U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

87–797 PDF 2014

S. HRG. 113–261 

NEW ENGLAND AND MID-ATLANTIC PERSPECTIVES 

ON MAGNUSON-STEVENS ACT REAUTHORIZATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, ATMOSPHERE, 

FISHERIES, AND COAST GUARD 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 23, 2013 

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

( 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

MARK WARNER, Virginia 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Ranking 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

DAN COATS, Indiana 

TIM SCOTT, South Carolina 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

JEFF CHIESA, New Jersey 

ELLEN L. DONESKI, Staff Director 

JAMES REID, Deputy Staff Director 

JOHN WILLIAMS, General Counsel 

DAVID SCHWIETERT, Republican Staff Director 

NICK ROSSI, Republican Deputy Staff Director 

REBECCA SEIDEL, Republican General Counsel and Chief Investigator 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, ATMOSPHERE, FISHERIES, 

AND COAST GUARD 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska, Chairman 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida, Ranking Member 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

DAN COATS, Indiana 

TIM SCOTT, South Carolina 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on July 23, 2013 ............................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Begich .................................................................................. 1 

Statement of Senator Rubio .................................................................................... 3 

Statement of Senator Ayotte ................................................................................... 25 

Statement of Senator Blumenthal .......................................................................... 27 

Statement of Senator Markey ................................................................................. 29 

WITNESSES

John K. Bullard, Northeast Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce ........................................................................................ 5 

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

C.M. ‘‘Rip’’ Cunningham, Jr., Chairman, New England Fisheries Management 

Council (NEFMC) ................................................................................................. 12 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 13 

Richard B. Robins, Jr., Chairman, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council 15 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 17 

Captain Nick Muto, Chairman, Cape Cod Commercial Fishermen’s Alliance ... 31 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 33 

Captain John McMurray, Owner/Operator, One More Cast Charters ................ 36 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 38 

Patrick Paquette, Recreational Fishing Advocate ................................................. 42 

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

Dr. John Boreman, Adjunct Professor, North Carolina State University ........... 48 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 49 

Dr. Joshua B. Wiersma, Sector Manager, XI and XII Northeast Fisheries 

Sectors and President and Executive Director, New Hampshire Community 

Seafood Association .............................................................................................. 51 

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

APPENDIX

Letter dated August 15, 2013 to Hon. Mark Begich and Hon. Marco Rubio 

from Robert Beal, Executive Director, Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 

Commission ........................................................................................................... 63 

Matthew McKenzie, University of Connecticut History Department, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 65 

Response to written questions submitted to John K. Bullard by: 

Hon. Mark Begich ............................................................................................. 67 

Hon. Richard Blumenthal ................................................................................ 74 

Hon. Edward Markey ....................................................................................... 80 

Hon. Marco Rubio ............................................................................................. 82 

Response to written questions submitted to C.M. ‘‘Rip’’ Cunningham, Jr. by: 

Hon. Mark Begich ............................................................................................. 82 

Hon. Richard Blumenthal ................................................................................ 85 

Hon. Edward Markey ....................................................................................... 86 

Hon. Marco Rubio ............................................................................................. 87 

Response to written questions submitted to Richard B. Robins by: 

Hon. Mark Begich ............................................................................................. 88 

Hon. Marco Rubio ............................................................................................. 93 

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Mark Begich to Captain 

Nick Muto ............................................................................................................. 96 

Page

IV 

Response to written questions submitted to Captain John McMurray by: 

Hon. Mark Begich ............................................................................................. 97 

Hon. Marco Rubio ............................................................................................. 99 

Response to written questions submitted to Patrick Paquette by: 

Hon. Mark Begich ............................................................................................. 99 

Hon. Richard Blumenthal ................................................................................ 101 

Hon. Edward Markey ....................................................................................... 101 

Hon. Marco Rubio ............................................................................................. 102 

Response to written questions submitted to Dr. John Boreman by: 

Hon. Mark Begich ............................................................................................. 102 

Hon. Edward Markey ....................................................................................... 106 

Hon. Marco Rubio ............................................................................................. 107 

Response to written questions submitted to Dr. Joshua B. Wiersma by: 

Hon. Mark Begich ............................................................................................. 107 

Hon. Edward Markey ....................................................................................... 111 

(1) 

NEW ENGLAND AND MID-ATLANTIC 

PERSPECTIVES ON MAGNUSON-STEVENS ACT 

REAUTHORIZATION 

TUESDAY, JULY 23, 2013 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, ATMOSPHERE, FISHERIES, 

AND COAST GUARD, 

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 

SR–253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Mark Begich, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARK BEGICH, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you for your patience. I know Senator 

Rubio is on his way and will be attending in moments. So thank 

you all very much for attending. Thank you for being patient as we 

start our continued efforts in regards to reauthorization of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

Today, the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and 

Coast Guard begins a series of hearings that will occur over the 

next few months dealing with the reauthorization of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act or MSA. 

Today’s hearing focuses on the New England and Mid-Atlantic 

regions. Future hearings will look at the South Atlantic, the Caribbean and Gulf Regions and the Pacific fisheries. 

MSA was last reauthorized in the 109th Congress with the enactment of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006. This reauthorization act, which 

was signed into law by President Bush, authorized appropriations 

to carry out the provisions of MSA through Fiscal Year 2013. 

The 2006 reauthorization also provided new management tools 

that ushered in sweeping changes to the way regional fisheries 

management councils and the National Marine Fisheries Service 

can serve and manage the fisheries of which their coastal communities and economies rely on. 

Each council was required to incorporate mechanisms into its 

fisheries management plans specifying annual catch limits or ACLs 

and/or prevent overfishing. The 2006 reauthorization took a significant step toward science-based fisheries management by requiring 

each council to develop ACLs that do not exceed the recommendations of their science and statistical committee. It created a new 

2 

Marine Recreational Information program to improve upon the recreational fisheries statistical survey which had been place since the 

1970s in order to better collect and report marine recreational 

catch and effort. It also created a National Saltwater Angler Registry to better quantify recreational fishing effort and improve recreational catch estimates. 

The 2006 reauthorization also mandated the Secretary of Commerce, working with the regional councils and the Council on Environmental Quality, to come up with revised procedures and compliance with NEPA to streamline the review and approval of fishery 

management plans and plan amendments. 

Today’s hearing gives us a chance to hear from managers and 

stakeholders about how these and other aspects of MSA are working. We know that New England has had some success and some 

setbacks. The New England Council successfully implemented 

ACLs for all their fisheries and transitioned the ground fisheries 

to an output-based management model. Alaska has incorporated 

similar measures years ago. I’d like to boast a little bit about what 

we’re doing up there. We produce over half the Nation’s seafood 

while living ‘‘hard TACs’’ and various limited access regimes. For 

Alaska, this is a tried and true method for sustainable, efficient 

and safe fishery management. 

While several valuable New England fisheries, including Atlantic 

sea scallops, monkfish and others are now being fished at sustainable levels, the lack of progress in rebuilding key species like cod 

and certain species of flounder in spite of everyone’s best effort 

under the sector system has been a source of great frustration. 

As with the New England Council and the Mid-Atlantic Council 

succeeding in bringing all its fishery management plans into compliance with the ACL requirements of MSA, as part of this effort, 

the Council incorporated a new framework across the fisheries’ 

plans that is improving management consistency. The council also 

has taken a step toward forwarding cooperative research and management with the development of the Advisory Panel Fishery Performance reports. They give a fuller picture and broader basis for 

its fishery management advice and recommendations. 

But these and other initiatives are only as strong as the data and 

stock assessments that form the core of fisheries conservation and 

management. The experience in the New England and Mid-Atlantic 

regions reaffirms what most of us already know: our biggest challenge in fisheries management is and will likely always be balancing the need of responsible stewardship of the resource for future generations with the needs of the individuals, businesses and 

communities who rely upon the resource today. 

In closing, I want to note that in May of this year, I had the 

pleasure of speaking at the Managing Our Nation’s Fisheries conference, which was convened here in Washington by the Regional 

Fishery Management Councils to discuss MSA reauthorization. I 

was heartened to hear that for most of the stakeholders there, 

whether they were representatives of commercial fishing interests, 

charter boat operators or recreational anglers, are largely pleased 

with MSA in its current form. That’s not to say that they are completely happy with the status quo. Issues remain regarding managing data poor stocks, competing user interests and other issues, 

3 

but these can be dealt with minor adjustments to the law or administratively through rulemaking and changes in agency interpretation of the existing rules. I hear the same sentiment in Alaska 

and think that this bodes well for reauthorizing this important 

statute. 

Before we start, I just want to make sure folks know, too, that 

we’re going to take this process very systematically. I know the 

House is moving at a much faster pace when it comes to MSA. We 

want to hear, as I mentioned, from the different regions as we get 

their input. Alaska also has a unit component, subsistence harvesters, and we need to hear from the subsistence users as well. 

As we move through this, we will not just rush into making 

changes for the sake of meeting a deadline at the end of this year. 

We will do our best to process the information and then at the 

same time, prepare a new reauthorization that continues to move 

us forward in quality management of our resource. 

Let me end there and I know, again, as soon as the Ranking 

Member appears, what we’ll do, depending on where we are in the 

panel, I may midstream stop one of you—not your testimony, but 

before I go on to the next one—to have Senator Rubio make his 

comments and then we’ll go back to the panel. 

What I’d like to do is start off with John Bullard, Regional Administrator, Northeast Regional Office, National Marine Fisheries 

Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Thank 

you very much, John, for being here. I’ll start with you and we’ll 

just kind of go down the road here. John? It’s always good to see 

you. 

Mr. BULLARD. Do I push this? 

Senator BEGICH. Yes. A light should come on. 

Mr. BULLARD. There it is. 

Senator BEGICH. Did it do it? Perfect. 

Mr. BULLARD. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is John 

Bullard. I’m the Northeast Regional Administrator for NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service. It is my personal—oh, do you want 

to stop—— 

Senator BEGICH. Perfect. Perfect timing. No, I told him I would 

do that. He just said his name. So, John, thank you, I gave the prewarning. Our timing was just right. Again, we’ll pause here for a 

second, we’ll give Senator Rubio—we appreciate this kind of 

uniqueness from Alaska to Florida, everything in between, when it 

comes to fisheries, so we’re very honored to have him as a Ranking 

Member. 

Senator Rubio. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARCO RUBIO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA 

Senator RUBIO. Thank you, and it would be very unsenatorial of 

me to give up an opportunity to speak, and I apologize for being 

late. We had a Foreign Relations hearing on some Ambassadors 

and—I’ll be brief because I am more interested in your statements 

than I am primarily in you listening to what I have to say—but I’m 

happy we’re going to be having this meeting about reauthorizing 

Magnuson-Stevens. 

4 

This is, I think, the first of three regionally-focused hearings before the Subcommittee and we’ll hear about the successes and the 

challenges that are facing our fisheries in New England and the 

Mid-Atlantic region. And while each region in our country has very 

different kinds of ecosystems and different species of fish, many of 

the concerns expressed by stakeholders are very similar and I’m 

confident that we can identify broad policies that should be reviewed and revamped to the benefit of fishermen and the industry 

all across the country. 

For example, in today’s testimony and in the feedback I often receive from people back in Florida, accurate and up-to-date science 

is a fundamental requirement for proper fishery management. In 

the Gulf of Mexico, a recently released stock assessment for red 

snapper allowed the Council to raise the catch quota for the season 

by about two and a half million pounds; that’s consequential. 

Unfortunately, despite this positive result, however, this stock 

assessment was the first assessment conducted on the fishery in 

literally over 5 years and unfairly leaving the economic burden of 

a lower than necessary catch limit on the back of both recreational 

and commercial fishermen in the Gulf region. That’s just my neck 

of the woods, but it’s an example of the kind of testimony we’ve 

heard from all parts of the country. It’s even more dire in the red 

snapper fishery in the South Atlantic, where the fishery has been 

essentially closed. Despite the fact that the fishery has not had a 

stock assessment to adequately predict the health of the stock, it 

has not had a stock assessment since 2008, and as a course, we’ll 

hear today, similar issues exist in the Northeast and in the MidAtlantic. Each of our witnesses today are going to touch on the 

need for accurate and up-to-date science as a foundation for management with a particular emphasis on real-time data collection for 

the recreational industry and an increased emphasis on cooperative 

research. 

I understand that vastly increasing our data on fisheries will be 

resource-intensive and will continue to explore efforts to address 

this issue, such as reforming the authorized uses of the SaltonstallKennedy Funds. I look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses 

and their views on how this fund is currently being managed by 

NOAA. 

While the need for sound science is clear, the necessary reforms 

to management policy are less clear, and today, I hope to hear from 

our witnesses which management policies under Magnuson-Stevens 

are working in their regions and which ones, of course, are not. 

For example, addressing forage species is a common management 

theme in today’s testimony that I’ve read, as is the proper definition of the word ‘‘sustainable’’ and the role of the National Environmental Policy Act in Fishery Management. 

I’m also interested to hear from our witnesses their views on the 

flexibility or the lack thereof of rebuilding timelines as currently 

required by the Act, so again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding these hearings and I look forward to the testimony of everyone 

here today. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much, Senator Rubio. John, 

we’ll go right back to you. Thank you very much for being patient 

and we appreciate all of you being here. John? 

5 

STATEMENT OF JOHN K. BULLARD, NORTHEAST REGIONAL 

ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, 

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Mr. BULLARD. All right. Again, good morning, Mr. Chairman, 

Ranking Member Rubio. 

My name is John Bullard. It is a personal honor to appear before 

you, Mr. Chair, given the historical ties between my hometown, 

New Bedford, Massachusetts, and the whalers of Barrow, Alaska, 

and the continuing towns of my home fishing port, as with Dutch 

Harbor. Thank you for the opportunity to speak about New England and the Mid-Atlantic perspectives of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act. 

Since passage in 1976, the Magnuson-Stevens Act has charted a 

groundbreaking course for sustainable fisheries. When reauthorized 

in 2007, Magnuson gave the Regional Fishery Management Councils and NOAA a clear charge and some important new tools. It 

mandated science-based annual catch limits and accountability 

measures to prevent and end overfishing. It provided for marketbased fishery management and focused on collaborative research 

with the fishing industry. 

Congress also addressed the need to improve the science used to 

inform fishery management. These improvements included better 

recreational fishing data, which we have collected through our Marine Recreational Information Program. We expect to have a nationwide survey in place in 2014. These tools are working. We are 

steadily rebuilding fisheries to support more fishing jobs and 

stronger communities. 

In our latest report, the value of commercial fisheries was up and 

we had the highest volume of landings since 1997 and the highest 

value ever recorded. The seafood industry supported 1.2 million 

jobs. Recreational fishing supported 455,000 jobs, a 40 percent increase. 

But our progress rebuilding fisheries has come with a cost. Fishermen, fishing communities and the councils have had to make 

tough decisions. While the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic lead the Nation in the number of rebuilt stocks, important stocks like Summer 

Flounder and swordfish, the Northeast also, as you mentioned, has 

some of the nation’s most depleted stocks. Perhaps the best known 

is Atlantic Cod. The decline in productivity and the need to prevent 

overfishing so the stocks can rebuild led to significant reductions 

in catch levels this year. This is causing real pain for fishermen 

and the businesses that depend on these stocks. 

We also have examples of what fishermen, scientists and managers can do when they work together to rebuild stocks. The Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery recovered when fishermen joined with scientists at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth and NOAA 

and pioneered rotational management. 

Today, the fishery is valued at more than $380 million, a fivefold 

increase since the dark days of the early 1990s. Scallops have made 

New Bedford the top revenue port in the U.S. 

Looking ahead, we must continue to improve scientific data, continue our progress ending overfishing and rebuilding stocks, and 

6 

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

www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/commercial-fisheries/commercial-landings/annual-landings/index 

find ways to better assist fishing communities with difficult transitions to sustainable fisheries. 

We’re actively engaged in research to better understand why 

some stocks are not recovering. Our research is showing that 

changing ocean water temperatures, chemistry and circulation patterns have affected key zooplankton species that cod depend on. 

Sea surface temperatures last year in the Northeast Shelf ecosystem were the highest recorded in 150 years. This may be hindering recovery of species like cod. Fishermen are witnessing firsthand the effects of climate change. 

The Managing Our Nation’s Fishery Conference, co-sponsored by 

the eight councils and NOAA, brought together a broad spectrum 

of partners and stakeholders to discuss sustainability in our fisheries. Similar open public stakeholder conferences were held before 

the previous Magnusson reauthorizations. We’ll take the recommendations from the conference and look to the future in a comprehensive way that addresses the needs of fishermen and fish, 

communities and ecosystems. We look forward to working closely 

with Congress on any efforts to reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act. 

Thank you and I welcome your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bullard follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN K. BULLARD, NORTHEAST REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR, 

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC

ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Introduction 

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the 

opportunity to testify before you today. My name is John K. Bullard and I am the 

Northeast Regional Administrator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). NMFS is dedicated to the stewardship of living marine resources through science-based conservation and management. Much of this work occurs under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), which sets forth 

standards for conservation, management and sustainable use of our Nation’s fisheries resources. 

Marine fish and fisheries, such as salmon in the Pacific Northwest and cod in 

New England, have been vital to the prosperity and cultural identity of coastal communities in the United States (U.S.). U.S. fisheries play an enormous role in the 

U.S. economy. Commercial fishing supports fishermen and fishing communities, and 

provides Americans with a sustainable, healthy food source. Recreational fishing is 

an important social activity for individuals, families, and communities, and it is a 

critical economic driver of and contributor to local and regional economies, as well 

as the national economy. Subsistence fishing provides an essential food source and 

is culturally significant for many people. 

Our most recent estimates show that the amount landed and the value of commercial U.S. wild-caught fisheries was up in 2011 while recreational catch remained 

stable. U.S. commercial fishermen landed 9.9 billion pounds of seafood valued at 

$5.3 billion in 2011, increases of 1.6 billion pounds (20 percent) and $829 million 

(18 percent) over 2010 figures; the highest landings volume since 1997 and highest 

value in nominal terms ever recorded.1 The seafood industry—harvesters, seafood 

processors and dealers, seafood wholesalers and seafood retailers, including imports 

and multiplier effects—generated an estimated $129 billion in sales impacts, $37 

billion in income impacts and supported 1.2 million jobs in 2011. Recreational fishing generated an estimated $70 billion in sales impacts, $20 billion in income impacts, and supported 455,000 jobs in 2011. Jobs supported by commercial businesses 

7 

2See Fisheries Economics of the U.S. 2011. NMFS Office of Science & Technology, available 

at: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/economics/publications/feus/fisheriesleconomicsl2011 

held steady from the previous year, while jobs generated by the recreational fishing 

industry represented a 40 percent increase over 2010.2

The Federal fishery management system is effectively rebuilding overfished fisheries. We continue to make progress towards long-term biological and economic sustainability and stability. Since its initial passage in 1976, the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

has charted a groundbreaking course for sustainable fisheries. When reauthorized 

in 2007, the Act gave the eight Regional Fishery Management Councils (Councils) 

and NMFS a very clear charge and some new tools to support improved science and 

management. It mandated the use of science-based annual catch limits and accountability measures to prevent and end overfishing, provided for market-based fishery 

management through Limited Access Privilege Programs (or catch shares), focused 

on collaborative research with the fishing industry and bycatch reduction, addressed 

the need to improve the science used to inform fisheries management, and sought 

to end illegal fishing and bycatch problems around the globe so that foreign fishing 

fleets are held to equivalent standards as, and do not economically disadvantage, 

U.S. fleets. 

While significant progress has been made since the last reauthorization, we recognize that this progress has not come without a cost. Fishermen, fishing communities, and the Councils have had to make difficult decisions and many areas have 

had to absorb the cost of conservation and investment in long-term economic and 

biological sustainability. The U.S. now has effective tools to address marine fisheries 

management, and as we look to the future, we must look for opportunities to increase flexibility in our management system. We need to approach that challenge 

in a holistic, deliberative, and thoughtful way that includes input from the wide 

range of stakeholders who care deeply about these issues. 

My testimony today will focus on NMFS’ progress in implementing the MagnusonStevens Act’s key domestic provisions, and some thoughts about the future and the 

next reauthorization. 

Implementing the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

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

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

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

develops through a ‘‘bottom up’’ process that includes fishermen, other fishery stakeholders, affected states, tribal governments, and the Federal Government. 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act guides fisheries conservation and management 

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

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

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

that conservation and management measures prevent overfishing while achieving, 

on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery. Optimum yield is the 

average amount of fish from a fishery that, over the long-term, will provide the 

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

The Councils can choose from a variety of options to manage fish stocks—quotas, 

catch shares, area closures, gear restrictions, etc.—and also determine how to allocate fish among user groups. These measures are submitted to the U.S. Secretary 

of Commerce for approval and are implemented by NMFS. Thus, the Councils, in 

developing their plans, must carefully balance fishing jobs and conservation, while 

ensuring that overfishing is eliminated and overfished stocks are rebuilt. Other National Standards mandate that conservation and management measures be based 

upon the best scientific information available, not discriminate between residents of 

different states, take into account variations in fisheries and catches, minimize bycatch, and promote the safety of human life at sea. 

Central to many of the Council decisions are fishing jobs. Fishing-related jobs, 

both commercial and recreational, are the lifeblood of many coastal communities 

around our Nation. Fishermen and fishing industries rely not only on today’s catch, 

but the predictability of future catches. Under the standards set in the MagnusonStevens Act, and together with the Councils, states, tribes, and fishermen, we have 

made great strides in ending overfishing, rebuilding stocks, and building a sustainable future for our fishing dependent communities. Thanks in large part to the 

strengthened Magnuson-Stevens Act and the sacrifices of fishing communities 

across the country, the conditions of many of our most economically important fish 

stocks have collectively improved steadily over the last decade. 

8 

3See Fish Stock Sustainability Index. This report was the source for the underlying data, but 

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

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

mary%20Changes.pdf 4See Fish Stock Sustainability Index. Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/status 

offisheries/2012/fourth/MapRebuiltStocksCYlQ4l2012.pdf 

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

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

healthy fishery. Though challenges remain in some fisheries, the benefits for the resource, the industries it supports, and the economy are beginning to be seen as fish 

populations grow and catch limits increase. 

Progress in Implementation 

Working together, NMFS, the Councils, coastal states and territories, and a wide 

range of industry groups and other constituents have made significant progress in 

implementing key provisions of this legislation. 

Ending Overfishing, Implementing Annual Catch Limits, and Rebuilding 

One of the most significant management provisions of the 2007 reauthorization 

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

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

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

can be caught in a year such that overfishing does not occur. Accountability measures are management controls to prevent the limits from being exceeded, and to correct or mitigate overages of the limits if they occur. This is an important move away 

from a management system that could only be corrected by going back through the 

full Council process—often taking years to accomplish, all while overfishing continued. Now, when developing a fishery management plan or amendment, the Councils 

must consider the actions that will occur if a fishery does not meet its performance 

objectives. As of December 31, 2012, assessments demonstrated that overfishing 

ended for 58 percent of the 38 domestic U.S. stocks that were subject to overfishing 

in 2007 when the Magnuson-Stevens Act was reauthorized.3 Annual catch limits designed to prevent overfishing are in place for all stocks, and we expect additional 

stocks to come off the overfishing list as stock assessments are updated in the coming years. 

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

working together to bring back a resource that once was in trouble. The Atlantic 

sea scallop resource was rebuilt after fishermen partnered with academic and 

NOAA scientists to learn more about scallop abundance and distribution, and then 

embraced a rotational management approach focused on long-term sustainability. 

Valued at over $380 million in 2011, the scallop fishery has made New Bedford, MA, 

the top revenue port in the U.S. 

In fact, many fisheries in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic are a significant part 

of the national success story. Of the 32 stocks rebuilt nationally since 2000, 18, 

more than half, were rebuilt by NOAA, the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Councils, the fishing industries, recreational anglers, and other partners on the Atlantic coast. In addition to Atlantic sea scallops, these include other 

important stocks such as summer flounder and Atlantic swordfish. 

We recognize that learning from our past actions and making adjustments as 

needed is important. With that in mind, the agency has already begun the process 

of reviewing the National Standard 1 guidelines, which were last modified in 2009 

to focus on implementing the requirement for annual catch limits. This was a major 

change in how many fisheries were managed, and we want to ensure that the guidance we have in place reflects current thinking on the most effective way to meet 

the objectives of National Standard 1, and builds on what we and the Councils have 

learned in applying the latest requirements of the Act. An Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published in May 2012, which was followed by an almost 6- 

month public comment period where we asked the public for input on 11 topics addressed in National Standard 1. We received a lot of input, and are in the process 

of working through the comments and developing options for moving forward, be it 

through additional technical guidelines, regulatory changes, or identifying issues for 

discussion as part of a reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act also includes requirements to rebuild any overfished 

fishery to the level that can support the maximum sustainable yield, and as I mentioned, as of December 31, 2012, we have rebuilt 32 stocks nationally.4 We estimate 

that rebuilding all U.S. fish stocks would generate an additional $31 billion in sales 

9 

5See the NMFS Commercial Fishing & Seafood Industry Input/Output Model. The change in 

landings revenue for each species was derived using the calculation: (Current Price*MSY)— 

(Current Price*Current Landings). If MSY is not available, a zero value is assumed for the 

change in landings revenue. These values were then entered into the model, which produced 

the job and sales impacts estimates. The model is available at: https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/ 

documents/Commercial%20Fishing%20IO%20Model.pdf. 

impacts (including multiplier effects), support an additional 500,000 jobs, and increase dockside revenues to fishermen by $2.2 billion, a more than 50-percent increase over current annual dockside revenues.5

Improvements to Science and Recreational Fishing Data 

Without high quality fishery science, we cannot be confident that the Nation is 

attaining optimum yield from its fisheries, or that we’re preventing overfishing and 

harm to ecosystems and fishing communities. Attaining optimum yield requires an 

investment in information about fish stocks, their fisheries, and their ecosystems, 

including habitat requirements. NMFS is committed to generating the best fishery 

science to support the goals of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Increasingly, we are conducting research and analyses to understand the environmental and habitat factors 

affecting the sustainability of fish populations. Today, we know more about our fish 

stocks than ever before, and it is vital that our science not regress, as this would 

inevitably lead to declines in our stocks and a loss in the economic and social values 

they provide. 

The importance of increasing the frequency of stock assessments, improving the 

quality of fisheries science with a better understanding of ecosystem factors, investing in cooperative research and electronic monitoring technology, and enhancing our 

engagement with fishermen cannot be stressed enough. Partnerships with industry 

and academia are a key component of successful fisheries management. Cooperative 

research provides a means for commercial and recreational fishermen to become involved in the science and data collection needed to improve assessments, and develop and support successful fishery management measures. The Northeast Cooperative Research Program, for example, enhances NOAA’s capacity to respond to 

emerging management needs and research priorities associated with improving 

stock assessments, and has helped support the industry during the transition to sector management and the implementation of annual catch limits. Through cooperative research, fishermen and scientists learned that they could use smaller mesh 

fishing nets to more effectively target Acadian redfish and still have low bycatch of 

other overfished groundfish stocks. Based on this research, we were able to quickly 

authorize this fishing gear to provide some New England groundfish fishermen with 

an opportunity to pursue redfish while their access to rebuilding groundfish stocks, 

such as Gulf of Maine cod and haddock, was limited. This year we will be carrying 

out a new, pilot flatfish survey in New England using a chartered commercial fishing vessel; results will be evaluated to determine the potential for establishing an 

annual survey based on this approach. We will also work with commercial vessels 

to compare survey catches from commercial vessels with those from NOAA’s Fishery 

Survey Vessel, Bigelow. In addition, HABCAM, a video-based, non-invasive survey 

technology that has been developed in partnership with the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, is now integral to our annual scallop surveys. 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act also required improvements to recreational fisheries 

data collected by NMFS for use in management decisions. In October 2007, NMFS 

established the Marine Recreational Information Program, a new program to improve recreational fishery data collection efforts, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act requirement and the 2006 recommendations of the National Research 

Council. The Marine Recreational Information Program is a national system of coordinated regional data collection programs designed to address specific needs for 

improved recreational fishing information. One major component of the Marine Recreational Information Program is the development of a national registry of anglers, 

also required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which NMFS has been using in a series 

of pilot studies to test more efficient mail and telephone surveys for the collection 

of data on recreational fishing activity. Based on the results of these studies, NMFS 

expects to be ready to implement new registry-based survey designs on all coasts 

in 2014. The Marine Recreational Information Program is also developing and implementing numerous other survey improvements to address the National Research 

Council’s recommendations, including improved estimation methodologies, improved 

shoreside survey design, and improvements in for-hire fishery data collections. 

Adequate observer coverage also is critical for improving data collection related 

to bycatch. National standard 9 requires fishery management plans to take into account the impact of the fishery on bycatch, particularly for protected species. NMFS 

10 

continues to work with the Councils and through take reduction teams established 

under the Marine Mammal Protection Act to identify measures that can be taken 

to minimize serious injury and mortality to harbor porpoises, right whales, and 

other marine mammals in New England and mid-Atlantic fisheries. 

Looking to the Future 

Remaining Challenges 

Even with these successes, we know that there are challenges that remain. While 

the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic lead the Nation in the number of rebuilt stocks, the 

Northeast also has some of the Nation’s most depleted stocks; some of which have 

been overfished for more than a century. Some key stocks, including Atlantic cod, 

are having difficulty rebuilding. On September 13, 2012, then-Acting Secretary Dr. 

Blank determined a commercial fishery failure because a fishery resource disaster 

had occurred. This determination includes the 2013 fishing year, which started 

May 1. The decline in productivity and the need to prevent overfishing so the stocks 

can rebuild have resulted in significant reductions in allowable catch levels, with 

great economic impact on Northeast fisheries. We are actively engaged in research 

to better understand the drivers affecting these stocks. A recent study by NOAA scientists found that changing ocean water temperatures and circulation patterns have 

greatly affected key zooplankton species in recent decades, and may be limiting survival of cod larvae and impeding recovery of cod and other stocks. We determined 

that last year, sea surface temperatures in the Northeast Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem were the highest recorded in 150 years. In response, you’ll see the FY 2014 

President’s Budget Request reflects a $10 million increase for NOAA to fund research on the impacts of climate on fisheries with a focus on the Northeast groundfish region. 

Looking ahead, we must continue to improve the quality and quantity of scientific 

data, continue progress made on addressing overfishing and rebuilding stocks, and 

better address the difficult transitions that can come with management changes 

leading to more biologically and economically sustainable fishery resources. For example, in New England, we are trying to cushion the effects of groundfish rebuilding 

measures by optimizing fishing opportunities on stocks that are not overfished, and 

by supporting marketing strategies that improve fish prices. 

The most effective annual catch limits and accountability measures will require 

further improvements to our stock assessments and monitoring efforts. Ensuring 

solid, science-based determinations of stock status and responsive management will 

also require better linkages to ever-shifting biological, socio-economic, and ecosystem 

conditions. U.S. fisheries are extraordinarily diverse in value, participation, and 

science needs. The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides flexibility in adapting management plans to the life history differences among species and nuances of particular 

fisheries, as well as to the unique regional and operational differences among fisheries and in the fishing communities that they support. 

We value the important partnerships we have formed, such as with the Atlantic 

States Marine Fisheries Commission, in helping address these challenges. NOAA’s 

work with the Commission in support of effective science and management has been 

the backbone of valuable commercial and recreational fisheries. Together with our 

partners, we continue to explore alternative and innovative approaches that will 

produce the best available information to incorporate into management. 

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

factors, including climate change, and incorporate them into our stock assessments 

and management decisions, because resilient ecosystems and habitat form the foundation for robust fisheries and fishing jobs. Similarly, it is important that we meet 

our responsibilities under the Magnuson-Stevens Act in concert with related legislation, such as the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act, 

to reduce bycatch of protected species to mandated levels. As we end overfishing and 

rebuild stocks, the strategic alignment of habitat and protected species conservation 

efforts with rebuilding and managing fish stocks will be a key component of NOAA’s 

success. 

General Views on Legislation Proposed in the 112th Congress 

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

to consider when developing management programs. 

It is critical that we maintain progress towards meeting the mandate of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to end overfishing and, as necessary, rebuild stocks. Annual 

catch limits are an effective tool in improving the sustainability of fisheries around 

the Nation, and NOAA has concerns with efforts that would create exemptions or 

11 

otherwise weaken provisions regarding annual catch limits. Managing fisheries 

using annual catch limits and accountability measures was a major change for some 

fisheries, and the initial implementation has identified some areas where we can 

improve that process. We will continue to work with the Councils to achieve the best 

possible alignment of science and management for each fishery to attain the goals 

of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

In an increasingly constrained fiscal environment, we must not mandate duplicative or otherwise unnecessary actions. Additional stages of review for certain types 

of fisheries data, or repeating data collection and stock assessment efforts when 

there are already sound peer review processes in place are examples of actions that 

will divert resources to a select few fisheries at the expense of others with little additional benefit. Moreover, legislation should be cost-effective, particularly during 

this time of constrained funding. NMFS welcomes the opportunity to work closely 

with Congress, the Councils, and the recreational and commercial fishing industries, 

to use the best available science to seek opportunities for efficiency and improved 

management in order to end overfishing, rebuild stocks, and achieve stable economic 

opportunities for our fishermen and coastal communities. 

The Next Reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

With some of the largest and most successful fisheries in the world, the U.S. has 

become a global model of responsible fisheries management. This success is due to 

strong partnerships among the commercial and recreational fishing, conservation, 

and science and management communities. Continued collaboration is necessary to 

address the ongoing challenges of maintaining productive and sustainable fisheries. 

The Managing Our Nation’s Fisheries 3 conference—co-sponsored by the eight 

Councils and NMFS—brought together a broad spectrum of partners and interests 

to discuss current and developing concepts addressing the sustainability of U.S. marine fisheries and their management. The conference was developed around three 

themes: (1) improving fishery management essentials; (2) advancing ecosystembased decision making; (3) and providing for fishing community sustainability. 

We were excited to see a wide range of stakeholders represent many points of 

view, from commercial and recreational fishing, to the conservation and science and 

management communities. Before the last reauthorization, we co-sponsored two of 

these conferences, and they played an important role in bringing people together 

and creating an opportunity to present ideas and understand different perspectives. 

We expect that the ideas that emerged from this event will inform potential legislative changes to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, but the benefits are much greater than 

that. The communication across regions and Councils provided an opportunity to 

share best practices and lessons learned, and could also inform changes to current 

policy or regulations that can be accomplished without statutory changes. 

Conclusion 

Because of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the U.S. has made great progress in ending overfishing in federally-managed fisheries, rebuilding stocks, and ensuring conservation and sustainable use of our marine fisheries. Fisheries harvested in the 

U.S. are scientifically monitored, regionally managed, and enforced under 10 national standards. But, we did not get here overnight. Our Nation’s journey toward 

sustainable fisheries has evolved over the course of 35 years. 

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

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

changers in our national journey toward sustainable fisheries, and ones that are 

rapidly delivering results. 

This progress has been due to the collaborative involvement of our U.S. commercial and recreational fishing fleets and their commitment to science-based management, improving gear-technologies, and application of best-stewardship practices. 

We have established strong partnerships among NOAA, the states, the Councils, 

and the fishing industry. By working together through the highly participatory process established in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, we will continue to address management challenges in a changing environment. 

It is important to take time and reflect on where we have been to understand 

where we are. We will take the recommendations from the Managing Our Nation’s 

Fisheries 3 conference, and look to the future in a holistic, comprehensive way that 

considers the needs of the fish and the fishermen, and the ecosystems and communities. We look forward to these discussions, and will happily work with Congress 

on any efforts to reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

12 

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

Magnuson-Stevens Act and future efforts of reauthorization. I am available to answer any questions you may have. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much. Our next panelist is 

C.M. ‘‘Rip’’ Cunningham, Jr., Chairman, New England Fisheries 

Management Council. 

Mr. Cunningham. 

STATEMENT OF C.M. ‘‘RIP’’ CUNNINGHAM, JR., CHAIRMAN, 

NEW ENGLAND FISHERIES MANAGEMENT COUNCIL (NEFMC) 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Rubio, on 

behalf of the New England Fisheries Management Council. As the 

current Chair, I am pleased and honored to testify and hope that 

I can be helpful to you in your deliberations concerning MSA. 

With 18 voting New England Council members, there are often 

diverse opinions about what the problems are and what their solutions might be. As a result, my comments do not represent the official position of the Council, but the sense of the Council as a body. 

In New England, we have transitioned to a sustainable management regime and the past few years have seen impressive changes. 

We have completely revised the management of the iconic New 

England Groundfish Fishery from input to output controls. The 

scallop fisheries rotational management system is maturing into an 

efficient program that consistently leads to robust industry revenues while preventing overfishing. Also, we are completing a multiyear effort to minimize the adverse effects of fishing on essential 

fish habitat. 

The stocks in the sea scallop, monkfish, red crab, red fish, whiting, pollock, herring and dogfish fisheries are being fished at sustainable levels and effort is focused on improving the net benefits 

to the Nation. Partly due to environmental regime shifts, efforts to 

end overfishing on cod and several flounder stocks have been frustrated. Even though quotas are set according to advice and actual 

catches have recently been below the quotas, this has led to an erosion of trust in both the science and the management. 

The Council’s adoption of sustainable fishing practices has dramatically increased the demand for stock assessment advice. We 

believe that sufficient resources are not being provided to the National Marine Fisheries Service to meet these demands. In our region, there is a need for about 60 different stock updates and yet, 

the Science Center is only capable of providing about 10 to 12. 

With fast-growing species, this means some quotas are set to catch 

paper fish, fish that are a result of assumptions about future stock 

growth. This is a recipe for disaster. Only with enhanced support 

will the system be able to make the statutory demands. 

As for MSA, we do not believe wholesale revisions are necessary. 

We believe that the Council’s system is successful at providing an 

open and transparent venue for the debate on using fishery resources, but there are several important issues that need to be addressed. 

First, we believe that the current emphasis on a fixed rebuilding 

time period is misdirected. This approach assumes a level of stock 

assessment certainty that does not exist, nor can we predict or control the environmental changes that are key drivers in rebuilding. 

13 

Management should focus on ending overfishing with a narrowly 

defined exception to the requirement when there is a dramatic 

change in the perception of stock status. 

Next, third party sustainability certification should be replaced 

by a National Marine Fisheries Service Certificate of Sustainability. 

Next, there is an increasing interest in ecosystem approaches to 

fishery management, but some provisions of the statute limit the 

ability to pursue such approaches. This needs to be addressed. And 

in some cases, data confidentiality provisions of the statute hampered the ability to understand the effects of management decisions. This is a public resource and the Council needs access to the 

basic data. 

In closing, the Council has expended substantial effort to meet 

the requirements of the reauthorized MSA and this effort has demonstrated that the current capacity of the National Marine Fisheries Service to provide scientific support cannot meet the requirements. Without that, the management process is likely to fail. MSA 

does not need to be dismantled and resurrected. Addressing a short 

list of issues would make a substantial impact on the Act’s effectiveness. Magnuson is working. The improvement in the nationwide tally of stocks no longer experiencing overfishing and not 

overfished is evidence of the Act’s success. 

Thank you, again, for asking me to participate on behalf of the 

New England Fishery Management Council. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cunningham follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF C.M. ‘‘RIP’’ CUNNINGHAM JR., CHAIR, NEW ENGLAND

FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL (NEFMC) 

On behalf of the New England Fishery Management Council, I am both pleased 

and honored to respond to your invitation and hope that I can be helpful to you in 

your deliberations concerning the Magnusson-Stevens Act, as well as those members 

of the fishing community who are here today. 

Before I begin, I would like to offer a few details about my background. I have 

served for nine years on the Council, five years as its Vice Chair and two years as 

Chair. I am currently the Council’s chair—but only for a few more weeks as I have 

reached my term limit. My nine years of service on the Council has been at times 

fascinating, at times frustrating—but always rewarding. Prior to my appointment 

to the Council, I was the owner, Publisher, and Editor-in-Chief of Salt Water Sportsman, the world’s largest sport fishing magazine, with approximately four million 

readers. I am privileged to have made a living by working with and for our valuable 

marine resources. 

With 18 voting New England Fishery Council members, there are often divergent 

opinions about the problems we face and their solutions. As a result, my comments 

may not represent the opinion of any individual member or the official position of 

the Council, but I will try to convey the sense of the Council as a body. I will talk 

about both our progress in the transition to sustainable management and a few suggested changes to the Magnuson-Stevens Act (M-S Act). 

Progress Made in the Transition to Sustainable Management in New 

England 

In New England, we have had mixed success in the transition to sustainable fisheries management. The past few years have seen impressive changes in our management system. We successfully implemented a system of Annual Catch Limits and 

Accountability Measures for all of our fisheries mandated by the 2007 amendments 

to the Magnuson-Stevens Act. We completely revised the management of the iconic 

New England groundfish fishery in 2010, shifting most of the fishery from an input 

management regime to an output or catch share system. The scallop fishery’s rotational management system is maturing into an efficient program that consistently 

leads to robust industry revenues while preventing overfishing. Also, we are comVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:28 May 13, 2014 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\87797.TXT JACKIE
14 

pleting a multi-year effort to redesign our approach to minimize the adverse effects 

of fishing on essential fish habitat. 

The impacts of these changes, however, have not been positive in all cases. The 

target stocks in the Atlantic Sea Scallop, Monkfish, Red Crab, Redfish, Whiting, Atlantic herring, and Dogfish fisheries are being fished at sustainable levels. These 

fisheries are manageable and sustainable and management is focused on improving 

the net benefits they produce for the Nation. Within the Skate and Northeast Multispecies fisheries, however, there are numerous stocks that are still overfished and/ 

or subject to overfishing. Partly due to environmental regime shifts, our extensive 

efforts to end overfishing on cod and several flounder stocks have been frustrated 

at every step of the way. Even though quotas are set according to the advice of our 

Scientific and Statistical Committee and actual catches have recently been below 

the quotas. This has led to an erosion of trust in both the scientific advice and the 

management system. More importantly, the reduced quotas have led to a dramatic 

reduction in the active groundfish fishing fleet, with fewer than 400 active boats remaining, compared to nearly 1,200 in 2001. Our groundfish fishermen and fishing 

communities have been negatively impacted by the decline in landings and revenues. The Council has been largely stymied in our efforts to find ways to mitigate 

the low quotas that are in effect this year. After nearly twenty years of increasingly 

restrictive management measures, many groundfish fishermen feel that the promise 

of future benefits from stock rebuilding is an empty one. 

As I mentioned, the Council has complied with the requirement to adopt Annual 

Catch Limits and Accountability Measures in all our fisheries. The one problem 

Councils have all seen is that this management system dramatically increases the 

demand for stock assessment advice. It is our belief that sufficient resources are not 

being provided to the National Marine Fisheries Service to meet these demands. In 

our region, there is a need for periodic updates for about sixty different stocks and 

yet the science center is only capable of providing annual updates for about ten to 

twelve stocks. As a result assessments of an individual stock are often separated 

by four or five years. With fast growing species, this means some quotas are set to 

catch ‘‘paper fish’’—fish that have never actually been seen in an assessment, but 

are the result of assumptions about future stock growth. This is a recipe for disaster 

and contributes to our difficulty in rebuilding groundfish. 

It is not just the workload of scientists that has increased in recent years. Because of the increased complexity of both fisheries and other statutes, the preparation and review of management actions by Council and National Marine Fisheries 

Service staff is taking more time and resources than in the past. As a result the 

system threatens to become bogged down and unable to respond to our rapidly 

changing conditions. Only with enhanced support will the system be able to meet 

the demands imposed by the current statutory framework. 

MSA Changes to Consider 

As one would hope with a law that has been in effect for thirty-seven years, we 

do not believe wholesale revisions are necessary. We believe that the Council system, while not without its warts, is successful at providing an open, transparent 

venue for the debate on using fishery resources. Nevertheless, we do believe there 

are several important issues that need to be addressed. 

First, given our experience with the rebuilding of groundfish stocks, it is probably 

not surprising that we believe that the current emphasis on a fixed rebuilding time 

period is misdirected. This approach assumes a level of stock assessment certainty 

that does not exist. We have little ability to predict, and no ability to control, the 

environmental changes that are key drivers in rebuilding progress. We think management should focus on ending overfishing and not arbitrary rebuilding time 

frames. 

Obviously, we fully support the focus on the requirement to end overfishing, Our 

only suggestion to improve this part of the statute would be to create a narrowlydefined exception to the requirement to end overfishing immediately when there is 

a dramatic change in the perception of stock status. This is the result of our recent 

experience with a cod stock, where two successive assessments presented a dramatically different view of stock size that was not due to fishing activity. A more flexible 

approach would allow a management reaction that would be responsive to the National Standard 8 requirement to consider the needs of fishing communities. As I 

noted, however, this should be a narrow exception and not provide a loophole to 

overfish indefinitely. 

With one of the more strict management frameworks in the world, we believe that 

our industry should not be required to buy a third-party certification to demonstrate 

that our fishery products are sustainable. There are several competing seafood certification programs that confuse buyers, and the standards of these programs can 

15 

differ. This situation could be simplified if the M–S Act were modified to authorize 

a National Marine Fisheries Service certificate of sustainability. Such a program 

would provide our industry with the ability to promote and sell seafood products in 

the world market. 

In addition to these main points, there are also a few other issues that deserve 

attention: 

• The relative importance of National Standard 1 (the requirement to end overfishing) and National Standard 8 (consideration of impacts to fishing communities) continues to be troublesome. Courts have interpreted National Standard 

1 to take precedence; it would be helpful to clarify if this is indeed the intent 

of Congress. 

• There is increasing interest in ecosystem approaches to fishery management, 

but some provisions of the statute limit the ability to pursue such approaches. 

A more explicit recognition of this concept would help us pursue this rapidlydeveloping approach. 

• The overlap between the National Environmental Policy Act and the M–S Act 

has not, in our opinion, been adequately addressed in spite of congressional direction to do so. While NMFS has published updated guidance that the Councils 

have reluctantly acceded to, we do not agree that this addresses the fundamental problem nor were the Councils adequately consulted in its development. 

• In some cases the data confidentiality provisions of the statute hamper the ability of managers and the public to understand the effects of management decisions. This is a public resource, and the Council members need access to the 

basic data that will tell them the effect of their actions. 

Summary 

The NEFMC has expended substantial effort to meet the requirements set forth 

in the 2007 reauthorization of the Magnusson-Stevens Act by implementing annual 

catch limits and accountability measures for all of the managed species under its 

jurisdiction. This effort has demonstrated that the current capacity of the National 

Marine Fisheries Service to provide scientific support cannot meet the requirement 

for continuously updated stock assessments. Environmental regime shift has also 

dramatically increased the need for updated science. Without enhanced scientific 

support, the management process is likely to fail. It is said there are three important things to success in the real estate business, location, location, location. There 

are the three things that will enhance the fisheries management process, science, 

science, and science. 

MSA does not need to be dismantled and resurrected. Addressing a short list of 

issues would make a substantial impact on the Acts effectiveness: 

• The focus should be on ending overfishing. That is the one aspect that Councils 

can control effectively. 

• Address the existing regulatory impediments in the Act that will adversely impact the shift to ecosystem based fishery management. 

• Better define the priority of competing National Standards. 

• Support the industry with a national sustainability certification program. 

MSA is working. The improvement in the nationwide tally of stocks no longer experiencing overfishing and not overfished is evidence of the Act’s success. The system works and simply needs some ongoing modifications, which will likely be the 

case in another six years. 

Thank you again for asking me to participate on behalf of the New England Fishery Management Council. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Next, we have Richard Robins, Chairman of the Mid-Atlantic 

Fishery Management Council. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD B. ROBINS, JR., CHAIRMAN, MIDATLANTIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL 

Mr. ROBINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Rubio. I am Rick Robins, Chairman of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before 

you this morning on the Magnuson Act. 

16 

I’m pleased to report that the Council’s stock rebuilding efforts 

that were ongoing at the time of the last reauthorization are now 

essentially complete. All of the stocks for which we have biological 

reference points are either at, near or above their biological targets. 

Today, fisheries in the Mid-Atlantic support over $600 million in 

commercial landings. They also support 21 million recreational 

fishing trips taken annually by over five million anglers. 

Since reauthorization, we’ve integrated the Scientific and Statistical Committee into our decisionmaking process. We’ve developed 

a quota-setting framework that incorporates a risk policy and a 

harvest control rule. The new processes worked very well for situations in which we have inadequate stock assessment. It also provides for a more clear and consistent approach to setting quotas; 

it strikes an effective balance, I believe, between accounting for scientific uncertainty and trying to maximize the yield out of our 

managed stocks. We’ve also established an Advisory Panel Fishery 

Performance report to provide the SSC and the Council with timely, on-the-water perspectives about trends in our fisheries. 

In terms of challenges and recommendations, I’ll touch very 

briefly on five areas: sustainability in marketing, science, ecosystem approaches, representation and recreational fisheries management. 

Despite our rebuilding successes, some of our commercial fishermen and fisheries struggle to regain their footing in U.S. and international markets, despite the fact that the stocks are rebuilt and 

the quotas are increasing. There is also a lingering and sometimes 

demoralizing sense that U.S. fishermen in our region are still negatively associated with overfishing. These problems deserve to be addressed. U.S. fishermen fishing under today’s Magnuson Act should 

be standing tall on the world’s stage. In a market transformed by 

globalization, the sustainability of U.S. fisheries needs to be affirmed and U.S. processors and fishermen should be able to identify and label their fish caught under the gold standards of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act as being sustainably and responsibly harvested. We don’t need a complex Federal certification program, but 

rather, a public affirmation of the core strengths of the U.S. management system would be an important step toward facilitating 

education, awareness and better marketing for the benefit of U.S. 

fisheries. 

Shifting to science, adequate science is critical to our mission. I 

have three specific recommendations in this area. First, we need 

adequate research capacity within the system. The same system 

that I described to you that works very well for setting quotas in 

data-rich situations has not worked well in data-poor situations; 

it’s produced inconsistent results. That highlights the need for this 

research capacity. 

Second, we also need adequate capacity within the Northeast 

Fishery Science Center to generate operational stock assessments 

and assessment updates at appropriate frequencies. We share these 

resources with the New England Council and the Atlantic States 

Marine Fisheries Commission, so these capacities are critical. 

Cooperative research, and specifically, cooperative surveys such 

as NEAMAP, should be adequately funded and expanded strategically in the Northeast region. It’s not just about how fisheries data 

17 

are packaged and communicated that build confidence. Directly engaging the stakeholders in the collection of data is the most direct 

strategy for building confidence in fisheries data and fisheries management. 

With respect to ecological considerations, our Council is pursuing 

an incremental and evolutionary strategy to implement an ecosystem approach to fisheries management. At the same time, the 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center is strategically expanding its 

ecosystem research programs to support this transition. The reason 

I bring this up to you today is because a truly ecosystem-based approach to management may require us to set quotas for some species above maximum sustainable yield while we set quotas for 

other species well below maximum sustainable yield. The ecosystem references in the Act should be reviewed and clarified, if 

necessary, to ensure alignment between the ecosystem references, 

the national standards and the definition of optimum yield. 

In terms of representation, it was clear from the port meetings 

we’ve held over the last 2 years with Southern New England fishermen that these fishermen in those states desire some form of representation on our council. Similarly, the Mid-Atlantic’s top fishery, 

Sea Scallops, is managed by the New England fishery and we don’t 

have a final vote on those actions through that New England process. This issue is expected to be exacerbated by ongoing and substantial shifts in fisheries population and response to changing 

ocean temperatures. One option to resolve this in the interest of 

both councils would be to vest liaisons with voting rights. 

Turning to recreational fisheries, enhancing the stability of our 

fisheries is one of our top strategic priorities. We’ve just submitted 

an omnibus amendment that would frame our recreational accountability measures in such a way that it would take the statistical 

uncertainty into account. We would suggest leaving room in the Act 

for some flexibility in recreational AMs. 

In conclusion, the Mid-Atlantic Council’s history offers solid evidence that the system established by the Magnuson Act is effective 

at preventing overfishing and rebuilding stocks. The next authorization should build on that success, but should do so in broader 

terms than simply preventing overfishing. We need to define and 

pursue success in terms that result in the management of U.S. 

fisheries for the greatest overall benefit of the nation, not just biologically, but also, socially, economically and ecologically, to ensure 

better futures for our fisheries and our fishing communities. As 

strong as the system is, we can improve it by working together to 

fine-tune the Act, the policies that shape its implementation and 

our practices. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Robins follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICHARD B. ROBINS, JR., CHAIRMAN, MID-ATLANTIC

FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the 

opportunity to testify before you today. My name is Richard B. Robins, Jr. and I 

am the Chairman of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. I was appointed 

to the Council in 2007 and have served as chairman for the last five years. In addition to my involvement on the Council, I have served as an Associate Member of 

the Virginia Marine Resources Commission since 2004. I have been processing and 

18 

exporting U.S. seafood since 1990, and I have also been a lifelong recreational fisherman. 

The Mid-Atlantic Council has primary management responsibility for 8 species of 

fish, 2 species of squid, and 2 species of shellfish, as well as the surrounding ecosystem and habitats, in the Exclusive Economic Zone from North Carolina to New 

York. The Council manages 5 species jointly with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission and 2 species jointly with the New England Fishery Management 

Council. 

In 2011, the commercial fishing industry in the Mid-Atlantic harvested 858 million pounds of fish and shellfish valued at $605 million, and more than 5 million 

fishermen took nearly 21 million fishing trips. The commercial and recreational fishing industries also provide approximately 80 thousand full- and part-time jobs. Although our jurisdiction includes the seven states of the Mid-Atlantic, the ecological 

and socioeconomic impacts of our fisheries extend well beyond our region. 

The Mid-Atlantic Council’s stock rebuilding efforts that were ongoing at the time 

of the last reauthorization are now complete. All of the stocks we manage that have 

biological reference points are now rebuilt to levels at, near, or above their biological 

targets. Several of our stocks, including Atlantic Mackerel, do not currently have biological reference points and their status is unknown. 

I was asked to speak today about three topics as they relate to fisheries management in the Mid-Atlantic: 

1. Progress made since the 2006 reauthorization; 

2. Ongoing challenges faced in transitioning to sustainable fisheries; and 

3. Tools, resources, and statutory refinements needed to address these challenges. 

The Council just completed its first Visioning Project and Strategic Planning Process. The initiative benefitted from extensive public input from thousands of fisheries 

stakeholders throughout the region, and culminated in a 5-year Strategic Plan. My 

responses to these questions will reflect not only my own perspective as a Council 

member, recreational fisherman, and commercial industry participant but also the 

goals and concerns identified by stakeholders during this planning process. 

Recent Progress and Successes 

The U.S. has the strongest fisheries management system in the world. At the time 

of the last reauthorization, the Mid-Atlantic Council was already on a solid path to 

rebuilding stocks that were depleted in the 1980s and 1990s. The Council’s rebuilding success was facilitated by quota-based management that generally complied 

with the scientific advice that came through the stock assessment process and quota 

recommendations from Monitoring Committees. 

The 2006 reauthorization required that the Council’s Scientific and Statistical 

Committee (SSC) provide the Council with Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) recommendations for each fishery. This was a significant institutional change, and the 

Council focused on developing necessary capacities within the SSC to develop and 

refine the quota-setting process. 

In addition, the Council was able to bring all of its fishery management plans 

(FMPs) into compliance with the Annual Catch Limit (ACL) and Accountability 

Measure (AM) requirements of the Act through an omnibus amendment. At the core 

of the omnibus amendment is a harvest control rule and associated risk policy that 

quantifies the Council’s tolerance for risk as a function of each fishery’s stock status 

and the biological life history characteristics of the species. Since the Council was 

able to incorporate the harvest control rules for all fishery management plans in an 

omnibus amendment, our approach to risk and accounting for scientific uncertainty 

is consistent across plans and is explicitly incorporated in the harvest control rules. 

Our risk policy is an example of success because it strikes a balance between 

maximizing yield from a stock and accounting for the scientific uncertainty that is 

inherent in stock assessments. The new framework has worked very well for fisheries that have stock assessments with reliable biological reference points. The 

framework creates consistency for the Council and the public by establishing a crucial link between the Council and the SSC in the quota-setting process. 

A second major area of improvement for us since 2006 relates to the way we incorporate fishermens’ on-the-water perspectives, knowledge, and market information 

into the management process. In 2011, we began developing Advisory Panel (AP) 

Fishery Performance Reports to provide the SSC with an annual description of the 

factors that influenced fishing effort and catch for each fishery. These reports provide the SSC with additional contextual information and are particularly useful 

when we establish quotas for data-poor stocks. They also provide useful and up-todate information about the operations Mid-Atlantic fisheries. We have also reviewed 

19 

and updated the composition of our APs to ensure the Council was benefitting from 

a broader range of stakeholder interests and geographical perspectives. 

The Council’s post-reauthorization process changes have not been easy, but they 

have helped us establish a more clearly defined quota-setting framework and contributed to successful stock rebuilding in Mid-Atlantic fisheries. 

Challenges and Recommendations 

Allow fisheries managed under Magnuson-Stevens to be marketed accordingly 

As I mentioned previously, we have been steadily rebuilding stocks that were depleted in an earlier chapter in history. Despite these successes, the social and economic outcomes for our region’s fishing communities have not been entirely positive. 

Many members of the commercial fishing industry struggle to regain their footing 

in U.S. and international markets even as quotas increase. There is also a lingering 

and sometimes demoralizing sense that U.S. fisheries and fishermen are still negatively associated with overfishing, despite the solid rebuilding successes and sustainability requirements in the current act. 

These problems deserve to be addressed—U.S. fishermen fishing under today’s 

Magnuson Act should be standing tall among their international peers. In a market 

transformed by globalization, the sustainability of U.S. fisheries needs to be affirmed, and U.S. fishermen and processors should be able to identify and label their 

products as fish that were harvested responsibly and sustainably under the gold 

standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

A U.S. fisherman catching fish in fisheries subject to the Magnuson’s peerless 

standards should not have to make a hefty investment in a third-party certification 

in order to sell his fish to U.S. consumers, much less to the vendors of the U.S. Park 

Service. Within the global market, there will always be a need and a role for thirdparty certifiers for sustainability and food safety. 

I would be very concerned about shouldering NMFS with an unfunded, complicated certification program. Rather, I think the focus should be kept simple and 

should give the agency the authority to confirm that fisheries subject to Federal 

management are sustainably managed, consistent with the legal requirements of 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This would allow fishermen and processors to label and 

market their product accordingly. Such a designation may or may not satisfy a European retail chain, but a public affirmation of the core strengths of the U.S. management would be an important step toward better marketing of U.S. fisheries products. 

Provide funding and support for the collection of timely and accurate data to meet 

the requirements of the Act 

The effectiveness of our fisheries management system hinges on the availability 

of accurate information about the status of our fisheries. The stock assessment and 

research capacities of the Northeast Fishery Science Center (NEFSC) are critical to 

the successful management of fisheries in the Mid-Atlantic. The ACL requirements 

of the last reauthorization increased the demand for assessment products from the 

NEFSC, which also supports the New England Fishery Management Council and 

the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. I would specifically recommend 

additional investment in the NEFSC’s stock assessment and research capacities to 

meet the future needs of the region’s managed fisheries. 

I also suggest securing the future of cooperative and collaborative research initiatives such as the highly successful Northeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program (NEAMAP). These programs build stakeholder confidence in fisheries data 

used to support fisheries management by bringing fisheries scientists and commercial fishermen together to collect important fisheries data. Cooperative and collaborative initiatives like NEAMAP should be expanded in a strategic way to supplement existing surveys in the Northeast Region. 

Data-Poor Stocks 

While I have already described several areas of progress relative to how we use 

scientific information in the management process, this progress has not applied 

evenly across our fisheries. The revised process created by the 2006 MSRA has not 

worked as well for data-poor stocks. In cases where a stock assessment fails to 

produce reliable biological reference points, the process has produced inconsistent 

results. 

Black sea bass and butterfish are two examples of fisheries that have been the 

subject of significant quota-setting challenges as a result of scientific uncertainty. 

For both fisheries, the Council has had to work through an iterative process with 

the Northeast Regional Science Center, the SSC, and other management partners 

to conduct supplemental analyses to achieve improved outcomes. Every Council has 

20 

some data-poor stocks, and these examples highlight the need for sustained investment in the research necessary to support improved stock assessments that will 

move these stocks from the data-poor category, which is currently subject to ad-hoc 

quota-setting methods, to the point that they have acceptable biological reference 

points. 

Improve Alignment of Ecosystem Objectives in the MSA with Other National Policies 

The Mid-Atlantic Council has taken several significant steps toward a more ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management since the last reauthorization. 

These steps have included: 1) Establishing an Ecosystem Subcommittee within the 

SSC to provide the Council with scientific advice specific to ecosystem management, 

2) Holding a comprehensive forage fish management workshop in 2013, and 3) Initiating an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management Guidance Document in 

2013. 

The Council is pursuing an incremental, evolutionary strategy to incorporate ecosystem approaches to fisheries management. This approach responds to significant 

public interest in the management of low trophic level (forage) stocks and a broader 

objective of more effectively incorporating species interactions, environmental conditions, and habitat associations into our management decisions. The process should 

ultimately enhance the ecological sustainability of our managed fisheries. 

It may be necessary to fish some species at levels above Maximum Sustainable 

Yield (MSY) and other species well below MSY in order to achieve ecosystem level 

objectives. The act should be clear on these issues as they relate to the definition 

of Optimum Yield (OY). 

Address emerging representation issues 

Fish do not respect political boundaries, so the Mid-Atlantic Council has spent 

considerable time in Southern New England holding port meetings with fishermen 

and fisheries stakeholders during our Visioning Project. From Stonington, Connecticut to Chatham, Massachusetts, each of these groups raised a common concern 

regarding representation. Specifically, they expressed concern over the fact that 

their state jurisdictions did not have a voting representative on the Mid-Atlantic 

Council despite the fact that some of them depend substantially on fisheries managed by the Mid-Atlantic Council. 

Similarly, the Mid-Atlantic fishing and processing industries depend significantly 

on the Atlantic Sea Scallop fishery. Sea Scallops are the top commercial fishery in 

the Mid-Atlantic region in ex-vessel value. New Jersey and Virginia landed nearly 

23 million pounds of sea scallops worth $222 million in 2011. While the Mid-Atlantic 

Council has two voting seats on the New England Council’s Sea Scallop Oversight 

Committee, the Mid-Atlantic committee members are not able to vote on final Council actions. 

Geographic distributions of fisheries populations are also shifting substantially in 

response to changing ocean temperatures. The governance implications of these ongoing changes in the marine environment should be considered to ensure that constituents throughout the range of these fisheries are adequately and effectively represented in the process. The Mid-Atlantic Council is addressing these concerns 

proactively in a governance workshop in March of next year. Meanwhile, vesting the 

liaisons of the New England and Mid-Atlantic Councils with motion-making and 

voting rights in the reauthorization would ensure that both Councils can preserve 

their interest in fishery management actions through the final Council vote that 

submits a recommendation to the Secretary of Commerce. Another strategy would 

be to give the Council the discretion to submit final actions when convened as a 

committee of the whole, which would allow the additional committee members to 

vote on the final action. 

Incorporate provisions that account for the needs and interests of the recreational 

fishing community 

Recreational fisheries are an important source of food, recreation, employment, 

and income for many Mid-Atlantic communities. In 2012, 5 million anglers took 

about 20 million fishing trips in the Mid-Atlantic region. The recreational fishing 

community is highly diverse and includes not only private anglers, but also for-hire 

vessels (i.e., party and charter boats with paying customers) whose business interests may reflect different values and regulatory preferences. It is clear from input 

we received from stakeholders during our Visioning Project that recreational anglers 

want reasonable access to fishing opportunities and they want greater regulatory 

stability. 

Since the last reauthorization, we have made considerable progress toward adapting our management system to better account for the different needs and interests 

of the recreational community. We recently completed an Omnibus Amendment that 

21 

involved a comprehensive review and overhaul of our recreational Accountability 

Measures (AMs). Our recommendations were designed to enhance stability of recreational fisheries by improving alignment of our management strategies with the 

statistical characteristics of the recreational catch estimates. 

Conclusion 

The Mid-Atlantic Council’s history offers solid evidence that the system established by the Magnuson-Stevens Act and subsequent amendments is effective at 

preventing overfishing and rebuilding stocks. The next reauthorization should build 

on the past success of the act and position our fisheries for future success in broader 

terms than simply preventing overfishing. We need to define and pursue success in 

terms that result in the management of U.S. fisheries for the greatest overall benefit of the Nation not just biologically, but also socially, economically, and ecologically to insure and secure a better future for our fisheries and fishing communities. As strong as the system is, we can improve it by working together to fine 

tune the act, the policies that shape its implementation, and our practices. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much. Thank you, again, for all 

of your testimony. 

I’ll start off; we’ll do a 5-minute round. I’ll start with a few questions then ask other members to join in with their questions. 

First, Mr. Bullard, thank you very much for being here. I want 

to specifically ask you about a couple things. One, a little follow up 

on a report that was done—I think it was called the Touchstone 

Report on New England Fishery Management—are you familiar a 

little bit with it? 

Mr. BULLARD. Yes. 

Senator BEGICH. OK. Let me ask you, so I won’t go through the 

whole detail of what the report’s purpose was, but because of your 

knowledge of it, I’m curious about the actions has NOAA taken— 

I know there were some recommendations within the report; once 

it was done, NOAA announced that it would adopt a series of immediate actions and near-term plans to incorporate the report’s recommendations. Can you give me just a sense of how that is going 

or what the status is from NOAA’s perspective? 

Mr. BULLARD. Yes, we are very grateful for Pres Pate and Touchstone’s report to improve the work of the regional office with the 

Mid-Atlantic and New England Councils and we’ve taken those recommendations very seriously. We have drafted formal agreements 

with the Mid-Atlantic Council, which I think is being signed pretty 

much as we speak, Mr. Chair, and hope to do something very similar with the New England Council. 

We’re also reviewing our data collection systems with an eye to 

improving efficiency in data quality, to meet short and long-term 

management. We’ve undergone a plain language campaign that’s 

resulting in clearer and more concise informational bulletins. It has 

always amazed me how fishermen can get through the regulations 

that constantly change to comply with them, so we’re trying to 

make them easier to understand. We have assembled a team at the 

regional office and the New England Council to improve the process of developing fishery management plans, which are incredibly 

complex. 

And last, I’d say when I took this job about 11 months ago, I did 

a series of 20 listening sessions from Manteo, North Carolina to 

Ellsworth, Maine, to go to people’s places of business to listen to 

what they had to say about how we could improve our operations. 

I got many, many comments. We deciphered them, we reported 

22 

back on what I heard, and we’re starting to put in place improvements based on the many comments that we got from people. 

Senator BEGICH. Very good. Thank you. 

Let me do a quick follow up and then one other question related 

and then I’ll ask a couple others to other folks. 

Can you, on that report, can you at some point present to the 

Committee or give to the Committee kind of the here’s the recommendations, here’s the status, as you’ve just described some of 

them, and then timetable. And some of that status could be that 

you may not do some of the recommendations, which is understandable, because it may not be practical, but is that something 

that you could provide at some point to the Committee? 

Mr. BULLARD. Sure. 

Senator BEGICH. In a very simple—I don’t need a complex, I hate 

to say this, government document; I want a simplified, like what 

you’re working on here, a simplification. 

Mr. BULLARD. Yes. 

Senator BEGICH. That would be great if you could do that. 

Mr. BULLARD. We’d be happy to. 

Senator BEGICH. Then the other one, I’m a big proponent of electronic monitoring systems. I’ve met with Woods Hole and had some 

great discussion there on their technology, as well as other places 

around the country. Can you provide me with any additional information? I know I harass NOAA on this all the time because I think 

it’s just, the last time, I think it was in 2011, Administrator 

Lubchenco indicated an openness to kind of broadly implement this 

technology. Do you have any comments in regards to that, in advancing the use of this technology? I know in New England, there’s 

some great testing being done by Woods Hole and others. 

Mr. BULLARD. Yes, I believe that in this area, there is much that 

can be gained in efficiency that can benefit fishermen and can certainly benefit the Agency, and in Bill Karp, we have someone that 

is a gift from the State of Alaska, who has come down to direct the 

Science Center. He’s got a lot of familiarity with the advances that 

have been made in Alaska and we are going to benefit from his experience. 

There is a working group that we’ve assembled between the regional office and the Science Center. It had almost a full-day meeting, most recently in Boston a couple of days ago, on this. It’s incredibly complex; a lot of people think it’s just a question of putting 

cameras on boats. As you know, it’s much more complicated than 

that; it involves work with the councils; there are regulatory 

changes that have to be made. Both councils, as the Chairs can tell 

you, have working groups set up, very recently set up. We’re starting with working teams at the regional office and the Science Center to understand how we might do this, whether it would involve 

full retention where the cameras might be used, just to see whether or not you’re discarding. And so—I’m new to this, I have a hard 

time with my cell phone, but I’m learning about this—and we’re 

trying to figure out which models, which fisheries, might this work 

on first, and which fisheries would be most appropriate, what regulations would have to be changed. We’re trying to get it straight 

between the Science Center and the regional office, then bring in 

the councils to figure out which regulations have to be changed, inVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:28 May 13, 2014 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\87797.TXT JACKIE
23 

volve the industry, some of whom are chomping at the bit, they 

can’t wait to get started; others of whom see cameras as—oh, wait, 

I’m not sure I want to go there. And we’re trying to figure out how 

it works in the Northeast and how that fits with the national effort 

because this is, as you know, a priority in NOAA fisheries nationally as well. So I appreciate how complex it is; I also appreciate 

how important it is and how big the potential payoff is. 

Senator BEGICH. Very good. Thank you. 

Let me go ahead and turn to Senator Rubio, my time is up, for 

his questions. 

Senator RUBIO. Thank you. 

I have two initial questions of this panel, and I’ll actually direct 

them at you, Mr. Cunningham, but Mr. Robins, I’d like to hear 

from you on these as well. 

The first is: should the Act be revised to offer greater flexibility 

in the rebuilding timelines for fisheries, if you could comment on 

that. 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Thank you. 

I think, as I mentioned in my comments, the New England Council feels that the focus should be on preventing overfishing, not on 

a set rebuilding timeline because as it currently is, we don’t have 

the scientific information that’s exact enough to allow us to rebuild 

to that set time period, so that’s where we think the emphasis 

should be placed, that councils should control overfishing. 

Senator RUBIO. So the Council would be supportive of an effort 

to offer greater flexibility with regards to how we view the 

timelines, given the data inadequacy? 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is the Council’s position, that’s correct. 

Senator RUBIO. Mr. Robins? 

Mr. ROBINS. Thank you, Senator Rubio. 

The Council doesn’t have a position per se, so I’ll be reflecting 

on our experience more broadly, but the Mid-Atlantic Council has 

been through the stock rebuilding process and so our constituents, 

our communities, have been through it. It was very difficult and we 

did that jointly with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission and many of those important fisheries such as Summer Flounder. But thinking back on back on some of these experiences, such 

as dogfish, when we rebuilt the spiny dogfish stock, the first action 

was to essentially close the fishery because it could be rebuilt within 10 years, but only at an extremely low level of catch, and so that 

fishery was essentially all but wiped out in the course of the stock 

rebuilding process in that 10-year period. 

I think the other exacerbating fact here is the fact that a lot of 

times, stock growth and stock rebuilding hinges on environmental 

conditions that facilitate recruitment and growth into that population. To the extent that those environmental variables are outside of our control, I think it would be helpful to have some flexibility to deal with those types of changing or adverse environmental circumstances when a council is trying to rebuild a stock, 

so some targeted flexibility, I think, could be in order. 

Senator RUBIO. At the core of all the testimony today has been 

the need for better data and better research. At the end of the day, 

we’re making decisions here sometimes with things that are 4 or 

5 years old and it’s impacting not just the livelihood of people who 

24 

live off of these industries, but quite frankly, on the recreational 

side; sometimes, we forget the economic impact that that has. I 

mean, I know in Florida, but I think this is true around the country, people pay a great amount of money, then stay at hotels and 

bring their boats in and take their families out, and it’s also just 

part of the culture of the place, I mean, it’s part of, certainly, the 

culture in South Florida and one of the greatest experiences I’ve 

had with my children is the ability to go out and fish and I’d hate 

to see any of that diminished at any point. 

I say all of that as a preface to the fact that one of the common 

practices now that the administration has is to divert in their annual budget the Saltonstall-Kennedy Funds that are received by 

NOAA. They would divert that away from the authorized uses and 

toward the agency’s operation and research fund. So I guess my 

question is, have you spent any time talking about the diversion 

of those funds to the extent that they undermine the availability 

of those funds for more research? Shouldn’t those funds go to their 

intended purposes and be appropriated, be used, so that NOAA can 

conduct more fishery research? 

Mr. BULLARD. I’d assume that question is for me. 

Senator RUBIO. Sorry, anybody on the panel could take it first. 

I know it’s—— 

Mr. BULLARD. We expect that Saltonstall-Kennedy will have funds this year for grants $5 to $10 million, and as you know, Congress has allocated a significant portion of Saltonstall-Kennedy for 

basic research, for stock assessments and cooperative research, in 

the past, and if it’s one thing I heard in the listening sessions that 

I’ve mentioned, it has been the need for stock assessments and 

basic science and frequently people saying that we need more frequent stock assessments. So Congress has used a portion of 

Saltonstall-Kennedy to fund that through operations and research, 

and so if the Congress wishes for Saltonstall-Kennedy Funds to be 

used for other purposes, then we’re going to need to find other 

sources of money for stock assessments, which is the most basic 

thing we do for management plans. I mean—— 

Senator RUBIO. Clearly, you’ve heard the need for more funds— 

this research costs money. 

Mr. BULLARD. Couldn’t agree more, but every—— 

Senator RUBIO. But you’re saying you just need Congressional 

authority to do that? 

Mr. BULLARD. The building block is the stock assessment; that’s 

what everything else is based on. 

Senator RUBIO. So your testimony is that we would need—what 

you’re asking or what you need in order to be able to do it that way 

using these funds is more Congressional authority to spend more 

of this money on the research component? 

Mr. BULLARD. The research is the fundamental building block 

and cooperative research, I mean, we applaud that, the intention 

is great. 

Senator BEGICH. Can I ask quick and then I’ll go to Senator 

Ayotte—Mr. Bullard, could you give us maybe again for the record, 

not right now, but maybe the last 5 years of that Fund and how 

that has been used? It can be in broad categories for now and then 

if there is additional information that maybe Senator Rubio or othVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:28 May 13, 2014 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\87797.TXT JACKIE
25 

ers might have on it, but maybe for the Committee, for the last 5 

years, the broad use in category; if you could present that, that’d 

be good. 

Mr. BULLARD. The last 5 years? Yes. 

Senator BEGICH. The last 5 years. I’m picking that date; I don’t 

know if Senator Rubio—does that sound okay? 

Senator RUBIO. Yes, that’s fine. 

Senator BEGICH. OK, that gives us a little range. Thank you. 

Mr. BULLARD. We’ll get that to you. 

Senator BEGICH. Senator Ayotte. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KELLY AYOTTE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Administrator Bullard, I’m really troubled. As you know, not only 

myself, but the New England delegation in January asked for approval of interim measures for 2013 for Gulf of Maine cod and haddock and you wrote back in January 14, 2013 and said no, we could 

not have interim measures for the Gulf of Maine cod and haddock, 

and really, the end result was, just to use a couple numbers, was 

that the New England Fisheries Managemewnt Council then had 

no choice as a result of your denial of interim measures but to vote 

on January 30 to approve unprecedented cuts, just decreasing the 

overall quota for Gulf of Maine cod by 78 percent for the years 

2013 to 2015, and to put that into perspective, that means fishermen’s allocation has been reduced from 6,700 metric tons in 2012 

to 1,550 metric tons beginning on May 1 of this year. I don’t know 

a business that can go from 6,700 tons to 1,550 tons, a 78 percent 

reduction, and survive, and this is a matter of survival for an honorable and noble profession in New Hampshire. 

New Hampshire fishermen, many of them have this in their families; they have fished the waters, they believe very firmly in sustaining the stocks because it’s part of their livelihood, and yet, they 

have not been given the opportunity to even transition; it’s just 

been drastic, the impact that they’ve felt. 

And it really bothers me, and so I want to ask you, when I look 

at national standard eight of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NOAA is 

directed to sustain both fishing stocks and fishing communities. 

What actions are you going to take to sustain our fishing industry 

in New Hampshire, and how do you expect the small boats to survive? In some ways, it’s almost the implementation of too big to fail 

in the fishing industry, the way this is working out for our small 

boats. So I just don’t know a business that can go with a 78 percent 

reduction and survive. So can you help me with this because this 

is just something that, you know, I’ve gotten to meet many of them, 

it just really bothers me and it just seems to me that they care 

deeply about what they do, we’re proud of them, and yet, so many 

of them are going out of business. 

Mr. BULLARD. Senator, I assure you, it bothers me too. I come 

from a fishing port and the condition of cod stocks in New England 

is something that keeps me up at night as well, and I wrestle with 

it. And especially, the situation in New Hampshire, a state that 

had six processing plants and is down to one, Yankee Co-Op. It is 

something that I thought long and hard about when we adjusted 

26 

the closure due to Harbor Porpoise at the request of the sector 

managers up there, persuasive to me at any rate, request. 

I think that in the long term, the answer is what can we do to 

rebuild the stocks, and the decision made by the Council in January to make that 77 percent cut, a courageous vote, is made to rebuild those stocks. Now, long term is one thing, if you can’t get to 

the long term because you go out of business, then what difference 

does it make—— 

Senator AYOTTE. Correct, and that’s what’s happening and I 

don’t fault the—I really don’t fault the Council for this because basically, the denial of the interim measures, I don’t think that they 

had a lot of choice at that point. And so, I guess I don’t understand 

the decision why we couldn’t at least be granted—— 

Mr. BULLARD. Extended interim measures—— 

Senator AYOTTE. Extend them, because you do have a dual purpose under the Magnuson-Stevens Act; it is, and seems to me, that 

it’s so dramatic what is happening to these fishermen, that they 

can’t even plan. Just basically, many of them just had to go out of 

business. 

Mr. BULLARD. And so, when I did my best to explain it, I said 

that there were two reasons to deny the interim measures. One 

was the legal reason, and when we granted interim measures 2 

years ago, we said we could do that; we found flexibility where 

many people thought there wasn’t, but we said we could only do 

that for 1 year. We made it very clear in granting that, that it was 

1 year and we did that and we said that we hoped that was a 

warning that allowed people some preparation to do that, but that 

it was for only year only and that we could not grant that for two 

years. So there was a legal reason. But the second reason was that 

the stocks, we couldn’t, from a biological standpoint—the cuts needed to be made, and so, that’s the other reason to do it. 

Now we still—there are other fish out there, and we are working 

very hard with the fishermen to find ways to get people through 

this. I met yesterday with Secretary Pritzker. She is a businesswoman. She looks at this same issue the way you do: how do you 

survive this cut in cod, in Gulf of Maine haddock? How do you get 

through this tough time? 

Senator AYOTTE. And as you can imagine, this was on the top of 

my list when I met with her as well. 

Mr. BULLARD. Yes, I’m sure. 

Senator AYOTTE. Her confirmation, because how can you survive? 

Mr. BULLARD. And other members of the delegation, how do you 

get through this? And as I’ve met with fishermen, they say the answer is we know how to catch fish. So there are other fish. How 

can we do this? How do we solve the problem? If we can’t catch cod, 

if we can’t catch Gulf of Maine haddock, if we can’t catch yellowtail 

flounder, there are other fish. If they don’t sell, if pollock doesn’t 

sell for the same price as cod, what can we do to catch the fish that 

are out there? What can we do to get the price? So we have developed with the industry, with others, resources, and what Secretary 

Pritzker said yesterday is I will do everything to help you, John, 

reach out to other agencies, state and Federal, and the industry 

and NGO’s, anyone who can bring something to the table, to help 

people get through this difficult time, either by catching the fish 

27 

that are out there in abundance and build markets, or to get relief. 

I know the Senate has moved along disaster assistance, whatever 

can be done to help people get through these difficult times while 

we rebuild stocks. I’m trying to not leave any stone unturned to 

help people get through this time while we rebuild these stocks. 

That’s the answer, though, rebuilding the stocks. 

Senator AYOTTE. I know that my time is up. I just want to say 

two things. Number one, I disagree with the legal interpretation. 

Mr. BULLARD. OK. 

Senator AYOTTE. I think that you could have granted the interim 

measures, but let’s put that aside for a minute. 

Mr. BULLARD. Yes. 

Senator AYOTTE. I think this goes to Mr. Cunningham’s point 

that he made earlier, making sure that we have good information 

because I know that there’s a lot of dispute in terms of what data 

is being used to implement the catch shares program that is having 

an impact on the fishermen. 

And so, finally, my final point would be if we do need to give 

flexibility under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, to make sure that 

there is a path that is more sensible, that we can also sustain the 

stocks, but not put people immediately out of business like that. 

We’ve got to do that. 

So I know my time is up and I thank the Chairman for the latitude, and I will probably stay because I do have a few more questions. Thank you. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much. 

Senator Blumenthal. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you very much for being here 

today, every one of the witnesses. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing, and thank 

you to my colleague from New Hampshire for articulating so well 

a number of the concerns that I have shared for many, many years, 

in Connecticut. As a matter of fact, as Attorney General, I took 

legal action because this system is such a failure, an abject failure, 

over many years in upholding the very interests that you have expressed in your testimony, Mr. Bullard, and I don’t blame any one 

of you because it really is the system and the lack of sufficient, reliable data, and you make reference to it in your testimony, Mr. 

Bullard, the need to improve the science that is so essential in this 

area, the estimates of stocks, the assessments that go into the conclusion that there has been overfishing and the need for rebuilding, 

and how that rebuilding should be undertaken so that it maximizes 

the interests of recreational as well as commercial fishermen. 

So my question to you is really more specifically what you think 

can be done, what should be done, to change this system? 

Mr. BULLARD. Well, I think there’s a lot in the system right now 

that works. I think the catch limits that make us face the music 

that was instituted in 2007 in Magnuson is an important part, important improvement, in Magnuson. I think it is a very good part 

of the system. I think I wouldn’t change that. So what would I 

change? Science can always be better. Counting fish is difficult 

28 

business and communicating science is also very difficult. Dr. Bill 

Karp, at the Science Center, has worked very hard to reach out to 

fishermen, to involve fishermen, but that can always be made better. The way we involve fishermen, the amount that is done, the 

resources available for cooperative research, that can always be improved. 

I think the impacts of climate on fishing is something that—I’m 

not a scientist, but how we understand the impacts that climate is 

having on the system can be made better and that’s something that 

can be made better. I think the way we manage and introduce ecosystem-based management and how that works with Magnuson 

Act, where Magnuson is based on managing single stocks and, 

again, related to climate change, the advantages that ecosystembased management has when you’re dealing with something like 

climate change—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. But let me just, if I may, interrupt. 

Mr. BULLARD. Yes. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Because I want to focus on the science 

issue. You know, the system may work well in some ways, as you 

suggested, but it has put out of business many, many fishermen in 

the State of Connecticut; I suspect the same is true in New Hampshire, so we’re not just talking about an abstract, speculative danger on the horizon. Some of this harm is already history, unfortunately. But, for example, a lot of the information that provides the 

basis for judgments made about rebuilding and shortages and overfishing and so forth are the result of observers. What kind of 

checks are there on the information that’s provided for observers 

and what kind of additional checks could there be? 

Mr. BULLARD. Well, I think that the system that doesn’t work for 

groundfish has worked very well in scallops, it’s worked very well 

in a lot of fisheries that have rebuilt, and so I think you have to 

look at why does a system work really well in most of the fisheries, 

the same system that you’re criticizing, works so well in generating 

jobs, in generating economic activity, but—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. But where it’s failed, why has it failed? 

Mr. BULLARD. Yes, why has it failed in one place and worked—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. That’s really why I’m—that’s the question 

I’m posing. 

Mr. BULLARD. Yes, and so—and I don’t have a good answer for 

why something works so well in the majority of fisheries, but in 

New England groundfish, the important, iconic fishery that defines 

New England, why has it failed in this one iconic fishery? 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, there may be more than one. 

Mr. BULLARD. Yes. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. But I think that, really, the challenge for 

all of us, most especially for you because it’s your—— 

Mr. BULLARD. That’s right. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL.—job to suggest to us how this system 

needs to be changed because it may be failing in just a few, it may 

be failing in more than a few areas, but wherever it fails, it is a 

failure that has powerfully damaging consequences to America and 

to the industry, so my time is expired, but again, thank you and 

thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much. 

29 

I know, Senator Ayotte, you have to leave; you wanted to make 

one quick comment about your questions. 

Senator AYOTTE. Yes, I appreciate it. 

I’m going to be submitting a question for the record, particularly 

to you and Mr. Cunningham, to get your perspective on what 

changes you think need to be made to make sure how we can improve the Federal Government’s role in the fishing management 

area, probably a little more specific than Senator Rubio’s; I appreciated his questions, but we really need your advice on this because 

it’s just unacceptable where we are. So thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much, and again, that’s the 

purpose of our hearing is to get as much information started on the 

table and as we move forward to the reauthorization because we 

need thoughts and ideas. 

Senator Markey, thank you very much. Welcome to your first 

subcommittee meeting here on something I know is dear to your 

heart and that’s the oceans and fisheries, so thank you very much. 

We have 5-minute rounds and you’re the next person up and then 

we have a group right after this. So please. 

STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much, and I’m 

very sorry that I was late for this important hearing. 

New England is the home of America’s first fisheries, so it is fitting that this subcommittee begins its work to reauthorize Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act by hearing 

from New England fishermen. 

Massachusetts has a long, proud and prosperous history based on 

the bounty of the ocean. I look forward to working with fishermen, 

their communities and this committee to ensure Massachusetts has 

a long, proud and prosperous future for fishermen and our coastal 

communities. 

But right now, that future is in question, as our region’s iconic 

fish and fishermen are struggling to survive. Many of our coastal 

communities are facing an economic disaster. The destruction is 

not as quick or as clearly delineated as the path of a tornado and 

we’ve had more warning than hurricane forecasts provide, and like 

drought, it may persist for multiple years, but it is still a disaster. 

Just as the Nation comes together to help the victims of tornados, hurricanes and droughts, we must help our fishermen in 

their time of need. I will continue to work with my colleagues in 

Congress for emergency fishing disaster funding, and with the 

Obama Administration, to explore every option available to help 

Massachusetts fishermen, their families and their communities, 

weather the current storm and steer into calmer waters where fishermen can maximize the harvest of healthy species. 

Let me ask this, Mr. Bullard, I appreciate the efforts that you 

and Mr. Karp at the Science Center are making to help our New 

England fishing communities through the current disaster to a 

more sustainable future, and I am glad to hear that helping fishermen is a priority for the Department of Commerce, and I look forward to working with you and her to address the disaster that 

30 

Massachusetts fishermen and coastal communities are experiencing. 

Mr. Bullard, you mentioned in your written testimony that the 

President’s budget requests for Fiscal Year 2014 include $10 million increase for NOAA to fund research on the impacts of climate 

on fisheries, with the focus on Northeast groundfish. What does 

NOAA hope to accomplish by undertaking this research and how 

could that help improve stock assessments and ultimately benefit 

fishermen? 

Mr. BULLARD. Thank you for your question, Senator Markey. I 

think, as I’ve mentioned, I’m not a scientist, but I am very concerned with the effects of climate on fishing. Twenty years ago, all 

you had to do in fishing in the Northeast is really think about how 

you managed overfishing; now, I think climate is something that 

exerts more and more of an impact and fishermen are the first who 

can tell you that. They’re out there, they see temperature changes, 

they see fish stocks moving north and east offshore and they see 

the impacts. They don’t have PH meters, so they’re not as aware 

of ocean acidification or its impacts, but they’re certainly going to 

be the recipients of those impacts. And today, as a matter of fact, 

in Providence, NOAA is hosting a workshop to understand the scientific gaps and understand this issue. There is, in the President’s 

Fiscal Year ‘14 budget, $10 million for this, and I think that what 

Dr. Karp has made very clear is that we need, despite all of the 

pressure to focus on stock assessments, stock assessments, stock 

assessments, we need more resources to understand the drivers, 

the climate change, water temperature, current change, ocean 

acidification, are going to have on fish stocks, on fish biology, on 

the development of larvae, and I hope Congress can support this 

part of the President’s budget because it’s going to provide insights 

that are going to help us manage fisheries and ecosystem change, 

minimize the economic disruption on fisheries, and so your interest 

is welcome. 

Senator MARKEY. Mr. Cunningham, in your written testimony, 

you indicate that there are some provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act that limit the ability to manage fisheries using an ecosystem approach; I would ask that you provide to the Committee 

and to me the specific provisions you think hinder ecosystem management and your suggestions of how to improve them. 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Well, certainly one of the issues with the way 

that the statute is written versus how you would manage under 

ecosystem-based management is the regions would be totally different than they are currently set up today. They may span areas 

that include two of the regions, and from a management standpoint, putting into the Act some ability to manage more, whether 

it’s on regionally or whether the councils themselves have much 

more ability to jointly manage stocks, those comments were really 

directed at things from the management standpoint, rather than 

what John was talking about on the science side of things. 

Senator MARKEY. So would you provide that information in writing to the Committee and to me as well, please? 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Certainly. Glad to. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

31 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much, and I know—again, 

thank you for the panel. We always have more questions than time 

and I know several of us, I just made some notes to myself of questions I’ll be submitting to you all for some additional follow-up, but 

I want to thank you; I know other members will have the same 

thing. 

If we can, we want to dismiss this panel. Again, thank you for 

your testimony. Thank you for being part of this and we have the 

Panel 2 to be put up next. Thank you all very much. We’ll take just 

a second here to change out, folks. Thank you for your attendance. 

[Pause.] 

Senator BEGICH. And as the next panel is coming forward, just 

a note to the members: there’s a noon vote, so we will attempt to 

get through all the testimonies as quickly as we can, and then if 

there’s time allowed, we’ll do questions. I’ll forego my questions for 

other members if they would like to ask. 

For the five members, can you go ahead and please be seated; 

just sit and they’ll put a nametag in front of you. There we go. 

Again, thank you all very much for your attendance. I’d like to 

start and just, again, go down the panel; we’ll go again from this 

side over and allow you your 5 minutes of testimony. Again, we appreciate your efforts to be here to help us move forward on the reauthorization of Magnuson-Stevens. 

Mr. Nick, is it Muto? 

Mr. MUTO. Muto. 

Senator BEGICH. Chairman of the Cape Cod Commercial Fishermen’s Alliance. I’ll have you up first and there’s the button there 

on the pad there for the microphone you need to turn on; if it turns 

the light on, that should work. Just tap the microphone, make sure 

it’s on. Perfect. You are on first. Thank you again for being here. 

Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN NICK MUTO, CHAIRMAN, CAPE COD 

COMMERCIAL FISHERMEN’S ALLIANCE 

Mr. MUTO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My name is Nick Muto. I’m a commercial fisherman from Chatham, Massachusetts. I’ve fished for nearly 15 years and have participated in just about every fishery we have on Cape Cod, from 

weir fishing in Nantucket Sound to groundfishing on Georges 

Bank. I’ve fished with just about every high-line captain in our 

community, and in 2009, I made the jump from crewman to captain, took on a tremendous amount of personal debt and risk and 

went out on my own. I now own and operate a lobster boat and I 

also fish for striped bass and dogfish. In the winters, I fish on another Chatham boat that fishes for monkfish and skates a hundred 

miles from Chatham. 

I also serve as Chairman of the Board of the Cape Cod Commercial Fisherman’s Alliance, which was formerly the Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fisherman’s Association. Our organization was 

founded over 20 years ago by independent, small boat family fisherman on Cape Cod, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this 

committee here today. 

When I started fishing in 2001, there were still dozens of boats 

landing codfish. Day in and day out, we’d land 6,000–8,000 pounds 

32 

of fish until we couldn’t really do it anymore. Cod was our mainstay and it had been for centuries, and today, I get a text or a 

phone call sometimes, anytime somebody lands more than a few 

hundred pounds of codfish and people actually get excited about 

that. You don’t see the thousands of pounds of fish like we used 

to. 

We have a community fishing quota. The codfish are worth 

money, but we can’t catch them and they’re not out there, and to 

me, that’s the major disaster in our community, and as I talk to 

other fishermen and look at the daily auction report, it seems to 

be that the story’s much the same throughout New England. 

Over the past decade, I’ve also seen our traditional weir fishery 

for squid, scup, mackerel and menhaden in Nantucket Sound go 

from a thriving and profitable one to one that’s almost extinct. This 

fishery is one of the oldest in the country and relies on healthy populations of forage stocks in shore and it hasn’t been from too-tight 

regulations that’s destroyed this fishery, it’s that we’ve depleted 

our bait stocks to the point that it’s not even viable to set the traps 

anymore. The traps that used to be overflowing with fish are now 

completely empty, and that means there is almost nothing in our 

inshore waters to catch and fish like cod, striped bass and tuna 

have nothing to eat. 

When we allow our forage base to be depleted like it is now, particularly in the inshore areas, we should not be surprised that 

when all the fish that rely on that bait don’t rebuild. Fishermen 

have focused on the understanding, the important interactions between these fish species and we need to have our managers to have 

a similar understanding of these interactions. They need to manage 

the ecosystem as a whole and protect these forage stocks. 

I bring up these fisheries not to make the whole thing seem 

hopeless, but to describe the nature of the disaster that we’re facing. Congress can help, but not by rolling back regulations, but by 

renewed commitment to the rebuilding of these stocks so my generation has a future in this industry. The Magnuson-Stevens Act, 

I believe, is the cornerstone of that commitment and is essential to 

turning around fisheries in New England, and those rebuilding efforts, I believe, depend on accountability. The good old days of fishing when you could just go out and fish to your heart’s content and 

come home, those are over, and right now, today’s managers, we 

need real-time information and that means reliable monitoring and 

catch reporting, and unless we can account for how many fish are 

being taken out of the ocean, we’re not really managing, we’re 

guessing. We need to rely on tools like electronic monitoring to 

achieve these goals and I think there’s funds for this and other 

changes in Saltonstall-Kennedy. 

Another critical part of improved management is mandating annual assessments for our commercial stocks, and there’s simply no 

way to effectively manage with annual catch limits without annual 

fish counts. With old information, we can’t protect the stocks that 

need protecting or reap the benefits of management measures that 

actually work. 

Fishermen on Cape Cod take great pride in our community, in 

our traditions, our independence and the idea that we’ve received 

33 

something from our fathers and our grandfathers and are going to 

pass that knowledge on to the future. 

The transition to new management systems, if done wrong, can 

put communities like my own out of the game from the start, unless we have the tools to protect ourselves and preserve access to 

the fisheries we’ve always depended on. 

By working more closely together, we can expand the support 

and kinds of innovative solutions like the Cape Cod Fisheries Trust 

and other permanent banks that small fishing ports like ours 

around the country are already building, and I believe Congress 

should be looking for every opportunity to support these efforts. 

It’s no secret that we’re facing a disaster in New England. The 

ground fishery is in a freefall and codfish that used to support our 

fisheries and our fishermen are on the verge of a collapse and we 

need to make changes. 

I believe the Magnuson Act is a solid foundation for moving forward and we need to build off it and improve it, and I think we 

can. I wouldn’t be here today if I didn’t believe we could, and I believe the future of our fisheries, that we can make the changes, and 

the success of my business depends on it. And I appreciate your 

time and listening to me today and welcome any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Muto follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NICK MUTO, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, 

CAPE COD COMMERCIAL FISHERMEN’S ALLIANCE

Chairman Begich, Ranking Member Rubio and Members of the Subcommittee, my 

name is Nick Muto, I’m a commercial fisherman from Chatham, MA. I’ve fished for 

nearly 15 years and have participated in just about every fishery we have on Cape 

Cod from weir fishing in Nantucket Sound to groundfishing on Georges Bank. I’ve 

fished with almost every highline captain in our community. In 2009, I decided that 

it was time to make the transition from crewman to captain, and I took on a tremendous amount of personal debt and risk to go out on my own. 

I now own and operate a 36 foot fishing vessel that primarily targets lobster, but 

I also catch dogfish, and striped bass. In the winters, in addition to doing trap work, 

I fish on another Chatham boat that targets monkfish and skates 100 miles to the 

south. 

I also serve as Chairman of the Board of the Cape Cod Commercial Fishermen’s 

Alliance (formerly the Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen’s Association). We are 

an organization founded over 20 years ago by independent small-boat family fishermen on Cape Cod. We now work with over 100 commercial fishing businesses annually catching more than 12 million pounds of seafood worth millions of dollars each 

year. These businesses support hundreds of fishing families and form the backbone 

of our area’s coastal economy. 

I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today about the future of our fisheries. 

Lack of fish means lack of opportunities 

I started fishing commercially in 2001, and I’m now one of the younger captains 

in our port. When I started working on groundfish boats, there were still dozens of 

trips of day boat codfish coming across our pier daily. We’d bring in 6,000 to 8,000 

pounds of cod a day for weeks until the tide ran too hard to fish and we got a few 

days off before starting again. Almost every boat fished in multiple fisheries over 

the course of the year, but cod was our mainstay and had been for centuries. Today, 

I get a text or call at home anytime someone lands more than a few hundred pounds 

a trip. People get excited about that little now. It’s not that we don’t have the quota; 

it’s not that we can’t get paid for them; it’s that the codfish aren’t there to catch! 

To me, that’s the disaster in our community. And as I talk to guys all over New 

England and I look at the daily report of what’s getting landed in other ports, it’s 

clear that the story is much the same throughout New England. 

Over the last 20 years, I’ve also seen our traditional fish-weir fishery for squid, 

scup and pogies in Nantucket Sound go from thriving and profitable to almost exVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:28 May 13, 2014 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\87797.TXT JACKIE
34 

tinct. This fishery, one of the oldest in the country, relies on healthy populations 

of forage stocks inshore. It hasn’t been too-tight regulations that destroyed this fishery; it’s that we’ve depleted our bait stocks to the point that it’s not even viable to 

pursue it. Traps that used to be overflowing with fish are completely empty! That 

means that there’s almost nothing in our inshore waters to catch, or for fish like 

cod, striped bass and tuna to eat. 

When we allow our forage base to be depleted like it is now, particularly in 

inshore areas, no one should be surprised when all the stocks that rely on that bait 

don’t rebuild. We need to manage the whole ecosystem. To me, that means we need 

to pay attention to the way these fish interact in the water. Fishermen have focused 

on understanding those interactions ever since the first fisherman ever set a net; 

it’s time for our managers to catch up to fishermen in recognizing the importance 

of managing the whole ecosystem. 

I bring up these fisheries, not make the whole thing seem hopeless, but to help 

describe the nature of the disaster we’re facing. We need help! But the help we need 

isn’t pretending our fish stocks aren’t depleted and trying to roll back regulations. 

We need a renewed commitment to rebuilding these stocks so that my generation 

has a future in this industry. That commitment is the cornerstone of the MagnusonStevens Act and it’s essential to turning our fisheries around in New England. 

Accountability, monitoring and enforcement 

Those rebuilding efforts depend on accountability. There are still plenty of people 

around that remember the ‘good old days’ before regulations when a guy could go 

out, fill his boat and do it again the next day without ever worrying about calling 

in or filling out a trip report. But those days are gone forever. Today, to manage 

to annual catch limits we need to have systems for monitoring and catch accounting 

that track information in real-time and feed it into our management decisions. Unless we can reliably account for how many are being caught, we’re not actually managing our fisheries to ACLs. 

But, as we build these monitoring systems, we need to keep in mind what our 

fisheries and vessels look like. I fish all winter on a small boat with three other 

guys. We steam over 100 miles each way, often through terrible weather, to the fishing grounds. That means we steam for over 24 hours to actually fish for less than 

6 hours. Unless we’re able to use electronic monitoring tools, we’re building a system to put an observer on a very small boat in dangerous conditions to sleep for 

24 out of 30 paid hours. With all due respect to our observers, and many of them 

are really good, hard-working people, I’ve never seen a camera show up late for the 

boat; puke over the rail; or stay in a bunk below-deck when we’re hauling gear. 

Electronic monitoring can get us the information we need without the cost, safety 

concerns or logistical hassles of trying to get the same coverage with observers. We 

need to accelerate using this technology for many of our fisheries; we just can’t keep 

refusing to change how we do things. 

I want to briefly discuss enforcement. Unfortunately in New England, because of 

serious abuses by some people at NOAA, ‘enforcement’ has become a dirty word. Almost any time I hear a politician talk about enforcement, they just want to rail 

against what happened years ago. Well, I want any NOAA employee that abused 

their authority in prosecuting fisheries violations punished and removed. The culture of that office had to change. But we absolutely need strong and fair enforcement in our fisheries to keep the playing field level; and, right now, I don’t see it. 

Without solid enforcement of our fishing rules, we might as well stop making new 

rules. Unreported catch and landings are quietly stealing from the future of our 

fisheries. We’ve got big enforcement problem and we need to fix it. 

Need for annual stock assessments 

Another critical part of improved management is mandating annual assessments 

for almost all our commercial stocks. Earlier I mentioned our winter fishery targeting monkfish and skates. There are actually seven different skate stocks all managed under one plan in New England. Years ago, one of these stocks, the barndoor 

skate was declared overfished and a landings prohibition was put in place to help 

them rebuild. These measures worked and now both fishermen and the government 

trawl survey are catching more and more barndoor skates each year. When we’re 

fishing for monkfish in the winter, we now spend most of our time picking tens of 

thousands of pounds of marketable barndoors out of our nets and throwing them 

senselessly over the side, often dead. That’s just on one trip on one boat. 

Why? Because we’re told that a formal assessment is needed before fishermen can 

be allowed to land and sell even a small amount of barndoor skates. This gets us 

back to the problem: we haven’t had an actual skate assessment since 2006 and we 

don’t have one planned until at least after 2016. That means that for this multiVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:28 May 13, 2014 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\87797.TXT JACKIE
35 

stock, open-access, targeted fishery, we won’t have an actual assessment in over a 

decade. That’s completely unacceptable! And in the meantime, our fisheries are 

wasting an unthinkable volume of this product at a time when we can’t afford to 

waste any opportunity for sustainable harvest in New England. 

Without annual assessments, we can’t protect the stocks that need protecting or 

reap the benefits of management measures that work. 

Investing in our fisheries 

I understand that more frequent stock assessments, better science, and expanded 

monitoring all cost money and that the regions need resources to make these 

changes. But, I think this can be done without increasing Federal spending. In the 

last Congress, Senators John Kerry and Olympia Snowe authored a bill that would 

reform the use of the Saltonstall-Kennedy (S–K) Fund. This money, taken from duties on imported fish products was always intended to provide resources for fisheries 

research and management. But over the years, it’s been redirected into NOAA’s Operations Account. This has totaled almost $1.7 billion from 2001 to 2010 and the 

estimated funds for 2014 are about $115 million. 

It’s time we recommitted these funds to the kinds of research projects and regional priorities like stock assessments and monitoring that they were always intended to pay for. 

Strengthening and supporting seafood markets 

We also have to work to build and support markets for those fish that are abundant. Don’t get me wrong, Georges Bank and the waters off New England are full 

of fish, they just aren’t the ones we have traditionally harvested and sold. Instead 

of cod, haddock and flounder the ocean is full of dogfish, skates and monkfish. Unfortunately, the markets for these species are extremely limited and the prices fishermen get when we can sell these fish often barely cover fuel and bait costs. 

We’re getting paid less now for our dogfish than we were over a decade ago, and 

this after fishermen took the cuts and made the sacrifices to rebuild the stock. We 

need congressional help to rebuild our markets. If there were greater demand and 

better markets, we could keep boats working in New England. And if were paid 

even a nickel or dime more per pound, it would make a huge difference. 

So the Fishermen’s Alliance, working with other New England fishing groups, has 

requested the USDA to include dogfish in their commodity food purchase program. 

This is a good product that could be used in many Federal food aid programs and 

food pantries. Our request has been supported by virtually the entire New England 

congressional delegation who I’d like to thank. Support from this Subcommittee for 

USDA purchases of dogfish could go a long way in helping create a domestic demand. As a country, we have invested and worked to stabilize markets for our Nation’s agricultural products; and we must take a similar approach with our domestic 

fisheries. 

Protecting our communities 

One of the last topics I’d like to comment on is how we protect our fishing communities as we reinvest in our fisheries and rebuild the resource. I hear the term ‘community’ thrown around all the time now. But the fishermen on Cape Cod take great 

pride in our community and always have. We take pride in our traditions, our independence and in the idea that we’ve received something from our fathers’ and 

grandfathers’ generations and are passing that knowledge on to the future. 

The transition to new management systems, if done wrong, can put communities 

like ours out of the game from the start unless we have the tools to protect ourselves and preserve access to the fisheries we’ve always depended on. That doesn’t 

mean that we can or should fight off needed changes to our management. It means 

we need to expand and support the kinds of innovative solutions that small fishing 

ports around the country are already building. Through the Fishermen’s Alliance 

and working with a local economic development group, fishermen in our ports have 

built the Cape Cod Fisheries Trust, a permit bank that works to secure permanent 

and affordable fisheries access for independent Cape Cod fishermen. Whether it’s 

through low-cost quota and loans to fishermen; business planning assistance to help 

young fishermen build stronger businesses; or local cooperative research, permit 

banks can offer an important tool for strengthening all fishing communities. 

Congress should be looking for every opportunity to support these efforts. 

Conclusion 

There’s no denying that we’re facing a disaster in New England. The groundfish 

fishery, especially, is in a freefall and the codfish stock that sustained our ports for 

centuries is on the verge of a total collapse. We need to make changes. We need 

to help the guys in the groundfish fishery who took on debt and bought permits with 

36 

the promise that things would turn around and who are now losing their boats and 

their homes. They have no options and they are desperate. Congress has to act. 

But I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t believe in the future of our fisheries, if I didn’t 

believe that we can make the changes that will result in more robust fish stocks 

and more profitable fisheries. I’ve built my business and tied my family’s fortunes 

to the success of commercial fisheries. That’s why I’m here today: I’m all in. 

In closing, I want to say we already have a strong law. It’s not perfect; but, with 

due respect to the Committee Members, few laws are perfect. The Magnuson Act 

is a solid foundation for moving forward and we need to build off of it and improve 

it. I think we can. 

Thank you, I’d be happy to answer any questions you have. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much and I know we have a 

good-sized panel here, so if folks could keep them as close to the 

time as possible, that’s important so we can have some questions 

before our noon vote. 

John McMurray, owner and operator of One More Cast Charters. 

John? 

STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN JOHN MCMURRAY, OWNER/ 

OPERATOR, ONE MORE CAST CHARTERS 

Mr. MCMURRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the 

Subcommittee. 

My name is John McMurray. I own a relatively successful charter fishing business in New York that employs three boats and 

three captains. I also sit on the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council, and in addition, I’m the Director of Grant Programs at the 

Norcross Wildlife Foundation. 

Today, however, I’m offering testimony mostly from the viewpoint of a charter boat captain, small business owner and a father. 

Without a doubt, the most nerve-wracking aspect of owning a 

business on the water is the host of variables: fuel costs, weather, 

water temperatures, but nothing is more important to a sustainable business model than an abundance of fish. With that in mind, 

I’d like to talk about summer flounder, one of several Mid-Atlantic 

stocks that are currently at or near historic highs. This was not always the case. As recently as the 1990s, the population was so 

badly overfished that it was nearly impossible to find a fish over 

2 years old. 

Things began to turn around with the Sustainable Fisheries Act. 

It mandated an end to overfishing and required overfished stocks 

to be rebuilt within a timeframe certain, which in most cases, was 

10 years. And so the Mid-Atlantic Council began to make a determined effort to rebuild overfished stocks. In 2006, reauthorization 

firmed things up with annual catch limits and accountability measure requirements. Perhaps more importantly, it required each 

council’s science and statistical committees, rather than politicallypressured state managers and other council members, set the 

upper limit for allowable catch. As a result, the Mid-Atlantic Council was the only regional fishery management council where, to the 

best of its knowledge, no stock was overfished and none are subject 

to overfishing. 

My charter business has undoubtedly benefited. On the water, I 

see more fluke than I’ve seen in 13 years as a captain, or my 25 

years as a saltwater angler. Frankly, up until the last few years, 

I never even bothered with them, as the inshore was composed alVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:28 May 13, 2014 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\87797.TXT JACKIE
37 

most exclusively of young, small fish. The large ones were few and 

far between and you generally had to go out 60 or even 90 feet of 

water and fish with 10 or 12 ounces of lead if you wanted to catch 

them. Today, summer flounder make up a substantial portion of 

my business, as 20-inch fish are relatively abundant and can be 

caught in shallow water close to home, and it seems to be consistently good from May to September, providing something to target 

in the traditional dog days of summer. I’m booking a lot more trips 

now during what has historically been a slow time of the year. 

Business interests aside, this fishery has become a recreational 

staple for my family. Early in May, I took my two 4-year-old twins 

out on their first fishing trip. First drift in a spot less than 5 minutes from where we live, my son catches a 28-inch fluke. Second 

drift, my daughter sticks a 24-inch fish. As is usually the case with 

four-year-olds, attention spans ran out, but only after several large, 

beautiful fish made their way into the boat. The look of pure and 

utter joy on their faces was worth any of the aforementioned business interests. We now try to do such family trips at least once a 

week, and we all look forward to them. 

I brought a prop. This, ladies and gentlemen, is a rebuilt fishery 

under Magnuson. This is my son and my wife with the mentioned 

28-inch fish. This sort of thing exists because the Mid-Atlantic 

Council made the hard decisions and adopted the hard caps on harvest that they recognized were essential to successfully rebuilding 

the stock. Sure, it was inevitable that there would be some economic pain associated with summer flounder’s recovery; however, 

the facts demonstrate that such pain was for the most part temporary and eventually well rewarded. 

In the Mid-Atlantic, according to the National Marine Fisheries 

Service, recreational fishermen caught 2.7 million flounder in 1989; 

in 2011, after the rebuilding, that number jumped to 21 million 

fish—that’s a 700 percent increase. NOAA fishery service numbers 

show angler trips over the last decade along the Atlantic coast up 

41 percent from the 1980s. During the rocky road to the recovery, 

many in the fishing industry said it couldn’t be achieved; the rebuilding goals were too ambitious, the timelines were too tight, and 

the catch limits were too strict. But it’s precisely because of such 

management action that we’re once again catching those older, 

larger summer flounder. 

Perhaps more importantly, I can take my family out with a reasonable expectation of catching a few keepers, and so can other fathers. The story’s similar for other recreational important fish that 

the Mid-Atlantic Council manages, such as black sea bass and 

scup, but of course, the picture is not all rosy; there are indeed 

some management problems which I won’t go into detail and list 

here. 

While the summer flounder’s recovery has been spectacularly 

successful, the collapse of winter flounder jointly managed by the 

New England Council and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 

Commission has been dismayingly sharp and complete. My business has been directly affected. In 1984, New York anglers harvested over seven million winter flounder; in 2012, they harvested 

only 43,000. When NMFS finally realized the depth of the flounder’s distress in 2009 and closed the fishery in Federal waters, 

38 

ASMFC left the state seasons open, but that didn’t matter to me 

because instead of fishing in March, I keep the boat up on blocks 

because there simply aren’t any fish around. 

Other species managed by the ASMFC haven’t fared well either; 

weakfish is one of them. That has affected my business as well. As 

a member of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, I can 

tell you that the implementation of the 2006 Magnuson-Stevens 

Act reauthorization, which was not easy, but it’s important we stay 

the course. Congress should not weaken the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

conservation provisions just as they stand on the threshold of success, for those measures are responsible for the turnaround in the 

Mid-Atlantic. There are still improvements to the Magnuson that 

should be made; the most important is to create a funding source 

for the science needed to produce better stock assessments, as well 

as funding for improved data collection and monitoring of our managed fisheries. It’s very important that we have a mechanism for 

funding observers, including a mechanism for cost-sharing with the 

industry. This is critical in our squid, mackerel and butterfish fisheries in determining herring bycatch. 

We also need better protection of forage and guidance on ecosystem management. Today, the ecological consequences of ecosystem overfishing are rarely considered when catch limits are set 

fishery by fishery. Council needs statutory guidelines on developing 

regional fishery ecosystem plans that apply basic ecosystem principles to all fishery management decisions. 

This concludes my testimony. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McMurray follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN JOHN MCMURRAY, OWNER/OPERATOR, ONE MORE CAST CHARTERS

Chairman Begich, Ranking Member Rubio, and members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for inviting me to share my perspective on the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act (MSA) in the Northeast region. My name is 

John McMurray. 

I’ve run a relatively successful fishing charter business for well over a decade, employing three boats and three captains. I sit on the Mid Atlantic Fishery Management Council, one of eight regional fishery management councils in the United 

States. I’m also the Director of Grant Programs at the Norcross Wildlife Foundation, 

which has distributed over 30 million in equipment grants, much of that used by 

organizations focused exclusively on fisheries and marine habitat protection. 

All of these positions, give me a unique perspective. However, today I’m offering 

testimony mostly from the viewpoint of a charter boat captain, small business owner 

and a father. 

While being a charter boat captain may seem like a dream to some, it’s actually 

very difficult and quite stressful. In this business, there are long hours (not just 

running trips but maintaining boats), early mornings and little time for sleep, clients who are paying what seems like a lot of money to catch fish, and daunting 

overhead expenses. Add to this the fact that at in my region fishing is seasonal, so 

most Captains, like me, have at least one other job they have to attend to. However, 

the most nerve-wracking aspect of this business is the dependence on a host of completely uncontrollable variables, such as weather, water temp, clarity, bait concentrations, salinity, chlorophyll levels etc. But nothing is more important to a sustainable business model than an abundance of fish to catch. Without such an abundance of fish, other variables matter little. 

With that in mind I’ll focus on summer flounder (aka fluke). Summer flounder is 

one of several Mid Atlantic fish populations that are currently at or near historic 

highs. That was not always the case; as recently as 1990, the population had been 

so badly overharvested that it was nearly impossible to find a fluke more than two 

years old. For years, fishing for summer flounder was dismal, with few fish meeting 

the 14-inch size limit that prevailed at the time. Things began to turn around after 

39 

Congress enacted the Sustainable Fisheries Act, which, for the first time, mandated 

an end to overfishing and required overfished stocks to be rebuilt within a time certain, which in most cases was ten years. At first, the Mid-Atlantic Council seemed 

to dismiss the conservation provisions of the new law, as it adopted a supposedly 

compliant amendment to the summer flounder management plan that had only had 

an 18 percent chance of succeeding. However, after a Federal appeals court found 

that plan inadequate in Natural Resource Defense Council v. Daley, and decided 

that, at a minimum, a fishery management plan must have no less than a 50 percent chance of ending overfishing and rebuilding a stock within the established 

deadline, the Mid-Atlantic Council adhered to the mandate of the law and made a 

determined effort to rebuild overfished stocks. As a result, it is now the only regional fishery management council where, to the best of its knowledge, no stock is 

overfished, none are subject to overfishing and just one, tilefish, remains in the rebuilding stage. My charter fishing business has certainly benefitted from the MidAtlantic Council’s actions. 

On the water, I see more fluke than I have ever seen in my 13 years as a Captain, 

or my 25 years as a saltwater angler. This is one fishery where I don’t have to 

stress about abundance levels. Frankly, up until the last few years I never even 

bothered with them, as the inshore fishery was composed almost exclusively of 

small, young fish. The large ones were few and far between, and you generally had 

to go out to 60 or even 90 feet of water and fish with 10 or 12 oz. of lead if you 

wanted to catch them. Today, summer flounder make up a substantial portion of 

my business, as 20-inch-plus fish are relatively abundant and can be caught in shallow water close to home. They are really fun to catch on light-tackle and they are 

great eating fish. My clients really enjoy fluke fishing these days, and it seems to 

be consistently good from May to September, providing me and my clients something to target in the traditional ‘‘dog-days’’ of summer. I’m booking more trips now 

during what has historically been a slow time of the year. 

Business interest aside, this fishery has become a recreational staple for my family. Early in May of this year I took my 4-year old twins out for their very first fluke 

trip. First drift in a spot less than 5 minutes from where we live, my son catches 

a 28′′ fluke. Second drift my daughter sticks a 24′′ fish. As is usually the case with 

4-year-olds, attention spans ran out quickly, but only after several more large beautiful fish. The look of pure and utter joy on their faces were worth more than any 

aforementioned business interest. We now try and do such family trips at least once 

a week. We all look forward to them. 

THIS is what a fishery rebuilt under the current Magnuson Stevens Act looks 

like, and it exists because the Mid-Atlantic Council made the hard decisions and 

adopted the hard caps on harvest that they recognized were essential to successfully 

rebuilding the stock. But those decisions were not popular at the time that they 

were made. 

It was inevitable, given how badly summer flounder and other stocks had been 

overfished prior to 1996, that there would be some economic pain associated with 

the summer flounder’s recovery, which was suffered not only by the commercial fishing industry, but the recreational fishing industry as well, which saw its seasons 

and bag limits shrink while the stocks recovered from decades of overfishing. However, the facts now demonstrate that such pain has been well rewarded. 

In the Mid-Atlantic, according to the National Marine Fisheries Service, recreational fishermen caught some 2.7 million summer flounder in 1989. In 2011, 

after rebuilding, that number jumped to more than 21 million fish. That’s a 700 percent increase! NOAA fisheries service’s numbers show angler trips over the last decade along the Atlantic Coast up 41 percent from the 1980s. In the Mid-Atlantic 

alone, according to the fisheries service, by the mid-2000s, that has brought in an 

additional $1.4 billion in economic activity and supported 18,660 jobs. On the commercial side, the success story is similar. Gross commercial revenues for summer 

flounder are up more than 60 percent since 2000, when the rebuilding plan was put 

in place. And, in total, all of the rebuilt fish stocks brought in, on average, $585 

million in gross commercial revenues every year from 2008–2010. 

During the rocky road to recovery many in the fishing industry said rebuilding 

couldn’t be achieved—the rebuilding goals were too ambitious, the timelines were 

too tight, and that catch limits were too strict. But it’s precisely because of such 

management action that we’re once again catching those larger, older summer 

flounder. I take clients out on fluke trips now and know that we have a good shot 

at landing big fish and that I won’t have to fillet 14-inch juveniles. It’s more enjoyable for everyone! 

Without a doubt the Magnuson Stevens Act requirements for science-based goals 

and firm deadlines serves the general public, who own the resource, even if a few 

business interests may have suffered a short-term decline in profits. But, as the 

40 

aforementioned statistics show, even they now benefit from a fully restored stock. 

Perhaps more importantly, I can take my family out with a reasonable expectation 

of catching a few keepers and so can other Dads. 

The story is similar for other recreationally important fish the Mid Atlantic Council manages, such as black seabass and scup. But of course the picture is not all 

rosy. Some management problems remain. In the summer flounder fishery, because 

the size limit is considerably higher than it has historically been (undoubtedly the 

reason there are large fish around now), the recreational discard mortality (about 

10 percent of the throwbacks don’t survive) is significant. This is a problem deserving of the Mid Atlantic Council’s attention, and it’s getting it. Yet, I can’t help but 

note that the fishery has been rebuilt despite such discards, so overfishing was 

clearly a much bigger problem and, in the end, something eats those fish; they all 

go back into the marine ecosystem. There are also serious ‘‘fairness’’ issues with the 

state-by-state allocation system that currently exists, but that is a complicated political issue and I’m not sure any ‘‘fix’’ to the Magnuson Act would help. 

In the black seabass fishery there are issues with uncertainty in the stock assessment and the way accountability measures are applied in the recreational fishery. 

Because of imprecise estimates that show big picture trends rather than year-byyear accuracy, accountability measures such as pound-for-pound paybacks are not 

practicable. But the Mid Atlantic Council is in the process of developing reasonable 

solutions to such problems. Such individual solutions should be created by the competent regional Councils as they arise elsewhere. Changes in Magnuson that will 

inevitably effect all fisheries to fix regional species-specific problems would be a 

form of legislative overkill that likely would, when applied across the board, create 

far more problems that they solved. 

Summer flounder, and the other fisheries managed by the Mid Atlantic Council, 

provide a good example of how this Council took the right approach to management, 

setting hard catch limits and enforcing them, despite the political pressure brought 

by some narrow economic interests. They stand in stark contrast to the still-depleted fisheries managed by, for example, the New England Fishery Management 

Council, which relied on various input controls such as trip limits, days at sea, etc. 

in order to avoid setting poundage limits on landings, and so never effectively reduced harvest. Now truly painful measures are required because they failed to embrace effective measures—such as hard harvest caps—since the Sustainable Fisheries Act was enacted in 1996. 

My business has been directly affected by such failure, for while the summer 

flounder’s recovery has been spectacularly successful, the collapse of the winter 

flounder, jointly managed by the New England Council and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), has been dismayingly sharp and complete. 

Even two decades ago, New York anglers could legally catch winter flounder 

throughout the year, although the ‘‘traditional’’ start of the fishery was St. Patrick’s 

Day, March 17, and anglers often came home with buckets overflowing with fish. 

Today, we are limited to a 60-day season in April and May, and permitted to keep 

only 2 12-inch fish per day. In 1984, New York anglers harvested nearly 7,400,000 

flounder; in 2012, they harvested 43,500. When NMFS finally realized the depth of 

the flounder’s distress in 2009, and closed the fishery in Federal waters, ASMFC 

left the state seasons open. But that doesn’t really matter to me, because instead 

of booking flounder trips in March, I keep my boat on land because, even if the law 

still allowed it, no one is going to book a charter trip to catch two 12-inch flounder. 

Unfortunately, winter flounder are only one of the species managed, in whole or 

in part, by ASMFC that haven’t fared very well, precisely because that management 

body doesn’t have to comply with Magnusson Stevens Act standards, may ignore 

overfishing and is not required to rebuild overfished stocks. Striped bass remains 

ASMFC’s only notable ‘‘success’’, but the real success took place 18 years ago after 

things got so bad that many states imposed a moratorium on the fishery, and it was 

finally recovered under a management plan that protected 95 percent of the spawning stock, a far higher level of protection than is imposed under the vast majority 

of the plans created pursuant to the Magnusson Stevens Act. And the current outlook for striped bass is not good. ASMFC’s 2011 Stock Assessment Update states 

that the striped bass spawning stock biomass will fall below its threshold in 2017, 

which means that the stock will be overfished in four years; despite that fact, proposals to reduce harvest and stop the decline have been deferred or rejected by 

ASMFC’s striped bass management board, pending a new stock assessment. 

ASMFC rarely, if ever, takes action to avert a crisis. Unconstrained by Federal 

law, it waits until such stocks are on or beyond the threshold of disaster before action is taken. I have already mentioned its failure to adopt the New England Council’s measures to protect winter flounder. Weakfish, which used to be a substantial 

portion of my spring business, provide a similar example. Today they are virtually 

41 

gone; the last stock assessment indicates that just 3 percent of the spawning stock 

remains, yet ASMFC refused to follow the advice of its scientists, who advised that 

closing the fishery was the only way that the stock might begin to recover by the 

year 2020. 

Abandoning the conservation and management provisions of the Sustainable Fisheries Act, in favor of an ASMFC-like model, as some in the recreational fishing community are now suggesting, is a step back in time that will ultimately hurt both 

fish and fishermen. Firm rebuilding deadlines appear to be the only things that get 

managers, who are often under intense pressure from constituents to continue overfishing, to take action. As unpopular as they may be, hard quotas represent the only 

approach that has ever fixed things. 

As a member of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council I can tell you that 

implementation of the 2006 Magnusson Stevens Act Reauthorization has not easy, 

but it is important that we stay the course. The Magnuson Stevens Act is working, 

and this is important for my business, my community and my family. The Mid-Atlantic has turned the corner and ended overfishing, and we have rebuilt depleted 

fish populations like summer flounder, black seabass and scup. Such success and 

has improved fishing, the coastal economy, and the ocean environment for the longterm. Now is not the time to retreat from the hard work we’ve done and the 

progress we are seeing on the water. 

Last year NOAA Fisheries announced that the end of overfishing is in sight, with 

annual catch limits, mandated by the 2006 reauthorization, now in place in all federally-managed fisheries. In a marine environment where overfishing has long been 

the rule, reaching a point where it is the exception is indeed a milestone. Having 

each council’s Science and Statistical Committee, rather than politically-pressured 

state managers and other council members who, like myself, make a living from 

catching fish, set the upper limit for allowable catch results in far more effective 

management plans. Congress should not weaken the Magnusson Stevens Act’s conservation provisions just as they stand on the threshold of success, for those measures are responsible for the turnaround in the Mid-Atlantic and around the country, 

and the last thing we want to do is to go back to the failed policies of the past. 

Still, there are certainly improvements to the Magnusson Stevens Act that should 

be made. The most important is to create a funding source for the science needed 

to produce better stock assessments, as well as funding for improved data collection 

and monitoring of our managed fisheries. Black seabass provide a good example of 

such a need. The species’ life history—they are the only protogynous hermaphrodite 

found north of Cape Hatteras—creates a challenge for managers. The most recent 

stock assessment was rejected in January 2012. Fishermen argue that there are 

plenty of black sea bass around and that landings can be safely increased, but given 

the currently available information, managers can’t prudently concur. The only way 

to find the real answers is to dedicate adequate financial resources. 

We also need better protection of forage and guidance on ecosystem management. 

National Standard #1 says we will prevent overfishing while achieving the ‘‘optimum yield’’ (OY) from each fishery. OY is defined as providing ‘‘the greatest overall 

benefit to the Nation,’’ taking into account food production, recreation and protection 

of ocean ecosystems. In reality, though, the ecological consequences of fishing—‘‘ecosystem overfishing’’—are rarely considered when catch limits are set fishery-by-fishery. We know through experience that even what is commonly referred to as ‘‘sustainable fishing,’’ especially of keystone predators or prey, can cause dramatic shifts 

in ecosystem communities. Councils need statutory guidance on developing regional 

Fishery Ecosystem Plans that apply basic ecosystem principles to all fishery management decisions. A new National Standard requiring that all management measures prevent ecosystem overfishing would give these comprehensive plans teeth, a 

change that will in turn trigger new Federal guidelines akin to what we have done 

to prevent conventional overfishing 

Lastly, as a recreational industry member of the Mid Atlantic Council, I would 

like to see statutory language that requires a periodic—every five years or so—look 

at the allocation between sectors to provide the greatest overall benefit to the nation, as the Regional Councils are generally uncomfortable addressing such unpopular questions on their own. 

This concludes my testimony. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much. 

Next, we have Patrick—is it Paquette? 

Mr. PAQUETTE. Yes. 

42 

Senator BEGICH. Paquette. Recreational Angler. Patrick, thank 

you. 

STATEMENT OF PATRICK PAQUETTE, 

RECREATIONAL FISHING ADVOCATE 

Mr. PAQUETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Markey. 

My name is Patrick Paquette. I’m a recreational angler from the 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts. I’ve been working in various aspects of the recreational fishing industry for the past 20 years. I’ve 

served in dozens of elected positions with local and East Coast-wide 

recreational fishing organizations and more recently, I worked as 

a consultant and organizer and professional advocate, and worked 

with groups from Maine to North Carolina. I’ve been interacting 

with the fisheries management system for over a decade and I regular attend the Mid-Atlantic Council, the New England Council 

and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. I’m honored 

to be invited to testify this morning and I’m not representing anyone specific and I’m slightly grateful for that. 

I want to emphasize an overarching point and that is that, in my 

opinion, the Magnuson-Stevens Act is working, and I can’t say that 

enough. The results of the 2006 reauthorization are only just starting to be seen and that’s a theme that I’m going to repeat a couple 

of times as I go through this. I do not believe MSA needs an overhaul. In fact, as you consider options and proposals over this process you’re undertaking, I’d ask you to take extreme care because 

every single word that changed guarantees us a legal challenge at 

some point, and every single one of those legal challenges, in my 

opinion, delays rebuilding and delays and causes more pain to fishermen on the other end. Every time we’re tied up in a court onshore, good management is put aside, from any side, from any perspective. And so, changes need to come slowly and carefully and I 

just want to urge that. 

This being said, I absolutely see challenges in fisheries management that I think Congress can and should consider addressing. 

My good news to you this morning is that most of those issues either come from incomplete implementation of the Act; they come 

from failures in leadership, failures in management, and in rare occasions, failures in science. 

Recreational fishing is a national pastime, but it’s also an economic engine that is a major and growing source of jobs in the 

United States. NOAA’s own Fisheries Economics of U.S. 2011 

found that recreational fishermen took over 70 million trips in that 

year. To put that in perspective, the total attendance at Major 

League Baseball games was 73 million. Recreational fishing is as 

big as baseball. 

My first marine fishing was done with my father and brothers 

for winter flounder. I’m not surprised I’m the second person talking 

about winter flounder. At times, I learned to fish on the docks of 

Boston Harbor or we would go to the harbor and we’d catch flounder with my dad and brothers. We’d watch skiffs populate every 

corner of Boston Harbor that were rented from buses from New 

York and New Jersey and Pennsylvania and Ohio, and they came 

to fill five-gallon buckets with winter flounder. Those fish collapsed, those buses stopped coming, and the kids in the city of BosVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:28 May 13, 2014 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\87797.TXT JACKIE
43 

ton no longer grew up fishing at the Castle Island Pier for winter 

flounder. Eventually, we got some striped bass, but at that time, 

there were no striped bass and it’s taken a long time for that fishery to come back. We’ve only recently got some more quota. That 

fishery wasn’t rebuilt in 10 years. That fishery wasn’t required to 

rebuild in 10 years because of the way Mr. McMurray brought it 

up. So even though it is coming back, it’s taking too long and it’s 

something that Congress might want to consider correcting. 

The 2006 MSA reauthorization required a total restructuring of 

recreational fisheries data is collected and analyzed. The implementation of MRIP thus far has not gone well and is a long way 

from being complete. State by state, stakeholders went through the 

pain of instituting registries, deciding if they wanted to take on a 

license in their state or go with the Federal program, and we did 

that. Unfortunately, the first experience under this new system 

and the promise of a 2006 Magnuson, the first experience of an updated data collection program was a new analysis of the same old 

data from NMFS. We didn’t get the new data stream online first; 

we fixed the analysis, which to many of us, seemed backward, and 

although there may be some internal reasons that that happened, 

the other end of that is that the public trust has been hurt yet 

again, and people like myself who try and translate fisheries management to recreational stakeholder groups, we struggle greatly in 

trying to explain to somebody how we decided to analyze things differently before we got the better data. It’s seven years later and 

even Massachusetts, which is a national leader in collecting that 

recreational data, we’re not really online yet; we’ve just gone online 

in March of this year. So the 2006 reauthorization needs to be implemented; it needs to continue to be implemented. 

My community easily understands ecosystem-based management. 

Every child, every child is first taught: if you want to go fishing, 

big fish eat little fish, and to catch fish, you find the bait. That’s 

not hard to understand, it really isn’t, and we want that. We want 

ecosystems protected; we want the relationships between forage 

fish and predator fish to be included in management plans. 

I’m over time so I’m going to—if I could just read one small 

thing, and that is just that I hope my overall message has been 

that, as written, the Act does a good job in ending overfishing. We 

have to complete the implementation of what’s gone on and we 

need to fast track ecosystem-based management. I submitted an 

eight-page document where I expand on all of these. Thank you 

very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Paquette follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PATRICK PAQUETTE, RECREATIONAL FISHING ADVOCATE

Chairman Begich, Ranking Member Rubio, and members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for inviting me to share my perspective on the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act (MSA) in the Northeast and Mid Atlantic regions. My name is Patrick Paquette and I am a recreational fisherman from the 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Since my first job as a regular customer turned 

mate on Gloucester Party boats fishing for New England groundfish, I have spent 

over twenty years working in the many sub sections of the recreational fishing industry. My experience includes working my way up the chain as a mate, captain 

and owner of a small charter fishing vessel, working in the development, sales and 

marketing of fishing tackle and writing about both sport fishing and regional recreational fishing management issues for a variety of media outlets. I have served 

44 

in dozens of volunteer and elected positions in the organized recreational fishing 

community. More than a decade ago I became heavily engaged within the fishery 

management system. My body of experience has lead me to work with recreational 

fishing and beach access groups from North Carolina to Maine seeking a balance 

between sound management and conservation all aimed at benefiting the recreational fishing community. 

I regularly attend meetings of both the New England and Mid Atlantic Fishery 

Management Councils, in addition to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. I have and continue to serve as an advisor to various sub groups under each 

of these management bodies. 

I am honored to be invited to testify this morning and do so representing no specific organization. In this testimony, I’ll cover the unique importance of the recreational fishing community and the challenges we face, and I’ll discuss significant 

progress that could be made without changing the law, and offer some thoughts I 

hope you keep in mind as you begin the process of reauthorization. 

The MSA is Working 

I want to emphasize the overarching point that the Magnuson-Stevens Act is 

working, the results of the 2006 reauthorization have only just begun to take effect 

and any changes at this time should be given extremely rigorous consideration. I 

am sure that today and through out the process, the Subcommittee will hear about 

problems we face in the Northeast and Mid Atlantic fisheries, but I think it’s important to recognize that progress has been made toward ending overfishing and rebuilding many fish stocks is underway. 

I do not believe the MSA needs an overhaul. In fact, as you consider opinions and 

proposals, I urge you to approach this reauthorization always keeping in mind the 

unfortunate reality that each and every change, even to a single word, has the potential to inspire costly legal challenges that can drag on for years. This legal wrangling always frequently puts our fish stocks, our fishermen, and the goal of ensuring 

consistent, healthy and sustainable long-term fisheries further away from being realized. 

This being said, I do see challenges in fisheries management that I think Congress should consider during the process of reauthorizing the Act. My good news to 

you this morning is that many of these issues are the result of either incomplete 

implementation of the Act (specifically the 2006 reauthorization) or failures of leadership, management and the ability of strained resources preventing science from 

keeping up with an increased change in our ocean environment rather than the 

problems being found within the Act itself. I believe this is good news, because it 

is much easier to repair the plumbing than to demolish and rebuild the whole building. 

The Value of Recreational Fishing in the Northeast 

Recreational fishing is a national pastime, but it is also an economic engine that 

is a major and growing source of jobs and income, supporting small businesses along 

the coast. For too long, our community has been underappreciated, our economic impact underestimated resulting in our being underrepresented in Federal fisheries 

management, and this has played out in both allocation decisions and a lack of developing management strategies to manage our portion of fisheries in a manner that 

is fair and makes sense. 

The latest National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) ‘‘Fisheries 

Economics of the U.S. 2011’’ report found that recreational fishermen took over 70 

million trips in 2011, which I think is probably an underestimate. To put that in 

perspective, the entire Major League Baseball attendance for the same year was 

around 73 million. In the Northeast, 3.7 million anglers took 22.1 million fishing 

trips. Recreational fishing jobs, income, sales, and the overall value it has added to 

the U.S. economy have all increased significantly since 2008 despite downward national economic trends. 

Each individual trip has much broader secondary impacts in terms of income and 

jobs through associated businesses and industries including boat sales and maintenance bait and tackle, even gas and food in coastal communities. According to the 

NOAA report, in 2011 recreational fishing added $1.1 billion in sales impacts in 

New England alone. In the mid-Atlantic, the contribution was even larger, $3.8 billion in sales impacts which was greater than the contribution of commercial fishing. 

Unfortunately, the council makeup in our regions does not reflect this reality, so 

we often lose out in decisions. For example, past allocations of quotas for many key 

species have become fossilized. We need a more equitable distribution of stakeholders on councils. Although this can be addressed without opening the Act, I fear 

Congress may need to intervene to fix this imbalance of representation. 

45 

The Benefits of MSA Conservation Successes 

Again, while I see room for improved implementation I want to emphasize the law 

is working. The MSA’s conservation requirements are strong and smart, and the law 

is working to benefit our nation, including millions of recreational saltwater fishermen like me. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) reported in its latest 

Status of U.S. Fisheries that 32 previously overfished federally managed stocks, like 

summer flounder and bluefish, have been rebuilt since 2000. While states played an 

important role in contributing to these successes, the MSA was a driving force that 

instituted a science-based approach to management in the Northeast, and it will accomplish far more if it is fully implemented. 

My first marine fishing was done with my father and brothers fishing for winter 

flounder from the docks and piers of Boston Harbor. We would watch busloads of 

anglers rent skiffs or hire charter vessels in coastal communities like Quincy MA 

to fill buckets with winter founder. These tourists populated hotel rooms and frequented seaside businesses. As winter flounder stocks collapsed for many reasons, 

the busses no longer came and the children of Boston no longer lined the docks on 

a weekend afternoon. Due to many circumstances, it has taken a long time to rebuild winter flounder but it is happening. In recent years catch limits for winter 

flounder have increased. I am convinced that without the MSA, this rebuilding 

would not be ongoing. 

NMFS has said that the return on investment from rebuilding all Federal stocks would be $31 billion in sales activity and 500,000 new jobs. Many of these gains 

would be realized by recreational fishermen and associated businesses. So I believe 

that Congress must heed these successes and stay strong in its current commitment 

to ending overfishing and restoring populations through science-based catch limits 

based on well informed stock assessments coupled with reasonable accountability 

measures that support robust rebuilding plans. We can, nonetheless, improve on the 

current system—especially with regard to the recreational sector. 

A Changing Ocean 

Fisheries in New England and the mid-Atlantic are changing at a pace that is 

hard for someone not regularly on the water to understand. To comply with the 

MSA, fisheries management must be able to keep up with this new reality. The best 

example that I can provide is that in the summer of 2012, black sea bass, a species 

associated with the Mid Atlantic and Southern New England were encountered in 

surprisingly catchable numbers in Boston Harbor, a place where previously it was 

a news item when even one of these fish was caught. The spring and summer of 

2013 has seen both private anglers and for-hire operators actually targeting black 

sea bass and while doing so, they are now catching scup, another fish not known 

to be common north of Cape Cod. Another example of this is that over the last 

month I have heard multiple reports of cobia being caught in RI and southern MA 

waters. 

I view these personal observations, in the context of recent scientific studies, as 

irrefutable evidence that climate change or ocean warming is affecting fisheries at 

a previously unseen rapid pace. One important way managers can react to these 

kinds of changes is for the management system to be producing timely catch data. 

The only solution is to invest in recreational management and complete the implementation of the 2006 required update to recreational data collection so that the 

best possible science drives management, adjustments can be made quickly, and accountability measures will be based on reliable and timely data. Managers should 

not be asked to choose between timeliness and accuracy of data. We need to make 

decisions on better than three year old data and we must collect data in the most 

accurate way possible. I understand this is an expensive suggestion. My response 

to the obvious question is to urge you to take a hard look at how much money is 

being spent on recreational fisheries in the North East and Mid Atlantic and compare it with both the direct and indirect economic impact of recreational fishing. 

There is a fundamental difference between managing commercial and recreational 

fisheries. Commercial fisheries effort and catch is more predictable and easier to 

manage because it is based on how much fish is taken from the ocean, usually done 

in pounds. Recreational catch and more important to the scientific analysis, recreational fishing effort is largely determined by availability of fish stocks or numbers of fish. In essence, commercial fisheries require fish, while recreational fisheries require the opportunity to catch fish. In that sense, recreational fishery impact 

can seem less tangible—but as I explained earlier there is hard data to suggest that 

recreational fishing has a momentous effect on the economy. It may be appropriate 

to consider MSA provide some direction that clarifies managers can use different 

tools to approach this fundamental difference. Managers must have the ability to 

address this difference across a comprehensive management plan strategy as opVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:28 May 13, 2014 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\87797.TXT JACKIE
46 

posed to the current norm of picking some specific point and doing a calculation that 

in almost every case sees negative consequences for the recreational fishery. My 

view is that ability to address these fundamental differences exists now, however 

an institutionally the management system seems stuck in a ‘‘this is how we do it’’ 

state of mind. Also preventing progress is a lack of consideration of economic impacts and a lack of representation on councils, which muffles fresh ideas before they 

are given serious analysis, and consideration. 

The Need for Improved Management of Recreational Fisheries 

The 2006 MSA reauthorization recognized major problems in recreational fishing 

management and required a total restructuring of how recreational fisheries data 

is collected, how catch is monitored, and how the results are analyzed. This new 

program was named the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP). I submit to you that although most state and local communities adhered to the program, 

the implementation of MRIP thus far has not gone well and is a long way from 

being complete. State by state, community by community, managers and the public 

went through great pains implementing the MRIP’s required Federal registry which 

in most cases became a salt water fishing license. While this was going on, NMFS 

focused on developing new analytical methods. 

Unfortunately, by choosing to develop the MRIP analysis methodology before completing development of MRIP data collection methodology, the first experiences of 

the recreational community under the new system involved being presented with an 

updated way of looking at the same data most agree is unreliable, and has failed 

independent scientific review because it was never designed to be used for the kind 

of management it was informing. Instead of building on the promise of the reauthorized Act, the result was disappointment and a feeling that our community was simply tricked into paying for the right to go fishing. 

Without improved recreational data to provide the foundation, there is no chance 

management will be able to make better decisions. No amount of good will and outreach by NMFS will supercede our problems with data reports that in some cases 

do not pass even a common sense review. 

My point is that damage has been done. A change to the Act will not repair this 

damage. What will begin the long process of repairing the recreational fishing communities trust is finishing implementation, stabilizing the data collection methodology and getting new and better data into the system. It is tough for me to consider 

changing a system that is not yet online after seven years. 

For my community, the rubber really meets the road when management decisions 

get translated into accountability measures in the context of the large amounts of 

uncertainty or imperfection of recreational catch data. I can not repeat enough the 

reality that recreational fishing effort fluctuates on both actual availability of fish 

to catch and on the ability to catch fish. Councils definitely need to approach accountability measures based on unique situations, and that flexibility already exists 

in the MSA. With the exception of the fundamental constraint of not allowing overfishing, the Act allows plenty of opportunity for creative management strategies 

when it comes to determining recreational annual catch limits and accountability 

measures. It is wrong to tell a community it needs to pay a price after adhering 

to measures established by management. 

An example of this is that In June, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council 

(MAFMC) adopted an innovative new policy for recreational accountability, where 

the Council’s management response to annual overages will take into consideration 

the health of the fish stock and the quality of the data. This change was largely 

driven by a looming crisis with black sea bass, which is rebounding in some areas 

so that anglers are blowing through quotas. Even though the stock is considered 

healthy, managers were faced with shutting down the 2014 season completely due 

to past overages. This problem was resolved within the MSA’s existing flexibility. 

While I see stocks rebounding, severe underlying threats have not been addressed, 

such as the destruction of fish habitat, increasing temperatures and acidity of the 

sea, and the catch or bycatch of fish with ecologically critical roles that just aren’t 

factored sufficiently into management strategies. I have spent a great deal of my 

time building coalitions between recreational, small boat commercial, and environmental organizations in order to improve fisheries management and promote conservation. My experience is that the one common belief among all of these very diverse and often adversarial communities is that we need to move from single species 

management to something that better accounts for the interconnected relationships 

between species and the environment. 

47 

The Needed Transition to Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management 

The transition to Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management (EBFM) must be accelerated. In the recreational fishing community, most of us find the concept of EBFM 

to be easily understood. When you are first taught to fish, every child learns that 

big fish eat little fish. Once you are old enough to fish on your own, the second lesson you learn is that to catch fish, all you have to do is find the bait. It’s a simple 

fact that much of this bait—forage fish—serves as the linchpin for the whole marine 

food web. It is this common sense truth that has led me to dedicate many years 

to encouraging managers to look at forage species with a special eye. These little 

fish are one major part of the equation for the long-term success of our fisheries. 

Bait or forage species are important locally both because of their ability to draw 

in and increase the availability of predator species, and also because of their role 

as food for valuable fish stocks. We can never expect to rebuild and achieve healthy 

sustainable fisheries by fishing down the food chain. And leaving more forage fish 

in the ocean makes common sense, and it’s also the right decision economically. 

A reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Act should recognize the importance of forage 

species by requiring that ecosystem functions be included in scientific assessments 

and fishery management plans, and accounting for the critical ecological role of forage fish and the needs of predators when we set catch limits. We should require 

that plans to ensure these values are protected are in place before forage fisheries 

are started or expanded. Under the existing authority of the Act, Councils are moving forward with developing policies to improve the management of forage fish, but 

a legal requirement to do so would speed up this process. Earlier this year, I attended a full day forage fish panel organized by the MAFMC, which is being translated into a policy. Unfortunately, other councils including the NEFMC are lagging 

behind. 

We also need to do a better job of tending to fish habitat and minimizing the 

wasteful bycatch of species of fish we aren’t even targeting. The MSA currently requires that this bycatch should be minimized, and that essential fish habitat should 

be protected, but the Councils and NOAA have done an inconsistent and often poor 

job of achieving these important goals. Over the past few years the New England 

Council & NMFS allocated a large amount of juvenile haddock to the Atlantic Herring Fishery while and this year, two short years later raised the minimum size of 

recreationally caught haddock to a point where NMFS scientists developed a model 

that predicted recreational catch of haddock was so unlikely that the recreational 

community did not have to take the significant reductions being taken by the vessels that harvest haddock for food. Essentially management has turned apportion 

of haddock caught for food and private harvest into lobster bait. This quite frankly 

is an outrage to small boat commercial fishermen, for hire charter operators and private anglers alike, all done in the name of preserving one industrial fishery that 

provides few jobs and a small ecomomic impact. 

Just last week NMFS rejected a community wide demanded action passed by the 

New England Council to place 100 percent monitors and limit dumping of unwanted 

catch over the side on industrial scale herring harvesters. To their credit these harvesters had stepped up and offered to pay for part of the monitoring costs. The 

NMFS lawyers have a reason for deciding that what has been figured out in fisheries managed by other councils and was passed by the NEFMC is not allowed in 

New England. Once again I feel this is an issue of implementation and NMFS leadership rather than in the Act itself but Congress may need to strengthen protection 

of non target species so that we are getting the most value out of our fisheries. 

One way Congress can make these ecosystem safeguards a reality, and consistent 

across the country, through the next MSA reauthorization would be by requiring 

that broader fishery ecosystem plans be developed and integrated into all individual 

fishery management plans. This way Congress could ensure that such plans are in 

place to account for current ecological impacts, and for consideration in future actions before opening or expanding a forage fishery can take place. 

These combined steps would add up to ensure that the species we depend on for 

food and for recreation can rebound if overfished, and that their populations are resilient enough to prosper for generations into the future. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion I hope my overall message today has been that as written the act 

does a good job ending overfishing and does not need significant changes. I urge you 

to allow and even accelerate implementation of the actions required in the prior reauthorization of 2006 and to add language that accelerates the transition from single species management to a more ecosystem based system. 

Thank you again for allowing me the honor of providing testimony and I am available for questions. 

48 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Next up, we have Dr. John Boreman, Adjunct Professor, Department of Biology, North Carolina State University. 

Dr. Boreman. 

STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN BOREMAN, ADJUNCT PROFESSOR, 

NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY 

Dr. BOREMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Markey. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. 

I’d like to focus my remarks on the scientific aspects of the Magnuson-Stevens Act as they relate to establishment of the acceptable 

biological catch, or ABC, recommendations, and identify where adding language to MSA can help reduce scientific uncertainty and 

bolster the scientific underpinnings of ecosystem-based fisheries 

management. 

Since the enactment of MSA reauthorization in 2006, our SSC, 

which I chair, has worked with the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council to establish ABC control rules and has successfully 

implemented those rules for all the stocks managed by the Council. 

Our rules are based on the amount of confidence the SSC has and 

the information contained in the associated stock assessments by 

using a four-level approach. Unfortunately, all of the stocks managed by our council are associated with the lowest two levels. This 

means that, according to our control rules, the buffer between overfishing limit and the ABC needs to be much larger because of the 

greater amount of scientific uncertainty associated with the assessments. 

The problem that has led to the SSC’s lower-level ratings of the 

stock assessments is related to the poor quality of input data used 

in the assessment models, not the quality of the models themselves. Two of the principal sources of scientific uncertainty in 

stock assessments and sources of frustration for the SSC are inadequate spatial coverage of surveys and inefficient or inappropriate 

survey gear. Supporting expansion of industry-based cooperative 

surveys and reauthorization of the MSA can help to address both 

of these major sources of scientific uncertainty. Industry-based surveys can complement the spatial coverage of ongoing fishery independent surveys being conducted by the Northeast Fisheries 

Science Center. The SSC would also like to see survey coverage expanded further offshore, outside the current offshore extent of the 

spring and fall bottom trawl surveys conducted by the Center, particularly with regard to reducing the uncertainty in stock biomass 

estimates for species like Atlantic mackerel and spiny dogfish. 

Employment of alternative sampling gears, such as traps and 

long lines and mid-water trawls to complement the bottom trawling 

gear used by the Northeast Center can also be undertaken through 

the use of industry-based surveys. For example, the Northeast Center’s Cooperative Research Program and the Mid-Atlantic Council’s 

Research Set-Aside Program are testing the use of traps deployed 

from industry vessels in developing more robust stock assessment 

of stock biomass estimates for scup and black sea bass. 

In development of the new system of recreational fishing surveys, 

known as MRIP, NOAA Fisheries is testing the use of angler-generated catch information to complement collection of information on 

49 

recreational and other types of non-commercial catch. A major 

drawback is that the angler-generated data, as well as the data 

generated by industry-based surveys, need to be collected in a statistically robust fashion or they cannot be used. Reauthorization of 

the MSA can help in this regard by allowing the commercial industry and non-commercial angling community to work closely with 

NOAA Fishery scientists in designing cooperative data collection 

programs that would yield high quality information. Currently, this 

type of close collaboration during the early stages of program development is not possible due to constraints imposed by the grants 

process within the Agency. 

Forage fish species have become the poster children for ecosystem-based fisheries management. In developing recommendations for the Mid-Atlantic Council related to forage species and ecosystem-system based management, our SSC has discovered that 

the definition of a forage species varies across the SSCs, as well as 

how each SSC accounts or does not account for forage status in 

their ABC recommendations to their fishery management councils. 

Reauthorization of the MSA can clear up confusion and inconsistencies among the SSCs by defining what constitutes a forage species and requiring that ABC recommendations from the SSCs account for the importance of forage species to the food web of the 

fish community. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I’m available to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Boreman follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN BOREMAN, ADJUNCT PROFESSOR, 

NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the 

opportunity to testify before you today on science. My name is John Boreman and 

I am an adjunct professor in the Department of Biology at North Carolina State 

University. I retired from NOAA Fisheries at the end of 2008, where my last two 

positions were as Director of the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) and 

Director of the Office of Science and Technology. Since my retirement from NOAA, 

and in addition to my faculty position at NC State, I have been Chair of the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) for the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council (MAFMC), a Member of the SSC for the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC), and Chair of the Executive Steering Committee that 

overviews the development and implementation of NOAA’s new marine recreational 

fishing survey (MRIP). Also, I am currently serving as president of the American 

Fisheries Society (AFS). AFS was established in 1871 and is the world’s oldest and 

largest professional society dedicated to fishery science and management, with over 

9,000 members in 64 countries. 

Today, I would like to focus my remarks on the scientific aspects of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) as they relate to establishment of the MAFMC SSC’s acceptable biological catch (ABC) recommendations, and identify where adding language 

to MSA can help reduce scientific uncertainty and bolster the scientific 

underpinnings of ecosystem-based fisheries management. 

Since the enactment of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act in 2006, our SSC has worked with the MAFMC to establish ABC control rules and has successfully implemented those rules for all the 

stocks managed by the MAFMC. Our rules are based on the amount of confidence 

the SSC has in the information contained in the associated stock assessments by 

using a four-level approach. Level 1 assessments account for all major sources of scientific uncertainty in the data sources and assessment methods. Level 2 assessments account for most major sources of scientific uncertainty and have a reliable 

estimate of uncertainty for the overfishing limit. Level 3 assessments do not have 

a reliable estimate of uncertainty for the overfishing level, but the SSC feels comfortable using a proxy value. Finally, Level 4 assessments contain no reliable estiVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:28 May 13, 2014 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\87797.TXT JACKIE
50 

mates for key biological reference points, including the overfishing limit. Many of 

the other SSCs have adopted similar rating systems for information related to ABCs 

that is generated by stock assessments. Unfortunately, all of the stocks managed 

by the MAFMC are associated with either a Level 3 or Level 4 assessment. This 

means that, according to our control rules, the buffer between the overfishing limit 

and the ABC needs to be much larger because of the greater amount of scientific 

uncertainty associated with the assessment. 

Support Expansion of Industry-Based Surveys 

The problem that has led to the SSC’s lower-level ratings of the stock assessments 

for fishery species in the mid-Atlantic region is related to the poor quality of input 

data used in the assessment models, not the quality of the models themselves. Enhancing sampling frequency in current fishery dependent and fishery independent 

surveys can address some of the data quality issues, such as improving estimates 

of bycatch-related fishing mortality. However, two of the principal sources of scientific uncertainty in stock assessments are inadequate spatial coverage and inefficient or inappropriate survey gear. Supporting expansion of industry-based cooperative surveys in reauthorization of the MSA can help to address both of these major 

sources of scientific uncertainty. 

Industry-based surveys can complement the spatial coverage of ongoing fishery 

independent surveys being conducted by the NEFSC; the Northeast Area Monitoring 

and Assessment Program (NEAMAP) survey conducted under the research set-aside 

program of the MAFMC is an excellent example of how industry vessels are being 

used to sample near shore in areas that are unreachable by the large NOAA survey 

vessels. The SSC would also like to see survey coverage expanded further offshore, 

outside the current offshore extent of the spring and fall bottom trawl surveys conducted by the NEFSC, particularly with regard to reducing the uncertainty in stock 

biomass estimates for species like Atlantic mackerel, spiny dogfish, shortfin squid, 

and longfin squid. Industry vessels could be used to expand the survey range. 

Employment of alternative sampling gear, such as traps, longlines, and midwater 

trawls, to complement the bottom trawling gear used by the NEFSC, can also be 

undertaken through the use of industry-based surveys. For example, the NEFSC’s 

Cooperative Research Program and the MAFMC’s research set-aside program are 

testing the use of traps deployed from industry vessels in developing more robust 

stock biomass estimates for scup and black sea bass. 

Promote Closer Collaboration between Industry and NOAA Fisheries 

In development of the MRIP system of surveys, NOAA Fisheries is testing the use 

of angler-generated catch information to complement collection of information on 

recreational and other types of non-commercial catch. Although using such information is appealing to the fishing community, and would probably generate more ‘‘buyin’’ to the catch and effort estimates being generated through MRIP, a major drawback is that the angler-generated information needs to be collected in a statistically 

robust fashion or it cannot be used. The same drawback applies to using data generated by industry-based surveys. Reauthorization of the MSA can help in this regard by allowing the commercial industry and non-commercial angling community 

to work closely with NOAA Fisheries scientists in designing cooperative data collection programs that would yield high quality data. Currently, this type of close collaboration during the early stages of program development is not possible due to 

constraints imposed by the grants process within the agency. 

Directly Address the Need to Conserve Forage Fish Species 

Forage fish species have become the poster children for ecosystem-based fisheries 

management. The MAFMC SSC is being encouraged by outside groups to give forage fish a special status that would result in a lower-than-normal ABC for forage 

fish that are directly managed by the MAFMC (such as squids, Atlantic mackerel, 

and butterfish). Although we are sensitive to the concerns of these groups, we have 

discovered that the definition of a forage species varies across the SSCs, as well as 

how each SSC accounts (or does not account) for forage status in their ABC recommendations to the fishery management councils. Reauthorization of MSA can 

help clear up confusion and inconsistencies among the SSCs by defining what constitutes a forage species and requiring that ABC recommendations from the SSCs account for the importance of forage species to the food web of the fish community. 

In closing, I have touched on three areas where changes to language in the MSA 

can help reduce the scientific uncertainty in stock assessments (and thus reduce the 

buffer between the ABC and the overfishing limit) and help facilitate recognition of 

the implications of ABCs directed at individual fishery stocks to ecosystem-level impacts. Specifically, I am requesting that language in the reauthorization of the MSA: 

(1) promote expansion of industry-based surveys; (2) promote closer collaboration beVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:28 May 13, 2014 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\87797.TXT JACKIE
51 

tween the commercial and non-commercial fishing interests and NOAA Fisheries; 

and (3) directly address the need to conserve forage fish species. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I am available to answer any questions you may have. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much. 

Next, we have John—is it Weisserma? 

Dr. WIERSMA. Wiersma. 

Senator BEGICH. Wiersma. Sector Manager, Northeast Fisheries 

Sector. Please. 

STATEMENT OF DR. JOSHUA B. WIERSMA, SECTOR MANAGER, 

XI AND XII NORTHEAST FISHERIES SECTORS AND 

PRESIDENT AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NEW HAMPSHIRE 

COMMUNITY SEAFOOD ASSOCIATION 

Dr. WIERSMA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Markey 

for this opportunity to testify before your subcommittee today. 

My name is Joshua Wiersma. The testimony is about the 

progress and ongoing challenges of transitioning to sustainable 

fisheries in New England and about what tools and resources or 

statutory refinements might be necessary to improve conservation 

and management outcomes. 

I began working for the commercial fishing industry in New England in 2006 as an economist for the Massachusetts Fishermen’s 

Partnership while I was finishing up my Ph.D field work in 

Gloucester. In 2009, I was hired as a sector policy analyst for the 

Northeast Seafood Coalition to help them organize New England 

fishermen into 12 harvesting groups called sectors. The Northeast 

fishery sectors varied by geographic region and gear type and I 

took a job in New Hampshire managing the two New Hampshire 

sectors, NEFS 11 and NEFS 12. We are a small day boat fleet of 

gill netters and small draggers. This is now my fourth year as 

manager and things look much different today than when I first 

started. 

After my first year, the number of active boats fishing dropped 

from 36 to 26; we are down to 14 this year after a large series of 

cuts in our ACL, and 3 weeks ago, we were told that our fishermen 

would no longer be able to land dogfish as a result of the global 

market for dogfish crashing. So now, we’re down to four boats fishing right now as I speak. And when I first started, things were bad 

and our first year, we qualified for disaster relief, as we experienced a 38 percent reduction in groundfish revenue via a new sector system. Today, that first year looks really good. In short, the 

fishing industry in New Hampshire and throughout New England 

is not OK today. We are in a state of disaster. Immediately, we 

need disaster relief aid for our fishermen to transition through this 

time for us. We also need help establishing different programs so 

we can sell surplus dogfish. 

This testimony is based on my experiences helping to transition 

the Northeast Groundfish Fishery from a system based on effort 

controls to a system based on output controls. It may not necessarily represent the viewpoints of my Board of Directors, other 

sector members or organizations like the NSC. I do believe that 

some progress has been made, but progress is very fragile and we 

are by no means a sustainable fleet. 

52 

In terms of progress, the progress that has been made is mostly 

in the infrastructural transition to sectors. Seventeen sector groups 

were established and formed throughout New England; all official 

501(c)5 non-profit groups with a mission to fish sustainability, atsea monitoring, selection, communication and execution has been 

more streamlined. Dockside monitoring proved to have little to no 

utility and was eliminated. Data management reporting is becoming more electronic and streamlined but by no means real-time, 

and my reporting has transitioned from once a month to once a 

week. Ace trading markets have developed both internally and external to sectors. Collaborative research projects are easier to develop and execute through the organization of sectors. Risk pooling 

behavior and bycatch hotspot reporting behavior is evolving, which 

has been shown on the West Coast to be beneficial to conserve low 

quota stocks, and there seems to be an increased awareness about 

local seafood and traceability and certification. 

Here in New Hampshire, we’ve had a lot of support from our representatives and Senators, especially recently. A thank you to Senator Ayotte and Senator Shaheen for their continued support on 

our many issues in New Hampshire, but we still have many challenges ahead of us. Most important, our challenge is due to the instability in ACL from year to year. These wild fluctuations have 

not protected the resource, play havoc on the lease prices of ACE, 

sometimes distorting the price so much that it costs more to go 

fishing than it does to stay home. 

Data collection, storage management and transmission is not in 

real-time or automated and has been riddled with errors and transcribing and the science used for fisheries management has historically not included fishermen’s observations or information about 

their fishing effort. 

Finally, fishermen are sacrificing healthcare and safety to go to 

work in this most dangerous profession in the world, and now our 

best fishermen are existing the fishery at an alarming rate because 

even our best fishermen, the ones that our nation needs fishing 

right now as stewards of this resource, can’t figure out how to 

make a business plan from year to year and they can’t figure out 

how much to invest in its future or how much to invest in their 

family’s future. 

The reauthorization of Magnuson needs to include some level of 

sustained stability so that fishermen stand a fair fight in the battle 

to consolidate or not, and fish stand a fair fight in the battle to rebuild or not. Specific recommendations include: additional strategies added to Statute 304(e)(4)that include fishing mortality ratebased strategies to simultaneously prevent overfishing and rebuild 

overfished stocks, but to do so in a time-frame that reflects prevailing ecological and environmental conditions; the mandate to 

end overfishing immediately should be replaced with a more rational and smoother mechanism to end overfishing that would employ 

step up or step down approach to achieving a new desired ACL; expand collaborative fisheries research and management with a focus 

on making it more industry-driven and research priorities set by 

industry members along with scientists at the government level; require more safety training for fishermen prior to going to sea to 

participate in this most dangerous profession; prioritize better 

53 

healthcare and shore-side support aid for fishermen; reprioritize 

our local seafood by establishing a national sustainable fishery certification program so that any fish caught in U.S. waters operating 

under Magnuson is deemed sustainable; re-determine how cost recovery for at-sea monitoring programs is recovered from sectors. I 

feel cost recovery should be based on the same 3 percent level used 

for the limited access privilege programs and levied on individual 

sectors, not on the fishery as a whole. Mandate that information 

has to flow in real time from vessel to dealer and from the dealer 

to sector manager and the government simultaneously. Real-time 

information about landings is critically important to improve efficiency, reduce transaction costs, trade ACE, manage quota and to 

create certainty in traceability about catch that can be used as a 

new source of marketing and branding. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify in front of you. It has 

been my honor. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Wiersma follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. JOSHUA B. WIERSMA, SECTOR MANAGER, XI AND XII 

NORTHEAST FISHERY SECTORS AND PRESIDENT AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NEW

HAMPSHIRE COMMUNITY SEAFOOD ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this 

opportunity to testify before your Subcommittee today to contribute to your oversight of the implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization. My name is 

Joshua Wiersma. This testimony is about the progress and ongoing challenges of 

transitioning to sustainable fisheries management in New England, and about what 

tools, resources, or statutory refinements might be necessary to improve conservation and management outcomes. 

Background 

I began working for the commercial fishing industry in New England in 2006 as 

an economist for the Massachusetts Fishermen’s Partnership while I was finishing 

up my PhD field work in Gloucester studying fisheries economics. I learned quickly 

that fishermen are different from academics. To adapt, I became a fisherman-economist. As a fisherman-economist I espoused the benefits of tradable fishing rights, 

LAPPs, fishing cooperatives and risk pools—but was also willing to question these 

ideas when the actual playing field didn’t fit their applications, or when I started 

to meet fishermen who were going out of business who shouldn’t be. 

I worked at the Massachusetts Fishermen’s Partnership between 2006 and 2009 

just as the major changes in Magnuson like annual catch limits (ACLs), accountability measures (AMs), and sectors were being discussed and developed. After that, 

I was hired as a Resource Economist by the Northeast Seafood Coalition (NSC) in 

2009 just in time to help organize New England fishermen into twelve harvesting 

groups, called ‘‘sectors’’. 

To do this, fishing leaders were invited from different fishing regions though out 

New England for a year-long series of meetings to recruit and organize members, 

develop operating plans and harvesting strategies, complete environmental assessments, and completely overhaul the data collection and reporting infrastructure. 

What resulted from the series of meetings and workshops at the NSC was a network of twelve sectors (NEFS Sectors), varied by geographic region and gear type, 

but tied together through membership to the NSC and to another newly formed entity, the Northeast Sector Service Network (NESSN). The day after NMFS approved 

operations plans for the NEFS Sectors on April 30, 2010, I began work as the manager for two of these twelve NEFS Sectors (NEFS 11 and 12). NEFS 11 and 12 are 

official non-profit 501(c)5 entities. We have a board of directors comprised of commercial fishermen and fishermen’s wives, and we have a set of by-laws that can be 

amended from time to time. My sector members are smaller day boat gill netters 

and small draggers, who generally make their living fishing inshore Gulf of Maine 

waters. 

This is now my fourth year as manager for the New Hampshire sectors and things 

look much different today than they did when I first started. The fishing industry 

in New Hampshire and throughout New England is not OK today. We are in a state 

of disaster! 

54 

This testimony is based on my experiences helping to transition the northeast 

groundfish fishery to be sustainable through the creation and implementation of sector management. It may not necessarily represent the viewpoints of my board of directors, other sector members, or other organizations. I will attempt to highlight 

some of the most important obstacles and challenges dealing with the new ACLs 

and AMs, and reference those challenges to New Hampshire. Finally, I will recommend changes to make the Magnuson act more flexible, so that it can better deal 

with and give guidance on complex bio-economic issues. 

The day NMFS approved our 2010–2011 Final Operations Plans for sectors, over 

fishing ended, or so we thought. We were now constrained to a hard ACL on 16 different groundfish stocks. Since then, fishermen and sector managers have been 

learning how to navigate through all of the new regulatory change and new reporting requirements intended to satisfy the new AMs and ACLs. They have never exceeded a catch limit, but overfishing is still occurring because harvesting advice has 

not been accurate. 

Fishermen have had to learn a completely new language based on ACLs and AMs, 

and spoken in terms of annual catch entitlement (ACE) and potential sector contribution percentage (PSC percent). They had to start thinking about fish in terms 

of live lbs rather than landed lbs because ACE is allocated in live wt. The net effect 

for a species like cod for example, is that a fisherman now lands 100 lbs of cod, but 

117 lbs will be deducted from his allocation of ACE because it is converted back into 

live wt. at the docks. 

This conversion is required. It is part of the accountability measures needed to 

ensure that the fishery stay under a hard ACL for that stock, which is calculated 

using the live weight estimates of a stocks biomass. To this day, I have to clarify 

to fishermen whether or not I’m talking in live or landed lbs. It makes a big difference. Fishermen also had to learn how to fish with zero regulatory discards. To 

me, this transition seemed the most natural to many fishermen. Most fishermen will 

tell you that the worst part about effort controlled management was the legal requirement to discard perfectly good fish at sea. 

Progress has been made, and I will briefly describe some of the most important 

progress that I’ve seen in New England, and then relate that to New Hampshire. 

But I should also caution that progress is very fragile, and we are by no means a 

stable, sustainable fleet right now. I should also note that most of the progress that 

I refer to is progress in terms of the structural transition to sectors, but in regards 

to progress becoming a sustainable fishery—we are not close. New tools are needed 

to give Magnuson more flexibility to deal with dynamic changes in the ecosystem 

that may cause havoc in one part of the ocean, but leave another part untouched. 

New statutes are needed to end arbitrary rebuilding timelines, and new resources 

are needed to help our fishermen and our communities become more professional 

as fishermen, as public educators, and as scientific partners. 

Progress to Date 

• Establishment of 17 sector groups throughout New England, whose membership 

represents approximately 99 percent of the total history of groundfish landings. 

In NH, our two sectors are comprised of 54 multispecies fishing permits, collectively owned by 36 individuals, who together represent 100 percent of the Federal ground fishing industry. 

• A market place for ACE trading has developed, both internal to sectors and between sectors. Trading allows us to maximize the value of our portfolio of allocated fish. In New Hampshire, fishermen prefer to buy and sell ACE with one 

another and to generally keep their fishing rights in New Hampshire. The 

rights of first refusal language written into our membership agreements give us 

an opportunity to do this. 

• Fishermen are learning how to be much more selective at sea. Because we must 

stop fishing for all stocks if we run out of allocation of one stock, fishermen 

must utilize all of their combined ecological knowledge to help one another fish 

more selectively. In New Hampshire, I have seen much higher level s of information sharing and communications develop though the years. 

• Data collection and reporting has transitioned from once a month to once a 

week. Accuracy and precision in landings has dramatically increased. My weekly reports are reviewed and compared to NMFS own weekly reports every week, 

and we often meet to reconcile even small differences. 

• At sea data gathering, communication, and transmission are becoming much 

more advanced. Electronic Vessel Trip Reports (VTRs) are replacing paper 

VTRs, and fishermen are starting to use real time, wireless applications at sea 

to document by-catch hot spots. In New Hampshire, about half of our fishermen 

55 

now use E–VTR, and we have entered into a pilot project with the Gulf of 

Maine Research Institute to test a by-catch reporting hot spot tool for harbor 

porpoise sightings. 

• A series of both federally funded and private permit banks have been developed 

to coincide with sectors. Permit banks can have an impact of the price and 

availability of permits for fishermen, but can also benefit local communities and 

sector members if used to help keep traditional fishing permits in the community. In NH, our members have generally benefited from the existence of three 

separate permit banks—(1) a state sponsored/NOAA permit bank run through 

New Hampshire Fish and Game, (2) a sector permit bank comprised of NH sector permits run by myself and my board of directors, (3) a ‘‘collaborative research’’ permit bank comprised of permits owned by the Nature Conservancy, 

who lease their ACE to fishermen that want to do collaborative research or fish 

more selectively. 

• Risk pooling behavior has started to develop amongst sector members. For example, via sectors, two fishermen can effectively pool their allocations of low 

ACE species together to give both fishermen a better chance of catching more 

of another species. This type of behavior can be very informal, and can require 

nothing more than a phone call to tell me to say, ‘‘Hey Josh, Neil’s going to fish 

off my dabs this week in case he runs out . . . he may give me some black 

backs later . . .’’ These types of behaviors are important for a fishery 

transitioning to sustainable. It essentially creates de-facto insurance policies for 

low quota fish—increasing the likelihood that ACL for these stocks will not be 

overfished. 

• At sea monitoring increased to a high of 32 percent the first year of sectors, 

but has been required around 25 percent over the last three years. Still, this 

is an increase from 8 percent observer coverage in 2009. Fishermen have made 

much progress transitioning to at sea observers on their vessels, and now have 

to coordinate trips with observers through a robust system of pre-trip notification, developed to randomly assign observer coverage—but in practice has 

seemed to be biased. 

• Sectors as entities can receive creative financing and low interest loans to do 

important economic development and biological conservation work. For example, 

our NH Sectors received a grant to purchase 800 new generation acoustic deterrent devices called ‘‘pingers’’. We were able to partner on this purchase with 

NEFS 4 (the Gloucester Preservation Fund Sector), and the Gulf of Maine Research Institute through their GEARNET collaborative research program. Together, we purchased 4800 new generation pingers—enough to over haul the entire gill net fishing fleet. This has been the largest pinger purchasing program 

in the world to date. 

New Hampshire Community Seafood Program 

An increased awareness about local seafood and local fishermen is evolving. I believe the coordination and organization of sectors, which has allowed fishermen to 

come together more often as a group, also allows them to think of different and creative ways to add value to themselves and to their fishery. For example, in New 

Hampshire, we started a community supported fishery (CSF) called New Hampshire 

Community Seafood. Our intent was to highlight our fishermen, share their stories, 

but most importantly share our seafood direct from the boat to their plate. We have 

found that a tremendously receptive market for this, and not just for ‘‘high value’’ 

species like cod and haddock, but also for things like ‘‘day boat’’ dogfish and whiting—two traditionally low valued stocks. 

In New Hampshire, we are trying to address the fishery crisis by increasing the 

recognition and appreciation of the interdependent roles that the fishing industry 

and the consumer play in our local ecological economy. In doing so, we hope to provide local fishermen a fair market for all the species they catch and to provide the 

consumer with access to a wide variety of fresh locally caught seafood throughout 

the year, better insight into the supply chain that brings seacoast seafood to their 

table, and direct input about the choice and diversity of fish they consume. 

The cultivation and nurturing of this direct relationship between local fishermen 

with local consumers is intended to increase demand for local seafood, to promote 

community awareness and engagement in marine resource issues, and to support 

our local and regional economies through the preservation of the livelihoods of local 

fishermen and the supporting of shore-side support infrastructure. 

56 

Challenges 

We have made improvements in transitioning to a sustainable fishery, but like 

I mentioned before, most of the improvements have been structural successes in the 

implementation of sectors. The core challenges that we now face threaten to wipe 

away entire sectors and fishing communities. We can’t have a fishery without fishermen. And we can’t have a healthy ecosystem without fishing and without robust 

markets for all the fish that we catch. For example, the domestic market for spiny 

dogfish crashed in 1995 when the Federal government completely shut down the 

fishery. Even though the stock has recovered to Marine Stewardship Certification 

standards, the domestic market never really recovered. 

For the last three weeks fishermen who land dogfish in New Hampshire and Massachusetts have been unable to go to work. Dogfish processors are back loaded, and 

the European market has apparently crashed. So, just in these last three weeks and 

even at 17 cents a lbs., the economic impact of this has already been in the millions 

of dollars to fishermen and their communities. This has especially affected the 

smaller inshore vessels, like mine, who annually depend on their inshore dogfish 

revenue this time of year to support their annual fishing plan. If fishermen can’t 

land dogfish right now, they can’t fish. Not much else gets caught in their nets now, 

and nobody wants to spend all day picking out fish just to throw them back. 

This situation is so wasteful. Dogfish can be delicious if processed correctly. If 

bled and iced at sea, their meat maintains a tremendous quality—white, firm and 

sweet. Our fishermen sell some of their ‘‘day boat’’ dogfish filets to our CSF members at $12 per lbs. We call it ‘‘day boat’’ dogfish because of the special way it was 

pre-processed to preserve its freshness and quality. People tell us it might be their 

favorite fish now. And yet, on a global level no market exists. How is this possible? 

I say this to highlight the importance of allowing both the industry time to adapt 

to new markets, and to highlight the importance of creating new markets for sustainable, healthy fish stocks, while we give time to some of the more critical groundfish stocks to recover. We need some time to educate our citizens about new markets, about new fish, and about new management. We need help promoting our 

brand as certified United States Sustainable. We need resources to help fishermen 

make the transition to different markets or to transition to new technology and ultimately a new way of fishing, and of thinking about fish. 

Here in New Hampshire, we have had a lot of support from our representatives 

and senators. We are especially thankful to Senator Ayotte and Senator Shaheen 

for their continued bi-partisan support and recognition of the proud tradition of fishing in New Hampshire, and of the critical issues that we face here—especially as 

group of small family run businesses. Senator Ayotte has advocated for us since I’ve 

been manager, and has recently helped address the dogfish crisis by supporting an 

effort for New England fishermen to work with the USDA farm aid program to buy 

surplus supply. Senator Shaheen has also been very supportive of our New Hampshire fishing industry, and just recently was instrumental in appropriating much 

needed disaster relief money for our industry, which was declared a Federal fishery 

disaster by the Secretary of Commerce last winter. 

We have a number of challenges ahead of us. If these challenges are not addressed via the reauthorization of Magnuson, I believe the fishery will be playing 

catch up for years to come and may never fully recover. The most important challenge has to do with the instability in ACL from year to year, and the inability of 

Magnuson to deal with changes in ACL that are orders of magnitude larger than 

what would have been predicted six years ago. Wild fluctuations in ACL from year 

to year have not protected the resource, and instead play havoc on the lease prices 

of ACE—sometimes distorting the ACE price so much that it costs more to go fishing than to stay home. 

Specific Challenge Issues 

• Rapid consolidation of the fishery. Consolidation is occurring at a rate that is 

not sustainable or healthy for either the community or the resource. Consolidation is a natural consequence of catch share programs, but it should be more 

gradual and at pace with true shadow value of fishing. Problems arise because 

extreme changes in ACL from year to year distort the true opportunity cost of 

fishing. In New Hampshire, the number of active fishing boats has consolidated 

down from 26 four summers ago to 4 this summer. This is a direct result of 

wild swings in the ACL from year to year. 

• Rapid swings in the dynamics of ecosystems. We are experiencing a series of 

strange phenomena in the ocean that most fishermen contribute to abnormal 

environmental conditions. These rapidly changing conditions are more problematic under the confines of single stock management because fisheries managers 

are too constrained trying to maximize one stock at the expense of the group. 

57 

• Data collection, storage and management have to be in real time. We have been 

managing a hard TAC fishery with soft TAC data for four years. Information 

has to flow in real time from the vessel to the dealer, and from the dealer to 

the sector manager and government. It is tremendously inefficient to manage 

a real time fishery with week old data. Real time information about landings 

is critically important to improve efficiency, reduce transactions costs, and to 

gain certainty and traceability about catch that can be used as a new source 

of marketing and branding. 

• Instable prices for seafood and high competition with imports. Catch share management is supposed to benefit fishermen by restoring some stability to seafood 

prices. Generally, this stability is supposed to result in higher prices and lower 

landings. However, when the year to year cuts in ACL are as high as 80 percent 

for a primary stock like cod, seafood buyers and processors will look elsewhere 

to take its place. Processors can now import a fileted cod product from Iceland 

and Norway; unfrozen, and delivered to their door the day after catch at a 

cheaper rate than if they bought it domestically. This trend can’t continue. 

• Non-transparent market for buying, selling, and trading ACE. Because ACE is 

not considered a property right of individual fishermen, the government does 

not have to track ACE trades on an individual level. Although this has provided 

some privacy benefits, it has also resulted in a marketplace with no central 

clearinghouse that fishermen can go to in order to gather information about 

ACE prices, or to lease, sell or trade ACE. ACE postings are generally done by 

e-mail between sector managers, who then forward the information on to members. 

• No plan for industry to pay for at sea monitoring. Fishermen in New England 

were supposed to pay for their own at-sea monitoring coverage starting in 2012 

after the transition to sectors. This has yet to happen, in large part because of 

the continuous cuts and costs to fishermen associated with other aspects of sector management. Also, debate still exists as to whether we should be gathering 

more precise data or more accurate data. In terms of distributing costs more 

equitably, it is better to have more accurate data, as costs would then be proportional to landings—and hence less regressive. 

• Fishermen are sacrificing their health insurance and their safety as a way to 

cut costs and continue to participate in this fishery. Only 10 percent of all active 

fishermen have ever completed a basic safety training course, when every study 

shows that it saves lives. We are losing a standard of professionalism and pride 

as fishermen, and that needs to be restored. 

Current Status of the Fishery 

It’s been four years since sector management started, and the fishing industry has 

not exceeded the hard annual catch limit set for any of the 16 different groundfish 

stocks. In fact, contrary to public perception, the commercial fleet has remained at 

or below the target annual catch limits even prior to ACLs/AMs being implemented. 

Still, the results of stock assessments continually show that mortality goals are not 

being met, and as a result, estimated ACLs change by as much as 80 percent from 

year to year, and in the case of Pollock by 600 percent mid-year! Now our best scientists admit that they have very little faith in their current models to predict and 

forest future stock size. If we can’t accurately predict stock sizes, we can’t provide 

harvesting advice. 

And now our best fishermen are exiting the fishery at an alarming rate, because 

even our best fishermen—the ones our nation needs fishing to serve as stewards of 

this resource—can’t figure out how to make a business plan from year to year, and 

therefore can’t figure out how much to invest in its future, or how much to invest 

in their families future. The reauthorization of Magnuson needs to provide tools to 

allow some level of sustained stability in management so that the fishermen stand 

a fair fight in the battle to consolidate or not—and so fish stand a fair fight in the 

battle to rebuild or not. 

Recommendations to Improve Magnuson 

1. Additional strategies should be added to the statute 304 (e) (4) that include a 

fishing mortality rate based strategy. Such a strategy for example, achieves by 

definition the two principle goals of the MSA—to prevent overfishing and to 

rebuild overfished stocks. But, it allows rebuilding to occur over a time frame 

that reflects prevailing ecological and environmental conditions. 

2. The mandate to end over fishing immediately should be replaced with a more 

rational mechanism to end over fishing that would employ a ‘‘step down’’ or 

‘‘step up’’ approach to achieving a new desired ACL. For example, if the change 

58 

in ACL from an old ACL to a new ‘‘target’’ ACL is large, then the reduction 

(or increase) in ACL should be annually capped at some level not to exceed a 

20 percent change from the previous year’s ACL. 

3. Multiple mandates to end or prevent overfishing have made it impossible to 

utilize tools like ‘‘mixed-stock exception clause’’ so that overfishing could continue on some stocks even if it means that the threshold criterion regarding 

rebuilding requirements may not be met. The statutory definition of fishery at 

MSA (3)(13) may provide a basis for future treatment of this issue so that the 

mixed stock exception could be used as intended—to allow the fishery and community to survive via healthy stocks while an unhealthy stock simultaneously 

rebuilds. 

4. Expand collaborative fisheries research and management with a focus on making it more industry-driven. Research priorities should be set by close consultation with commercial fishermen, and renewed efforts to utilize existing and to 

integrate new data sets into traditional science and management models needs 

to occur. Collaborative fisheries initiatives need to be directly tied into stock 

assessments. 

5. The fishing world operates as a bio-economic system, where management 

changes that affect the biology also affects our economy and changes our community. National Standard 8 requires managers to seriously consider these 

tradeoffs prior to policy. This does not often happen, as managers are always 

playing catch up to changes in the fishery and stock assessments, and economists are always playing catch up to changes in management and policy. The 

intent of Magnuson should be to protect both the resource and the resource 

user. 

6. Require more safety training for fishermen prior to going to sea to participate 

in the most dangerous profession in the United States. Prioritize better health 

care and shore side support and aid for fishermen. Begin to transition our fishery to one that relies once again on professional, well-trained fishermen. 

7. Re-prioritize our local seafood by establishing a National Sustainable Fishery 

Certification Program so that any fish caught in U.S. waters by a boat participating under the strict rules of Magnuson is considered sustainable. United 

States seafood should be promoted as the gold standard for the world, and domestic markets have to be developed. Promote local markets and branding efforts, and encourage the development of community supported fisheries where 

fish flows direct from local boat to local consumer. 

8. Re-determine how cost recovery for at sea monitoring programs is recovered 

from sectors. Cost recovery for sectors should be based on the same 3 percent 

level used for cost recovery in Limited Access Privilege Programs and be levied 

on individual sectors, not the fishery as a whole. 

9. Information has to flow in real time from the vessel to the dealer, and from 

the dealer to the sector manager and the government simultaneously. Real 

time information about landings is critically important to improve efficiency, 

reduce transactions costs, trade ACE, manage quota, and to create certainty 

and traceability about catch that can be used as a new source of marketing 

and branding. 

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify before you today. It has been 

my honor. I sincerely appreciate your time and thoughtful consideration on these 

important issues related to transitioning to, and sustaining a sustainable fishery. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much. Thank you for all of your 

testimony. 

Let me just say two quick things, I’ll turn to Senator Markey for 

his questions. First, I know I said on the Appropriations Committee we were able to put at this point in the Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee report $150 million for disaster relief for fisheries failures in the Nation; we’ll see how that fares as it goes 

through the process. And second, interesting to note and I think 

Senator Markey would agree with this, we debated a House bill or 

a farm bill on this side and the House debated a farm bill; if we 

were to call it a fish bill, we would all be so pleased. 

59 

In many ways, as you sort of talked about when you had the 

dogfish surplus, if that was on land, we’d give you a subsidy to 

make sure you’re taken care of. When you have a shortage, we’d 

call it a drought on land; in fisheries, we just call it emergency. So 

it’s an interesting difference. The only difference is we harvest from 

the sea; farming is harvested from the land. It is still a food supply 

and food for this country and so it’s an interesting debate that 

every meeting that I have, every hearing I have, I try to bring this 

to people’s attention that I’m singing to the choir and the bottom 

line is, again, we harvest from the sea; farmers from the land and 

the difference is just where it is. Other than that, it feeds this 

country and feeds this world and so we have to create an equalization here between our on-land and off-land or in-sea food supply 

for this country. 

So it’s just a commentary I always like to make because I think 

we get all those economic issues if this was a—if we were on the 

Ag Committee right now, we’d have 20 programs solving that problem, making sure you’re continuing the fish or if you were doing 

sugar, wheat, corn, you know, I can go through the list, so let me 

turn to Senator Markey for his questions and then if there’s time, 

I’ll have a couple questions, if not, I’ll submit mine for the record, 

only because we have a vote at noon. 

Senator BEGICH. Senator Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I remember growing up, when we had tuna fish, the company, 

its slogan was ‘‘Chicken of the Sea.’’ 

Senator BEGICH. That’s right. 

Senator MARKEY. Brand tuna. 

Senator BEGICH. That’s right. Not Chicken of the Land, Chicken 

of the Sea. 

Senator MARKEY. No, Chicken of the Sea. You know, I’m just 

showing how—pretty much the same deal. 

Yes, whether it be fish or chicken, and here, we just find a way 

of treating them differently though, as you’re saying: one is subject 

to drought and should be given emergency relief and the fishermen 

not considered in the same way. 

So I appreciate the testimony from our witnesses today and the 

issues they have raised. There appear to be some areas of agreement and I think it makes sense to focus on them as we undertake 

the reauthorization of Magnuson-Stevens and I have a list here of 

five that seems to be in agreement. 

One, additional support for ecosystem management. Two, taking 

into account forage fish, those fish that are at the base of the food 

chain, the need for more timely, improved and cooperative science, 

more transparent and timely sharing of fishing data and the possibility of a national sustainable fishery certification. So I think it’s 

important for us to focus on those areas that are all in agreement 

so that we can ensure that they are in any legislation as we move 

forward. 

Mr. Muto? 

Mr. MUTO. Muto. 

Senator MARKEY. Excuse me? 

Mr. MUTO. Muto. 

60 

Senator MARKEY. Muto. Muto. Mr. Muto, I know you’re working 

with the Fisherman’s Alliance and you’re working to find creative 

solutions for fishermen to the daunting challenges which they’re 

facing. One encouraging possibility is to expand the domestic market for dogfish. Can you tell me what is being done to expand the 

demand for dogfish and how could this committee help? 

Mr. MUTO. Quite honestly, dogfish is one of the only things we 

have left in Chatham, and as of the last day or two, we’re not even 

sure if we have that; I’m waiting to see what happens when I go 

home. 

But I do know that those 40 million pounds of quota that are our 

dogfish fishery, they need to come out of the ocean and quite honestly, at some sort of an appropriations, even at 30 cents a pound, 

a ‘‘small,’’ $12 million, could afford to pay for fishermen to go to 

work and harvest those fish out of the ocean, which could have a 

rippling effect to also increase the groundfish quota; it removes 

predators from the ocean, it removes an apex predator, somewhat 

of a predator to forage stocks, to codfish, to other fisheries, it removes them from the ocean. When they cut the dogfish back drastically years ago, we ran into a problem where they were just overrunning the ocean; they were destroying everything and, I mean, 

I think that’s one thing to consider in making sure that we can remove these species from the ocean, and I think possibly a large 

USDA buy of our domestic dogfish and putting it deeper into domestic markets could really put a lot of guys back to work and 

show some glimmer of hope for commercial fishermen up and down 

the coast. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Paquette, in your testimony, you mentioned that winter 

flounder stocks are now rebuilding. How do the requirements to 

end overfishing and to rebuild an overfished fishery operate together to ensure that fishermen can maximize the harvest of 

healthy species? 

Mr. PAQUETTE. I’m sorry, Senator, could you repeat the question? 

I didn’t quite understand the way you asked it. 

Senator MARKEY. The bottom line is, what do the requirements 

to end overfishing combined with ensuring that the overfished fishery operates together as part of a rebuilding process do in order to 

ensure that something like winter flounder stocks are in fact now 

something that are rebuilding successfully? 

Mr. PAQUETTE. I think winter flounder is an interesting example, 

and obviously, why I put it in. It was a stock that I watched crash 

growing up. For various reasons, I’m not in the business of blame 

today. And in my opinion, they took too long to come back, but they 

have built and I believe that one of the reasons they took too long 

is because there is a difference in translating Magnuson language, 

overfishing and stock status language with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission and it’s a little bit of a complex problem, 

but we see in summer flounder is sort of like another which was 

held to the rebuilding standard of 10 years, that summer flounder 

rebuilt a lot faster than anybody thought; it was also given a 

chance to rebuild. I believe that species that we do the work on and 

that we don’t, one way or another, push the pause button on rebuilding, I think we see it benefit us economically and jobs-wise. 

61 

And in high school, I worked on Gloucester cod boats and I can remember we got better tips when haddock came over the rail; haddock was the superstar at the time for us. Haddock today have 

been turned into lobster bait because of bycatch and industrial fisheries. We’ve seen cod stocks fall and if we don’t have some limit— 

rebuilding didn’t really happen until after it was made mandatory. 

When it was sort of, what was the word, optimum in the law? At 

earlier versions of Magnuson, when rebuilding wasn’t mandatory 

and didn’t set a limit on it, we didn’t really rebuild; we tried, but 

we were never really successful at it. We’ve only seen the number 

of stocks that are rebuilding, and there are some that aren’t and 

there’s definitely, I have a lot of talk in my testimony about ecosystems and climate change and how it’s hurting and how we have 

to get a handle on it, but it’s clear that we have to allow Magnuson 

to work and I need to be forced as a fisherman to follow the rules. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, sir. Thank you, all of you, so much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much, and again, I’ll have some 

questions for the record, but Mr. Muto, let me ask you a quick 

question, just back on the—to follow up on Mr. Markey’s question 

in marketing, because one thing that hasn’t been mentioned actually interestingly enough in the two panels is when you have an 

overabundance, one of the things I know, Alaska, what we did, I 

mean, when we had dogfish, today, you eat them as—not you, but 

your pets—eat them as ‘‘Yummy Chummies.’’ 

Mr. MUTO. Yes. 

Senator BEGICH. We repackaged them and made them into a different product. We get two and a half, probably three times what 

the value is, what it should be if it was just sold at the market because we thought of a different way of repacking. It used to be 

you’d get salmon strips in a cellophane-wrapped bag; now, you get 

it as salmon jerky, you pay more for it. Marketing, marketing, marketing. But I didn’t hear anyone mention that and I’m just curious, 

and I know the vote has started, so I only have a couple minutes 

and so I just, to me, when I think of dogfish, if you have an oversupply, as we did, well, first off, no one likes to buy fish called 

dogfish, it just doesn’t excite them, so like I said, we called it something different and we repackaged it and I guarantee you, we sell 

more of that product, bycatch for us, than ever before and make a 

lot of money on it, especially because we have not only a raw product, but we’ve turned the raw product into a finished product, so 

I think that’s where part of, I think, Senator Markey was getting 

to, is there something more we can do, and I’m going to—I want 

to ask all four of you, but I’m going to go right to the economist 

because in theory, that’s what you do, you look at markets, and so 

I’m just curious if that is something that comes up in your discussion with the regions. 

Dr. WIERSMA. Yes. Yes, exactly and I mention it in my written 

testimony. One of the things that we’ve done in New Hampshire 

is started a what we call the community-supported fishery and 

what that is, is it’s basically, if you’re familiar with a farm share 

where people sign up for a weekly share of the farmer’s catch, what 

they’ve signed up for is a weekly share of our fish. 

Senator BEGICH. Right. 

62 

Dr. WIERSMA. And we include that fish dogfish, only we called it 

day boat dogfish because our fishermen are cutting it at sea, 

they’re bleeding it, they’re brining it and they’re bringing in a completely differentiated product, a product that allows us to give them 

$1.50 per pound at the dock relative to the 17 cents a pound they 

get when they try to sell it to the global market. You know, this 

has been extremely positive; our feedback we’ve got from our members said that it’s some of the best fish they’ve ever eaten, and so, 

in my mind, when I think the global market for dogfish has 

crashed, yet I’m selling fillets for $12 a pound to the local people 

in New Hampshire, it doesn’t make sense to me and so—— 

Senator BEGICH. You’re getting someone very excited here on 

the—I have feeling you’re going to have a conversation—— 

Dr. WIERSMA. We had a conversation—— 

Mr. MUTO. Yes, we talked about this ahead of time; we were trying to coordinate our teams. 

Senator BEGICH. He’s going to go home tonight and ship it to 

New Hampshire. 

Dr. WIERSMA. Yes, well, we have our own dogfish. I mean, we’re 

trying to develop that market, you know, it’s a slow process, but 

it can’t crash completely, you know, as we make that transition to 

taking greater ownership of that resource and to rebrand it and to 

remarket it. You know, I don’t want to change the name from 

dogfish; I think we can make it cool. We just need to give the time 

to do that for us. 

Senator BEGICH. Let me ask, and maybe you all just nod yes or 

no because I’ve got to close this off because of the vote. Do you 

think we need to make sure in Magnuson-Stevens we do have commentary or concern or even language in there to talk about the 

marketing of our seafood products, not only locally, but internationally? Does anyone disagree with that, I guess? OK. It might be a 

little mixed, I see, but the bottom line is, we shouldn’t not exclude 

marketing, but it should be something we should think about. OK. 

Let me end there and just say—how many days are we going to 

keep this open? 

VOICE. Two weeks. 

Senator BEGICH. Two weeks? We’ll keep the record open for 2 

weeks for other members to submit questions for the record for response. I have some that I’ll submit for the panel here because of 

our time delay. 

Senator BEGICH. But I do want to thank all of you who are on 

the ground, literally, in the water, finding out what we need to be 

doing and changes we need to have. The common theme is that 

don’t make drastic changes, but there are some tweaks clearly that 

we need to make, and I think Senator Markey laid out five of them 

that he summarized that he’s heard and I have some, too, so again, 

thank you all very much for your testimony. This is one of a series 

that we’ll be doing regarding the fisheries around our country, so 

as we move to reauthorization, we totally look at it from a holistic 

standpoint, not just one region versus another region. 

Thank you all very much. This meeting is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:07 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(63) 

A P P E N D I X 

ATLANTIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION

Arlington, VA, August 15, 2013 

Hon. MARK BEGICH, 

Chairman, 

Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, 

Fisheries, and Coast Guard, 

Senate Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation, 

Washington, DC. 

Hon. MARCO RUBIO, 

Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, 

Fisheries, and Coast Guard, 

Senate Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation, 

Washington, DC. 

Chairman Rockefeller and Ranking Member Thune: 

I am Robert Beal, Executive Director of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission). The Commission is comprised of the fifteen Atlantic coastal 

states and carries out a diverse array of programs for its members with the goal 

of restoring and sustaining Atlantic coastal fisheries. The Commission provides a 

forum for interstate cooperation on fisheries that cross state borders and thus cannot be adequately managed by a single state. Congress authorized the Commission 

in 1942; and granted us increased management authority in 1984 with the Atlantic 

Striped Bass Conservation Act, and again in 1993 with the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act. 

Since 1984, the Commission has restored many Atlantic coastal species and initiated the dialogue to address the emerging opportunities and ongoing challenges that 

exist for improved stewardship. As the Committee undertakes the task of reauthorizing the Magnuson-Stevens Act, it can do so with the confidence that its leadership 

on this and other legislation has given the states and the Federal agencies the tools 

and determination to continue working toward fishery resource conservation successes. Since its enactment in 1976, each reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

has built upon past successes and altered programs to address emerging issues 

when necessary. Roughly six and a half years after the 2007 Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act was implemented we have another opportunity to clearly observe 

the new fishery management structure and how it is working in the real world. The 

Commission believes the framework established by the Magnuson-Stevens Act and 

its subsequent reauthorizations is fundamentally sound, but, as with most major 

laws, could benefit from some minor updates. The issues of highest interest to the 

Commission are federal-state partnerships and data collection and management. 

With the Commission’s unique role and history in fisheries management, we are 

well-equipped to provide the Committee with valuable input into the reauthorization 

of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. I hope the Commission can continue to be a resource 

to the Committee as it reauthorizes the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

Federal-state Partnerships 

In the regulation of fisheries, jurisdictional boundaries divide state and Federal 

management authority. However, a great number of fisheries exist under shared 

federal-state management due to their migratory nature. In the same way that no 

one state can effectively manage its nearshore fisheries alone, the Commission recognizes Federal and state fishery management authorities must also work together 

to make management decisions for species that traverse state and Federal waters. 

Our primary Federal partners include NOAA Fisheries, the three Atlantic Coast 

Fishery Management Councils, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Further, we 

have strong relationships with our sister Commissions in the Gulf of Mexico and 

Pacific. Our fisheries management and stock assessment processes include regional 

and Federal partners at all levels, from our technical committees to our management boards, ensuring consistent management across the species range. The Commission cooperatively manages seven species with our Federal partners, and together we have successfully rebuilt many Atlantic species such as summer flounder, 

64 

spiny dogfish, bluefish, scup, and Spanish mackerel. Successful partnerships must 

involve the states, Federal agencies, and Congress. If any of these entities are not 

fully engaged and supportive of the process, we will not be able to build on our past 

successes. Federal-state partnerships form the cornerstone for many successful fishery restoration stories. However, there are still opportunities for improvement. Our member states feel communication between NOAA Fisheries and the states can be improved. The Commission has urged NOAA Fisheries to involve us as partners 

throughout the management process rather than treating us as a stakeholder group, 

with involvement limited to public comment periods. The states are confident that 

greater collaboration will lead NOAA Fisheries to more informed decisions that have 

greater public engagement and, consequently, acceptance. The states understand 

there are currently some legal constraints on pre-decisional discussions, however, 

the states can play a critical role in contributing fisheries science and data and providing stakeholder input for consideration as decisions are finalized. States have 

been conducting fishery-independent research consistently for decades and can serve 

as a valuable resource to enhance the available science. 

The listing of Atlantic sturgeon as threatened/endangered under the Endangered 

Species Act is a highly visible example of a missed opportunity for greater collaboration. The states could have provided additional information and insight on the population status and biology of Atlantic sturgeon. While this collaboration may not have 

changed the listing decision, there would have been greater confidence among the 

stakeholders that NOAA Fisheries was fully informed during the process. The states 

also request greater transparency and collaboration, including data sharing during 

the development of response plans. It should be noted that since that listing, the 

Commission and the states have seen substantial progress in NOAA Fisheries coordinating more closely with the states, particularly with regards to its consideration of the river herring listing. It is our hope this increased coordination will continue. 

There is also an opportunity for federal-state cooperation to be improved in NOAA 

Fisheries Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Division. The Commission is concerned 

about the limited opportunity for input and collaboration on fishery management 

plans (FMPs) developed by HMS. For example, at NOAA Fisheries’ request, the 

Commission adopted an Interstate FMP for Atlantic Coastal Sharks to complement 

Federal management actions and increase protection of pregnant females and juveniles in inshore nursery areas. Following the approval of the Interstate FMP, HMS 

made a number of changes to the Federal management program with limited opportunity for state input and collaboration. The states’ primary input opportunity has 

been through the HMS Advisory Panel process, where states are again treated as 

stakeholders. The HMS public comment opportunities frequently do not overlap 

with a Commission meeting to allow for the development a unified coastwide position. Given that the states are co-partners in management, the Commission would 

like additional opportunities for input to be provided and required for HMS activities. 

On a positive note, the 2007 Magnuson-Stevens Act Reauthorization established 

a cooperative research program to support partnerships between the Regional Fishery Management Councils, scientific community, fishing industry participants, educational institutions, and the states. The resulting regional cooperative research, 

monitoring programs, ecosystem studies, and law enforcement initiatives have 

proved successful, and further cooperation will continue to increase efficiency, transparency, and, ultimately, the success of jointly managed fisheries. It is our hope that 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act Reauthorization will provide additional opportunities to 

build upon successful partnerships in the interjurisdictional management of Atlantic 

coast species. 

Data Collection 

Ensuring collection and access to comprehensive fisheries data is a top concern 

of the Commission as the Committee reauthorizes the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Data 

provide the foundation for marine fisheries management, and the Commission supports a myriad of fishery-dependent and independent surveys to support our 25 

FMPs. Fisheries management decisions are only as good as the data supporting 

them, and the ultimate success of FMPs in terms of sustainable management and 

stakeholder confidence lies in the accuracy, reliability, and timeliness of the data 

we use to inform our stock assessments and decision making. 

Fisheries data collection is often resource intensive. In an era of constrained budgets, the Commission strives to ensure each dollar is used wisely and goes as far as 

it can to supply accurate fisheries data. The Commission hopes the next reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act will ensure sufficient resources for fisheries 

65 

surveys and data collection programs. FMPs based on insufficient data are likely to 

result in more conservative management measures to address uncertainty in landings and population estimates. The result is lower than optimal catch quotas and 

erosion of public confidence in fishery management decisions. Given that Atlantic 

coastal fishery resources generate billions of dollars of economic activity and hundreds of thousands of jobs, it is essential that we continue to invest in the collection 

and management of high quality and timely data. 

The Commission’s Science Program coordinates the two primary Atlantic coast 

fishery-independent data collection programs—the South Atlantic component of the 

Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program (SEAMAP) and the Northeast 

Area Monitoring and Assessment Program (NEAMAP), as well as species-specific 

surveys for northern shrimp, horseshoe crab, red drum, and American lobster. The 

Commission and its member states also participate in three fishery-dependent data 

collection programs: the Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program (ACCSP), 

NOAA Fisheries Commercial Fisheries Statistics, and the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP). A detailed summary of the data collection programs the 

Commission participates in is attached. 

It is important to reiterate that good data supports sound science and informed 

decisions. We will never fully understand every detail of the complex marine environment; however, we can improve our understanding to ensure the responsible 

stewardship of the shared Atlantic coast fisheries resources. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and all the members of your Committee for your continued support and leadership in fisheries management, and for this opportunity to 

comment on fisheries management issues. 

CC: 

Jay Rockefeller, Chair, Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee 

Committee 

John Thune, Ranking Member, Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

Committee 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MATTHEW MCKENZIE, UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT

HISTORY DEPARTMENT

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, Senator Blumenthal, members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to address issues pertaining to the reauthorization 

of the Magnuson-Steven Fisheries Conservation Act. As an Associate Professor of 

environmental history at the University of Connecticut, a lifelong resident of coastal 

New England, and as the Connecticut Obligatory Member to the New England Fisheries Management Council, I see a reauthorized Magnuson Act potentially offering 

important tools to solve my region’s endemic failure to manage the region’s groundfish species. While my comments emerge from my work and experience as a researcher, resident, and resource manager, these positions are mine alone and do not 

necessarily reflect those of the University of Connecticut nor the New England Fisheries Management Council. 

The only true and sustainable source of a nation’s wealth is its sustainably managed natural resources. Magnuson has done much to provide that foundation in 

other regions. Unlike Alaska and the Pacific Northwest, however, where Magnuson 

has led to the successful management of the Nation’s marine fisheries resources, its 

legacy in New England stands less clear. There have been successes, to be sure. The 

New England scallop industry, most prominently, turned around from facing ruin 

twenty-five years ago. Under Magnuson, scallopers engaged the management process to ensure the industry’s long-term sustainability over short-term gains. Through 

the active and constructive engagement with the Magnuson process, the New England scallop fleet consistently ranks as one of the Nation’s top fisheries. 

Other fisheries have also used the processes provided for in Magnuson to end 

overfishing and restore other fish stocks. Atlantic herring, monkfish, and Arcadian 

Redfish, as examples, while still facing particular challenges, present further instances of New England’s successes. In addition, Magnuson provides the New England recreational fishing interests a continued and active engagement in the process, one which promises great ecological and economic benefit as that sector’s influence grows in the future. 

Despite these successes, however, New England’s commercial groundfish fishery 

has fared poorly under Magnuson. In fact, since Magnuson’s passage, the New 

Englander groundfish fleet has done a better job of undermining one of the Nation’s 

66 

1 National Research Council of the National Academies, Improving the Use of the ‘‘Best Scientific Information Available’’ Standard in Fisheries Management (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2004). 2 Carmel Finley, All the Fish in the Sea: Maximum Sustainable Yield and the Failure of Fisheries Management (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011). 3Sidney Holt, ‘‘The Some Good and Mostly Bad about Maximum Sustainable Yield as a Management Target,’’ presented at the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas Annual 

Science Conference, Bergen, Norway, 17–21 September, 2012. 

most important strategic protein reserves than our Cold War rivals did before 1976. 

And, after a forty years of sustained of scientific research, governmental financial 

support, and focused regulatory attention, stocks of those species most associated 

with New England’s oft-invoked fishing tradition—cod, Gulf of Maine haddock, and 

yellowtail flounder, among others—have continued to plummet to historic lows. As 

a New Englander and a student of its history, I find the irony of this situation both 

shocking and humiliating. 

As those resources continue to decline, I believe that this depleted state of the 

region’s key fish stocks will exacerbate the effects of the climate changes we currently see. The human consequences are even more ominous. As stocks decline, the 

competitive market for fish—the economic climate that we as a nation believe to be 

the best for citizens, business owners, and entrepreneurs alike—will likely devolve 

into a business environment marked by fear, defensiveness, and predatory competition. Such a climate makes it difficult for fishermen to think in more than just the 

short term—a problem that bodes ill for any meaningful sustainable management 

regime. Such a climate also stifles the innovation, creativity, and adaptability that, 

while less celebrated than its ‘‘fishing tradition,’’ has marked New England fishing 

since its inception. 

I see many of the troubles facing New England groundfish stocks easing should 

a reauthorized Magnuson Act address the following four points. While I doubt these 

will solve all of New England’s problems, I believe these will help. As we learned 

with the crisis in the striped bass fishery, restoring a fish stock requires actions 

across a wide spectrum. I feel these points begin to address the most important 

problems we currently face. 

1. A nationally mandated adoption of ecosystem based fisheries management regimes that include more effective habitat protection measures and a more comprehensive understanding of the ecosystem role of forage species. Such a management regime must be developed and implemented at a national level with 

input from regional science centers, academic researchers, and industry partners. Furthermore, it is essential that all information utilized in such a process 

be made—in its raw form—transparent and readily accessible for unfettered 

public review. As the National Research Council 1 has stated, such transparency represents an essential element in determining information’s scientific 

merit. 

2. Related to the first: Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) theory, as the foundation for national fisheries policy, must be critically and carefully reconsidered 

by a blue-ribbon committee of scientists best suited to review and perhaps replace MSY theory with another management precept better suited to current 

fisheries conditions. As Carmel Finley has recently argued,2 MSY theory never 

enjoyed a majority of scientific support in the U.S. before 1976. More importantly, Sidney Holt—who, along with Ray Breverton developed the concept of 

MSY in the mid-1950s at Lowestoft, England—has openly critiqued how MSY 

theory has been implemented around the globe, and questioned its continued 

utility in managing overfished stocks, such ours in New England.3

3. Magnuson reauthorization must clarify Congress’ intentions as to when the 

Act’s mandates for stock rebuilding must take precedent over industry practicability concerns. In my view, the council process, and perhaps the courts too, 

have tended to put practicability and conservation on an equal footing even as 

the preamble to the 2007 reauthorized Act clearly states Congress’ desire to 

rebuild overfished stocks. Providing clear guidance as to when rebuilding must 

be accomplished regardless of its inconvenience to industry will ensure, in New 

England at least, a more effective management regime. That said, it is also essential that timelines for rebuilding overfished stocks must be based on ecosystem-based scientific understandings, and not on political compromise. If we 

find instances when industry must take a secondary role to recovery, it is only 

rational that the duration of such a situation be based on the best scientific 

information available. 

67 

4. Council members need to be more extensively trained in the ecological, operational, economic, scientific, legal, and regulatory contexts within which fishing 

exists. Most importantly, however, council members must also be trained in, 

and councils as a whole must be held accountable to, the ethical mandates that 

accompany the power they wield in the public’s name. Using council membership to advance the particular interests of one group or another—be they 

NGO’s or industry associations—defies the oath councilors take. The history of 

New England’s groundfish fishery since the passage of the Magnuson Act in 

1976 offers a sad testimony as to how competing short-term self-interests in 

the council have left the long-term interest of the public sadly ignored. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide some input into the issues which Magnuson reauthorization could address. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

MATTHEW MCKENZIE, 

Assistant Professor, 

University of Connecticut History Department, 

American Studies Coordinator, 

Avery Point Campus. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARK BEGICH TO

JOHN K. BULLARD

Follow up on Touchstone Report on New England Fishery Management 

Question 1. NOAA completed an independent assessment and review of New England Fishery management, conducted by Touchstone Consulting Group, ‘‘A Review 

of the New England Fishery Management Process’’. The report primarily drew from 

stakeholder input and examined the effectiveness of the New England Fishery Management Council, the Northeast Fishery Science Center, and the Northeast Regional 

Management Office. The recommendations made by the report include the need to 

simplify, streamline, and eliminate many redundant management practices that are 

seen by stakeholders as cumbersome and capricious, and the formulation of a strategic vision and a balance between conservation and service to the industry. In addition, the report noted the need for improved quality and timeliness of data. Following the release of the report, NOAA announced that it would adopt a series of 

immediate actions and near-term plans to incorporate the report’s recommendations. 

As I requested at the hearing, please provide the Committee with the implementation status of the Touchstone report’s various recommended improvements for the 

New England Fishery Management Process. 

Answer. NOAA has made significant progress addressing the issues identified by 

the independent assessment and review of the fishery management process in New 

England. The Report identified several priority areas in need of improvement: improving our data management systems; collaborating more effectively with our partners on science, cooperative research, and reviews of our science programs; exploring new approaches to communicating with fishermen about regulatory actions and 

the science behind those actions; and identifying ways for the New England Fishery 

Management Council (Council), the Northeast Regional Office (Region) and the 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center (Center) to work together effectively to make 

these improvements. 

Recommendations made in the report were broken down into four broad categories: (1) simplify governance; (2) simplify communications; (3) improve science 

collaboration; and (4) maximize collaboration. NOAA has developed an action plan 

in response to the recommendations: 

(1) Simplify Governance. The report states that the fishery management process 

can be difficult and that in some cases regulations have become overly complicated and redundant. To address these concerns, we developed memorandums of understanding between NOAA and both the New England (memorandum is nearly finalized) and Mid-Atlantic (final) Fishery Management 

Councils. These memorandums of understanding will strengthen collaboration 

between NOAA and the Councils, simplify the governance structure and process, and highlight additional opportunities for public input. We also convened 

a team of Council, Region, and Center staff to develop and implement best 

practices and recommendations for improving the efficiency, collaboration, and 

effectiveness of the fishery management process. 

Regional data management systems were also cited as being redundant and 

in need of better integration between the Region and Center. To address this 

68 

concern, a working group of Center and Region staff performed an intensive 

review and analysis of data gathered from the fisheries and how those data 

are managed and delivered. The group, charged with addressing current concerns as well as with developing a long-term vision for the future, has identified near-term improvements to the existing data collections and management 

systems and longer-term activity that will recommend a redesign of these systems. NOAA has also developed a standardized peer-review process to evaluate each aspect of its science programs that is currently focused on the collection, management, and quality of data used for stock assessments. 

We have made advances in how we collect much of our data. One key improvement will be to move from paper to electronic reporting of individual fishing 

trips. We expect to be able to accept electronic vessel trip reports in a majority 

of fisheries by the end of the year. Further, we have improved the collection, 

processing, and availability of the data collected by our fishery observers and 

for delivering biological data collected from scientific surveys by the implementation of a web-based data entry system. Use of barcoding to tag samples has 

saved time and reduced error rates at every step from collection through auditing and data delivery. 

(2) Simplify Communications. NOAA has made improving our communications 

and relations with industry a priority. We are committed to continuing the effort and are actively seeking ways to develop a more consistent and focused 

message. We have taken several measures including the formation of a Communications Team and updating our communications plan that supports all 

Regional Office program staff that work with industry and the public, and 

that promotes outreach collaboration between the Regional Office, Center, 

Council, and the Office of Law Enforcement. We have also made the information distributed to fishermen more streamlined and accessible, and are using 

clear, more concise language in our communication materials. 

(3) Improve Science Collaboration. This category covers topics as wide as cooperative research, stock assessments, social sciences and economics. In response to 

this challenge, NOAA has worked with our stakeholders to ensure that our 

Cooperative Research Program is responsive to industry, management, and 

scientific priorities. Ten public meetings were held to review progress and the 

focus of the program. This resulted in putting more emphasis on projects to 

reduce the scientific uncertainty in analyses important to setting annual catch 

limits, and to characterize bycatch and discards. To address the communication and transparency concerns raised in the report, the program website was 

redesigned, making more information available and easily accessible. 

To improve the stock assessments, an Assessment Oversight Panel (Panel) 

was established and includes the chairs of the Councils’ Scientific and Statistical Committees and a senior Center assessment scientist. The Panel meets 

annually to review assessment plans before work begins on new stock assessments. Stock assessments selected for completion through the Panel are now 

integrated, such that Scientific and Statistical Committee members responsible for the stock under review are part of the review panel. The New England Fishery Management Council’s procedures have been revised so that its 

Scientific and Statistical Committee does not further peer review stock assessments—consistent with the Mid-Atlantic Council’s procedures. 

NOAA is ensuring that socioeconomic analyses are more visible and meaningful in the Northeast fisheries management process. Since 2011, we have developed social and economic surveys to gather information needed to improve 

analysis of how fishery regulations affect fishing businesses, communities, and 

local economies. We have developed fisheries performance measures to track 

the relationship between fisheries regulations and sustainable outcomes and 

are now publishing an annual report specifically focused on the performance 

of the New England groundfish fishery. 

(4) Maximize Collaboration (Council Lead). The Council has taken responsibility 

for findings in the report applicable to their process. Issues tackled by the 

Council include redesigning Council meetings to be a more open and collaborative process and creating a performance management system to track the 

progress of Council decisions and capture lessons learned. 

Challenges in New England Fisheries Management 

Question 2. New England’s fisheries have faced more challenging management 

issues than other regions. For example, New England has eight stocks ‘‘subject to 

overfishing’’, and 13 categorized as ‘‘overfished,’’ including a number of historically 

and commercially important species such as cod. By contrast, the mid-Atlantic has 

69 

none. What is the agency doing to address the historical overfishing of iconic 

groundfish, such as Atlantic cod, and the resulting hardship to New England fishermen? 

Answer. After decades of intense fishing by both international and domestic fleets, 

many Northeast groundfish stocks reached record low levels in the early 1990s, particularly cod, haddock, and yellowtail flounder. Despite fishermen’s adherence to annual catch limits in recent years, several key fish stocks in the Northeast are not 

rebuilding as expected. Slower growth rates, delayed maturation, lower average recruitment, and increased natural mortality impede recovery. 

We believe that changing ocean conditions (i.e., warmer water, changing prey species and abundance) in the Northwest Atlantic may be a contributing factor. Last 

year (2012) was the warmest year on record in the Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank, 

and Southern New England, and a changing climate and ecosystem are affecting 

fish stocks. This is an active area of research and NOAA requested an additional 

$10 million to support research on the impacts of climate on fish stocks, with a focus 

on the Northeast groundfish region in the FY 2014 President’s Budget request. Additionally, in the fall of 2013, NOAA is conducting a climate vulnerability assessment for all managed fishery species in the Northeast region. 

For the 2013 fishing year that started May 1, NOAA implemented catch limits 

for some stocks that are substantial reductions from 2012. For example, fishing year 

2013 catch limits for Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank cod are 77 percent and 61 

percent lower than the fishing year 2012 catch limits, respectively. It is worth noting that although the situation is worse concerning cod and yellowtail flounder, 

other New England groundfish stocks such as Georges Bank haddock, Pollock, and 

redfish are not currently overfished or subject to overfishing. 

NOAA has taken several steps in 2013 to mitigate the economic impacts of the 

low catch limits for some stocks: 

• NOAA has worked with the New England Fishery Management Council to offset expected losses by providing greater access to other healthy fish stocks, such 

as redfish, winter flounder, spiny dogfish, and white hake. 

• NOAA is allowing fishermen to continue to carryover, with no pound for pound 

payback, up to 10 percent of their 2012 uncaught quota into the 2013 fishing 

year for all stocks except Gulf of Maine cod, for which, to prevent overfishing, 

the carryover is 1.85 percent. 

• NOAA eliminated the dockside monitoring program. 

• In addition, we are currently paying for at-sea monitoring costs for the remainder of fishing year 2013—costs that were scheduled to be transferred in part 

to industry this year. We are exploring options for establishing a cost-sharing 

arrangement with the fishing industry to potentially help off-set the costs of atsea monitoring in the future, subject to future appropriations. 

NOAA is working with industry and other agencies to generate an initiative to 

support fishermen during these difficult times. These ideas are outlined in a ‘living 

document’ entitled Fishing Through Tough Times: A Working Document on Resources to Support the Northeast Groundfish Industry. The draft initiative includes 

measures such as identifying Federal loan programs that can help fishermen and 

improve marketing to increase prices paid to fishermen. Several meetings have been 

held with stakeholders in the region to identify and pursue such options. A number 

of meetings have also been held with Congressional members from New England to 

ensure that the plan helps to address concerns they are hearing from their constituents. 

From these initial meetings, a Northeast Groundfish Economic Coordinating Committee has been established that includes members from NOAA, other Federal agencies, state and local government, and the fishing industry. The purpose of this Coordinating Committee is to keep the ideas in the resource document moving forward, and to foster a coordinated approach for this important issue. We are also 

working closely with the Groundfish Task Force established by Governor Deval Patrick, and have nearly weekly calls with representatives from the Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts to discuss our respective efforts to help the fishing industry. 

NOAA is sponsoring a presentation and webinar on December 2 by the U.S. Small 

Business Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture on their programs 

that can provide support to the fishing industry during these challenging times. 

Commercial fishing is considered a type of harvesting so is suitable for these forms 

of assistance, and the fishermen, dealers, and others in the industry can find out 

whether they are eligible for the various kinds of assistance offered by these agencies, and if so, how to apply. 

70 

Question 3. Do you think the emergency we face in the New England groundfish 

fishery results from strict timetables in the MSA or the biological situation in the 

water? 

Answer. The groundfish fishery in New England is made up of 20 managed 

stocks, and the biological characteristics of those stocks vary considerably. While 

some of the stocks are in good condition and have responded well to management, 

such as Georges Bank haddock, pollock, and Acadian redfish; others, such as the 

cod stocks and Georges Bank yellowtail flounder, have not. Because of the different 

stock conditions and life histories of the overfished stocks, some had rebuilding periods of 10 years or less, while others had longer rebuilding periods. But, in spite of 

best efforts to set appropriate and scientifically based annual catch limits and other 

measures to rebuild these stocks, regardless of the length of their rebuilding periods, some have not responded as expected. This has necessitated repeated and sometimes large cuts to the catch limits to try to get the stocks back on their rebuilding 

timelines. It does appear that environmental factors are hampering the rebuilding 

efforts, as evidenced by many years of poor reproduction, survival, and growth in 

some stocks. The overall difficult conditions in this fishery are likely the result of 

factors other than MSA timetables that we are still trying to understand. 

Question 4. What steps are needed to ensure we don’t end up with a fishery collapse similar to the one that occurred in Newfoundland, Canada, in the 1990s? 

Answer. The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the tools and processes necessary to 

manage the groundfish fishery, consistent with the stock assessment advice, such 

that fishery collapses can be avoided. The New England Fishery Management Council and NOAA have been using those tools to rebuild stocks and to keep overfishing 

from occurring. However, while many stocks in New England and elsewhere in the 

country have responded as expected to this type of management and have rebuilt, 

a few, such as several of the New England groundfish stocks, have not. There is 

growing concern that there may be environmental changes occurring, such as warming waters and possible changes in distribution of prey that we do not yet fully understand, and that may be thwarting our management efforts. The best managers 

can do is use the available tools, based on the best scientific information, to control 

fishing mortality until conditions are right to produce better reproduction, survival, 

and growth of the stocks. Without improvements in those factors, managers cannot 

guarantee successful outcomes over the long term. 

Question 5. New England has been plagued with stock management issues more 

so than other regions, including the nearby mid-Atlantic. Why has New England 

had so many problems? Do you believe that it’s primarily a management or a biological issue? 

Answer. We believe that rebuilding Northeast multispecies (groundfish) stocks is 

more challenging than managing most stocks due to both biological reasons and past 

management choices. 

Most of the fisheries in both the Mid-Atlantic and New England are healthy, productive, and have responded well to management under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

In New England, the scallop fishery is the most valuable fishery in the Nation, and 

others such as monkfish, skates, red crab, and herring are in good shape. It is really 

only the groundfish fishery that continues to have some serious issues, despite all 

efforts to rebuild these stocks. That fishery has 20 managed stocks, some of which 

are in good condition that can support substantial fishing effort. However, there are 

several, such as cod, yellowtail flounder, and Gulf of Maine haddock, that are at low 

levels causing considerable concern. The reasons for the sharp declines in these 

stocks are not completely understood, but they constrain the fishery as a whole, because the quotas for these stocks are necessarily low based on their current low 

abundance. The complexity of this fishery in terms of the fish stocks, and its diversity in terms of gear types, vessel sizes, historical participation and other factors, 

has made this a very challenging fishery to manage for a long time. No fishery in 

the Mid-Atlantic, and few elsewhere in the country, is as complex as the New England groundfish fishery. 

The second key difference involves the fishery management measures that have 

been used to control fishery removals. For New England stocks, past fisheries management relied largely on indirect management measures including effort control to 

achieve target Total Allowable Catches. As a result, these target TACs were frequently exceeded resulting in overfishing and declining stock conditions. For MidAtlantic stocks, fisheries management established quotas much earlier than in New 

England. As a result, overfishing was eliminated earlier and stocks were rebuilt 

more rapidly. 

71 

Impacts of 2006 Magnuson-Stevens Act Amendments 

Question 6. The 2006 reauthorization of MSA added significant provisions that 

were groundbreaking in several respects. Congress amended the Act to require for 

the first time the use of annual catch limits and accountability measures to end 

overfishing, provided for innovative new fishery management systems, mandated 

the creation of a national saltwater angler registry for the purpose of quantifying, 

for the first time, nationwide recreational fishing effort, and called for ecosystembased management and increased international cooperation on fisheries management issues. 

What role have the 2006 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, specifically 

changes to require the fishery management councils to follow the advice of scientists 

and to establish accountability measures when setting annual catch limits, played 

in helping end overfishing, rebuilding depleted fish populations, and moving America’s fisheries on a path toward sustainability? 

Answer. The Magnuson-Steven Act ensures that fishery managers use the best 

scientific information available to prevent overfishing, actively rebuild depleted 

stocks, and minimize bycatch and impacts to habitat. This dynamic, highly 

participatory, and science-based management process, based on 10 National Standards of sustainability, has helped the United States become a global leader in sustainable fisheries and seafood. The last reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act included provisions to establish annual catch limits and accountability measures, and promote the use of science in setting those limits. While we recognize that 

implementing annual catch limits has not been without cost and challenge, they 

have been effective at ending and preventing overfishing. 

• By 2012, all Federal fisheries for which annual catch limits were required were 

operating under annual catch limits. As of June 30, 2013, assessments demonstrated that overfishing ended for 58 percent of the domestic stocks that were 

subject to overfishing as of March 31, 2007, when the requirement to implement 

annual catch limits was added to the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

• Each year, we prepare a report to Congress on the Status of U.S. Fisheries. In 

our 2012 report, we determined that 10 stocks were no longer subject to overfishing, four stocks were no longer overfished, and six stocks managed under 

rebuilding plans were rebuilt to their target levels. Since release of the Report 

to Congress, one additional stock was determined to be no longer subject to 

overfishing and one additional stock has rebuilt, bringing the total number of 

rebuilt stocks to 33 since 2000. 

As additional stock assessments are completed, we expect the number of stocks 

on the overfishing list—now at an all-time low—to decrease further as a result of 

management under annual catch limits. 

Question 7. What benefits have New England and Mid-Atlantic fishermen and 

their communities enjoyed from ending overfishing and rebuilding fishery stocks? 

Answer. Summer flounder and scallops are two cases in the Northeast in which 

rebuilding efforts were successful. The simplest way to provide an indication of benefits to New England and Mid-Atlantic fishermen of the increase in these stocks is 

through a comparison of current ex-vessel revenues to revenues before rebuilding 

took place. For example, in 1998 before rebuilding sea scallop ex-vessel revenue was 

valued at only just over $75 million ($121 million in inflation-adjusted 2011 dollars). 

In comparison, in 2011 dockside landings of Atlantic sea scallops were $581 million, 

and due to scallops, New Bedford, MA was the most lucrative fishing port in the 

Nation. 

Similarly, summer flounder ex-vessel revenues were $16 million in 1997 and 

$31.7 million in 2011 after the rebuilding program. Summer flounder is also one of 

the most sought after species by recreational fishermen. In 2006, anglers spent an 

estimated $234.1 million fishing for summer flounder along the Atlantic coast. Many 

of these anglers would switch to alternative species if summer flounder encounter 

rates declined, but supporting businesses would be impacted if anglers reduced their 

effort in response to the declines. 

Beyond the gross revenues, other indicators of the financial and social benefits of 

rebuilding of these species are not immediately available. However, the amount of 

revenue involved makes it easy to imagine the broader direct and indirect economic 

impact of these two species in terms of jobs, value-added revenue from wholesalers, 

processors, retailers, and others. If overfishing had not been controlled, most of this 

revenue would likely have been lost. Furthermore, if summer flounder and scallops 

were allowed to decline, losses may have been further compounded by increased 

overfishing in other fisheries resulting from the shift of summer flounder and scallop fishermen into other fisheries. 

72 

1http://nero.noaa.gov/fish/resources/index.html 

Although these are two stories of successful rebuilding plans, it is important to 

point out that rebuilding is a complex process and results may not be known for 

several years. 

Question 8. How can we better support fishermen struggling to make ends meet 

as depleted stocks rebuild? 

Answer. NOAA is working with industry and other agencies to generate an initiative to support fishermen and help the industry maintain its viability through these 

challenging times. These ideas are outlined in a ‘living document’ titled Fishing 

Through Tough Times: A Working Document on Resources to Support the Northeast 

Groundfish Industry,1 and includes an array of information and ideas. In particular, 

the document (1) makes fishermen and support businesses aware of the various 

forms of assistance available to them, (2) identifies the key agencies and entities 

that can provide that support, (3) facilitates interaction with our partners to address 

current and emerging issues, and (4) enables agencies to recognize and undertake 

the actions that fall within their purview. Currently, there are thirty items that 

suggest both regulatory and financial forms of assistance. 

A Northeast Groundfish Economic Coordinating Committee has been established. 

The Coordinating Committee, which I chair, is composed of the lead contacts for 

each of the actions outlined in this evolving resource document, and the purpose is 

to keep the ideas in the resource document moving forward, and to foster a coordinated approach for this important issue. 

We are also working closely with the Groundfish Task Force established by the 

Governor of Massachusetts, and have nearly weekly calls with representatives from 

the Commonwealth to discuss our respective efforts to help the fishing industry. 

NOAA is sponsoring a presentation and webinar on December 2 by the U.S. Small 

Business Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture on their programs 

that can provide support to the fishing industry during these challenging times. 

Commercial fishing is considered a type of harvesting so is suitable for these forms 

of assistance, and the fishermen, dealers, and others in the industry can find out 

whether they are eligible for the various kinds of assistance offered by these agencies, and if so, how to apply. 

Cooperative Management 

Question 9. Section 318 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the Secretary of 

Commerce to establish a cooperative research and management program to support 

the conservation and management objectives of the Act; however, cooperative management strategies have yet to be extensively incorporated into Federal fisheries 

management. 

MSA authorizes the use of cooperative management strategies in Federal fisheries 

management. Do you see a benefit to cooperative management strategies? 

Answer. Yes, cooperative research and management are very important. The Magnuson-Stevens Act’s fishery management council processes are by nature cooperative. Regarding research, NOAA has established a cooperative research program 

that has effectively engaged and benefited from collaborations with a broad range 

of external stakeholders including: State and Tribal managers and scientists (including interstate fishery commissions); fishing industry participants (including commercial and recreational fishermen); and educational institutions. 

Program results include: increased quantity and quality of data; inclusion of 

stakeholders’ knowledge in science and management; improved relevance of research to fisheries management; and reduced costs of science. Additionally, this program has promoted and continues to promote a shared understanding of science and 

support for management decisions by stakeholders and improved relationships with 

constituents. 

The NOAA Cooperative Research program is a critical component of our approach 

to management and has resulted in significant improvements in our scientific understanding of our fisheries and fish stocks. This program provides a means for commercial and recreational fishermen to become involved in the collection of fundamental fisheries information to support the development and evaluation of management options. 

FY 2013 highlights across the country of the agency’s cooperative research program include: 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center’s Spiny Dogfish Tagging Study: This is a cooperative initiative to tag spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) in the Gulf of 

Maine, Southern New England, and Georges Bank. The aim of this project is 

to answer long-standing questions about stock structure, movement patterns, 

73 

and life history of the species in order to update and improve dogfish stock assessments. 

Southeast Fisheries Science Center’s Pilot Study on the Use of a Video Electronic 

Monitoring System and Archival Satellite Pop-off Tags to Estimate Endangered 

Species Act-Listed Smalltooth Sawfish Bycatch Mortality in Shrimp Trawl Fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico: The results of this cooperative study will provide 

information on the applicability of monitoring the take of large marine animals 

in shrimp trawls. While objectives in this study are specific to sawfish due to 

the need to further evaluate their effect on their population recovery, bycatch 

of dolphin, sturgeon, sharks, and sea turtles have been reported in shrimp 

trawls. Therefore, the results could be used to evaluate the potential to monitor 

bycatch of these large marine animals in other trawl fisheries across the Nation. 

Northwest Fisheries Science Center’s Southern California Hook and Line Survey: 

This collaborative effort with the sport fishing industry allows NOAA to monitor 

untrawlable habitats of many structure-associated species that are commercially and recreationally important and in some cases are designated as overfished. The resulting data is essential for the assessment of several key shelf 

rockfish species. 

Southwest Fisheries Science Center’s Southern California Nursery Area Longline 

Survey for Pre-recruit Common Thresher Sharks: This cooperative survey in the 

Southern California Bight is focused on defining the core nursery areas of 

young-of-the-year common thresher shark pups and obtaining a fishery-independent estimate of recruitment. The resulting data have already been used to 

demonstrate increasing trends in abundance of threshers in California waters. 

Alaska Fisheries Science Center’s Fishing Technology and Conservation Engineering to Reduce Bycatch Studies: This is a cooperative effort with Alaska fishing groups to improve fishing gear and methods to achieve bycatch reduction, 

measure mortalities from all kinds of bycatch and address the effects of fishing 

gear on seafloor habitats. This effort combines its scientific techniques and direct observation tools with the gear and fishing expertise of industry partners 

to design and test solutions to these issues. 

Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center’s Pilot Survey for Bottomfish in the Waters Around Oahu, Maui, Hawaii, and Guam: The goal of this pilot survey is 

to assess spatial connectivity of local bottomfish populations and provide crucial 

population level abundance indices for bottomfish. The resulting data will support improved bottomfish stock assessments. 

In sum, NOAA’s cooperative research programs provide valuable data and products used to support Federal and State fishery management programs involving a 

broad spectrum of stakeholders. 

NOAA also supports the Bycatch Reduction Engineering Program, which provides 

an external grant program to develop technological solutions and investigate 

changes in fishing practices to minimize bycatch of fish and protected species (including marine mammals, seabirds, and sea turtles), and for those animals that are 

caught as bycatch, to minimize injury and mortality. In September 2013, NOAA 

awarded 16 grants totaling nearly $2.4 million under its Bycatch Reduction Engineering Program. 

Question 10. Why hasn’t the agency embraced these approaches extensively? What 

do you see as the barriers? 

Answer. The Magnuson-Stevens Act is specifically designed to develop cooperative 

solutions to our fishery management challenges. The primary designers of fishery 

management actions are fishery constituents, who work through the highly public 

and participatory regional fishery management council process to design management that both meets the standards of the Act, as well as the unique regional needs 

of the fishing industry and fishing communities. Voting Council members are comprised of fishermen, academics, and other interested citizens, state representatives, 

and the NOAA Regional Administrator, to develop management approaches to 

achieve the goals set forth in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Taken together, the U.S. 

approach to fishery management and specific cooperative management programs result in a robust and cooperative process that has improved the sustainability of the 

Nation’s fishery resources. 

74 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL TO

JOHN K. BULLARD

Aquaculture and Essential Fish Habitat 

Question 1. One of the issues that I hear about from shellfish farmers in Connecticut is that certain environmental regulations can pose challenges for shellfish 

permitting, which is a big industry in my state. For instance, eelgrass is protected 

as ‘‘essential fish habitat’’ under the Magnusson-Stevens Act. Yet, I hear from scientists that shellfish aquaculture provides many of the same ecosystem benefits 

that eelgrass provides including improvements in habitat and water quality. Should 

we move away from a policy that mandates ‘‘no net loss of eelgrass’’—to one that 

says ‘‘no net loss of ecosystem function’’? 

Answer. NOAA does not have a formal ‘‘no net loss of eelgrass’’ policy; however, 

the value of eelgrass and its susceptibility to degradation make it a priority for habitat protection through NOAA’s multiple consultation mandates. NOAA recognizes 

the valuable role of the shellfish aquaculture industry to provide sustainable seafood 

and ecosystem services, restore habitats, and create jobs in coastal communities nationally, including those in New England. As described in our 2011 Aquaculture Policy, NOAA supports a regulatory approach that provides opportunity for the aquaculture industry as well as protects high priority habitats that are essential to fisheries. In 2011, we launched the National Shellfish Initiative specifically to increase 

populations of shellfish in our Nation’s coastal waters through both commercial production and conservation activities. 

Eelgrass is important habitat for many NOAA trust resource species. Pursuant 

to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, eelgrass has been identified as ‘‘essential fish habitat’’ 

along much of the Atlantic coast due to its importance in the productivity of fisheries such as summer flounder, cod, and winter flounder. Other non-Magnuson-Stevens Act species such as bay scallops also depend on eelgrass, which provides food 

and shelter as individuals grow to maturity. In much of its Atlantic and Pacific 

range, eelgrass has been designated as a Habitat Area of Particular Concern (a special subset of Essential Fish Habitat) by the regional fishery management council. 

For example, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council designated eelgrass as 

Essential Fish Habitat and a Habitat Area of Particular Concern due to its importance for survival of various life stages of summer flounder throughout its range. 

In addition to the importance of eelgrass for fish production, it is also a valuable 

component of the marine ecosystem contributing to the greater diversity of bottom 

dwelling animals. Eelgrass also improves water quality by trapping suspended sediments and absorbing nutrients. It helps to stabilize bottom sediments and has been 

shown to protect coastal properties from storm damage by absorbing waves and reducing erosion. 

Other agencies recognized eelgrass values under their mandates. For example, the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) have designated eelgrass as a ‘‘special aquatic site’’ pursuant to Section 404 

of the Clean Water Act. Currently, the New England District of the Corps and the 

State of Connecticut implement a general permit for the installation and operation 

of aquaculture facilities. One permit condition is that gear may not be located over 

or within submerged aquatic vegetation such as eelgrass. This restriction reflects 

the critical role eelgrass plays within the marine ecosystem. Despite the restriction 

in eelgrass habitat, and largely because eelgrass is not found in most coastal waters 

in Connecticut and other states, it is important to note that permits such as the 

one for Connecticut have helped to nurture shellfish aquaculture for many years. 

NOAA recognizes that habitat protections for eelgrass and other special habitats 

can pose challenges to shellfish aquaculture permitting in discrete areas, and is willing to work with industry, environmental, state, and Federal partners to examine 

the issue. Eelgrass and shellfish are valued components of distressed marine ecosystems. NOAA’s laboratory in Milford, Connecticut conducts research demonstrating the ecosystem services of shellfish aquaculture, including nutrient extraction from coastal waters and nursery habitat for commercial and recreational species. Research in the Chesapeake Bay and elsewhere has revealed a co-dependence 

between eelgrass and filter-feeding shellfish, especially oysters. For example, both 

wild and cultured oysters filter water allowing light to penetrate to sediments where 

eelgrass grows. Eelgrass, in turn, stabilizes sediments, lessening the chance that 

shellfish will be buried from tidal and storm erosion. This indicates that strategic 

placement of shellfish aquaculture near sites where eelgrass grows can help maintain eelgrass, rather than leading to net losses. 

While habitat provided by wild and cultured shellfish is valuable, it differs from 

the ecosystem functions provided by eelgrass. Since NOAA’s mandates require that 

it conserve aquatic vegetation and shellfish and foster sustainable aquaculture, 

75 

NOAA will work with its partners to seek ways to fully consider the ecosystem services of shellfish aquaculture in the permitting process. 

Question 2. Is there a way for us to preserve biodiversity and ecosystem services 

while creating new jobs and providing sustainable seafood as well? 

Answer. Providing sustainable seafood and creating jobs is important. In addition 

to striving to bring the Nation’s wild fish stocks back to healthy and sustainable 

levels, NOAA invests in initiatives that support aquaculture as an important component of how the agency can reach this goal. There is a perception among some 

stakeholders of intrinsic conflict in balancing the goals of preserving biodiversity 

and ecosystem services and creating new jobs and providing domestic safe sustainable seafood for the Nation. However, case studies from the United States and 

around the world demonstrate that seafood can be caught and cultured sustainably. 

NOAA believes that increasing and diversifying our domestic seafood supply 

through expansion of sustainable marine aquaculture can be accomplished through 

careful regulation informed by sound science, and technology development and 

transfer to U.S. seafood growers. 

In 2011, NOAA and the Department of Commerce issued new aquaculture policies 

that support both jobs and the environment. Shellfish culture will constitute a large 

part of meeting the goals and objectives of these policies. With the release of the 

2011 policies, NOAA announced, and is now implementing, a National Shellfish Initiative to address a priority in our policy to increase the culture and enhancement 

of shellfish throughout the country. Successful aquaculture requires a healthy ecosystem and both provide direct and indirect economic benefits. 

Using shellfish aquaculture as an example, markets for locally-produced seafood 

are growing nationwide, including demand for oysters, clams, mussels, and scallops 

in the populous northeast. Shellfish aquaculture infrastructure, whether simple bottom plantings or suspension or cage culture, provides habitat for invertebrate prey 

and young stages of fishes, thereby promoting biodiversity, while providing sustainable seafood and jobs for farmers, harvesters, and the marketing chain to seafood 

consumers. Diversification and growth in the shellfish aquaculture sector are being 

driven by market forces; domestic oyster culture is presently about a $100 million 

per year industry nationwide and growing. Research at NOAA labs and partner institutions plays a critical role by informing management decisions to enable continued economic growth in a manner that is environmentally beneficial. 

Ensuring Choke Stocks Do Not Limit Harvests of Healthy Fisheries 

Question 3. Strict new rebuilding requirements, coupled with the annual catch 

limit mandate, create problems achieving sustainable yield for healthy stocks coharvested in fisheries where some catch of rebuilding species is inevitable. In such 

instances, rebuilding stocks become ‘‘choke’’ species, preventing full harvest of 

healthy stocks and creating allocation battles. The problems Georges Bank 

yellowtail flounder are causing for New England haddock and scallop fisherman illustrate the situation. For instance, even though Georges Bank haddock is highly 

abundant, only a small fraction of its annual catch limit can be harvested. Likewise, 

yellowtail by-catch limits are driving scallop management decisions. Indeed, increasingly small yellowtail flounder allocations to the scallop fishery associated accountability measures risk closing the scallop fishery in highly productive areas on 

Georges Bank. Conservation is important to our fishing communities, but so is the 

need for abundant stocks to be harvested. 

What steps are NOAA Fishery management councils taking to help ensure that 

fishermen have access to abundant resources, such as scallops and haddock? 

Answer. NOAA has worked quickly with the Councils to increase catch limits 

when stock assessments have shown that a stock is in good condition and additional 

fishing opportunity is possible. For example, we worked with the New England Fishery Management Council to increase the catch limit for Gulf of Maine winter flounder when a new stock assessment was completed and showed that the stock was 

no longer subject to overfishing. We also moved quickly to increase quotas for 

redfish, white hake, and pollock, as new scientific advice became available. 

We have also looked for flexibility to provide additional fishing opportunities to 

harvest healthy fish stocks. For example, we created new exempted fishery programs to enable greater harvests of spiny dogfish, skates, and redfish, and removed 

possession limits on monkfish for certain trips. 

In the Northeast, in collaboration with the New England Fishery Management 

Council, we will continue to look for flexibility in Federal laws and ways to provide 

additional fishing opportunities to harvest healthy fish stocks. For example: 

• We covered at-sea monitoring costs in 2013 for the groundfish fishery; 

76 

• We are exploring options to allow sectors access to portions of areas that were 

closed to address groundfish fishing mortality while maintaining closures in 

areas needed to protect habitat, vulnerable groundfish stocks, spawning stocks, 

and protected species; 

• We are converting discards into landings that provide additional revenues for 

groundfish vessels; 

• We eliminated the dockside monitoring program, and are considering reductions 

to minimum fish sizes and allowing landing of Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic winter flounder, which has been prohibited since 2010; and, 

• The New England Council has reduced minimum fish sizes for many groundfish 

stocks, such as haddock, to reduce discards and allow more fish to be landed, 

and has provided special access programs for vessels using selective gear, so 

that the healthier stocks can be targeted with less catch of the less abundant 

stocks. 

• We are continuing, with fishermen’s help, to improve fisheries and marine ecosystem science and the way we communicate that science through cooperative 

research. 

Question 4. What flexibility can be added to the Magnusson-Stevens Act to better 

balance conservation with access to abundant resources, such as scallops and haddock? 

Answer. The Magnuson-Stevens Act currently requires the Councils to balance 

conservation with access to fishery resources, and provide tools to give Councils 

wide discretion to determine the best way to meet conservation goals while still providing fishing opportunities. The National Standard 1 guidelines address ending 

overfishing, including the requirements for annual catch limits and accountability 

measures, and stock rebuilding. We solicited public comment on ideas for revisions 

to the guidelines, and are continuing to analyze the issues raised by the Councils 

and the public. NOAA is exploring potential areas where guidelines may be able to 

provide more flexibility for the Councils and fishermen, while still meeting the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

Fleet Overcapitalization 

Question 5. We have been successfully reducing over-capacity issues in our fishing 

fleets for nearly two decades. Are we nearly where we need to be in terms of matching the fleet’s capacity with sustainable harvest levels or are further cuts going to 

be required? 

Answer. The number of federally permitted fishing vessels in the Northeast U.S 

has fallen from a peak of almost 6,400 in 2005 to just over 5,000 in 2012. The median length and horsepower of permitted vessels has increased approximately 5 percent (for both length and horsepower) over that time period. NOAA had undertaken 

several studies to better understand the relationship between existing fishing capacity and fleet-optimal capacity. The results of these studies tend to indicate that 

over-capacity exists, but the degree of estimated over-capacity is affected to a large 

degree by the estimation method—several exist and there is no consensus as to the 

best measure. It is impossible to say to what degree existing fishing capacity is in 

line with potential long-term fishery yields. 

The larger point is that fishing capacity is neither an advisable fishery management tool nor goal. Rather, it is best thought of as a result of a confluence of fishery 

management decisions and environmental/biological conditions. Capacity estimates 

may be used to assess how well—or poorly—fisherman are able to adjust their capital inputs in the face of ever-changing regulatory and environmental/biological conditions. 

Fishery managers strive to reduce regulatory inefficiencies that prevent fisherman 

from ‘‘right-sizing’’ their businesses. In a fluid, dynamic fishery with sufficient flexibilities and, ideally, sufficient profit, fisherman will naturally adjust capacity to conditions. 

Question 6. Are there other sectors where we could be putting displaced fishermen 

to work? When there was a net ban in Florida, training programs ushered in millions of dollars of new clam fishing production. 

Answer. NOAA is supporting programs in two sectors that provide opportunities 

for displaced fishermen, either as a source of supplemental income or an alternative 

career path: aquaculture and shellfish restoration. In both of these sectors, fishermen are able to continue working on the water using the fishing vessels, skills, and 

much of the equipment they already possess. It is an attractive and viable option 

for many fishermen that also supports fishing communities and contributes to the 

preservation of working waterfronts. 

77 

2 Edwards PET, AE Sutton-Grier, and GE Coyle. 2013. Investing in nature: Restoring coastal 

habitat blue infrastructure and green job creation. Marine Policy 38: 65–71. 

Heinz J, et al., 2009. How Infrastructure Investments Support the U.S. Economy: Employment, 

Productivity, and Growth. Political Economy Research Institute Hibbard M and S Lurie. 2006. 

Some Community Socio-Economic Benefits of Watershed Councils: A Case Study From Oregon. 

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 49: 891–908. 

U.S. Department of the Interior Report. 2009. Economic impact of the Department of Interior’s 

Programs and Activities. 

Nielsen-Pincus M and C Mosely. 2010. Economic and Employment Impacts of Forest and Watershed Restoration in Oregon. 

University of Oregon, Ecosystem Workforce Program, Working Paper No. 24. 

Nature Conservancy. Benefits of Restoration for People and Nature. 3 In Oregon’s Restoration Economy. Available at: http://www.ecotrust.org/wwri/downloads/ 

WWRIlORlbrochure.pdf 

Several programs have been implemented in the northeast to test retraining of 

fishermen to be sea farmers. These programs have had variable success, and are 

mainly dependent upon opportunities for prospective farmers to realize an immediate income. Among the successes are lobster fishermen who were among the first 

to invest in open ocean mussel farming in New England, dividing their time between fishing activities and tending and harvesting mussels from submerged 

longlines. Others have completed training through a NOAA-supported ‘‘cod academy’’ and are pursuing new careers as finfish farmers. 

Aquaculture provides permanent long-term private industry jobs not dependent on 

government funding. Currently, aquaculture production is the third most valuable 

fisheries product landed in the Northeast region (from Virginia to Maine) only behind scallops and lobster. This economic engine is helping many rural communities 

maintain their working waterfront and the jobs associated with them. However, 

overall aquaculture production in the United States is very low relative to many 

other countries and to our potential production, and we import over 90 percent of 

our seafood, about half of which comes from aquaculture. There is significant room 

for expansion of sustainable aquaculture in the United States, which economic studies indicate could create tens of thousands of jobs. NOAA is working to increase the 

areas available to aquaculture by supporting efforts to streamline permitting in 

state waters and to develop projects and permitting systems in Federal waters. For 

example, in New England, we are working with local fishermen to permit a mussel 

farm in Federal waters. 

Municipalities in New England that are historical fishing ports are actively developing waterfront infrastructure (e.g., piers in Plymouth, MA) to attract shellfish 

aquaculturists as groundfish landings become less able to support local economies. 

Research quantifying the ecosystem interactions of expanded shellfish aquaculture 

in New England coastal ecosystems is needed to inform management decisions enabling expansion of this seafood sector in an environmentally responsible way. We 

are currently working with fishermen and academic partners to establish a small 

number of projects in New England to develop appropriate techniques, and to better 

understand potential environmental impacts. 

A related sector is shellfish restoration. Shellfish farmers across the Nation (including New England) are often employed in shellfish restoration activities supported by Federal, State, local, and/or private funding. The goals of most restoration 

efforts are to increase biodiversity and ecosystem services. Additionally, habitat restoration jobs may also pay economic dividends twice over: first in creating immediate, local jobs; and then, through healthy habitats that support fisheries, tourism, 

and coastal resiliency for years to come. Several recent peer-reviewed studies 2 have 

confirmed NOAA’s own data that habitat restoration, including shellfish restoration, 

creates, on average, 17–33 jobs for every $1 million investment—a strong rate of job 

creation. According to an Ecotrust study 3 on the U.S. west coast, an average of 

$0.80 of every $1.00 spent on a restoration project stays in the county where the 

project is located, and $0.90 stays in the state. 

Question 7. Should we be retraining fishermen to grow mussels or seaweed? What 

can NOAA do to streamline permitting for mussel farms in Federal waters? We impact millions of dollars of mussels from Canada. 

Answer. NOAA is exploring additional ways we can help those fishermen who 

want to learn how to grow mussels, seaweed, and other products in the marine environment. A major new initiative at NOAA’s Northeast Fisheries Science Center is 

actively addressing the potential for local mussel aquaculture. We are using new 

technologies to identify sites with high potential for mussel aquaculture production, 

as well as quantifying the ecosystem benefits of shellfish culture such as the amount 

of nitrogen or carbon that can be removed from coastal environments. 

78 

NOAA is using pilot projects to identify and resolve permitting issues with development of offshore mussel farming—for example, the coexistence of mussel farms 

and endangered marine mammals and turtles that are protected under U.S. laws. 

We are looking at how other countries (New Zealand, Canada, northern Europe) 

have been able to successfully expand mussel culture using methods that are protective of their large populations of whales and turtles. These mature and proven technologies can be used here to create jobs and to provide sustainable seafood to our 

Nation as well. Similar issues arise with respect to seaweed farming—as with mussel farming, we can look to the experience in countries with established industries 

for useful information about potential impacts and available technologies, methods 

and management approaches to address adverse impacts. 

Finally, under directives in the President’s National Ocean Policy Implementation 

Plan, we are working with our partners in other agencies to coordinate and improve 

the process for authorizing marine aquaculture operations under multiple statutes. 

A major contribution for NOAA is our understanding of how aquaculture interacts 

with the marine environment and how marine aquaculture operations can be designed, sited, and operated in a way that is compatible with our marine stewardship 

obligations. 

Question 8. NOAA has determined that the Magnuson-Stevens Act gives it authority to regulate shellfish aquaculture activities in Federal waters. Are there any 

shellfish aquaculture experts or representatives on the Regional Councils? Should 

the Regional Fisheries Management Councils have any regulatory authority over 

shellfish aquaculture permitting? 

Answer. NOAA’s position is that the definition of ‘‘fishing’’ in the Magnuson-Stevens Act includes the harvesting of cultured fish and shellfish. So if a species is included in a fishery management plan, a grower must obtain an exempted fishing 

permit or other authorization from NOAA. Although this requirement does not 

apply to species not covered by a fishery management plan, we expect Fishery Management Councils in regions where interest in offshore aquaculture is expanding to 

consider developing aquaculture-specific fishery management plans in the future. 

The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council took such an approach when it developed its aquaculture-specific fishery management plan. Although the Gulf aquaculture fishery management plan does not include any shellfish species, it nevertheless provides a good example of how a Council can take a regional approach to managing species that are likely to be considered for commercial aquaculture production 

in their region. NOAA is interested in working with Congress to explore alternative 

approaches that could provide the necessary regulatory clarity for aquaculture to develop in Federal waters. 

The makeup of each fishery management council reflects the expertise and interests of the states in that region. So in regions where interest in offshore shellfish 

aquaculture is expanding, we expect to see a corresponding increase in the number 

of shellfish aquaculture experts nominated to serve on that region’s fishery management council. Meanwhile, such experts may already serve on, and increasingly apply 

to fill future vacancies on, Council Advisory Panels and the Science and Statistical 

Committee and influence the future development of aquaculture fishery management plans. 

While we have not specifically asked the governors to nominate shellfish aquaculture experts to serve on regional fishery management councils, it is likely that 

some members who represent commercial fishing, seafood businesses, academia, 

tribes, and state and Federal agencies do have relevant expertise in shellfish aquaculture. 

Observer Data 

Question 9. Information collected by fisheries observers represents an important 

source of data for fishery conservation and management. For instance, observer data 

is used in many fisheries to track a fishing fleet’s level of by-catch against its overall 

by-catch limits. Certain fishermen, such as scallop industry participants, are required to pay for their own observers, and that can be very expensive. I understand 

it can take many months for NOAA Fisheries to be able to compile and analyze data 

obtained from observers so these data can be used to estimate by-catch levels. As 

a result, fishermen can end up ‘‘flying blind’’ during the fishing season in terms of 

knowing where their catches are in relation to by-catch limits. What more can 

NOAA Fisheries do to ensure observer information is accurate? 

Answer. Observer data is critical to our scientific and management needs. NOAA 

has developed important processes and procedures, described in more detail below, 

to ensure observer information is accurate. Our thorough quality assurance/quality 

control process can take time and we are continuing to explore and invest in ways 

to increase the efficiency of our data collection efforts, such as through the use of 

79 

4http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/Assets/Observer-Program/pdf/EligibilitylProcedurall Directive.pdf 5http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/programlreview/backgroundpapers/FSBportfolio.pdf 

electronic reporting. Currently, observer data does not take an excessive amount of 

time to process, but the synchronization of additional data streams, such as electronic reporting of catch by fishermen, video monitoring to track catch, recording of 

landings by dealers, and other data collection mechanisms allow managers to track 

catch during the fishing season to prevent overfishing or exceeding catch limits, and 

can be used to increase the accuracy and availability of data to managers. 

NOAA has developed national minimum eligibility standards for observers.4 These 

requirements are designed to ensure that observers are fully qualified and have the 

appropriate background and education needed to perform the necessary duties of an 

observer and to collect timely and accurate information. For example, observers are 

required to have a bachelor’s degree from an accredited college or university with 

a major in one of the natural sciences and a minimum number of course credits in 

the biological sciences and math or statistics. This policy may also have the benefit 

of improving retention of observers through selection of high quality individuals, 

thereby reducing training costs, providing greater continuity in operations, and improving data quality. All observers are required to pass a rigorous 3-week training 

program with a minimum score of 80 percent on written or oral tests developed by 

the program. Some programs, such as the Northeast Fisheries Observer Program, 

require a passing score of 85 percent. The National Observer Program Advisory 

Team, comprised of observer program managers from across the country including 

NOAA staff, routinely reviews the national standards to determine if improvements 

are needed. 

In addition to these requirements, all data collected by observers must go through 

a thorough quality assurance/quality control process. This is achieved through a debriefing process in which senior staff, referred to as debriefers or data editors, review the data submitted by the observer following each observed trip. The Northeast 

Fisheries Observer Program recently implemented a new policy requiring a minimum of two annual debriefings to occur in person at the NOAA observer program 

facility.5 This policy is intended to improve communication and feedback between 

the observers and debriefers and to improve observer retention and data quality. 

Fostering an environment for collaboration and support of the observer program 

can lead to better communication, higher data quality, more efficient vessel placements, better representation of true fishing activity, and shared understanding of 

prioritizing assignments and data collection to best inform fisheries management 

and scientific research. Work is also underway to streamline the interconnectedness 

of fishery-dependent data collections, such as Vessel Trip Reports and Dealer Reports, which would hasten the data processing and analysis and improve quality of 

results. 

Question 10. What more can NOAA Fisheries do to ensure that observer information is available in time to be useful to the fishermen who are paying for it? 

Answer. As described above, all data collected by observers must go through a 

quality assurance/quality control process to ensure the accuracy of the data. While 

timeliness is important, observer programs strive to provide accurate data as quickly as possible, and would not want to sacrifice accuracy for the sake of timeliness. 

In the Northeast, observers submit electronic data, paper logs and worksheets, biological samples, and digital photographs within timelines specific to each program 

and trip type. For trips targeting groundfish (including all At-Sea Monitor trips), Atlantic herring or mackerel, or Atlantic squid, observers must electronically enter 

and upload haul and species information within 48 hours of the trip landing. For 

other trip types, a shorter trip summary of critical elements must be uploaded within 48 hours. Paper logs from all At-Sea Monitor and Northeast Fisheries Observer 

Program trips must be received by the Fisheries Sampling Branch within 5 calendar 

days by priority and tracking shipment. 

Electronically recorded data are reviewed (edited) and observers debriefed (if necessary) the same day data are received. After this preliminary review, data are 

made available to end-users with approved access, sector managers (for groundfish 

data), and permit holders, via an inter-relational Oracle database and user-friendly 

website. Once the paper logs arrive, the editor reviews all data, compares it to the 

electronic data uploads for correctness, and debriefs the observer as necessary. If 

there are questionable data based on electronic data or other feedback, the paper 

logs would be reviewed as soon as they arrive. The data turnaround time is monitored and evaluated to ensure that all is being done efficiently while meeting multiple mandates and monitoring goals within an expected standard. As an example, 

for the Northeast Fisheries Observer Program, from January to April of 2013, 

80 

6See http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/ecosys 

groundfish trip edits were fully loaded and audited within 15 days of trip landing 

(average from 626 trips), and non-groundfish trips were completed within 29 days 

of trip landing (average from 404 trips). 

The Northeast Fisheries Observer Program and other observer programs are looking into additional ways to collect and submit data electronically in order to make 

information available more quickly to fishermen. For example, the Northeast Fisheries Observer Program and other observer programs across the country have begun 

incorporating handheld devices such as rugged iPads and toughbook computers to 

record and submit observer data electronically through wireless networks and satellite. Data confidentiality, IT security, and manageable costs are also taken under 

consideration. 

From a national perspective, NOAA recently approved a policy regarding the 

adoption of electronic technology solutions in fishery-dependent data collection programs. This policy states: 

‘‘It is the policy of the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration’s 

(NOAA’s) National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) to encourage the 

consideration of electronic technologies to complement and/or improve existing 

fishery-dependent data collection programs to achieve the most cost-effective 

and sustainable approach that ensures alignment of management goals, funding 

sources and regulations.’’ 

The NOAA policy requires each region to evaluate the adoption of electronic technologies for the fisheries in their areas of responsibility. The core principle is a regionally-driven focus to promote shared information and improve coordination across 

regions to improve overall Agency data collection efficiency and effectiveness. The 

goal is to obtain the appropriate amount and quality of data at the least cost in time 

and money over the long term. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. EDWARD MARKEY TO

JOHN K. BULLARD

Rebuilding Timeframe Flexibility 

Question 1. Concerns are often raised about the 10 year rebuilding time-frame for 

overfished stocks, but the law appears to provide flexibility for determining these 

timeframes. The law states that a time period for rebuilding the fishery shall ‘‘not 

exceed 10 years, except in cases where the biology of the stock of fish, other environmental conditions, or management measures under an international agreement in 

which the United States participates dictate otherwise.’’ 

In developing rebuilding plans for fish stocks in the Northeast, has NOAA used 

this flexibility to set rebuilding times periods that are longer than 10 years? 

Answer. Yes, we have used that flexibility many times in the Northeast to set rebuilding time periods that are longer than 10 years for the following stocks: 

1. Atlantic cod—Georges Bank cod, 22 years; 

2. Atlantic halibut—Northwestern Atlantic Coast, 52 years; 

3. Yellowtail flounder—Cape Cod/Gulf of Maine, 19 years; 

4. Yellowtail flounder—Georges Bank, 26 years; 

5. Thorny skate—Gulf of Maine, 25 years; and 

6. Acadian redfish (which rebuilt in 8 years but was scheduled for over 10 years). 

Climate Impacts on Fisheries 

Question 2. In your written testimony you indicate that the President’s Budget request for Fiscal Year 2014 includes a $10 million increase for NOAA to fund research on the impacts of climate on fisheries, with a focus on Northeast groundfish. 

What does NOAA hope to accomplish by undertaking this research and how could 

that help improve stock assessments and ultimately benefit fishermen? 

Answer. Dramatic changes in environmental conditions have been observed on the 

Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf over the last several decades. In 2012, the highest 

water temperature levels in over 150 years of continuous observation were recorded. 

This temperature pattern extended to the subarctic region and has been linked to 

broad-scale climate change. NOAA’s Northeast Fisheries Science Center has been 

monitoring changes in environmental and climate conditions and related ecological 

trends over the last several decades.6 Changes in the distribution patterns of fish 

and shellfish populations in relation to these changes and other anthropogenic facVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:28 May 13, 2014 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\87797.TXT JACKIE
81 

7M. L. Pinsky et al., Marine Taxa Track Local Climate Velocities Science 341–6151:1239–1242 

(2013). 

tors have been documented. Earlier analyses at the Northeast Fisheries Science 

Center demonstrated that up to two thirds of fish populations tracked by research 

vessel surveys moved further north, to deeper water, or both. A paper just released 

in the journal Science 7 has confirmed and extended these results for the northeast 

and examined patterns throughout North America based on surveys conducted by 

NOAA and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. This work shows that 

local climate conditions, described by the rate and direction of change in temperature, can explain a significant part of the observed changes in distribution. These 

local climate conditions differ in different regions of the coast and, combined with 

constraints imposed by coastlines and other topographic features, control the direction of change. It is important to note, however, that not all species are changing 

distribution, not all changes are northward/poleward, and that factors other than 

climate are contributing to shifting distributions. 

These observations hold important implications for our fishing communities. It is 

critically important for NOAA to work closely with stakeholder groups to learn from 

their observations, to share scientific information on observed changes, to attempt 

to provide projections of future change and their consequences for both ecological 

communities and human communities dependent on living marine resources. Anticipating and planning for change will be critically important in the ability of fishing 

communities to adapt to these changes in fisheries. We are strongly committed to 

working to make this possible and the funding levels provided for assessing the effects of climate change on fishery ecosystems (including humans) reflects the urgency and importance of this need. We can anticipate that if climate projections 

hold, fishing communities will encounter altered ecosystems in the Northeast, with 

an increasing dominance of species that prefer warmer waters. The impacts of ocean 

acidification will potentially be no less important. Good fishermen are good naturalists—they know the behavior and ecology of the species they catch. In a climatechanging world, the necessary adaptations by fishers will include learning the behavior and ecology of a new suite of species. Management systems will also have 

to adapt to the different mix of species encountered in the fisheries and issues related to allocation. 

Including climate information in stock assessments will be critically important in 

understanding the synergistic effects of fishing and climate change and their implications for setting management targets that can account for these changes. Among 

the exploited species in a region, we can anticipate ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ with some 

species becoming more vulnerable to the joint effects of fishing and climate while 

others are expected to increase in abundance. Stock assessments that effectively incorporate the role of climate change on the basic biology, ecology, and fishery characteristics of shifting fish communities will be essential. Ultimately this will benefit 

fishing communities by providing better forecasts of fish stock sizes that can be 

achieved under changed ocean regimes. 

The requested funding in the FY 2014 President’s Budget is a competitive grant 

program allowing a concerted effort by academic scientists, government researchers, 

stakeholder groups, and others working together to address an increasingly pressing 

need. The research will advance the understanding and projection of the impacts of 

climate variability and change on fishery stocks, their prey availability and habitats, 

and the communities and economies that depend on them and enhance the use and 

application of climate-related data and information in fisheries management and decision-making. The rich scientific resources in the Northeast will allow substantial 

progress to be made on these fronts. To take the next steps in preparing for change 

we can build on previous climate research and ecosystem programs in the region 

such as the NOAA–NSF GLOBEC and CAMEO Programs and on recent climatefisheries modeling conducted with Atlantic cod, Atlantic croaker, and cusk. Understanding the nature of expected changes and planning for these changes will directly benefit fishing communities. The time horizon for planning and adaptation is 

short given the changes already observed but it is potentially feasible. 

82 

8Pitcher, T.J., Pramod, G., Kalikoski, D. and Short, K. 2008. Safe Conduct? Twelve Years 

Fishing under the. UN Code. WWF, Gland, Switzerland. 66 pp. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. MARCO RUBIO TO

JOHN K. BULLARD

Question. Should all fisheries managed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act be considered sustainable fisheries or should a third-party certification be required for a 

fishery to be deemed ‘‘sustainable?’’ 

Answer. Federal fishery management under the Magnuson-Stevens Act is recognized as one of the strongest fishery management systems in the world, and it results in sustainable fisheries. In 2008, the Fisheries Centre at the University of 

British Columbia conducted an extensive analysis of the most active fishing countries in the world.8 They evaluated adherence to the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization’s Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, which covers fisheries management, and ranked the U.S. number 2 overall out of 53 countries, second only to Norway, which has far fewer number and diversity of fisheries to manage. U.S. seafood is responsibly harvested under a collaborative, science-based management program that works to both ensure sustainable fish populations and viable 

commercial, recreational, and subsistence fishing activities. In the U.S., fishery 

managers use the best scientific information available to prevent overfishing, actively rebuild depleted stocks, and minimize bycatch and impacts to habitat. Our 

process, based on 10 National Standards of sustainability, is designed for continuous 

improvement, and has helped the U.S. become a global leader in sustainable fisheries and seafood. 

In the U.S., our fishermen’s commitment to and investment in stewardship and 

sustainable resources has not come without sacrifice. We need to build on their commitment and ensure these successes are rewarded in the market place. Seafood 

wholesalers, retailers, vendors, and consumers may be unaware of the sustainability 

of U.S. fisheries. NOAA is taking a proactive role in telling the story of the success 

of U.S. fisheries using a variety of approaches to highlight the value, quality, and 

sustainability of U.S. harvested and farmed seafood. 

FishWatch is the Internet-based informational platform the agency uses to educate consumers on the responsible management of U.S. fisheries under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the dynamic, science-based process behind sustainability. 

FishWatch delivers neutral, regularly updated information on seafood harvested in 

the United States. This tool provides factual information about the biological and 

ecological status of a fishery and lets users draw their own conclusions relative to 

satisfying a purchasing standard, based on science provided by NOAA. We continue 

to improve the content of FishWatch and explore opportunities for expanding its 

reach. To assist sellers, NOAA, at its discretion, issues declarative public statements 

in the form of letters in response to requests from harvest sector groups on whether 

a particular fishery is ‘‘sustainably managed’’ based on the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

National Standards. In those letters, we highlight the fact that, in the United 

States, we have virtually eliminated overfishing and are rebuilding overfished 

stocks to sustainable levels in all federally-managed fisheries. 

In response to growing questions and concerns from our constituents about thirdparty certification, last year, we asked our Marine Fisheries Federal Advisory Committee (MAFAC) to conduct a policy study of what role they believe NOAA should 

play in seafood certification. The Committee is evaluating the pros and cons of an 

expanded agency role, up to and including initiating some form of a consumer-facing 

NOAA ecolabel for U.S. wild-caught and aquaculture products. MAFAC has been 

seeking input from buyers and sellers of seafood and gathering information from existing certification organizations to see what an appropriate role for NOAA would 

be. MAFAC was scheduled to meet in October 2013 to discuss its policy study, but 

that meeting was postponed due to the government shutdown. MAFAC has not yet 

rescheduled its meeting, and we do not expect a final report of the Committee’s 

work until after it is able to meet. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARK BEGICH TO

C.M. ‘‘RIP’’ CUNNINGHAM, JR. 

Challenges in New England Fisheries Management 

Question 1. New England’s fisheries have faced more challenging management 

issues than other regions. 

For example, New England has eight stocks ‘‘subject to overfishing’’, and 13 categorized as ‘‘overfished,’’ including a number of historically and commercially imporVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:28 May 13, 2014 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\87797.TXT JACKIE
83 

tant species such as cod. By contrast, the mid-Atlantic has none. What is the Council doing to address the historical overfishing of iconic groundfish, such as Atlantic 

cod and the resulting hardship to New England fishermen? 

Answer. The Council has developed measures to eliminate overfishing of cod and 

any other stocks with overfishing including reducing catch limits to scientifically 

recommended levels. In terms of reducing hardship to New England fishermen, 

please see the answer to the next question below. 

Ending overfishing on cod stocks has proven exceptionally difficult. In part, this 

has been because of assessment uncertainty but an additional factor is that the productivity of our cod stocks has declined, perhaps due to warming ocean temperatures. As a result the stocks have been slow to recover from years of excessive 

catches in the late 1980s through the 1990s. 

Question 2. Do you feel the Council has done as much as it can to help fishermen 

in New England without undercutting the recovery of the fishery? 

Answer. Yes, the Council explored the legally available strategies for gradually reducing fishing, improving flexibility and reducing costs to fishermen by exploring increased access to closed areas, allowing vessels to land smaller fish to reduce the 

amount of dead discarded fish, increasing trip limits for alternative species within 

responsible limits and other ways to give fishermen more flexibility to respond to 

changing circumstances. Many of these recommendations required approval by the 

National Marine Fisheries Service, and not all have been implemented in the manner requested by the Council. 

Question 3. What additional steps are needed to ensure we don’t end up with a 

fishery collapse similar to the one that occurred in Newfoundland, Canada, in the 

1990s? 

Answer. Although perhaps not the main cause, scientific error or errors in interpreting the science contributed to the collapse of the northern cod stocks. In 2010 

and 2011, Gulf of Maine cod catch limits were based on a stock assessment that 

greatly overestimated small cod entering the population due to a sampling problem. 

Also a review of fish growth rate data revealed that earlier information about 

growth rates used in projections of stock sizes and landings had been systematically 

overestimated. Finally many recent stock assessments have overestimated stock size 

and underestimated fishing mortality (known as retrospective error). This also was 

a problem with assessments for the Canadian Northern cod stock before its collapse. 

The causes of retrospective error can include unaccounted for natural mortality, 

fishing mortality or a change in catchability of fish in scientific surveys. The amount 

of the error is virtually impossible to predict, and the best that can be done is to 

adjust projections by the level of historic retrospective error, which may be inadequate. The Council relies on its Scientific and Statistical Committee, several of 

whom have had experience with similar fisheries science and management problems 

in Canada and other countries, to make catch level recommendations taking into 

consideration such scientific uncertainties. 

The Council also is working with the Northeast Fisheries Science Center to provide more timely stock assessment advice to inform catch limits set by the Council. 

The Council needs more frequent assessments of these critical stocks to make sure 

that appropriate catch limits are set. 

Question 4. New England has been plagued with stock management issues more 

so than other regions, including the nearby mid-Atlantic. Why has New England 

had so many problems? Do you believe that it’s primarily a management or a biological issue? 

Answer. There are many reasons for the problems with the management of some 

groundfish stocks, but others have responded well to management efforts: redfish, 

Georges Bank haddock, Georges Bank winter flounder, Atlantic sea scallops, 

monkfish, sea herring, whiting or Mid-Atlantic species. Many New England groundfish stocks were subject to overfishing long before the MSA was adopted. In some 

cases, overfishing and depletion began in the 19th century and while others began 

with the arrival of large foreign fleets in the 1960s. Other factors included fishermen’s resistance to scientific advice when fishing level reductions were recommended, the failure of quota management in the early 1980s because of the lack 

of adequate monitoring and a resistance to economic rationalization despite high 

levels of excess capacity. Adding to these problems have been environmental stress 

on inshore stocks caused by development, increased natural mortality on some species from protected predators and possible environmental stressors such as warming 

ocean temperatures because Northeast multispecies groundfish stocks are at the 

southern end of their geographical range. 

As a result, I do not believe that the failure to rebuild some groundfish stocks 

can be attributed solely to biology or management. The two are inextricably linked. 

84 

While I agree that some past decisions have been faulty, over the last ten years 

most management decisions were consistent with the scientific advice presented to 

the managers and yet stocks have not responded as expected. 

Follow-up on Touchstone Report on New England Fishery Management 

Question 5. NOAA completed an independent assessment and review of New England fishery management, conducted by the Touchstone Consulting Group, ‘‘A Review of the New England Fishery Management Process’’. The report primarily drew 

from stakeholder input and examined the effectiveness of the New England Fishery 

Management Council, the Northeast Fishery Science Center, and the Northeast Regional Management Office. The recommendations made by the report include the 

need to simplify, streamline, and eliminate many redundant management practices 

that are seen by stakeholders as cumbersome and capricious, and the formulation 

of a strategic vision and a balance between conservation and service to the industry. 

In addition, the report noted the need for improved quality and timeliness of data. 

Following the release of the report, NOAA announced that it would adopt a series 

of immediate actions and near-term plans to incorporate the report’s recommendations. 

Chairman Cunningham, your predecessor, John Pappalardo, requested that 

NOAA conduct a comprehensive review of the region’s fishery management process. 

In the two years since that report was issued, do you feel the agency has taken adequate action on its findings? In your view, have any needed reforms fallen through 

the cracks? 

Answer. Although there has been progress on many of the recommendations in 

the report and new NOAA/NMFS leadership in the region is committed to improving collaboration with the Council, progress on some important recommendations is 

slow. These include reducing the redundancy created by NEPA and the MSA and 

improving early guidance from the NMFS regional office on the development of 

management actions by the Council. On the positive side, NOAA/NMFS and the 

Council recognize the importance of these issues and continue working diligently to 

make progress on them. In terms of involving stakeholders, the Council has taken 

steps to improve participation by and transparency for stakeholders by formally including participation of advisory panel chairs in committee meetings, convening a 

workshop with all advisors and the SSC on ABC control rules, initiating a project 

to improve our website for all stakeholders and the public, and holding collaborative 

meetings at the Committee level to tackle problematic issues. 

Improvements to Scientific-Based Management 

Question 6. The MSRA added significant provisions that were groundbreaking, 

elevating the role science plays in the fishery management process. The resulting 

data and modeling needs were known to be costly, and following enactment, Congress provided additional funding to NMFS to implement these new requirements. 

Since that time, however, funding for NMFS has steadily decreased, and the President’s request for NMFS in FY 2014 would continue that trend. It is an open question whether current funding levels for NMFS are sufficient to achieve the management goals envisioned by the MSRA. 

How is the New England Fishery Management Council working with scientists to 

strengthen fisheries science and how will that help the Council establish accurate 

and timely catch limits and accountability measures with buy-in from the industry? 

Answer. Following the 2006 reauthorization of the MSA, the Council has implemented annual catch limits (ACLs) for all managed stocks in compliance with the 

acceptable biological catch (ABC) levels recommended by its Scientific and Statistical Committee. Additionally ACLs for all stocks must meet the approval NOAA/ 

NMFS. Also as mentioned in response to question 3, the Council also is working 

with the Northeast Fisheries Science Center to provide more timely stock assessment advice to inform catch limits set by the Council. 

The most important step that can be taken to achieve industry buy-in is to identify catch limits that actually meet mortality targets. For many groundfish stocks 

this has proven elusive. Industry loses confidence in the science when catches remain below quotas but overfishing continues. We are working with the Northeast 

Fisheries Science Center to address this problem. 

Question 7. How can additional cooperative research successfully support sciencebased fisheries management? 

Answer. There are many areas in which cooperative research is needed to support 

science-based fisheries management. Cooperative research is essential for 

supplementing or providing information on fish stock distribution under changing 

environmental conditions, bycatch minimization and more detailed abundance information than can be provided by current fishery-independent scientific sampling. FiVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:28 May 13, 2014 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\87797.TXT JACKIE
85 

nally, industry-based surveys can supplement our understanding of population 

trends and build confidence in government surveys. 

Question 8. Current funding levels only allow the Northeast Fisheries Science 

Center to conduct annual updates for about ten to twelve stocks, resulting in individual assessments that are often separated by four or five years. How critical is 

it that we dedicate more resources for data collection and improved and more frequent stock assessments, particularly in the context of addressing the groundfish 

fishery challenges in the medium term? 

Answer. It is extremely important to have more frequent stock assessments. The 

Council’s Groundfish Plan Development Team and SSC have evaluated the performance of groundfish stock projections and have found them to be unreliable for setting catch limits if based on stock assessments more than about two years old. If 

recent assessments are not available, projections tend to rely heavily on models to 

predict new recruitment and natural mortality rather than actual observations. As 

a result they may include a lot of ‘‘paper fish’’—fish that are projected to be available based on assumptions—instead of fish that have been observed in the catch or 

through scientific sampling. Additionally, it is virtually impossible to predict 

changes in natural mortality due to predation and other causes. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL TO

C.M. ‘‘RIP’’ CUNNINGHAM, JR. 

Northern Edge, Georges Bank Closed Area II 

Question 1. The ‘‘Northern Edge’’ of Georges Bank Closed Area II is home to tens 

of millions of pounds of scallops, but it has been closed to scallop fishing for nearly 

twenty years. Georges Bank haddock are fully rebuilt and highly abundant along 

the ‘‘Northern Edge.’’ Scallops and haddock can be harvested in this area with less 

potential for by-catch of rebuilding species such as Georges Bank yellowtail flounder. High catch rates of target species, such as scallops and haddock, also allow fisherman to spend less time with their fishing gear deployed on the ocean bottom. 

What progress is the New England Council making to open the ‘‘Northern Edge’’ to 

controlled fishing for abundant species such as haddock and scallops? 

Answer. The Council is developing an amendment to update essential fish habitat 

(EFH) designations, EFH protection areas and dedicated habitat research areas for 

all of its fishery management plans and expects to approve a draft amendment in 

late 2013 or very early in 2014. The amendment will consider allowing more access 

for controlled fishing for abundant species such as haddock and scallops on the 

Northern Edge of Georges Bank while still protecting EFH. The need for increased 

access will be balanced against the statutory requirement to minimize the adverse 

effects of fishing on essential fish habitat. 

Question 2. What changes can be made in the law to help fishery management 

be able to react more quickly to changing resource conditions? 

Answer. The Council needs more frequent stock assessments to support changes 

in specifications. Despite using multi-year specification cycles, routine assessments 

often are not available to support these actions. The result can be reliance on outdated information or infrequent adjustments under changing stock conditions. 

Also, the MSA should exempt routine adjustments in FMP specifications (overfishing levels, ABCs, ACLs, annual catch targets and other routine measures) from 

extensive NEPA analysis and provide for a streamlined regulatory review process 

for these actions. 

Question 3. What actions is the Council taking to shift towards fishery management that is grounded in ecosystem considerations like habitat, the role of forage 

fish, and changing ocean conditions due to climate change and pollution? 

Answer. The Council has been taking into account ecosystems considerations in 

several ways. When stock assessments incorporate information about ecosystems 

considerations, the information affects the choice of reference points such as FMSY, 

ABCs, OFLs and ACLs. This was the case for a recent assessment for Atlantic sea 

herring, which is an important forage fish for many other fish and marine mammals. Secondly, the Council has designated EFH protection areas chosen based on 

their importance to various life stages for a variety of fish species. The Council also 

provides input to the Northeast Regional Ocean Council on regional ocean planning 

issues. 

Additionally, the Council has explored a more formal approach to ecosystem based 

management. Progress has been slow because of several high priority challenges 

that needed to be addressed—such as the recent efforts to end overfishing on cod 

86 

stocks. The Council will participate in a climate-change seminar with our neighbors, 

the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, in the spring of 2014. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. EDWARD MARKEY TO

C.M. ‘‘RIP’’ CUNNINGHAM, JR. 

Ecosystem-Based Management 

Question 1. In your written testimony, you indicate that there are some provisions 

of the Magnuson-Stevens Act that limit the ability to manage fisheries using an ecosystems approach. Please provide the specific provisions you think hinder ecosystem 

management and your suggestions of how to improve them. 

Answer. National Standard 1 requires each stock to be managed to achieve a biomass level (BMSY) of providing maximum sustainable yield (MSY) on a long-term average basis and that if any stock falls below 1⁄2 the biomass target (BMSY) it must 

be rebuilt within the 10-year time-frame if possible. Scientists have informed the 

Council that this focus on single species management will make it very difficult to 

manage stocks as a group and that it is virtually impossible for all managed stocks 

to be at their target levels simultaneously, particularly if there are predator-prey 

interactions between stocks. For example, spiny dogfish may compete with cod for 

food and marine mammals that depend on cod and herring as major components of 

their diet. 

There are also issues with who has the management authority. Under EBFM, 

management should take into consideration large marine ecosystems (LME’s) as the 

management areas. Currently, jurisdiction is set up under arbitrary regions. If true 

ecosystems based fisheries management is to be put in place, management authority 

and process issues will have to be addressed. 

Building Trust in Fisheries Management 

Question 2. Your written testimony also indicates that there has been ‘‘an erosion 

of trust in both the scientific advice and the management system’’ in recent years 

and the need for more stock assessment advice. How can additional resources for 

science help the New England Fishery Management Council work with scientists to 

strengthen fisheries science and how will that help the Council establish accurate 

and timely catch limits and accountability measures with buy-in from the industry? 

Answer. As mentioned above, the Council needs more frequent stock assessments 

to support changes in specifications. Despite using multi-year specification cycles, 

routine assessments often are not available to support these actions. The result can 

be reliance on outdated information or infrequent adjustments under changing stock 

conditions. 

Also funding for cooperative research can improve buy-in from industry. Industrybased surveys can supplement our understanding of population trends and build 

confidence in government surveys and the effectiveness of management measures 

Seafood Sustainability Certification 

Question 3. In your written testimony, you discussed the possibility of creating a 

certificate of sustainability through the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Is there something 

that prevents that from happening under the current law? 

Answer. Although there is nothing that prevents the creation of a certificate of 

sustainability by NOAA/NMFS under the current law, competing demands for 

scarce resources can prevent this from being a priority without more explicit guidance from Congress. 

Data Confidentiality 

Question 4. In your written testimony, you indicate that there are some data confidentiality provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act that limit the ability managers 

and the public to understand the effects of management decisions. Can you please 

provide the specific problematic provisions and your suggestion of how to improve 

them? 

Answer. SEC. 402. (b)(1) (Information Collection; Confidentiality of Information) 

states that ‘‘Any information submitted to the Secretary, a State fishery management agency, or a marine fisheries commission by any person in compliance with 

the requirements of this Act shall be confidential and shall not be disclosed’’ with 

several exceptions including the following: 

(E) when such information is used by State, Council, or Marine Fisheries Commission employees to verify catch under a limited access program, but only 

to the extent that such use is consistent with subparagraph (B); 

87 

(F) when the Secretary has obtained written authorization from the person submitting such information to release such information to persons for reasons 

not otherwise provided for in this subsection, and such release does not violate other requirements of this Act; 

(G) when such information is required to be submitted to the Secretary for any 

determination under a limited access program; . . . 

However, there are no exceptions for making this information public when the 

Council is developing limited access or catch share programs. Because catch history 

is often used to allocate resources in catch share systems, permit holders need to 

know the catches attributed to their permits. It is often impossible for current permit holders to obtain releases of information from individuals who may have had 

the same permit in the past but who cannot be located by the current permit holder. 

Therefore this provision makes it difficult for the Council to develop limited access 

or catch share management programs or for permit holders to support such programs because they cannot determine how management alternatives might affect 

their quota allocations. 

Suggestions that would eliminate this problem are: (1) allow all previous catch 

history information associated with a current permit to be released to the current 

permit holder(s); and (2) allow councils to use this information in the development 

of management programs as long as the information is not explicitly identified with 

a specific individual, entity or permit. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARCO RUBIO TO

C.M. ‘‘RIP’’ CUNNINGHAM, JR. 

Correcting Comment by Mr. Cunningham: Senator Rubio asked me a question at 

the hearing about flexibility and I somewhat misspoke in my response. The NEFMC 

does not have a Council position on flexibility. I was trying to give the sense of the 

Council. Flexibility is one of those things that means different things to different 

participants in the process. It was the Council sense that focusing on ending overfishing was the most important and controllable aspect of the management process. 

My own feeling on the flexibility issue is a little more precautionary. Also, I applaud 

the creative way that the MAFMC was able to find flexibility within the current 

MSA. 

Question 1. As you know, it has become common practice for the Administration 

to divert in their annual budget the Saltonstall-Kennedy funds received by NOAA 

away from the authorized uses and into the agency’s Operations and Research fund. 

Do you agree with this diversion or do you feel these funds should be used for their 

intended purposes and in addition to the funds appropriated by Congress to NOAA 

for fisheries research? 

Answer. From my perspective and I believe the sentiment of the Council, that research support and enhancement is at the top of the list to maintain and improve 

the Council process. With that in mind, it would be a real benefit if funding could 

be found to support the regional science centers in their effort to support the Council’s requirements for real time science to support the mandated Annual Catch Limits and Accountability Measures. I realize that we are in a fiscally constrained time, 

so using S–K funding, which has research as one of its objectives, seems to me to 

be reasonable. 

Question 2. How would you prioritize National Standard 1 and National Standard 

8 against each other? Should one standard have higher prioritization? 

Answer. Again, from my perspective, the top priority of the Council process should 

be to rebuild sustainable fisheries resources. Strong resources will float all boats 

(pun intended). On the other hand if the Council process fails to maintain sustainable resources, then every fishing community will suffer. I would prioritize NS1 at 

the top. 

Question 3. What policy changes are necessary to provide clarity on how the National Environmental Policy Act and the Magnuson-Stevens Act align? 

Answer. The eight fishery management councils have tried to work with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to reduce the overlap and differences between the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act (M-S Act) with little success. Management actions must be drafted with both 

laws in mind, and most fishery management actions are accompanied by a NEPA 

document. As one illustration of an inconsistency between the two laws, under the 

M–S Act the NMFS can only approve, partially approve, or disapprove a management measure submitted by the Council. But to comply with NEPA—which is as 

an agency responsibility—NMFS is supposed to consider all alternatives in the 

88 

NEPA document, and is prohibited from making a decision before the public process 

is completed. So NMFS publishes a NEPA document that pretends any alternative 

can be selected when the reality is that the agency’s choices are constrained by the 

M–S Act language and the Council’s choice of a proposed action. There are also different requirements for public input between the two laws that can cause confusion. 

The M-S Act should also exempt minor regulatory actions from the need for NEPA 

analyses. Finally, it should be clarified that the NMFS cannot add alternatives to 

a document (under the excuse that NEPA requires additional alternatives) that 

have not been developed by the Council. 

Question 4. Should all fisheries managed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act be considered sustainable fisheries or should a third-party certification be required for a 

fishery to be deemed ‘‘sustainable?’’ 

Answer. As outlined in my testimony, the NEFMC does not see any need for 

third-party certification. MSA has the most stringent management protocols of any 

country. A certification process should be set up under NOAA that would put all 

U.S. fisheries on an equal footing. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARK BEGICH TO

RICHARD B. ROBINS

Question 1. What role have the 2006 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 

specifically changes to require the fishery management councils to follow the advice 

of scientists and to establish accountability measures when setting annual catch 

limits, played in helping end overfishing, rebuilding depleted fish populations, and 

moving America’s fisheries on a path toward sustainability? 

Answer. On a national level, the 2006 reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act (MSA) has contributed to significant progress toward ending overfishing and rebuilding depleted stocks. The Mid-Atlantic Council has long considered scientific advice to be the cornerstone of effective fisheries management. The requirements of 

the 2006 Amendment required significant changes for some of the regional councils, 

particularly those that had been using input controls as their primary form of management. In contrast, the Mid-Atlantic Council had already implemented sciencebased catch level recommendations through enforcement of hard quotas (which effectively controlled fishing mortality) in response to the requirement of the 1996 

Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA) to rebuild overfished fisheries. 

By the time the 2006 MSA reauthorization was approved by Congress, the MidAtlantic Council had already ended overfishing and established rebuilding plans for 

all of its fisheries prior to the 2006 reauthorization. As a result, bringing MAFMC 

FMPs into compliance with the 2006 MSA reauthorization required only minimal 

changes with respect to implementing Annual Catch Limits (ACLs) and (AMs) in 

Mid-Atlantic fisheries. The Mid-Atlantic Council became the first regional fishery 

management Council in the Nation to approve measures to comply with the MSRA 

through adoption of its Omnibus ACL/AM Amendment in August 2010. This amendment codified a framework for the specification of ACLs and AMs and established 

a policy which provides guidance on the specification of annual catch limits with regard to the risk of overfishing. 

It is important to note that rebuilding successes since 2006 should not all be attributed to the stricter requirements of the 2006 reauthorization (just as failures 

since 2006 should not be attributed to failure to comply with the requirements of 

the Amendment). Like the Mid-Atlantic, a number of Councils began working to rebuild overfished stocks following the passage of the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act, 

and rebuilding was already well underway for many U.S. fisheries. However, many 

of our Nation’s fisheries had already become severely depleted by that point, and 

rebuilding can be a slow process that has been confounded in some U.S. fisheries 

by environmental conditions and other anthropogenic factors that councils are unable to control. 

Question 2. What benefits have Mid-Atlantic fishermen and their communities enjoyed from ending overfishing and rebuilding fishery stocks? 

Answer. The benefits of ending overfishing and rebuilding overfished stocks are 

generally manifested as greater stock productivity and increased sustainable harvests, which typically result in greater economic productivity and social stability in 

fishing communities. For example, summer flounder stock rebuilding has allowed for 

increases in allowable catches with attendant social and economic benefits being accrued by the commercial sector. Likewise, the recreational sector of this fishery has 

enjoyed greater access to the resource via higher bag limits, greater retention of 

their catch through size limit adjustments and longer fishing seasons. 

89 

In addition to the obvious social and economic benefits of increased quotas when 

stocks are rebuilt, there are other more subtle benefits to rebuilding fish stocks. 

First, fully rebuilt stocks are generally comprised of a greater proportion of larger, 

older fish relative to an overfished stock. This tends to increase the reproductive capacity of the stock and also contributes to greater stock stability since healthy 

stocks are less dependent on incoming annual recruitment events to sustain harvests. 

Second, healthy fisheries tend to be more resilient to the stresses of temporary 

overfishing and environmental changes. This means that a healthy stock is less likely to be significantly altered if the annual catch limit (ACL) is set too high during 

a given year due to an inaccurate estimation of stock size. The resilience of our fisheries to environmental stressors will become increasingly important as we face new 

challenges related to global climate change, such as ocean warming and acidification. 

Question 3. How can we better support fishermen struggling to make ends meet 

as depleted stocks rebuild? 

Answer. By nature of reducing total catch, all rebuilding plans contribute to negative short-term economic impacts. The councils recognize that a reasonably short rebuilding time is desirable because healthy stocks provide higher catch levels than 

stocks that are overfished, thus providing greater long-term socio-economic benefits. 

However, there are always tradeoffs between biological, social, and economic outcomes, and the councils need flexibility to evaluate the tradeoffs associated with a 

wider range of timelines. However, the councils are optimally positioned to develop 

strategies that will rebuild depleted fisheries while minimizing adverse economic 

impacts. Several modifications to the Magnuson-Stevens Act would help the councils 

to support fishing communities more effectively: 

1. Establish less prescriptive rebuilding timeline requirements. Giving the councils 

slightly more flexibility in the development of rebuilding plans would enable 

more thorough evaluations of the social, economic, and biological tradeoffs associated with a range of rebuilding plans and timelines. The 10-year rebuilding 

timeline often precludes any meaningful evaluation of social and economic consequences associated with an appropriate range of rebuilding timelines, and results in an inconsistency in the treatment of species that can be rebuild in less 

than 10 years relative to those that cannot be rebuilt within that period. This 

inconsistency should be resolved by establishing the maximum rebuilding 

timeline as TMIN plus one mean generation time. Additionally, councils should 

have additional flexibility in revising rebuilding rates and dates when environmental conditions or biological performance (e.g., recruitment) impede a stock’s 

rebuilding trajectory. These measures could potentially allow the councils to 

mitigate some of the social and economic consequences of rebuilding without 

jeopardizing the ability of a stock to rebuild to its biomass target. 

Successful management of U.S. fisheries should not be defined narrowly in biological metrics. On the contrary, our fisheries should be managed for biological, 

ecological, social, and economic success. This could be enhanced during stock 

rebuilding by providing carefully targeted flexibility and by more effectively incorporating social and economic objectives in stock rebuilding plans. Successful 

rebuilding in biological terms does not guarantee successful social or economic 

outcomes at the end of a rebuilding plan, particularly if that rebuilding plan 

does not address the economic problems that are often attendant at the outset 

of a rebuilding plan when a stock is depleted. 

2. Promote regulatory stability. For U.S. fisheries to be productive, commercial 

and recreational fishing operations need to be managed for enhanced stability 

and predictability to the extent practicable. Frequent changes in regulations 

create significant challenges, and often result in economic losses, for commercial and for-hire fishermen in the Mid-Atlantic region. Quotas must ultimately 

be aligned with stock assessments, so some adverse outcomes are unavoidable 

in certain fisheries that may have experienced chronic overfishing and overcapacity. However, limited flexibility to eliminate overfishing under certain circumstances over a multi-year period would allow the councils to substantially 

mitigate short-term social and economic dislocation in our managed fisheries. 

This could be particularly important when a stock assessment changes dramatically. Examples of stocks that were rebuilt prior under these types of approaches prior to the 2006 reauthorization include King mackerel and Spanish 

mackerel in the South Atlantic, which were rebuilt within a generation time 

and still allowed a viable fishery to operate. 

90 

3. Establish and fund a national seafood certification for U.S. fisheries managed 

under MSA. The U.S. has one of the strongest fishery management programs 

in the world, and several councils have voted to support establishing a U.S. 

fisheries sustainability certification in the next reauthorization. In a market 

transformed by globalization, the sustainability of U.S. fisheries needs to be affirmed, and U.S. fishermen and processors should be able to identify and label 

their products as fish that were harvested responsibly and sustainably under 

the gold standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. A public affirmation of the 

core strengths of the U.S. management system would be an important step to 

facilitate education, awareness, and marketing for the benefit of U.S. fisheries. 

Question 4. How is the Mid-Atlantic Council working with scientists to strengthen 

fisheries science and how will that help the Council establish accurate and timely 

catch limits and accountability measures with buy-in from the industry? 

Answer. The MAFMC works closely with scientists at the Northeast Fisheries 

Science Center (NEFSC) to continually improve the stock assessments which form 

the basis for setting catch limits for Council managed fisheries. This process begins 

with the identification of research needs and data gaps during the specification of 

ABC by the SSC and the subsequent specification of catch limits and accountability 

measures by the Council. The Council then works with the SSC to prioritize research needs to identify the most critical research needs across our portfolio of managed species within the Councils five year research plan. These research needs are 

then forwarded to the NEFSC for consideration within the Center’s research 

prioritization and planning process. In many cases, research and analytical questions are incorporated into the terms of reference for stock assessments and are addressed directly when stock assessments are being conducted by the appropriate assessment working groups. 

In addition to working with NEFSC scientists, the Council implemented an innovative Research Set Aside (RSA) Program in 2002 whereby the Council sets aside 

up to 3 percent of the annual quota for each species to fund scientific research. The 

intent of the RSA program is to conduct research projects cooperatively with the 

fishing industry which directly address the research needs identified within the 

Councils’ five year research plan. Since its inception, the Council has funded in excess of 10 million dollars in research which addressed a wide range of research topics pertinent to Council related assessment and management needs. The program 

has recently focused on funding the Northeast Assessment and Monitoring Program 

(NEAMAP) which is a fishery independent trawl survey designed to provide information on abundance and distribution of fish stocks in the inshore waters of the 

Mid-Atlantic not covered by the NEFSC trawl survey program. While the NEAMAP 

time series is relatively short compared to other long term surveys, the Council expects the NEAMAP data to be fully incorporated into most of the stock assessments 

for Mid-Atlantic species. The information from this survey has already been incorporated into several stock assessment analyses and was utilized in assessing the 

status of the Atlantic sturgeon population along the Atlantic Coast. 

The NEAMAP survey is unique within the Mid-Atlantic since it is conducted on 

a commercial fishing vessel operated by a commercial fishing captain and crew. The 

onboard team of scientists from the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) 

monitor and collect the survey data. This example of collaborative survey work enjoys an exceptionally high degree of confidence from the fishing industry and should 

serve as a model for cooperative research that should be expanded strategically in 

the Northeast region of the U.S. 

In addition, the Council has directly funded a Management Strategy Evaluation 

study of ABC control rule performance which was conducted by several SSC members through the University of Maryland. This work evaluated the performance of 

a range of ABC control rules using simulations of known or ‘‘meta populations’’ for 

both data ‘‘rich’’ and data ‘‘poor’’ species. Additional funding to continue this work 

was recently procured though the NMFS Office of S&T under the National Stock 

Assessment Improvement Program. The expected benefits of this research include 

an evaluation of the performance of various ABC control rules under a range of 

stock conditions and information levels which will directly inform the Councils current ACL/AM process recently implemented to comply with the 2006 reauthorization 

of MSA. 

Question 5. How can additional cooperative research successfully support sciencebased fisheries management? 

Answer. Cooperative research programs provide a means to improve the accuracy 

of stock assessments while engaging stakeholders in the research process. Despite 

the importance of these programs, many of them face inadequate or uncertain funding from year to year. The Northeast Cooperative Research Program should be exVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:28 May 13, 2014 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\87797.TXT JACKIE
91 

panded to include additional funds for more research projects pertinent to the assessment and management of Mid-Atlantic fish stocks. 

The Mid-Atlantic Council has funded the Northeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program (NEAMAP) through its Research Set-Aside (RSA) program for the 

past 6 years, but the allocation of these funds solely to NEAMAP prevents us from 

funding other projects that address our annual research priorities. NEAMAP has become a core monitoring program in the Mid-Atlantic, and procuring dedicated, longterm funding from Federal sources to ensure that the NEAMAP Program continues 

into the future is the Council’s top priority in terms of funding scientific research. 

Saltonstall-Kennedy funds should be dedicated to permanently secure the future of 

the NEAMAP survey and to expand cooperative surveys and research strategically 

in the Mid-Atlantic. If long-term dedicated funding is secured for the NEAMAP 

sampling program, additional RSA funds could be made available to conduct fishery 

research in other topic areas identified in the Council’s five year research plan and 

in many stock assessments for Mid-Atlantic species Increased funding of existing cooperative research would help to address important practical research and management questions identified in our FMPs. 

Question 6. Current funding levels result in individual assessments that are often 

separated by four or five years. The status of a number of Mid-Atlantic species cannot be determined because out outdated information. How critical is it we dedicate 

more resources for data collection and improved and more frequent stock assessments? 

Answer. Analytical stock assessments form the foundation for the proper specification of ACLs and ultimately determine the success or failure of our Federal fishery conservation and management system. Setting appropriate ACLs and AMs is 

challenging, if not impossible, without adequate data, yet many federally managed 

fisheries continue to be defined as ‘‘data-poor.’’ Improvement of stock assessments, 

particularly for data-poor stocks, should be the highest research priority of the National Marine Fisheries Service in both the Northeast and throughout the U.S. 

The new ACL/AM requirements have placed a major burden on the NEFSC to 

provide the data and analysis needed to set appropriate catch levels and track the 

performance of fisheries through time as required under MSRA. In the Northeast 

region, the demands for stock assessments have exceeded the NEFSC’s ability to 

provide high-quality stock assessments at the frequency needed to manage our fisheries as required under the current mandates of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

As noted earlier, the Council implemented a risk policy with respect to the implementation of its Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) control rules. The risk policy provides a probabilistic framework to set ABC levels, and ultimately ACLs, relative to 

both the status of the stock and the level of scientific uncertainty associated with 

an assessment. Under this policy, the Council adopts more conservative harvest levels if stock levels decline and/or if scientific uncertainty increases. Allowable harvest 

levels—and hence, benefits to society—could be set at higher levels if the stocks we 

manage were assessed with a higher degree of frequency and certainty. Unfortunately, the information and assessment levels of roughly half of the stocks are insufficient for management under this probabilistic framework, meaning that the SSC 

and Council must use ad hoc methods of setting ABCs for those species, which is 

likely resulting in lost yield. Quotas set under these ad hoc methods for data-poor 

stocks are also less predictable and have resulted in a loss of stability and yield in 

some of our most important fisheries. Major improvements in the assessment of 

Mid-Atlantic stocks could be accomplished through increased funding for data collection and analysis to support better and more frequent stock assessments by the 

NEFSC. 

Another critical issue relative to stock assessments is the lack of public trust in 

the scientific data used to support management decisions. Stakeholder engagement 

is a critical element of effective fishery management, and improving the overall scientific foundation of our management system will require that particular attention 

be paid to addressing the lack of public trust in stock assessments through clearer 

communication, greater transparency, and an increased stakeholder involvement in 

data collection. 

Question 7. Can you describe the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council’s 

plan to adopt ‘‘ecosystem approaches’’ to fishery management? 

Answer. For nearly a decade the Council has been steadily moving toward a more 

ecosystem-based approach to managing Mid-Atlantic fisheries. The Council developed its first single-species fishery management plan for Atlantic surfclams in 1977. 

In the following years, 11 more species were added to the Mid-Atlantic Council’s authority. Through periodic amendments, several of the Council’s FMPs have evolved 

to become multi-species plans. The Council currently manages its 12 species under 

92 

6 management plans. Although the multi-species plans allow the Council to take 

into account similarities and interactions among closely related fisheries, the Council also faces an array of broad ecosystem level issues that require a more integrated, comprehensive management approach. This issue has been expressed as a 

top priority among all stakeholder groups, including environmental groups and commercial and recreational fishermen. 

In October 2011, the Council hosted the Fourth National Scientific and Statistical 

Committee Workshop, which examined the various approaches being taken by the 

Councils nationwide relative to ecosystem considerations in fisheries management. 

Following the workshop, the Council voted to move forward with development of an 

Ecosystem-Approach to Fisheries Management (EAFM) Guidance Document. This 

approach—which the Council has described as evolutionary rather than revolutionary—recognizes the biological, economic, social, and physical interactions among 

the components of ecosystems and attempts to manage fisheries to achieve optimum 

yield taking those interactions into account. 

The purpose of the EAFM guidance document is to enhance the Council’s speciesspecific management programs with more ecosystem science, broader ecosystem considerations, and coordination of management across FMPs and the relevant ecosystems. The EAFM guidance document will focus on four key areas relative to ecosystem considerations: 

1. Biological and ecological interactions, including management of prey species 

and food web dynamics; 

2. Ecosystem level habitat considerations-taking an ecosystem approach to essential fish habitat designation/protection and quantitatively linking habitat 

science and conservation to fishery outcomes; 

3. Systematic oceanographic change-identification of key factors affecting the 

Mid-Atlantic Bight ecosystem including warming, acidification, circulation patterns, etc.; and 

4. Social and economic considerations—integration of social and economic analyses into OY specifications. 

The EAFM guidance document will provide a framework for considering policy 

choices and trade-offs as they affect FMP species and the broader ecosystems. Rather than drastically change the Council’s management approach, the final product 

will serve as a non-regulatory umbrella document to guide policy decisions as the 

Council transitions from single-species management toward an ecosystem-based approach (i.e., the Council envisions a practical roadmap to ecosystem approaches to 

fishery management). 

Question 8. What is the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council doing to protect critical fish habitats like deep sea corals and what more should be done to protect fish habitat? 

Answer. Habitat conservation is an important component of the Council’s Ecosystem and Ocean Planning program. Healthy fish habitat is essential to sustainable, productive fisheries. Marine fish depend on healthy habitats for survival, and 

many species require specific types of habitats for spawning, breeding, feeding, and 

growth. The 1996 reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 

and Management Act (MSA) set forth new provisions which allowed for greater involvement of the regional fishery management councils in the identification and protection of important fish habitats. In particular, it required the Councils to designate Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for all managed species and gave the Council 

authority to designate Habitat Areas of Particular Concerns (HAPCs) for each species. 

In addition to identifying critical fish habitats for protection, the Council is also 

responsible for ensuring that management measures minimize, to the extent practicable, any adverse impacts to essential fish habitat by fishing gears. The Mid-Atlantic Council has used a variety of management measures effectively to minimize 

the impacts of fishing activities. These measures include restrictive harvest limits, 

gear-restricted areas for small-mesh fisheries, and closed areas in selected canyons. 

Deep Sea Corals 

The Council is currently developing an amendment to protect deep-sea corals from 

damage by bottom-tending fishing gear. Deep-sea corals provide habitat for many 

commercially and recreationally important species in the Mid-Atlantic. Generally 

fragile and slow-growing, deep sea corals are particularly vulnerable to physical disturbances. Several management measures are already in place to protect deep sea 

corals, including Tilefish Gear-Restricted Areas (GRAs) in four canyons (Lydonia, 

93 

Oceanographer, Veatch, and Norfolk) and closures of two canyons (Lydonia and 

Oceanographer Canyons) to the squid, mackerel, and butterfish fishery. 

In August 2012 the Council initiated Amendment 16 to the Atlantic Mackerel, 

Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan to provide further protection to 

deep sea corals from fishing gear. The amendment will consider management measures to protect areas that are known or highly likely to contain deep-sea corals. 

Areas being considered for protection were initially identified during the development of the New England Fishery Management Council’s Omnibus Essential Fish 

Habitat (EFH) Amendment. The draft amendment currently contains three groups 

of alternatives, including options for spatial designations of deep sea coral zones, options for management measures to be applied to such zones, and options for potential modifications to these management measures. In addition, a Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) was developed between the Mid-Atlantic, New England, and 

South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils regarding areas of jurisdiction and 

broad-scale coordination of management measures for deep sea corals. 

Integration with Ecosystem-Approach to Fisheries Management 

Since ecosystem based management involves the adoption of ‘‘place-based’’ management strategies, habitat science will play a key role in the Council’s ecosystem 

based management program. The Council will continue to pursue traditional approaches to addressing habitat issues, including spatial/temporal mapping of habitat 

to inform the definition of ecological production units for management consideration. 

The Council has also endorsed the development of habitat assessments as part of 

the development of an overall assessment of the state of Mid-Atlantic ecosystems. 

In addition, the Council is pursing the incorporation of regional habitat assessments 

into contemporary stock assessments, both at the single-species and ecosystem levels. 

Habitat considerations will also be important throughout the anticipated future 

offshore wind energy development in the Mid-Atlantic, which is expected to overlap 

significantly with the region’s fisheries. The Council has actively engaged with 

MARCO, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Planning Body, and BOEM, and has consistently supported the incorporation of fisheries resources, uses, and habitats in the 

offshore planning process. The Council anticipates that it will continue to play an 

active role on the issue of ensuring the future protection and health of fisheries 

habitat relative to offshore ocean planning. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARCO RUBIO TO

RICHARD B. ROBINS

Question 1. As you know, it has become common practice for the Administration 

to divert in their annual budget the Saltonstall-Kennedy funds received by NOAA 

away from the authorized uses and into the agency’s Operations and Research fund. 

Do you agree with this diversion or do you feel these funds should be used for their 

intended purposes and in addition to the funds appropriated by Congress to NOAA 

for fisheries research? 

Answer. I am strongly supportive of the current objective of the Saltonstall-Kennedy Act, which is to address the needs of fishing communities in optimizing economic benefits within the context of rebuilding and maintaining sustainable fisheries and dealing with the impacts of conservation and management measures. 

In the Mid-Atlantic region, the need for this program is evidenced by the large 

number of fishing communities struggling to regain stability well after stocks have 

been rebuilt and quotas have increased substantially. Successful, sustainable fisheries management under the current science-based requirements of the MagnusonStevens Act depends on having adequate surveys and stock assessments. The S–K 

Program can effectively address these types of challenges by involving stakeholders 

in fisheries research and development projects. In addition to enabling stakeholders 

to make valuable scientific contributions to fisheries management, S–K funded 

projects also have potential to strengthen relationships between the industry, scientists, and managers. 

Unfortunately, a large portion of S–K funds have not been dispersed for their intended purpose, and despite several amendments to the S–K Act, the program has 

not achieved its potential. While I am not in a position to speak to the utility of 

the specific operational and research activities being funded at NOAA with S–K 

funds, diverting money from S–K to fund NOAA operations lacks transparency and 

may prevent the S–K Program from providing support to the communities that need 

it the most. Steps should be taken to increase accountability and ensure that S–K 

funds are used for their intended purpose. 

94 

In addition to addressing administrative issues within the S–K Program, I also 

recommend that Congress consider designating a portion of the S–K funds for the 

Regional Fishery Management Councils to direct towards cooperative research 

projects to address the Councils’ research priorities. In the Mid-Atlantic region, the 

Northeast Assessment and Monitoring Program (NEAMAP) would be an ideal candidate for long-term S–K funding. NEAMAP is a fishery independent trawl survey 

designed to provide information on abundance and distribution of fish stocks in the 

inshore waters of the Mid-Atlantic not covered by the NEFSC trawl survey program. 

The information from this survey has already been incorporated into several stock 

assessment analyses and has become a core component of our fisheries monitoring 

programs in the Northeast region. 

The NEAMAP survey is unique within the Mid-Atlantic because it is conducted 

on a commercial fishing vessel operated by a commercial fishing captain and crew. 

The onboard team of scientists from the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) 

monitor and collect the survey data. This example of collaborative survey work enjoys an exceptionally high degree of confidence from the fishing industry and should 

be used as a model for cooperative research throughout the entire Northeast region 

of the U.S. Unfortunately, funding has been a major constraint for NEAMAP. For 

the six years since NEAMAP was established, the Council’s Research Set-Aside 

(RSA) program has been the program’s sole source of funding. The Council established the RSA program in 2002 to fund research projects cooperatively with the 

fishing industry which directly address the science needs identified within the Councils’ five year research plan. The Council’s commitment to funding NEAMAP has 

prevented us from funding other, potentially valuable, research projects. 

In order to ensure the continued operation of NEAMAP, and to enable the Council 

to continue funding other research projects, I strongly encourage members of Congress to consider either (a) amending the S–K Act to designate a portion of funds 

for long-term research projects with proven potential, or (b) amending the Magnuson-Stevens Act to establish guaranteed funding sources for long-term collaborative 

and cooperative research projects. 

Question 2. Would you please elaborate on the Council’s harvest control rule and 

associated risk policy? What is the benefit of harmonizing this policy across all federally managed fisheries under the jurisdiction of the Council? 

Answer. In 2012, the Council adopted a formalized harvest control rule and associated risk policy to guide the specification of Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) limits for Mid-Atlantic stocks. The MAFMC regards its risk policy as way to specify 

the Council’s tolerance for overfishing. The determination of P* is a policy decision 

to be made by the Council and informed by the SSC. The SSC applies the Council’s 

risk policy and associated harvest control rules when making ABC recommendations 

to the Council. 

The risk policy and associated harvest control rules are expressed in terms of P*, 

which represents the probability of overfishing as a function of stock health in relation to relative biomass (i.e., current biomass/biomass target) (reference Figure 1.) 

The policy enables the Council to set quotas at higher levels of risk when stocks 

are at or above their biomass targets and progressively limits risk as stocks decline 

below their biomass targets. 

95 

Figure 1. MAFMC Risk Policy and Harvest Control Rule 

Implementation of the risk policy and harvest control rule is a two-step process. 

First the SSC assigns each stock assessment to one of four levels. The stock assessment levels are summarized as follows: 

Level 1—‘‘Ideal assessment’’: ABC is based on the distribution of the OFL as 

provided from the assessment model; P* is based on the Council’s risk policy. 

Level 2—‘‘Preferred assessment’’: uses an OFL distribution proxy provided from 

the assessment workgroup; P* is based on the Council’s risk policy. 

Level 3—‘‘Acceptable assessment’’: does not reliably incorporate scientific uncertainty; uses an OFL distribution proxy (with a proxy CV), P* is based on the 

Council’s risk policy or a default value of 75 percent of FMSY to set ABC. 

Level 4—‘‘Unreliable assessment’’: lacks data on absolute abundance and fishing 

mortality rates; no reliable OFL proxy available; ABC set based on ad hoc, alternative approaches (e.g., adjustment to long-term catch history or survey 

index values). 

In Levels 1 through 3, the SSC applies the Council’s P* (risk policy/harvest control rule) to the distribution of the overfishing limit (OFL) to identify the acceptable 

biological catch (ABC.) This process works well for assessments that have biological 

reference points. The policy strikes an effective balance between maximizing yields 

in fisheries while accounting for the uncertainty that is inherent in fisheries stock 

assessments. For example, in Level 3 stocks that are at or above their biomass targets, quotas are set at 81 percent of the overfishing limit. 

The levels are designed to incentivize improvements in data quality and stock assessments. The distribution in a level 3 stock is typically based on a lognormal distribution of the OFL, using a coefficient of variation (CV) of 100 percent. This results in a relatively wide distribution of the OFL value, whereas a Level 1 stock 

assessment would be expected to have a tighter distribution of the OFL, resulting 

in a smaller buffer between OFL and ABC. All of the Council’s stocks are currently 

classified as Level 3 or Level 4 assessments. 

In Levels 1 through 3, the ABC’s are derived directly from the Council’s P* as 

it is applied to the stock assessment’s estimate of stock biomass. This results in a 

transparent, consistent, and predictable approach to accounting for risk and scientific uncertainty. By contrast, in Level 4 stocks, the ABC recommendations have 

been less consistent and have destabilized some fisheries. 

Developing and implementing a risk policy has been a challenging process for the 

Council, but it has also yielded a number of positive outcomes. Most notably, the 

risk policy has enabled the Council to manage fisheries with greater consistency, 

which ultimately results in greater stability for fishing communities. 

Having a clearly defined risk policy has also provided us with a better means of 

communicating our needs to the science center. The fact that we have no Level 1 


723RICQ1.eps
96 

or Level 2 stocks should be a clear indicator of our desire for better data. As part 

of our recently approved strategic plan, we intend to begin working with the science 

center in 2014 to develop a path for improving Mid-Atlantic stock assessments. 

Question 3. Should all fisheries managed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act be considered sustainable fisheries or should a third-party certification be required for a 

fishery to be deemed ‘‘sustainable?’’ 

Answer. Yes—all fish and shellfish harvested legally from U.S. fisheries managed 

under the MSA should be considered sustainable. The Magnuson-Stevens Act is 

touted as one of the most effective fishery management laws in the world. One of 

the greatest strengths of the law is that it establishes a common standard of sustainability which is applied consistently across all U.S. fisheries, and over the last 

37 years, managers, scientists, and fishermen have worked tirelessly to bring all 

U.S. fisheries up to this high standard. Despite our success, the social and economic 

outcomes of rebuilding marine fisheries have not been entirely positive for our region’s fishing communities. Many members of the commercial fishing industry struggle to regain their footing in U.S. and international markets even as quotas increase. There is also a lingering and sometimes demoralizing sense that U.S. fisheries and fishermen are still negatively associated with overfishing, despite the high 

standards that they are already held to under the existing requirements of the 

MSA. 

These problems deserve to be addressed—U.S. fishermen fishing under today’s 

Magnuson Act should be standing tall among their international peers. In a market 

transformed by globalization, the sustainability of U.S. fisheries needs to be affirmed, and U.S. fishermen and processors should be able to identify and label their 

products as fish that were harvested responsibly and sustainably under the gold 

standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

A U.S. fisherman catching fish in a fishery managed under the MSA should not 

have to make a hefty investment in a third-party certification in order to sell his 

fish to U.S. consumers, much less to the vendors of the U.S. Park Service. Within 

the global market, there will always be a need and a role for third-party certifiers 

for sustainability and food safety, but within the U.S. this role should largely be 

filled by the MSA. 

I would be very concerned about shouldering NMFS with an unfunded, complicated certification program. Rather, I think the focus should be kept simple and 

should give the agency the authority to confirm that fisheries subject to Federal 

management are sustainably managed, consistent with the legal requirements of 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This would allow fishermen and processors to label and 

market their product accordingly. Such a designation may or may not satisfy a European retail chain, but a public affirmation of the core strengths of the U.S. management would be an important step toward better marketing of U.S. fisheries products. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARK BEGICH TO

CAPTAIN NICK MUTO

Question 1. Mr. Muto, could you tell us how fishermen participating in electronic 

monitoring pilot programs have responded to the technology? How has it impacted 

their business and interactions with enforcement officers? 

Answer. Local fishermen see value in electronic monitoring. It is a cost-effective, 

safe, and unbiased way to implement a comprehensive monitoring program. 

Electronic monitoring offers significant cost-savings compared to human at-sea 

monitors in the event that the fleet is required to cover this cost. In past years, 

NOAA has identified money to fund existing observer coverage requirements, and 

they recently announced the availability of funds to cover the 2014 fishing year as 

well. This support is appreciated by commercial fishermen who, given the disastrous 

state of the fishery, would be unable to afford to pay for observers at an estimated 

cost of $1,200 per day. However, NOAA’s ability to fund this program has been decided on an ad-hoc basis, and a lack of funds in the future could tie the fleet to the 

dock. 

Electronic monitoring also addresses the liability and safety concerns associated 

with carrying a human observer on fishing vessels. Observers’ level of comfort and 

know-how on boats varies from person to person, and an inexperienced observer in 

rough weather is dangerous to himself as well as the captain and crew. This type 

of situation leaves the door open for inconsistent sampling and human error; conversely, cameras can be positioned in several locations on a boat to collect complete, 

unbiased catch information without interfering with fishing operations. 

97 

For these reasons, the fleet has always supported electronic monitoring. Several 

local fishermen participated in a pilot program with NOAA to advance this technology, but we are no closer to implementing electronic monitoring than we were 

when the program began a decade ago. This lack of progress has been frustrating 

for program participants and other local fishermen, but we are still hopeful that an 

electronic monitoring program will be put in place in the near future. 

Question 2. How would electronic monitoring impact your bottom line in needing 

to balance the ledger? 

Answer. This is a tough time to be a fisherman in New England. Groundfish 

stocks are at an all-time low and fishermen are struggling to keep their businesses 

afloat. Every penny counts. A requirement for the fleet to fund observer coverage 

at roughly $1,200 per day could mean the difference between staying afloat and 

going under for many fishing businesses in New England. 

Given the high cost of observer coverage and the uncertainty regarding the availability of government funds each year, it is important that we pursue an affordable 

solution that holds the fleet accountable. Electronic monitoring could be that solution—it would allow for the collection of comprehensive, unbiased data while dramatically decreasing costs. This would allow fishermen to fish profitably. 

Question 3. Needless to say, New England fishermen have had at times strained 

relationships with enforcement, particularly in the wake of revelations of enforcement abuse. How do you think electronic monitoring could help repair these relationships? 

Answer. We need effective enforcement. Otherwise, our regulations are useless. 

Comprehensive monitoring, catch accountability, and enforcement are all necessary 

parts of a management system that works to rebuild fish stocks and support profitable fisheries. Electronic monitoring wouldn’t replace enforcement, but it would facilitate accountability and streamline what is currently an overcomplicated and 

slow-to-adapt system. This would result in improved relationships between fishermen and enforcement, which is in the best interest of the fishery. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARK BEGICH TO

CAPTAIN JOHN MCMURRAY

Question 1. How do the Magnuson-Stevens Act’s conservation requirements, including the 10-year rebuilding timeline, annual catch limits, and accountability 

measures, benefit industry in the region? What is your perception of the Sustainable 

Fisheries Act? 

Answer. As I made clear in my written and oral testimony, I believe the MSA’s 

conservation requirements embodied in the 1996 SFA and solidified the 2006 reauthorization, have been, overall, beneficial to the fishing industry. The 10 year rebuilding timelines really did force the Mid Atlantic Council to bite the bullet, implement sometimes very restrictive measures despite political pressure to allow 

unsustainable fishing, and as a result, species like summer flounder have recovered 

to levels we haven’t seen in decades. This is particularly beneficial to the recreational fishing industry. Because we use the least efficient gear and have the least 

range, we depend on such abundance. ‘‘If you build it, they will come’’. And so when 

reports of abundant stocks and good catches begin to get out there, people want in 

on the action. They book charter and party-boat trips. Or they fuel their boats, buy 

bait, tackle etc. This is not just perception, it is fact. As I mentioned in my testimony: 

‘‘In the Mid-Atlantic, according to the National Marine Fisheries Service, recreational fishermen caught some 2.7 million summer flounder in 1989. In 2011, 

after rebuilding, that number jumped to more than 21 million fish. That’s a 700 

percent increase! NOAA fisheries service’s numbers show angler trips over the 

last decade along the Atlantic Coast up 41 percent from the 1980s. In the MidAtlantic alone, according to the fisheries service, by the mid 2000s, that has 

brought in an additional $1.4 billion in economic activity and supported 18,660 

jobs. On the commercial side, the success story is similar. Gross commercial revenues for summer flounder are up more than 60 percent since 2000, when the 

rebuilding plan was put in place. And, in total, all of the rebuilt fish stocks 

brought in, on average, $585 million in gross commercial revenues every year 

from 2008–2010.’’ 

Question 2. What lessons have you taken from observing the rebuilding of fisheries like striped bass, bluefish, and summer flounder? What lessons can be taken 

from the mid-Atlantic region and translated for New England? 

98 

Answer. Striped bass is interesting as, when ASMFC finally clamped down and 

put the moratorium in place, there was a lot of debate on what the causes for such 

a decline were. Managers simply couldn’t pinpoint them. Fishing mortality was really the only thing they could control, so that is what they controlled. . .and it 

worked! The stock did indeed come back. So the old but recurring argument from 

fishermen that we don’t have enough data to determine the cause of the decline is 

a precarious one. Likewise, the argument that declines are due to environmental 

factors rather than fishing, so they should be able continue to fish hard on a declining stock, make little sense. The fact of the matter is that natural mortality, plus 

fishing mortality equals total mortality, and it’s total mortality that matters. So if 

higher levels of natural mortality are occurring, it means that it is even more important to reduce fishing mortality not only because of its own impact on the stock, 

but to compensate for higher levels of natural mortality as well. Fishing mortality 

becomes a greater, not a lesser, problem given an increase in natural mortality. The 

recovery of striped bass, and the decision to take action in the face of uncertainly, 

illustrates this well. 

Yet striped bass now remains ASMFC’s only notable ‘‘success’’, even though the 

real success took place 18 years ago after things got so bad that they had to do 

something. Striped bass was recovered under a management plan that protected 95 

percent of the spawning stock. Yet, the current outlook for striped bass is not good. 

There are very few serious striped bass anglers left who don’t agree the striped bass 

population has declined precipitously. That view has been validated by the 2013 

Benchmark stock assessment, which was just peer-reviewed. That assessment shows 

just such a decline since 2004, says that without any reduction in fishing mortality, 

overfishing is a virtual certainty in 2014, and notes there is an increased chance 

of an overfished stock by 2015/2016. The Commission initiated an action, but only 

after voting down, by a large margin, a motion to take immediate action for the 

2014 season, to avoid overfishing. The point is that ASMFC tends to kick the can 

down the road. They rarely take immediate action to avert a crisis. Unconstrained 

by Federal law, it generally waits until stocks are on or beyond the threshold of disaster before action is taken. 

In regards to the New England Council., Summer flounder, and the other fisheries 

managed by the Mid Atlantic Council, provide a good example of how the Mid Atlantic Council took the right approach to management. They set hard catch limits 

and enforced them, despite the political pressure brought by some narrow economic 

interests. The New England Fishery Management Council, on the other hand, relied 

on input controls such as trip limits, days at sea, etc. because that’s what the fishermen wanted in order to avoid setting hard poundage limits/quotas, which likely 

would have meant less fishing. And so they never were able to effectively reduce 

harvest. Now truly painful measures are needed. 

I think the point here is that we need to have a strong law that requires managers to make the hard but necessary decisions, set the required hard quotas despite the short term pain they will likely cause, and manage fisheries with the future of sustainable fishing communities in mind, instead of just dictating fisheries 

management in light of to narrow economic interests that want to harvest as many 

fish as they can now. 

Improving Science-Based Management 

Question 3. From your experience, how important is it that regional fishery management councils set annual catch limits based on the scientific advice of their Scientific and Statistical Committees? 

Answer. I think that it’s critical to have SSC’s set Acceptable Biological Catch 

(ABC). Allowing scientists to make such a determination effectively takes the politics out of the decision-making process in the beginning, thereby ensuring we have 

an objective estimation, taking into account scientific uncertainty, of how many fish 

we can take out of a stock while allowing it to be healthy an flourish. Having been 

a manager for five years, I know that there is a tremendous amount of political 

pressure/pressure from constituents to allow fishing at unsustainable levels. History 

is pretty clear that when we gave Councils such leverage they failed to manager 

sustainability. We really need scientists making that initial determination. 

Question 4. What is your perspective on the current level of investment in fisheries research? Where should additional investments be directed in order to improve 

fisheries management? 

Answer. Everyone agrees we need better science, to reduce the scientific and management uncertainty and to give us better, real-time estimates of fish stocks so we 

can react appropriately. Where specifically investments to improve such science 

should go, I don’t know. That would be a question for the NMFS Fisheries Science 

Center and the Council SSCs. 

99 

Question 5. Current funding levels result in individual assessments that are often 

separated by four or five years. The status of a number of Mid-Atlantic species cannot be determined because of outdated information. How critical is it we dedicate 

more resources for data collection and improved and more frequent stock assessments? 

Answer. Hugely critical . . . 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. MARCO RUBIO TO

CAPTAIN JOHN MCMURRAY

Question. Please elaborate on the need for statutory language requiring a periodic 

review of the allocation between sectors for federally managed fisheries. 

Answer. Councils are generally loath to look at reallocation between sectors (e.g., 

between recreational and commercial) as the dynamics of a fishery change. For example, more recreational participants, less commercial . . . or, such as in the case 

with scup in the Mid-Atlantic the economics of a fishery change. Currently, in the 

scup fishery there are times of the year where the price of scup is so low it doesn’t 

pay to fish for them. Meanwhile, anglers and particularly charter/partyboats have 

to fish under increasingly small quotas. In such cases Councils should look at/do a 

full analysis of potential reallocation between sectors. In the case of scup that’s precisely what we are doing, however in general, because such reallocation discussions 

are often contentious, the Councils tend to shy away from such discussions. Statutory language would require the councils to look at such allocations on regular basis 

(every 5 years of so) to make sure such allocations provide the greatest overall benefit to the Nation. My constituency, the recreational fishing community, has been 

asking for this for a very long time. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARK BEGICH TO

PATRICK PAQUETTE

Recreational Fisheries Management Under Magnuson-Stevens 

Question 1. What are the biggest challenges to recreational fisheries management 

and can these challenges be addressed under the current Magnuson-Stevens Act? 

Answer. Although recreational fisheries management poses several big challenges, 

these challenges can be met and addressed through the existing MSA requirements. 

The root of the management challenge lies in the simple fact that millions of people 

engage in recreational fishing every year, and access is generally open with some 

limited restrictions. The challenge is not only in managing behavior of independent 

anglers, but also in overcoming the difficult task of collecting real-time, accurate 

data in order to inform timely management decisions. 

The 2006 MSA reauthorization established the Marine Recreational Information 

Program (MRIP) to improve recreational fisheries data collection. MRIP includes 

vast improvements over the previous system, though its implementation has been 

delayed and wrought with problems. Although there are major challenges with 

MRIP, especially the data it produces for management, we do not need to amend 

the MSA to solve the problem. Rather, we need a redoubled effort to fully implement 

and improve MRIP by expanding the types of data that can be incorporated into the 

system, improving data collection methodologies and ensuring that data is analyzed 

and incorporated into management decisions in a timely manner. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) must prioritize and ensure strong stakeholder engagement from the recreational fishing community for MRIP to be successful. In addition, Congress must ensure a robust and steady funding stream for recreational 

data collection, monitoring and stock assessment. The number of jobs and the both 

direct and indirect economic contribution of recreational angling demands this commitment to significant investment in data collection. 

The health and viability of recreational fish populations, and the economies that 

depend on those resources, will not be sustainable over the long-term unless we adhere to science-based management. The MSA requires managers to end and prevent 

overfishing based on the best available science, including the establishment of annual catch limits and accountability measures. These science-based requirements 

provide the critical legal structure that is needed to maintain sustainable recreational fisheries, and should not be weakened as Congress considers reauthorization. However, as noted previously, getting more reliable and timely data on recreational fish populations is the key to making the system function smoothly and 

will encourage buy-in by stakeholders. As we look to the next reauthorization, we 

must build upon the existing requirements of the MSA and consider additional facVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:28 May 13, 2014 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\87797.TXT JACKIE
100 

tors, such as by catch and forage fish protection that have historically been a lower 

priority for commercial fisheries, but can have major implications for not only recreational, but for commercial species populations as well. The best science demands 

a holistic look at the entire ecosystem and that is where a reauthorized MSA must 

focus. 

Question 2. How do the Magnuson-Stevens Act’s conservation requirements, including the 10-year rebuilding timeline, annual catch limits, and accountability 

measures, benefit businesses in the region, and can you give examples? 

Answer. The MSA’s conservation requirements are necessary to end and prevent 

overfishing, and history has shown that short-term economic interests will prevail 

if hard rebuilding deadlines, accountability measures and catch limits are not required by law. Business interests can, and will benefit as stocks recover and are 

managed at healthy levels. Look no further than NOAA’s research that predicted 

that rebuilding all federally-managed stocks would result in an additional $31 billion in sales activity and 500,000 new jobs. Businesses want certainty or at least 

predictability so they can plan for the future. Weakening the MSA requirements 

may yield short-term gains for a few individuals or fisheries, but it will only further 

destabilize coastal communities that will suffer when the resource is depleted and 

can only support limited and/or single species dependent economic activity. Improvements in fisheries science should translate into more certainty for Councils as they 

evaluate different management alternatives, and ultimately this will provide more 

certainty/predictability for businesses. Some examples follow: 

• CAPT. JOHN MCMURRAY discusses summer flounder as a success in his testimony. ‘‘In the Mid-Atlantic, according to the National Marine Fisheries Service, 

recreational fishermen caught some 2.7 million summer flounder in 1989. In 

2011, after rebuilding, that number jumped to more than 21 million fish.’’ 

• Recreational fishing related businesses spend the off-season making business 

decisions based on expected supply and demand. With an unstable or low abundance of fish available to catch and without regulations that allow for an expected catch of enough fish to justify cost and effort (whether for sport or harvest) the demand for bait, tackle, lodging and support services will also be low. 

This translates into less sales of rods, reels, hotel rooms, maintenance supplies 

and all manner of support services. The trickle out economic effect due to low 

abundance of fish or lack of predictability of their presence is significant. Only 

long-term stable & sustainable populations of fish coupled with regulations that 

allow for reasonable cost benefit considerations will allow recreational fishing 

business to maintain its contribution to both the local and national economy. 

• In most cases individuals plan fishing trips based on allotted time for recreational activities. The choice to go recreational fishing is based on cost benefit. 

Inconsistent availability whether that is by presence of fish in specific locations 

or availability/opportunity by regulation frequently dictates an anglers decision 

to fish or not, and this translates into the decision to spend or not. A recent 

history of low abundance (prior lack of actual fish to catch) coupled with regulations that allow for only a small amount of fish allowed to catch put potential 

angers in the position of choosing to not go fishing and spending. Long term 

abundance of fish stocks means more stable stocks which effects predictability 

and regulation and translates into spending which supports the many businesses that rely on recreational fishing. 

Question 3. What steps should NMFS take to enhance recreational fisheries data 

and management? Specifically, what are the biggest challenges to ensure recreational fishery data is collected, analyzed, and incorporated into management in 

a timely fashion? 

Answer. See answer to Sen. Begich Question 1. 

• In addition to my comments above, I suggest the current NMFS regime may 

be stuck in a ‘‘this is how we do it’’ mentality. The tackle industry uses advanced methods to predict how many rods, reels, line, lures etc. to manufacture. 

A key part of this manufacturing process is to predict effort, which ultimately 

is tied to the health of target species. Many millions of dollars are on the line 

for the industry and I suggest that if the tackle manufacturers can make determinations on effort that have real world monetary consequences, NMFS should 

be able to use similar methodologies to manage recreational fisheries. If adequately funded and directed via and reauthorized MSA, NMFS should be able 

to use more modern technology to obtain better data that can be used to better 

manage the economic engine that is recreational fishing. 

101 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL TO

PATRICK PAQUETTE

Question 1. Recent actions by the Mid-Atlantic and New England Fishery Management Councils have made progress towards protecting forage fish. How is the 

protection of forage fish vital to the recovery of fish populations like bluefish, and 

how does it ensure the health of the fishing industry? What more should be done? 

Answer. Forage fish play a critical role as prey for valuable fish stocks and in 

turn increase the availability of targeted predator species. This is particularly important for recreational species, including bluefish or striped bass that rely on forage fish as a primary source of food. We can never expect to rebuild and achieve 

healthy sustainable fisheries, and fishing communities, unless adequate protection 

measures are in place to prevent the decline in forage species. This is ecosystem 

based fishery management at a basic easily understood by all fishers of all sectors. 

Under the existing authority of the MSA, some Councils are moving forward in 

developing policies to improve the management of forage fish. For example, in June 

2012, the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) approved Amendment 5 which included important new measures to protect river herring, a key forage species for both striped bass and bluefish, through increased monitoring and 

limits on by catch. Unfortunately, despite Council efforts to work with the National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on implementation and overwhelming public support, on July 18th, NMFS rejected several of these measures, including requirements for 100 percent observer coverage on trawlers and limits on slippage caps. 

NMFS should not be a roadblock to proactive management measures for forage fish, 

and Congress should institute a legal requirement to require that plans are in place 

to protect the role of forage species. Once again this type of requirement is an easy 

to understand step toward (EBFM) where all sides agree we need to go with the 

science of fishery management. 

A reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Act should recognize the importance of forage 

species by requiring that ecosystem functions be included in scientific assessments 

and fishery management plans. The critical ecological role of forage fish and the 

needs of predators should also be accounted for when catch limits are set. One specific way Congress can make these ecosystem safeguards a reality, and consistent 

across the country, through the next MSA reauthorization would be by requiring 

that broader fishery ecosystem plans be developed and integrated into all individual 

fishery management plans. Congress should ensure that such plans are in place 

prior to the development or expansion of any fishery for forage species. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. EDWARD MARKEY TO

PATRICK PAQUETTE

Improving Recreational Fishing Data And Management 

Question 1. What steps should NMFS take to enhance recreational fisheries data 

and management? Specifically, what are the biggest challenges to ensure recreational fishery data is collected, analyzed, and incorporated into management in 

a timely fashion? 

Answer. See answer to Sen. Begich Question 1. 

Climate Impacts on Fisheries 

Question 2. The President’s Budget request for Fiscal Year 2014 includes a $10 

million increase for NOAA to fund research on the impacts of climate on fisheries 

with a focus on Northeast groundfish. Do you think it is necessary to have some 

dedicated funding for research to understand the impact of climate change on fish 

stocks and that this research could help improve stock assessments and ultimately 

benefit fishermen? 

Answer. Yes. Over the past fifty years, average water temperatures around New 

England have risen between two and four degrees Fahrenheit, and fishermen are 

witnessing firsthand the impacts on fish populations. Species including cod, black 

sea bass, scup, and others appear to be moving north in search of cooler water temperatures, and these changes in the ocean also have potential to impact distribution 

and availability of prey. More research is needed to determine how climate change 

is impacting fish stocks and that information should be incorporated into stock assessments. Such data and analysis would serve as an important step toward accounting for ecosystem considerations in our fisheries and optimizing management 

for the long term. As fish move to cooler and deeper waters, new opportunities to 

catch fish not historically found in New England & Mid Atlantic waters may arise. 

It is important to assess populations, then consider and establish management 

102 

measures before fisheries are allowed to commence so we avoid creating management problems we will have to address later. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. MARCO RUBIO TO

PATRICK PAQUETTE

Question. Would you please elaborate on your idea regarding ‘‘a more equitable 

distribution of stakeholders on councils?’’ 

Answer. Section 302(b)(2)(B) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act requires the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to report annually 

to Congress on the achievement, to the extent practicable, of a ‘‘fair and balanced 

apportionment, on a rotating or other basis, of the active participants (or their representatives) in the commercial and recreational fisheries under the jurisdiction of 

[each Regional Fishery Management. 

According to NOAA’s own data contained within the publication ‘‘Fisheries of the 

United States 2011’’; Commercial fisherman in New England harvested 353.4 million pounds of finfish in 2011 compared to 23.9 million pounds of fish caught by recreational anglers. Commercial landings of species that matched those of anglers 

were worth $182.8 million. Including multiplier effects, this revenue generated 

$720.8 million in sales, $258.4 million in income, $360.3 million in value added 

(GDP), and supported over 16,608 jobs. 

Anglers spent over $1.1 billion in 2011. Including multiplier effects, these purchases resulted in $1.2 billion in sales, $388.3 million in income, $602 million in 

value added (GDP) and supported 8,723 jobs. 

Although the Mid Atlantic council has achieved a fair and balanced apportionment the New England Council has for many years failed to meet any standard of 

fair and balance apportionment as ‘‘suggested’’ in MSA. 

The 2012 NMFS Report to congress detailed apportionment on all regional councils. That document showed the following for the New England Fishery Management 

Council: 

Year Commercial Recreational ‘‘other’’ Total 

2010 7 3 2 12 

2011 8 3 1 12 

2012 7 3 2 12 

(In addition many in the recreational sector have openly questioned one of the 

seats reported as recreational as not being a recreational representative and should 

be included in the ‘‘other’’ category. To support this claim I offer the following: In 

2012 the NMFS North East Regional Office co hosted (w/the Rhode Island Salt 

Water Anglers Assn.) a Southern New England Recreational Fishing Symposium in 

RI. Only two members of the NEFMC were invited because only two members are 

viewed as recreational. The member I am referring to holds a seat in RI but was 

not invited because in general and with no disrespect intended that member is not 

considered a recreational member of the NEFMC. 

To make matters worse, in 2013 one of the two members commonly recognized 

as being from the recreational sector reached term limit and the 2013 appointee was 

a former life long NMFS retired employee. There are now only two reported and I 

suggest the reality is that there is currently only ONE recreational member out of 

the 12 seats on the New England Council. 

No matter how the number of recreational members is viewed, the harvest and 

economic statistics above dictate that the New England Council has been and continues to be outside what can be considered a ‘‘fair and balanced apportionment’’. 

Simply put, I suggest that a reauthorized MSA should have stronger language 

that sets a standard and further defines ‘‘fair and balanced apportionment’’ of representation. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARK BEGICH TO

DR. JOHN BOREMAN

Science-Based Management Under Magnuson-Stevens 

Question 1. Why do you support the expansion of industry-based surveys for stock 

assessments? How would this improve scientific uncertainty and assist sound fishery management? 

Answer. The fishery-independent surveys conducted by NOAA survey vessels are 

valuable sources of data for many of our Nation’s stock assessments, but certainly 

103 

not all. Because of the relatively few vessels involved, NOAA vessel surveys are limited both spatially and temporally, and also by the sampling gear they deploy. We 

have found in the mid-Atlantic region that some of the species managed by the MidAtlantic Fishery Council (MAFMC) may not be adequately sampled by the NOAA 

bottom trawl survey, thus leading to a higher than usual level of uncertainty in the 

survey data. The Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) believes some of the 

managed species, such as the squids, spiny dogfish, and Atlantic mackerel, venture 

much further out to sea than the offshore limit of the NOAA survey. The ability 

of the NOAA vessel survey to capture other species, such as scup, is dependent on 

the timing of the survey versus the timing of the stock’s movement patterns. These 

factors may be the reason we see higher year-to-year variability (and thus higher 

uncertainty) in the stock biomass indices generated by the NOAA vessel surveys for 

these species. 

Use of industry (commercial and recreational) fishing vessels to supplement and 

complement the NOAA vessel surveys allows sampling of a much broader expanse 

of the ocean, and sampling more intensively in areas of high concentrations of stock 

biomass where the NOAA survey vessels are incapable of covering because of timing, depth and gear limitations, and other factors. If the industry-based surveys are 

conducted in a statistically-robust fashion, the additional data gathered by these 

surveys will help reduce the variance in estimates of stock biomass and recruitment 

(which is directly related to the number of representative samples taken), as well 

as help test for potential bias in the sampling being conducted by the NOAA survey 

vessels by providing alternative insights into stock dynamics. 

A limited number of industry-based surveys are already helping to reduce the scientific uncertainty in stock assessments. For example, the inshore Northeast Area 

Monitoring and Assessment Program (NEAMAP) survey, conducted by a commercial 

fishing vessel in collaboration with the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, is already reducing the degree of scientific uncertainty in stock biomass and recruitment 

estimates for species such as summer flounder. An industry-based trap survey, conducted in collaboration with the University of Rhode Island, is helping to reduce the 

uncertainty in estimates of the abundance of scup in the New England and MidAtlantic regions. 

Question 2. How have the 2006 amendments to Magnuson-Stevens, such as scientifically based decision making and the establishment of annual catch limits, improved fisheries management in the U.S.? And to what degree do you believe that 

inaccurate science and resulting catch limits contributed to the New England fishery disaster? 

Answer. From a science perspective, the most significant aspect of the 2006 

amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) is the recognition that we cannot 

wait for achievement of 100 percent certainty before using scientific advice for managing our nations fisheries. Fisheries science can never be 100 percent accurate, especially when sampling is conducted in an environment where we cannot easily ascertain the presence and movement of targeted species. Recall the lyrics from a 

1970s song: ‘‘The ocean is a desert with its life underground and a perfect disguise 

above.’’ For most of my career my experience with marine fisheries management has 

been one of frustration. The frustration grew out of the tendency of fisheries managers to push catch limits to the edge, willing to take the risk that 50 percent of 

the time (or even more in some cases) they were instituting management measures 

that would lead to overfishing and slow the recovery of overfished stocks. Now, with 

the requirement added in 2006 that annual catch limits cannot exceed acceptable 

biological catch levels set by their SSCs, Councils have become more risk-averse in 

their management actions. 

In reference of the New England fisheries, as well as fisheries in all the Nation’s 

regions, inaccurate science can lead to unintended mismanagement. However, the 

requirement now contained in the National Standard 1 Guidelines that a buffer between the overfishing limit and the acceptable biological catch (ABC) level be established that is directly proportional to the degree of scientific uncertainty about a 

stock’s dynamics greatly reduces the chance of that happening. 

Inaccuracy and imprecision of scientific information are just two factors that can 

lead to unintended mismanagement. There is also the uncertainty associated with 

implementation of management measures, termed management uncertainty, which 

could be an even greater factor than scientific inaccuracy and imprecision in causing 

unintended mismanagement. When fishing regulations are established through the 

management process to limit catch levels or fishing mortality rates, a level of uncertainty exists between what the regulations are intended to do and what they actually cause to happen. Our experience in the mid-Atlantic region has been that management measures to limit marine recreational catch of some species, like scup and 

black sea bass, have been much less successful than management measures emVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:28 May 13, 2014 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\87797.TXT JACKIE
104 

1Seagraves, R., and K. Collins (editors). 2012. Fourth National Meeting of the Regional Fishery Management Councils’ Scientific and Statistical Committees. Report of a National SSC 

Workshop on Scientific Advice on Ecosystem and Social Science Considerations in U.S. Federal 

Fishery Management. Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Williamsburg, VA. 94 pp. 

ployed on the commercial side. In some cases, recreational catch limits have been 

exceeded by more than 100 percent in a given fishing year. The existence of management uncertainty has been recognized by all the SSCs, and many have supported 

management strategy evaluations to assist them in providing advice to the Councils 

on how to minimize it. 

In summary, the fishery situation in New England has likely been caused by incomplete understanding of the dynamics of the fisheries stocks (and the relationship 

between those population-level dynamics and the dynamics of the ecosystems within 

which they reside), and the inability of management measures to totally control how 

the fisheries operate. 

Question 3. A recent study by NOAA scientists found that Atlantic cod recovery 

may be hindered by a decline in their food supply. How can fisheries management 

better incorporate considerations of the broader ocean environment, including climate change conditions and complex food webs? 

Answer. Incorporating ecosystem considerations into ABC determinations was a 

principal focus of the most recent National SSC Workshop, hosted by the MAFMC. 

One of the conclusions of that workshop was that a national investment in ecosystem modeling and a management strategy evaluation of approaches used for ecosystem-based fisheries management is warranted. Modeling can provide a cost-effective means of exploring the structure, function, and variability (scientific uncertainty) of ecosystems and the expected range of responses of those systems to natural and human-induced perturbations.1

Unlike modeling of fisheries stocks, which has a foundation well steeped in theory 

that has evolved over the past 80 years, theory supporting ecosystem-level modeling 

is still in the early stages of development. Although not widespread at the moment, 

ecosystem conditions and their impacts on stock dynamics are starting to be incorporated into stock assessments—more so on the West Coast. Fisheries scientists are 

using the relationship between oceanographic conditions and the distribution of fishery stocks to develop better estimates of stock biomass based on survey data. Uncertainty is also being reduced in estimates of natural mortality rates that are used 

in stock assessments by using food habits data to refine estimates of predation loss. 

With a better understanding of the effects of temperature on the distribution of fishery stocks, their predators, and their prey, and how changes in those distribution 

patterns can affect predation-prey interactions and thus fishery stock dynamics, scientists will be better able to understand the anticipated effects on climate change 

on our Nation’s fisheries and the economies they support. We are not there yet, but 

we are certainly moving in the right direction. 

Question 4. Frequent stock assessments are necessary to make accurate annual 

catch limits, however, they are also costly and complex. How many stock assessments are too many? And how should we prioritize species for stock assessments? 

Answer. Fisheries scientists currently use two forms of stock assessments in the 

Mid-Atlantic and New England regions. A benchmark assessment is one that incorporates new methodologies and new data sets that require independent scientific review prior to their use. Assessment updates use the same methodology or methodologies and data sets that have passed independent peer review in benchmark assessments, and simply add the most recent data to the time series—often referred to 

as ‘‘turn-of-the-crank.’’ Peer review of assessment updates is not as rigorous as it 

is for benchmark assessments, nor does it need to be, and the time period and level 

of personnel resources needed to complete updates are much less. However, even assessment updates can divert attention away from competing priorities for assessment scientists, and are getting more and more difficult to undertake on an annual 

basis for our managed species. To address the problem of competing demands for 

stock assessments, the MAFMC SSC is currently in the process of developing a 

‘‘rumble strip’’ approach to monitoring stock trends by using only a few key and 

easy-to-obtain measurements to determine if stock characteristics are staying within 

acceptable bounds. This approach will require even less effort than assessment updates, and will allow assessment scientists to devote more time to developing new 

methodologies and data sets for benchmark assessments. 

Priority for conducting a benchmark assessment should be based on the following 

factors for the stock in question: (1) the likelihood that a new methodology or alternative data sets will better represent the dynamics of the stock; (2) the amount of 

time that has elapsed since the last benchmark assessment, relative to the mean 

105 

generation time for the species (species with shorter generation times have the potential for greater change from year-to-year in their population dynamics); (3) indications that trends in the stock are not following projections based on the benchmark assessment, suggesting the wrong methodology is being used or the representativeness of the data sets needs to be re-examined; and (4) the status of the stock— 

stocks that are overfished or still being rebuilt should take priority over stocks that 

are at sustainable levels. 

Question 5. Rebuilding timelines have been called arbitrary by some, but don’t 

they have some basis in science? How important are the established rebuilding 

timelines for fishery management? Why are these timelines important for sustainable management? 

Answer. Rebuilding timelines are important in that they hold fishery managers 

accountable for restoring fishery stocks to sustainable levels. Contrary to what some 

scientists claim, the rebuilding timeline of 10 years that was established by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 is based on science. The timeline is based on the recognition that mean generation times for many of our managed fish and shellfish 

range from three to five years (the MSA already provides an exemption for longlived species that may not have sufficient time to replenish the spawning stock during a 10-year span). To make the 10-year timeline more workable, the rebuilding 

clock should start when the rebuilding regulations begin to be implemented, not immediately when the Secretary of Commerce approves the rebuilding plan. 

What the established rebuilding timelines fail to take into account, however, is 

the ability of the fishing industry and their supported economies to re-adjust their 

capacity to a timeline based on biology, and do it immediately upon implementation 

of the rebuilding plan. If properly constructed, stock-rebuilding plans should allow 

for gradual rebalancing of fishing effort to match the ability of a fishery stock to 

sustain exploitation once the stock is rebuilt. As long as stock rebuilding continues 

along an upward trajectory and is closely monitored, the rebuilding timeline should 

be set to take into account not only the biology of the target species, but also the 

anticipated economic and social impacts of stock rebuilding on the commercial and 

non-commercial fishing industries, markets, and fishing-dependent communities. 

Question 6. Since the 2006 amendments to Magnuson-Stevens Act, how have the 

conservation requirements to follow scientific advice, establish annual catch limits 

and accountability measures, and end overfishing improved fisheries management 

in the U.S.? 

Answer. Since 2006 fisheries management in the U.S. has become more sciencebased. Managers now have a more formal and consistent way in which to apply scientific advice in establishing annual catch limits, and must now specify beforehand 

how much risk of overfishing they are willing to assume when they set those limits. 

The scientific advice, in the form of ABC recommendations, is required to have more 

explicit supporting documentation, especially when established control rules cannot 

be followed due to lack of data or an unacceptable stock assessment. The process 

created by the 2006 amendments of establishing overfishing limits, acceptable biological catch levels, annual catch limits, and accountability measures ensures that 

the best available science plays an integral role in fisheries management decisions. 

Question 7. What more should we be doing to consider the broader ocean environment in fisheries management? 

Answer. Expanding the use of oceans for renewable energy and aquaculture, along 

with increasing pressure on the marine environment brought about by human population growth and climate change, are prominent challenges to conservation of habitats within marine ecosystems that support production of marine fisheries resources. 

When we conducted our National SSC Workshop on ecosystem considerations (referenced in the answer to question #3), it became obvious that each fishery management council is striking out on their own path in ecosystem-based fisheries management. One example of the problems this causes is the lack of a uniform definition 

of forage species across the councils, which serve as the building blocks of marine 

food webs, and how forage species are being treated in setting ABC recommendations by the SSCs. Furthermore, there is a tenuous link between habitat conservation, addressed by the essential fish habitat (EFH) provisions of the MSA, and ecosystems-based fisheries management (EBFM). The MSA encourages the regional 

fishery management councils to pursue EBFM, but the direction given in the MSA 

offers no clear guidance as to how changes to local habitats supporting fisheries resources are to be considered in the broader ecosystem context. Finally, the MSA 

does not offer guidance for integrating habitat conservation into coastal and marine 

spatial planning (CMSP), essentially leaving it up to the individual fishery manageVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:28 May 13, 2014 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\87797.TXT JACKIE
106 

ment councils to figure out how to get the habitat conservation (EFH) foot into the 

slowly-opening CMSP door. 

NOAA Fisheries should be encouraged to develop national guidelines for plans addressing EBFM that ensure adherence to the national standards contained in the 

MSA. The guidelines should also contain definitions of terms, such as forage species, 

and provide means to link protection of EFH to broader marine ecosystem effects. 

Currently, the MSA requires that fishery management plans developed by the regional councils, and ultimately approved by the Secretary of Commerce, must adhere to ten national standards. To strengthen the habitat conservation requirements 

of the MSA, Congress should consider adding a new, eleventh national standard: 

Minimize adverse impacts on essential fish habitat to the extent 

practicable. 

The implications of this proposed addition are far-reaching. Depending on how the 

associated guidelines are written, it could give the Secretary of Commerce regulatory authority (i.e., veto power) over federally licensed or permitted projects that 

may adversely affect EFH. This veto power would be akin to the veto power currently held by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency over Federal projects that could adversely affect water or air quality. The guidelines could 

also require identification and monitoring of activities that could potentially negatively impact EFH (or positively, for that matter). Finally, NOAA Fisheries and the 

regional councils would be able to move from their current consultative role to a role 

that is more active and cooperative, perhaps even pre-emptive, as they work in closer cooperation with other regulatory agencies. 

Is establishment of such a national standard for habitat conservation justified? 

Absolutely. Once approved by the Secretary of Commerce, fishery management 

plans, plan amendments, and framework actions, are considered public policy. My 

experience has been that public policy carries a lot of weight in federally approved 

actions and associated judicial rulings. Furthermore, rebuilding fishery stocks and 

maintaining them at sustainable levels involves much more than addressing overfishing; habitats must be capable of supporting the renewed production of fishery 

stocks, especially if those stocks are at or near their historically highest levels of 

abundance. 

Finally, strengthening the habitat conservation provisions of the Act would provide a greater guarantee that objectives of fishery management plans can actually 

be achieved. Establishing a national standard for habitat conservation would elevate 

the importance of identifying EFH, focus habitat-related research and monitoring, 

facilitate operational improvements to the Federal process involved with habitat 

conservation, including closer coordination between and among regulatory and resource conservation agencies, and help the regional councils refine their habitat conservation objectives for fisheries management. Also, the new national standard 

would give the Department of Commerce more clout in reviewing offshore projects 

that are federally licensed or permitted. A habitat conservation national standard 

would facilitate integrating habitat-level assessments into EBFM and, on a broader 

scale, further facilitate CMSP by having a clear set of objectives that help define 

essential ecosystem services in support of fisheries management. 

On the negative side, adding a new national standard would very likely increase 

the probability of litigation, as managers try to address (and balance) the new 

standard with the ten existing ones. Furthermore, following the guidelines that will 

be established for the new standard may lead to additional delays in approvals of 

fishery management plans and plan amendments. Finally, a stronger and broader 

base of scientific support will also be required, which may be difficult in the current 

era of shrinking budgets for state and Federal agencies. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. EDWARD MARKEY TO

DR. JOHN BOREMAN

Constraints on Cooperative Research 

Question. In your written testimony, you say that there are constraints in the cooperative research grants process that hinders collaboration between NOAA fisheries scientists and fishermen at the early stages of program development. Can you 

provide the specifics of those constraints and suggestions of how they might be 

changed to improve collaboration? 

Answer. Major constraints affecting collaboration among the fishing industry, academia, and state and Federal resource agencies in the conduct of cooperative research are: (1) the inability, and in some cases unwillingness, of the parties to work 

closely together during the early stages of project development so that data collecVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:28 May 13, 2014 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\87797.TXT JACKIE
107 

tion and analysis are undertaken in a statistically robust and scientifically defensible manner; and (2) the current project-by-project and year-to-year approaches to 

funding cooperative research at the Federal level cause surveys to be piecemeal and 

not comprehensive in nature, and force investigators to re-apply for funding each 

year. 

To overcome these constraints, region-based and theme-specific cooperative agreements for surveys and cooperative data collection should be established and funded 

with multi-year appropriations. A model for this type of agreement is the Industry 

& University Cooperative Research Program (I/UCRC) of the National Science Foundation (NSF). The I/UCRC program was established to bring participants from industry, government, and other organizations in need of science-based solutions into 

contact with academic scientists capable of providing that expertise under an organizational structure that permits active participation in the science agenda in exchange for participant financial support. An I/UCRC program was recently instituted through the University of Southern Mississippi and the Virginia Institute of 

Marine Science to address urgent scientific problems limiting sustainable fisheries 

in the Mid-Atlantic region. Another model is the theme-based NOAA Cooperative 

Institute Program, which has a five-year funding authorization, and which promotes 

direct participation by multiple universities and industry participation in an advisory capacity. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. MARCO RUBIO TO

DR. JOHN BOREMAN

Question. What specific policy changes would you recommend to achieve an adequate expansion of industry-based cooperative research surveys and cooperative 

data collection programs in all fisheries in the United States? 

Answer. Current policy, as expressed through the Magnuson-Stevens Act, should 

be changed from one that encourages cooperation between industry and government 

agencies in the conduct of research on topics of mutual interest to one that promotes 

working partnerships on a much broader scale. Although the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

contains a number of provisions that promote cooperative surveys and data collection projects, major constraints still exist that inhibit effective collaboration among 

the fishing industry, academia, and state and Federal resource agencies in the conduct of cooperative research. These constraints are: (1) the inability, and in some 

cases unwillingness, of the parties to work closely together during the early stages 

of project development so that data collection and analysis are undertaken in a statistically robust and scientifically defensible manner; and (2) the current project-byproject and year-to-year approaches to funding cooperative research at the Federal 

level that cause surveys and research projects to be piecemeal and limited in scope, 

forcing cooperative researchers to re-apply for funding each year by using the often 

cumbersome and protracted government grants process. 

To overcome these constraints, region-based and theme-specific partnerships for 

surveys and data collection should be established and funded with multi-year appropriations. One model for this type of partnership is the Industry & University Cooperative Research Program (I/UCRC) of the National Science Foundation (NSF). The 

I/UCRC program was established to bring participants from industry, government, 

and other organizations in need of science-based solutions into contact with academic scientists capable of providing that expertise under an organizational structure that permits active participation in the science agenda in exchange for participant financial support. An I/UCRC program was recently instituted through the 

University of Southern Mississippi and the Virginia Institute of Marine Science 

(Science Center for Marine Fisheries, www.scemfis.org) to address urgent scientific 

problems limiting sustainable fisheries in the Mid-Atlantic region. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARK BEGICH TO

DR. JOSHUA B. WIERSMA

Magnuson-Stevens Act Flexibility 

Question 1. In your testimony, you advocate for additional flexibility in rebuilding 

timelines to end overfishing through a gradual ‘‘step down’’ approach. The Magnuson-Stevens Act currently states that a time period for rebuilding the fishery shall 

‘‘not exceed 10 years, except in cases where the biology of the stock of fish, other 

environmental conditions, or management measures under an international agreement in which the United States participates dictate otherwise.’’ How has this flexiVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:28 May 13, 2014 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\87797.TXT JACKIE
108 

1www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/documents/. . ./rauch091113.pdf 

bility to set rebuilding periods that are longer than 10 years been used in developing rebuilding plans for fish stocks in the Northeast?’’ 

Answer. Samuel Rauch III, Acting Assistant Administrator for the National Marine Fisheries Service, did a thorough job answering this question in his testimony 

before the Committee of Natural Resources of the United States House of Representatives at the hearings about the Magnuson-Stevens Act on September 11, 

2013.1 The following information was provided as part of his testimony, but I reference you to his full testimony for more detailed information than what is provided 

below. 

‘‘Specific Current rebuilding time periods for stocks with active rebuilding plans 

range from four years to more than 100 years. Of the 43 active rebuilding plans 

with a target time to rebuild, 23 of them (53 percent) are set longer than 10 years 

due to the biology of the stock (slow reproducing, long lived species) or environmental conditions. For example, Pacific yellow eye rockfish has a rebuilding timeline 

of 71 years. The remaining 20 rebuilding plans are set for 10 years or less. Of the 

33 stocks rebuilt since 2000, 18 stocks were rebuilt within 10 years. Two additional 

stocks in 10-year plans were rebuilt within 12 years.’’ 

Yes, rebuilding plans can be longer than ten years. That’s not the problem. The 

problem arises when the dynamic conditions the dictate rebuilding change after the 

plan is in place. What is lacking is a dynamically responding rebuilding plan, so 

that when science methods change (e.g., switching research vessels from the Albatross to the Bigelow 8 years into a rebuilding plan for Cod) or when dynamic environmental conditions (like global warming) create unpredicted and sometimes unprecedented shifts in the ecosystem—rebuilding plans can be flexible enough to account for these phenomena. 

What I argued for is a step down approach to drastic cuts in ACL from year to 

year if dynamic conditions in the bio-economic ecosystem change after the plans are 

in place. A step down approach helps to hedge the risk that science is wrong, but 

more importantly, it helps to hedge the risk to fishermen and shore-side infrastructure from economic losses associate with wild swings in ACL—which is a mandate 

of National Standard 8. 

Reducing Requirements on Over Fishing 

Question 2. Over the past year, many New England fishermen have been unable 

to catch even half of their allotted quota of groundfish, suggesting that lack of fish, 

not overly-burdensome quota limits, has caused the economic hardship currently 

faced in New England fisheries. With this in mind, how do you propose that reducing requirements on overfishing would help ease the burden of the current fishery 

disaster?’’ 

Answer. Quota limits may or may not be overly burdensome, but there needs to 

be a process for quota limit adjustment that is linked to dynamic changes in the 

bio-economic ecosystem. The bio-economic ecosystem would rebuild fish stocks at a 

rate that is both sustainable to the stock, but also to the fishermen and communities that rely on those stocks. When quota limits are set in a bio-economic ecosystem, they would consider how changes in the level of allowable catch on one 

stock affects fishermen’s ability to target other groundfish stocks caught in conjunction with that stock. If it is a significant economic burden to prosecute healthy 

stocks given the quota constraint placed on a less healthy stock, then the quota 

limit on the unhealthy stock should be raised to alleviate and balance some of the 

burden to fishermen and communities. 

Fishermen fish a fish complex, which is comprised of a portfolio of species that 

have to be selectively managed and fished together. Under sector management, we 

must stop fishing for everything if we run out of our allocation of one stock. So 

science can no longer operate in a vacuum based on single stock assessments. Instead, it must look at the entire interactive fish ecosystem and develop some overall 

maximum biomass indicator level of health (rather than focusing solely on single 

species biomass maximization). A large reason why fishermen can’t fully prosecute 

their quota limits is because they are constrained by low quota limits on unhealthy 

stocks called ‘‘choke stocks’’ or by very high quota limits set on healthy stocks that 

affect the harvest rate of lower quota stocks, ‘‘limiting stocks’’. 

Choke stocks are non-target species that are caught jointly with target species 

that force fishermen to either stop fishing for their primary target species too early, 

or avoid targeting it all together. This phenomenon is problematic because fishermen lose money from the loss of opportunity to fish the healthy stocks. When quota 

limits are set too high on a stock, other stocks caught in conjunction with that stock 

become ‘‘limiting’’ because they are exhausted too quickly in conjunction with the 

109 

primary stock, and fishing effort is unevenly distributed throughout the year resulting in ‘‘pulse fishing’’ and wild fluctuations and unpredictability of market prices. 

Uneven distribution of fishing effort also results in greater competition from imported stocks as dealers prefer consistency and predictability of supply. Either way, 

poor science and inflexible quota limits result in inefficient portfolio harvest, loss 

in social welfare, and risks of losing domestic markets. 

Therefore, quota limits need to be able to adapt and change based on information 

gathered each year about new science, about behavioral changes in fishing effort 

(e.g., spatial redistribution of effort, more or less use of fishing gear, changes in 

number, type and scale of fishing trips), and about abnormal and unexpected swings 

in quota prices. Not only can information about behavioral changes in fishing effort 

and changes in quota prices from year to year help predict losses in social welfare 

as a result of choke or limiting stocks; but it can also be used to predict and ground 

truth estimates of the biomass of the stock complex, and the expected change in 

stock abundance and distribution as a result of abnormal changes in environmental 

conditions. 

Along with new scientific information about stock abundance and about global 

temperature changes, information about changes in fishing effort and quota prices 

from year to year can be used to set limits from year to year that are better able 

to direct fishing effort to more of a joint bio-economic equilibrium. To facilitate this, 

not only do rebuilding timelines need to be established based on new reference 

points incorporating localized temporal and spatial information about changes in 

water temperature—but they also need to be more flexible, even if it means extending a rebuilding timeline previously put in place. Ultimately, this means moving 

away from single stock biomass assessments to an ecosystem based indictor that incorporates dynamic changes in both environmental conditions and in fishing behavior and effort. 

Abnormal Environmental Conditions 

Question 3. Can you expand on these ‘‘abnormal’’ conditions and phenomena? How 

might these conditions relate to climatic changes taking place? How do you think 

these conditions are complicating the recovery of New England fish stocks?’’ 

Answer. Researchers have shown that fish move in relation to temperature 

changes, and that long term trends of warning waters can have lasting impacts on 

the distribution and location of global fish stocks (for good examples, see Pinsky et 

al., 2013; Fogarty et al., 2008; Drinkwater 2005). What isn’t clear is how dynamic 

this change is (how fast it will occur), and what this change means for the long term 

yields from the fishery. 

Pinsky et al., talk about ‘‘climate velocity’’ to explain why as many as 60 percent 

of land and sea species have deviated from the expectation that rising global temperatures would drive animals toward cooler high latitudes and elevations, or deeper waters, the researchers report. Instead, animals follow local temperatures, which 

over the next few decades may warm or cool even as global temperatures overall 

are rising. 

Ocean temperature changes depend on currents, changes in the atmosphere, and 

geological features on the shore and in the ocean. Species-preferable water temperatures have tended to move toward the poles, but not in a single wave. In some cases, 

local changes in water temperature move away from the poles, or to deeper waters. 

As a result, researchers found that 73 percent of species that moved south; and 75 

percent of species that relocated to shallower waters were following discrete, localized water temperature changes. 

This has implications for fisheries management. I believe that fisheries managers 

need to immediately adapt to this information and calculate a new set of reference 

points for the current warm water regime. It is widely documented that unfavorable 

environmental conditions reduce productivity, increase mortality, and result in a 

negative impact of cod biomass (Drinkwater 2005, Rothschild 2007, Fogarty et al., 

2008). 

In fact, a full reassessment of biological reference points on all New England 

stocks should be done based on the expected re-distribution of fish as a result of 

expected local temperature changes—which are easier to predict than long term 

temperature changes. The new ‘‘warm water’’ reference points should then be used 

to calculate new ‘‘acceptable biological catch’’ (ABC) and new ‘‘annual catch limits’’ 

(ACLs)—with mechanisms in place to ensure flexibility and adaptability to dynamic 

water temperature changes and large changes in social welfare as a result of ‘‘choke 

stocks’’ or ‘‘limiting stocks’’. 

110 

2The most notable exception to this is the ‘‘ruhle trawl’’, also known as the ‘‘eliminator trawl’’, 

which allows fishermen to target haddock and avoid cod based on a unique net design that takes 

into account the behavior of captured fish. If utilizing this technology, fishermen are allowed 

to fish with a different discard rate than if utilizing other gear, and are allowed exemptions 

to previously closed fisheries. More investment in transferable gear technology like this will be 

a critical part of sustaining a healthy bio-economic ecosystem moving forward. 

Investment In Collaborative Research 

Question 4. Is our current investment in fisheries data and research sufficient to 

ensure sustainability, and if not, what are your recommendations for improvement? 

How can additional cooperative research successfully support fisheries management? How would making collaborative fishery management more industry-driven 

help to achieve better science-based decision making outcomes?’’ 

Answer. The level of investment in collaborative research has been both inadequate and inconsistent. The inconsistency of funding is just as problematic as the 

overall level of funding. Fisheries science depends upon long term, time series information about the environment, about stock biology and abundance, and about the 

efficiency and effectiveness of new gear technology. 

Federal funding for collaborative research has historically been constrained to 2 

year projects, which severely limits the usefulness of the projects as well as the engagement of a broad number of industry participants. As a result, data from collaborative research projects is very rarely used in fisheries management for stock assessments, and new selective and efficient gear technology is rarely transferable industry wide.2

The second national standard of the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation 

and Management Act (M-S Act) mandates that fishery conservation and management be based on the best scientific information available (DOC 1976). Although advances in science and technology over the last thirty years have significantly improved scientists’ ability to evaluate and to predict the future performance of fishery 

resources (NRC 2002), current marine science is still riddled with uncertainty. 

The M-S Act (2007) calls for the establishment of regionally based cooperative research and management programs to address the needs identified under the M-S 

Act, and to address any other marine resource laws enforced by the Secretary of 

Commerce (DOC 2007). Specific cooperative research project priorities were outlined, and are listed below: 

(1) Projects to collect data to improve, supplement, or enhance stock assessments, 

including the use of fishing vessels or acoustic or other marine technology; 

(2) Conservation engineering projects designed to reduce by-catch, including 

avoidance of post-release mortality, reduction of by-catch in high seas fisheries, and transfer of such fishing technologies to other nations; 

(3) Projects for the identification of habitat areas of particular concern and for 

ecosystem conservation (SEC. 318–319 16 U.S.C. 1867, DOC 2007). 

The M-S Act (2007) specifies that these research priorities be addressed through 

cooperative research projects—where fishermen and scientists work together in all 

phases of the project, including the research question development, the project design, the performance of research, the analysis of the results and the dissemination 

of study findings. 

It should be emphasized, that on this end of the research spectrum the scientists 

are onboard chartered fishing vessels, side by side with commercial fishermen. Commercial fishermen act as co-principle investigators, who exchange ideas and information with scientist partners. Collaborative research gives fishermen a direct voice 

in the science and management process as well as an intimate understanding of how 

and why the data collected will be used by fisheries managers. Much of the research 

aimed at addressing the priority needs of the M-S Act (2007), especially in New 

England, should be collaborative in nature (NEFMC 2009). 

Wiersma (2011) looked at the preferences of commercial fishermen to supply collaborative research to determine what factors motivate New England commercial 

fishermen to participate, as co-principal investigators, in the three types of priority 

collaborative research specified in the M-S Act of 2007 (biology and ecosystem 

projects, stock assessment research, and gear technology projects). The major finding of this research is that different commercial fishermen have different preferences for the types of collaborative research executed aboard their vessel. In general, fishermen prefer stock assessment and monitoring projects over both gear conservation and biology/ecosystem/habitat studies—and would be willing to accept less 

money to participate on their preferred research project. 

111 

Therefore, the efficiency and cost effectiveness of expanded cooperative research 

programs may be improved if policy makers utilize knowledge of fishermen’s priority 

for research, and take into account their willingness to trade in-kind donations to 

complete the type of research that they feel is valuable. Aligning fishermen’s preferences for research with a dedicated pool of money for collaborative research provides a valuable tool that can subsidize and augment traditional scientific data to 

develop better stock assessment models with a greater accuracy of prediction of annual maximum allowable catch. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. EDWARD MARKEY TO

DR. JOSHUA B. WIERSMA

Annual Catch Clearinghouse 

Question 1. You note in your written testimony that the non-transparent market 

for buying, selling and trading annual catch entitlements (ACE) has resulted in a 

marketplace with no central clearinghouse that fishermen can go to in order to 

gather information about ACE prices or to lease, sell or trade ACE. Is a clearinghouse something the fishing industry can develop on its own or does it require regulation or legislative changes? 

Answer. The current regulations for sectors under Amendment 16 say that the 

Federal government allocates ACE to sectors, and that accountability measures are 

to prevent overharvest of ACE by sector groups. Therefore, the government only regulates and records trading between sectors. However, on the ground level, the fishery operates as an individual transferable quota system. Individual fishermen fish 

or trade their ‘‘individual allocations’’, which are equal to the amount of ACE and 

individual brings into the sector. 

The sector manager really operates as a broker for ACE transactions both within 

sector and between sectors, and therefore needs access to real time information 

about ACE listings and prices. Currently, information about ACE listings and prices 

is gathered though e-mail chains between sector managers. But, this information is 

often outdated, the delivery is inconsistent, and it is insensitive to marginal changes 

in demand or supply. 

A central clearinghouse where sectors could post how much ACE they have available and negotiate price through a ‘‘bid’’/‘‘ask’’ trading platform would greatly reduce 

inefficiency inherent in the current market place for ACE transactions and result 

in greater utilization of sector ACE. The reason that this type of trading platform 

is unlikely to develop via private sources is because sectors aren’t technically considered a limited access privilege program under Amendment 16. Therefore, fishermen 

can’t buy and sell ACE on their own. They have to act through the Sector manager. 

The National Marine Fisheries Service could develop a type of ACE trading clearing house that is driven by fishermen, but operated by sector managers. I think this 

would improve economic efficiency in the fishery, and provide a valuable source of 

information regarding the shadow value of the resource that can be used in fishery 

forecast models. 

Electronic Vessel Trip Reports 

Question 2. In your written testimony you discuss the development of electronic 

vessel trip reports (E-VTRs). What are the benefits of using electronic reporting and 

what support is needed to expand the use of this type of reporting?’’ 

Answer. As I testified, Electronic Vessel Trip Reports (VTRs) are replacing paper 

VTRs, and fishermen are starting to use real time, wireless applications at sea to 

document by-catch hot spots. In New Hampshire, about half of our fishermen now 

use E–VTR, and we have entered into a pilot project with the Gulf of Maine Research Institute to test a by-catch reporting hot spot tool for harbor porpoise 

sightings. E–VTR has advantages over traditional paper VTR in regards to the efficiency of complying with the requirement to submit a VTR after every trip. It minimizes the risk that the VTR is not accounted for, and provides cost savings to fishermen because they save on paper and postage. 

Investment in overhauling the Fleets hardware, like old computers and other electronics would significantly help the broad transition towards things like E–VTR. 

Computer hardware takes a beating at sea, and programs that could help recycle 

old electronics for new ones would help greatly. A good example is the Gulf of Maine 

Research institute who has provided a free new lap top to all fishermen who transition to E–VTR. 

Real time VTR information also benefits management, marketing and value added 

purposes. Currently, managers, dealers and fishermen are disparate entities that 

don’t fluidly communicate with one another. What is needed is an integrated and 

112 

real time network of data flow and communication that connects Trip IDs with dealer reported trip landings to government and sector records. The sustainability of today’s fishing communities depends on the move towards this type of ‘‘ecosystem approach’’ to data collection, management and integration. 

An integrated information management system would channel single-entry landings information in real-time within an information network of software services 

and devices that enable efficient reporting and compliance, improved dealer business management, more efficient ACL utilization, improved by-catch avoidance, and 

enhanced marketing capacity by facilitating locally branded, traceable and immediately available harvest inventory to community marketing efforts. The system 

should manage the flow of information efficiently so that data can be modified and 

used concurrently by multiple users without disrupting existing reporting protocols. 

This information network would form the infrastructure for a multiple interface 

with existing software platforms (e.g., Sector or business management tools). 

In addition, this real time ‘‘ecosystem approach’’ to data collection and management is a pre-requisite for a robust trading platform. First, we need ‘‘real time landings information’’ flowed continuously to the National Marine Fisheries Service and 

to the commercial fishing industry via sectors. This is a necessary condition for a 

successful ACE trading clearinghouse because in order to execute trades in real 

times, it is necessary for individuals to have knowledge of their remaining ACE allocations in real time. Currently, this information is 8 days lag. Legislative changes 

requiring more frequent, or preferably, real time dealer reporting would benefit the 

fishery and society in the following three ways: 

(1) it would create a more efficient ACE trading platform, 

(2) it would provide better information about the continuous and dynamic shadow 

value of the resource 

(3) it would benefit society through greater resource utilization, and the associated value added and multiplier effects of extra fish sales. 

References 

Drinkwater, K.F. 2005. The response of Atlantic Cod to future climate change. 

ICES. J. Mar. Sci. 62, 1327–1337. 

Fogarty, M. Incze, L. Hayhoe, K., Mountain, D., Manning, J. 2008. Potential climate change impacts on Atlantic cod off the northeastern USA. Mitig. Adapt. Glob. 

Change. 13, 453–466. 

Pinsky, B., Fogarty, M., Sarmiento, H., and Simon A. Levin. Science. Vol. 341 no. 

6151 pp. 1239–1242 

Wiersma 2010. The Preferences of Commercial Fishermen to Supply Collaborative 

Research in New England: A Welfare Analysis. Dissertation. University of Rhode Island. 

Æ