery management context and is being brought in, in the Pacific setting.

Mr. GILCHREST. A reduction in the stock of salmon in Washington and Oregon, I know there are a lot of human factors there,

but part of that is related to the warmer water?

Dr. FLUHARTY. Yes, sir.

Mr. GILCHREST. And then the warmer water is now beginning to

move into the Alaskan waters, and so that is having some effect

on Alaskan salmon stock?

Dr. FLUHARTY. Just the opposite. The warmer waters moving farther North give a productivity boost in the Northern areas. When

it gets colder, that changes things. It helps us down in Western Oregon and California, where we get certain kinds of up-welling conditions that bring colder, more productive water, down off our

shores, a bit more suitable for, thus, survival of some—

Mr. GILCHREST. You are saying the warmer water in Alaska?

Dr. FLUHARTY. It is relatively warmer.

Mr. GILCHREST. Relatively warmer.

Dr. FLUHARTY. A degree or two.

Mr. GILCHREST. Oh, I see.

Dr. FLUHARTY. A degree or two warmer water in Alaska seems

to be associated with some pretty major regime shifts.

Mr. GILCHREST. Has El Nino affected or, I have heard a lot of

different things about Steller sea lions, one of which is because of

the change of temperature in the North Pacific in and around Alaska, the pollock population has been diminished, and therefore the

Steller sea lions have not had enough to eat. In other words, the

Steller sea lion food source has been diminished because of the

change in water temperature.

Dr. FLUHARTY. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure where you got that

information, but we have—

Mr. GILCHREST. Oh, herring and mackerel. I got my fish wrong.

Dr. FLUHARTY. Yes. So that the pollock is doing quite well. In

fact, the population has more than doubled since the Steller sea

lion population started to decline in the Bering Sea, so that we see,

and Dr. Livingston can keep me straight here, so that in the Bering Sea we see a major increase in pollock as a food source, and

that is one of those things that makes us scratch our head, looking

at the small fatty fish, forage fish, for which we do not allow fisheries to take place, those have dropped out of the ecosystem, some

of the shrimp and some of the other prey that are also eaten by

Stellers as opportunistic feeders. So these are the kinds of questions that we are wrestling with, in terms of understanding what

77

is the role of the fishery with respect to Steller sea lion decline and/

or recovery.

Mr. GILCHREST. Is this an example of the difficulty of trying to

understand and implement an Ecosystem Fisheries Plan?

Dr. FLUHARTY. Yes, sir, and also why we need to do it.

Mr. GILCHREST. So we don’t have any specific answer as to why

the decline in Steller sea lion population.

Dr. FLUHARTY. Well, no, we do not have a definitive answer.

Mr. GILCHREST. Ms. Livingston, what were you going to say?

Ms. LIVINGSTON. Well, I was going to say that there are a whole

host of factors that have contributed to the decline, and there is no

one factor at this point that we can point to.

Mr. GILCHREST. Give me three factors.

Ms. LIVINGSTON. Previous harvest of sea lions, climate factors,

and now the big discussion is localized depletion of sea lion prey.

Mr. GILCHREST. What are the sea lion prey?

Ms. LIVINGSTON. Walleyed pollock, Pacific cod, and mackerel are

the primary ones.

Mr. GILCHREST. Is there any reason for their decline?

Ms. LIVINGSTON. Those prey had not necessarily declined in overall abundance. The factor that we are talking about is localized depletion, which is a fishery coming in, in a small time and space

frame, and removing fish. Although it may be a very large population, the fishery may be locally reducing prey abundance during

a critical feeding period of Steller sea lions, so that they may not

be able to find adequate prey during that particular season or area.

Mr. GILCHREST. Is there little or sufficient science on that issue?

Ms. LIVINGSTON. That is one thing we are really working on right

now, to get a better understanding of the seasonal distribution of

these fish. As you might know, because we are up in an Arctic or

boreal system, we usually only survey during the summer, and now

we are trying to get a better handle on what these fish are doing

in the winter, where they are, and how abundant they are.

Mr. GILCHREST. Where do the Steller sea lions go in the winter?

Do they stay there?

Ms. LIVINGSTON. That is another question that we are trying to

get a better handle on. We believe they stay there. We are not sure

how much they move across the different rookeries.

Mr. GILCHREST. But they stay in Alaska.

Ms. LIVINGSTON. Yes.

Mr. GILCHREST. Well, we could probably go on, and have pizza

brought in, for another couple of hours, but I do want to thank all

of you for discussing this most fascinating mystery. We will continue to pursue this, and with your help, we hope we can reauthorize the Magnuson Act in a way that will be most beneficial to the

ecosystem, which includes us.

I have to ask unanimous consent that the hearing record remain

open for member statements and/or other material for an additional 10 days. The Subcommittee will have follow-up questions for

each of you, if you don’t mind. And if each of you, in your respective places, we are looking for places to travel to, if you want to

invite us to your region of the world, we would be more than happy

to go there.

Thank you all very much. The hearing is adjourned.

78

[Whereupon, at 11:58 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Dr. Hogarth’s response to questions submitted for the record

follow:]

GENERAL QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD

HOUSE RESOURCES COMMITTEE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS

HEARING ON ECOSYSTEM-BASED FISHERY MANAGEMENT

JUNE 14, 2001

Question 1: Describe the ecosystem-based fisheries management requirements.

Answer: To make wise use of public resources that contribute the maximum benefit to the Nation, NOAA needs to take a fresh approach to living marine resource

stewardship and modernize its scientific and management practices. New data and

well-designed processes that synthesize and communicate information into successful public policies are essential to achieving the mission of building sustainable fisheries, restoring healthy coastal ecosystems and enhancing recovery of protected species.

When NOAA was created 30 years ago, no one adequately predicted the human

and environmental complexity of the task of living marine resource stewardship.

Today, the concept of ecosystem-based fishery management is gaining momentum.

Such an endeavor is an enormous challenge. NMFS and the eight regional fishery

management Councils have already begun investigating how ecosystem considerations can be incorporated into the existing fisheries management structure. Generally, the approach is to conduct detailed single-species assessments and embed

them in an ecosystem context. In other words, consideration of ecosystem effects

tends to be qualitative or semi-quantitative, rather than fully quantitative. Multispecies and ecosystem models are being developed in all NMFS Science Centers and

by a few academic institutions, but they are usually difficult to validate and frequently suffer from lack of adequate baseline biological and environmental data. Extensive monitoring programs for all Federally-managed species, associated and dependent species, oceanographic data, habitat mapping, and climate effects are needed to fulfill the data requirements of ecosystem models.

Ecosystem-based fishery management will require a multifaceted approach, including significantly expanded monitoring programs and new, adaptive governance

systems, generally referred to as fishery ecosystem plans (FEPs). When fishery managers are better able to understand the complex ecological and socioeconomic environments in which fish and fisheries exist, they will be better able to anticipate the

effects fishery management will have on the ecosystem and the effects that ecosystem change will have on fisheries. In developing an ecosystem approach to research and management, it is important to recognize that a great deal is already

known about marine ecosystems, but that this information is not consistently applied in current management efforts. This is, in large part, because there is no

agreed upon method or process for applying it. Therefore, emphasis must be placed

not only on what new information is required, but also on how to apply existing information effectively. In addition, it must be recognized that both science and management are ongoing processes, and that mechanisms are required to incorporate

new scientific, social, cultural, economic and institutional information into the management process as it becomes available.

To fully implement ecosystem-based approaches to fisheries management for all

managed U.S. marine species, NMFS and the Councils will require a significant increase in funding and staffing in order to produce the necessary baseline monitoring

data. This attests to the complexity of integrating data from many scientific disciplines into an ecosystem-based management approach. Development of fishery ecosystem plans will require a deliberate, incremental process. Public expectations of

what NOAA can and should produce need to be aligned with the reality of what

they are willing to spend and how wise use of natural marine resources comports

with other national priorities. The primary enhancement elements and cost estimates required to develop FEPs and provide the necessary baseline monitoring data

are outlined below. To reach this level of effort will require a phase-in period of five

years or more.

79

Question 2: What is the estimated funding and Full Time Equivalent

(FTE) employee requirements to implement ecosystem-based fisheries management and implementation costs?

Answer: A narrative accompanies each element in the chart in response to the

question.

IMPROVEMENTS IN ASSESSMENTS OF STOCKS ($91.2M; 608 FTEs)

NOAA is mandated to provide sound scientific advice, based on comprehensive,

high quality data and state-of-the-art analysis techniques for all marine fisheries

under national jurisdiction.

The National Marine Fisheries Service is committed to enhancing its program efforts through implementation of the Stock Assessment Improvement Plan (SAIP).

This plan guides NOAA’s out-year investments in fishery science program infrastructure and key staff resources to improve the comprehensiveness, timeliness,

quality, and communication of state-of-the-art fishery assessments. The SAIP puts

forth a multi-year framework for the improvement of NMFS stock assessments

through new national standards of quality and scope. This framework provides new

standards by which to evaluate all stock assessments performed (i.e., Tiers of Assessment Excellence):

• Tier 1 -- Improve Assessments using Existing Data -- Improve core species stock

assessments using existing data, and mine existing databases to evaluate status

determination criteria for fishery stocks of unknown status.

• Tier 2 -- Elevate all Assessments to a Nationally–Acceptable Level -- Conduct

adequate baseline monitoring for all federally-managed species, upgrade assessment levels for heavily exploited stocks and ecologically significant species.

• Tier 3 -- Next Generation Assessments -- Develop next-generation assessment

models that explicitly incorporate ecosystem considerations from multi-species

interactions and environmental effects, applied fisheries oceanography, and spatial and seasonal analyses.

Increased funding and FTEs are needed to improve NMFS’’ ability to provide expert analysis that will allow the status of unknown stocks to be elevated to the

known category (Tier 1 and 2). Elevation of the status of stocks from the currently

unknown category would be accomplished by using existing databases of research

vessel survey data and/or commercial and recreational statistics, and possibly performing data rescue operations, in order to decipher trends in stock size and productivity. The requested funds will allow more science staff time to be devoted to improving the review and communication of assessments in order to facilitate better

80

fishery management decisions. Tier 3 funding will facilitate development of nextgeneration models and methods to support ecosystem approaches to stock assessments and fisheries management (e.g., multi-species models, models that explicitly

incorporate climate and oceanographic effects, spatial and seasonal analyses, and social and economic analyses).

TOTAL FTES AND BUDGET REQUIRED TO MEET THE THREE TIERS

OF ASSESSMENT EXCELLENCE FOR ALL FIVE FISHERIES SCIENCE

CENTERS

FISHERIES OCEANOGRAPHY ($31M; 25 FTEs)

The goal of fisheries oceanography is to understand the effects of ocean and atmospheric processes at varied time and space scales on living marine resources, and

thus is a critical component of any ecosystem-based management approach. Operational fisheries oceanography is largely interested in how physical mechanisms

(e.g., temperature, enrichment, concentration, and transport) cause variations in

fish distribution and movement, and thus how they impact commercial and recreational fishing success and resource management.

Current fisheries oceanography research is conducted at several spatial and temporal scales but is generally focused on small- to meso-scale projects, often referred

to as ‘‘process-oriented studies.’’ These studies have materially improved our understanding of the processes governing local physical variability and juvenile fish survival, and, to a certain extent, interannual variability in recruitment. It is becoming

increasingly evident, however, that we must be concerned with not only climate

change but also with decadal-scale changes (i.e., ‘‘regime shifts’’) that impact production throughout diverse ecosystems. These shifts occur rapidly as the components

of the climate system realign themselves, moving from one state to another in a period of months to years. The goal of future fisheries oceanography investigation is

to develop and improve bio-physical models that can predict these impending regime

shifts and their associated impacts on marine ecosystems and fisheries resources.

SOCIOECONOMICS ($12M; 86 FTEs)

Human aspects of ecosystem management are an integral part of the NMFS mandate to manage the Nation’s living marine resources. A strong NOAA social sciences

program will improve the scientific and economic foundation of the Agency’s policies,

increase the confidence that we are dealing with fishery issues in a responsible way,

and help decision makers weigh the ecological, social, and economic impacts of their

decisions. A key feature of the federal regulatory process is that we cannot simply

implement a regulation to achieve a conservation goal but instead must consider a

suite of management alternatives. Social and economic analyses can identify the alternative that minimizes losses to stakeholders while still achieving conservation

goals, allowing NOAA to be proactive, rather than reactive, in its resource management strategy. Current social science staff levels, data collection and research funds

are insufficient to adequately handle increasing responsibilities and emerging

issues. Shortcomings in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Regulatory

Flexibility Act, and community impact analyses have led to lawsuits and regulatory

challenges of fisheries policies in the last several years, resulting in overturned rebuilding objectives, biologically unsustainable Total Allowable Catches (TACs), and

eroded confidence in NOAA Fisheries’ social sciences capability. In addition to stock

rebuilding, capacity reduction is a primary goal of NMFS, the Councils, and the

fishing industry. However, the current capability to comply with international capacity reduction goals under the U.S. participation in the United Nations Food and

Agriculture Organization (FAO) Plan of Action on overcapacity is extremely limited

because of insufficient information on current fleets and their capitalization. As a

result, NOAA’s ability to determine and optimize the social and economic consequences to its stakeholders of various management actions is quite limited.

The NOAA Fisheries social sciences program is necessary to quantify achievement

of the performance measures in the NMFS and Build Sustainable Fisheries (BSF)

Strategic and Operating Plans and is critical to the BSF goal of managing living

81

marine resources for economic growth and achieving sustainability in marine fisheries. The program will contribute to all aspects of the Agency’s mandates, including

those covering the commercial and recreational fisheries harvest sectors, the

processing and wholesaling sector, the trade and retail sectors, and ultimately, endangered and protected species, habitat, and hatchery and aquaculture activities.

Significantly, the program encompasses the ability to assess and predict the effect

of any management action on impacted human communities. In addition, the research, analysis and data collected under this initiative will help industry and local

and state governments determine the effects of management actions on their current and future activities and allow them to adjust their planning accordingly.

NATIONAL FISHERIES INFORMATION SYSTEM ($44M; 50 FTEs)

Fishery dependent data is a key component in assessment of the status of stocks.

To increase the accuracy and effectiveness of existing fishery dependent data collection programs, NMFS will implement a national fishing vessel registration and fisheries information system in cooperation with the Marine Fisheries Commissions,

states, industry, and the Fishery Management Councils. The system will establish

common data collection, information technology, and quality standards for regional

programs, and integrate results into a unified WEB-enabled information system.

The approach will also fill critical information gaps through initiation of new data

collection programs that will subsequently reduce the risk and uncertainty of living

marine resource policy decisions. Research and application of electronic data

collection techniques will reduce the burden on those that submit data. By coordinating the techniques used to gather and disseminate data on a nationwide basis,

the collaborative program will efficiently bring into balance the demands for timely

and credible data with the need to thoroughly evaluate, choose and monitor state

and federal public resource management policies.

ADVANCED SAMPLING TECHNOLOGIES ($22M; 19 FTEs)

The amount of fish stock abundance information needed for fishery management

has increased precipitously over the last several years, because of declining stocks,

official definitions of overfishing, increased exploitation of new fisheries, and extensive litigation. To address data collection and information needs for improved stock

assessment products, including oceanographic observations and habitat characterization, NMFS will require the research and development of new technologies, improvements in and innovative uses of existing technologies, and development of new

and advanced sampling systems and approaches. Examples include multi-frequency

and multi-beam acoustics, optical systems (LIDAR and laser line scan systems),

alternative sampling platforms (remotely-controlled and autonomous underwater

vehicles), other technologies (electronic tags, direct sampling tools), development of

satellite monitoring capabilities, and improvements in seagoing computer systems

for collecting and managing real-time biological and oceanographic data. In addition,

advanced technology can be used to improve fishery dependent data by developing

systems for catch weight and composition monitoring systems and remote monitoring of fishing activities.

NATIONAL OBSERVER PROGRAM ($54M; 40 FTEs)

Understanding fisheries effects on the ecosystem requires accurate information on

the total catch. The national observer program collects high quality fisheries, environmental and socioeconomic data from commercial and recreational fishing vessels

to assess impacts on marine resources and fishing communities and monitors compliance with marine resource laws and regulations. Observers provide high quality

data including many data elements that are not available to shoreside sampling

after a trip is completed. Observer data taken in conjunction with fishing activities

gives direct information on harvesting activities. At present, only 11 fisheries include observer deployment. In addition, NMFS has responsibility for monitoring 25

Category I and II state and federal fisheries covered under the Marine Mammal

Protection Act, but only 7 presently include observers. Even for those fisheries that

do have observer coverage, levels are generally not adequate to determine the full

extent of fisheries’ impacts. In some cases, limited observer coverage has resulted

in closures or restrictions of fishing effort. In other cases, a precautionary approach

has been adopted, which may be underutilizing a fishery’s full production capacity.

FISHERY RESEARCH VESSELS (FRVs) AND CHARTERS ($158M ONE TIME

COST; $34.7M ANNUAL COST)

Vessels are needed for collecting the data on the physical environment and sampling the biological components of the ecosystem. These data will improve our

knowledge on the relationship of habitat, physical characteristics of the ocean, and

the ecological relationships. The data are used in ecosystem models that will imVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:59 Mar 21, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 73085.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
82

prove analyses of population status and trends. In ecosystem-based management a

complex web of diverse data feeds into the population assessments and ecosystem

management processes. Of critical importance is the acquisition of fisheries-independent data, requiring at-sea research. NMFS convened a workshop of stock assessment ecosystem and vessel experts to review the requirements for days-at-sea

(DAS) to meet these needs. A total of over 6,000 additional DAS are needed to fulfill

NMFS mandated mission. Meeting this need requires building three additional new

fisheries research vessels and funding for chartering commercial fishing and other

vessels.

ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT STUDIES ($10M; FTEs TBD)

The Magnuson–Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA)

requires NMFS to identify essential fish habitat (EFH) in all fishery management

plans (FMPs), minimize the adverse effects of fishing on EFH to the extent practicable, and consult with other agencies to develop EFH conservation measures for

actions funded or undertaken by a Federal agency. NMFS and the Councils have

incorporated initial EFH information into existing FMPs, and NMFS has begun conducting the required consultations, but existing resources are not sufficient to implement the EFH requirements. NMFS has been criticized heavily by Congress, the

fishing industry, non-fishing industries, environmental groups, and other stakeholders for not doing enough to focus its activities on the most valuable habitat

areas and the most pressing threats to those habitats. NMFS has summarized available information to identify broad areas as EFH; identified a number of fishing activities that may have adverse effects on EFH; and reoriented longstanding environmental review functions to focus on the habitats needed by federally managed species. However, the agency has not made substantial efforts to fill recognized data

gaps regarding the habitat needs of managed species; has not identified whether

fishery management strategies should be adjusted to minimize impacts to EFH; and

has not addressed the expectations of Federal action agencies or other stakeholders

for NMFS to provide input on ways to reduce the impacts of Federal actions on

EFH. Additional resources are necessary to refine the EFH designations, identify

Habitat Areas of Particular Concern within EFH, improve our understanding of the

effects of fishing on EFH, and ensure that EFH consultations are efficient and effective. Doing so would improve the conservation of the habitats that are essential for

building and maintaining sustainable fisheries.

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT AND OTHER REGULATORY

ISSUES ($15M)

NMFS is facing a major challenge in developing long term compliance with regulatory requirements, including the National Environmental Policy Act. It is currently estimated that over 25 of the 102 fisheries based lawsuits facing the Agency

involve NEPA related issues. Findings against the agency in litigation over NEPA

have the potential for significant economic loss to coastal communities; Federal

courts have ruled that NMFS has failed to meet its obligations under NEPA and

enjoined the pelagic longline fishery in the Western Pacific. By building a solid foundation of all regulatory requirements, especially NEPA, the agency will significantly

reduce the risk of unsuccessful legal decisions.

To insure success in reducing the litigation against NMFS, all partners in the

MSFCMA must be brought into the process. It is especially critical that the

MSFCMA Councils, which FMPs and, in some cases also the Environmental Assessments and Impact Statements, be given additional support to meet all regulatory

requirements.

FISHERY ECOSYSTEM PLAN DEVELOPMENT ($5M for each ecosystem within

Council jurisdiction)

The development of fishery ecosystem plans (FEPs) will require considerable communication, education, and outreach efforts by NMFS and the Councils. To serve as

a proxy for FEP development costs, NMFS has reviewed the programmatic costs (inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:59 Mar 21, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 73085.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
83

ternal NMFS and external contract costs) for developing the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the Alaska Groundfish fishery. It is anticipated

that this SEIS will cost approximately $4.0M when completed. Over 8,000 comment

letters have been received and reviewed. This document is still only in the draft

stage. Development and refinement of FEPs is anticipated to be a significantly more

complex task and will require greater resources.

Æ