Saving Seafood

House Natural Resources Committee Announces Markup on 16 Bills

December 8, 2017 — WASHINGTON — The following was released by the House Committee on Natural Resources:

On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 5:00 PM in 1324 Longworth House Office Building, the Full Committee will hold a markup on the following bills:

  • H.R. 200 (Rep. Don Young), To amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to provide flexibility for fishery managers and stability for fishermen, and for other purposes.  “Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act”
  • H.R. 1157 (Rep. William R. Keating), To clarify the United States interest in certain submerged lands in the area of the Monomoy National Wildlife Refuge, and for other purposes
  • H.R. 1349 (Rep. Tom McClintock), To amend the Wilderness Act to ensure that the use of bicycles, wheelchairs, strollers, and game carts is not prohibited in Wilderness Areas, and for other purposes
  • H.R. 1350 (Rep. Richard M. Nolan), To modify the boundary of Voyageurs National Park in the State of Minnesota, and for other purposes;
  • H.R. 1675 (Rep. Suzan K. DelBene), To establish a national program to identify and reduce losses from landslides hazards, to establish a national 3D Elevation Program, and for other purpose.  “National Landslide Preparedness Act”
  • H.R. 2888 (Rep. Jason Smith), To establish the Ste. Genevieve National Historic Site in the State of Missouri, and for other purposes.  “Ste. Genevieve National Historical Park Establishment Act”
  • H.R. 3400 (Rep. Rob Bishop), To promote innovative approaches to outdoor recreation on Federal land and to open up opportunities for collaboration with non-Federal partners, and for other purposes.  “Recreation Not Red-Tape Act”
  • H.R. 3588 (Rep. Garret Graves), To amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to provide for management of red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico, and for other purposes.  “RED SNAPPER Act”
  • H.R. 4033 (Rep. Doug Lamborn), To reauthorize the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992.  “National Geologic Mapping Act Reauthorization Act”;
  • H.R. 4264 (Rep. Rob Bishop), To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain Bureau of Land Management land in Cache County, Utah, to the City of Hyde Park for public purposes.  “Hyde Park Land Conveyance Act”
  • H.R. 4266 (Rep. Bruce Poliquin), To clarify the boundary of Acadia National Park, and for other purposes.  “Acadia National Park Boundary Clarification Act”
  • H.R. 4465 (Rep. John R. Curtis), To maintain annual base funding for the Upper Colorado and San Juan fish recovery programs through fiscal year 2023, to require a report on the implementation of those programs, and for other purposes.  “Endangered Fish Recovery Programs Extension Act of 2017”
  • H.R. 4475 (Rep. Don Young), To provide for the establishment of the National Volcano Early Warning and Monitoring System.  “National Volcano Early Warning and Monitoring System Act”
  • H.R. 4568 (Rep. Raul R. Labrador), To amend the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 to promote timely exploration for geothermal resources under geothermal leases, and for other purposes.  “Enhancing Geothermal Production on Federal Lands Act”
  • S. 825 (Sen. Lisa Murkowski), To provide for the conveyance of certain property to the Southeast Alaska Regional Health Consortium located in Sitka, Alaska, and for other purposes.  “Southeast Alaska Regional Health Consortium Land Transfer Act of 2017”
  • S. 1285 (Sen. Jeff Merkley), To allow the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians, the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon, the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon, the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians, the Klamath Tribes, and the Burns Paiute Tribes to lease or transfer certain lands.  “Oregon Tribal Economic Development Act”
WHAT: Full Committee Markup on 16 bills
WHEN: Tuesday, December 12
5:00 PM
WHERE: 1324 Longworth House Office Building

On Tuesday December 12, 2017, the Committee will convene at 5:00 P.M. in 1324 Longworth House Office Building for opening statements only. The Committee will reconvene on Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 10:00 A.M. until 12:00 P.M. in the 1324 Longworth House Office Building.

Visit the Committee Calendar for additional information once it is made available. The meeting is open to the public and a video feed will stream live at House Committee on Natural Resources.

NEPA: An Environmental Law Subverted

November 29, 2017 — WASHINGTON — The following was released by the House Committee on Natural Resources:

Today, the Full Committee held an oversight hearing to discuss improving and modernizing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The panel discussed deficiencies in NEPA’s implementation and potential legislative improvements to enable the law to best serve its intended purpose.

“In 1969, NEPA was originally designed as a tool to assess the impacts of government actions on the environment. Unfortunately, today it has become a sweeping regulatory framework that does the exact opposite,” Chairman Rob Bishop (R-UT) stated.

 “We can both better protect the environment and allow for thorough review and processing of critical economic, energy and infrastructure activities in a timely manner. These concepts are not mutually exclusive.  But it simply won’t happen unless Congress acts to clarify NEPA’s intent, scope and limitations,” Bishop added. 

 Witness Philip Howard, Chairman of Common Good, noted that prolonged environmental reviews on a range of NEPA projects negatively impact the environment, a contradiction of NEPA’s original intent. He cited NEPA-related permitting delays in rebuilding the nation’s highway infrastructure resulting in an extra 51 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions.

“These delays are costly and, often, environmentally destructive,” Howard said.

Howard lauded NEPA’s original environmental objectives. The goals, however, “have been subverted by a process that takes years and ends up interfering with important projects instead of promoting better projects.”

Witness James Willox, Wyoming County Commissioners Association Member, reiterated the disconnect between NEPA’s intent and the statute’s implementation.

“What was once a helpful look at proposed actions has metastasized into a grotesque perversion of Congressional intent whereby agency officials are forced into years of analysis and reams of paper designed to fend off litigation instead of making sound, informed policy decisions,” Willox said.

“NEPA itself was never intended to be an obstructionist part of our infrastructure nor building of any other thing. But it has been used as that,” Rep. Don Young (R-AK) stated. “NEPA should not be used to slow down and impede development because it does not protect the environment. And that’s really what we should be talking about.”

 Witness Mike Bridges, Washington State Building and Construction Trades Council Executive Board Member, echoed the same concerns, emphasizing the law’s negative economic impacts.

“The seemingly endless and arbitrary regulatory process in Washington State will discourage future projects that would employ members of the Building Trades and my community,” Bridges said.

Members and the panel discussed changes to the law including increasing the role of counties and local governments, fast-tracking the permitting of projects, and avoiding duplicative environmental analyses.

“Counties in Wyoming and across the West are ready and willing to assist in the goal of modernizing NEPA to ensure that it continues to work for the benefit of decision-makers,”Willox said.

Click here to view full witness testimony.

Learn more about the House Committee on Natural Resources by visiting their site here.

 

North Pacific Council Weighs in on MSA Reauthorization Bills

November 8, 2017 — SEAFOOD NEWS — In response to a request from Alaska Senator Dan Sullivan, the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council reviewed three bills related to the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, comparing them to the current law and practices used to manage the nation’s largest fisheries.

“The North Pacific Council believes that the current MSA already provides a very successful framework for sustainable fisheries management, and major changes are not necessary at this time,” wrote NPFMC chair Dan Hull.

“Nevertheless, we also recognize the potential benefits of increased flexibility in some circumstances, and amending the Act to provide for such flexibility could provide all the regional councils additional opportunities to optimize their fishery management programs, with appropriate cautionary notes and limitations.

“In order for the Council to provide for the continued conservation of our resources, any changes to the law providing additional flexibility must continue to ensure that fundamental conservation and management tenets based on sound science are upheld, and should not create incentives or justifications to overlook them,” Hull wrote.

Allowing more flexibility in fisheries management, particularly when stocks in a rebuilding phase, is a hot-button issue with many stakeholders, not just in the North Pacific but nationwide. Proponents of adding more flexibility to any new legislation say the current law is too protective of the resource at a cost to the fishery. They urge more flexibility so that each management council can optimize yield without jeopardizing the resource.

“Regarding potential changes and increased flexibility for stock rebuilding plans, the NPFMC believes that further flexibility, would appropriately increase the ability to maximize harvest opportunities while still effecting rebuilding of fish stocks,” noted Hull, referring to HR 200, the bill introduced by Alaska Congressman Don Young.

“The arbitrary 10-year requirement may constrain the Councils management flexibility with overly restrictive management measures, with unnecessary, negative economic impacts, with little or no conservation gain,” Hull wrote.

Another controversal issue is using annual catch limits (ACLs) to manage stocks, something opponents have said needlessly restricts a fishery. Hull defended the importance of ACLs as a foundational part of fisheries management.

“Annual catch limits (ACLs) have been used in the North Pacific for over 30 years, and such limits are a cornerstone of sustainable fisheries management. We also believe there are situations where some flexibility in the establishment of ACLs is warranted, particularly in the case of data poor stocks.

“Consideration of the economic needs of fishing communities is critical in the ACL setting process, and while the current MSA allows for such consideration, we recognize the desire for a more explicit allowance for these considerations.

“We must be careful however, not to jeopardize long term fisheries sustainability, and associated community vitality and resiliency, for the sake of short term preservation of all economic activity associated with a fishery,” he wrote.

“Accounting for uncertainty, articulating policies for acceptable risk, and establishing the necessary precautionary buffers, are all explicit outcomes of the ACL process, and we believe that the [Scientific and Statistical Committees] SSCs are the appropriate gatekeepers to establish the upper limits of ‘safe’ fishing mortality. This limit, which is established as the Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) level, appears to be consistent with the provisions of H.R.200,” Hull added.

Speaking to Rep. Garrett Grave’s (R-LA) S. 1520 Modernizing Recreational Fishing Management Act of 2017, Hull noted that “alternative measures” may not meet the standard in the current MSA.

“The bill provides the councils authority to use alternative measures in recreational fisheries including extraction rates, fishing mortality targets, harvest control rules, or traditional or cultural practices.

“The NPFMC notes that it is unclear if alternative fishery management measures replace the requirement for ACLs. Nevertheless, fisheries managed under alternative measures should be accountable to the conservation and management provisions of the MSA, including prevention of overfishing. ACL’s serve as the primary conservation measure for fish stocks in the North Pacific, and have effectively prevented overharvesting in our fisheries. The NPFMC also notes that traditional or cultural practices are not normally considered as recreational fisheries,” Hull wrote.

Hull also addressed the section in the bill related to rebuilding overfished stocks that would mandate a rebuilding term to be “as short as possible” but in any case not to exceed ten years.

“The NPFMC believes that the arbitrary 10-year time period can be harmful to resource users and fishing communities if it prohibits even limited fishing activity under a scientifically sound rebuilding plan. Replacing the term ‘possible’ with ‘practicable’ provides the councils with more flexibility to incorporate the needs of fishing communities in maintaining economic stability during a rebuilding period,” Hull wrote.

The NPFMC took issue with sections of Rep. Jared Huffman’s Discussion Draft (also called “Strengthening Fishing Communities Through Improving Science, Increasing Flexibility, and Modernizing Fisheries Management Act”) in certain areas, while agreeing with others.

But a section requiring an assessment of conflict of interest of council members, triggered a lengthy comment on problems the NPFMC have faced and a solution they’ve offered to NMFS.

The current MSA conflict of interest language leaves a standard for recusal of a council member up for interpretation. The recusal provision in the current law requires full economic disclosure but also that an affected individual not be allowed to vote on council decisions that would have a significant and predictable effect on a member’s financial interest.

“The MSA language left the issues of significant and predictable effect open for interpretation, so NMFS developed a regulation that set a 10% threshold for a significant effect, which is the basis for determining whether a recusal is required,” explained Hull.

“The primary problem is the way in which NOAA calculates a member’s financial interests in determining whether the 10% thresholds are exceeded. The NOAA and NMFS policy is to attribute all fishing activities of a company — even partially owned by an associated company — in calculating an individual Council member’s interests. The North Pacific Council believes that this attribution policy is inconsistent with the intent of the conflict of interest statute and regulations.

“The following example helps to explain this issue: Joe Councilman works for Fishing Company A, which owns 50% of Fishing Company B, which in turn owns 3% of Fishing Company C. NOAA uses ALL harvesting and processing activity by ALL three of these companies in determining whether Joe Councilman exceeds any of the 10% thresholds,” Hull explained.

“The North Pacific Council believes that this is an unfair and illogical interpretation of the recusal regulations, and results in unintended recusals of Council members. The North Pacific Council believes that NOAA should use only the amount of harvesting or processing activity equivalent to the Council member’s percentage of ownership,” Hull continued.

“Using this proportional share approach, NOAA GC would use 100% of the harvesting and processing activity of Fishing Company A, 50% of the harvesting and processing activity of Fishing Company B, and 1.5% of the harvesting and processing activity of Fishing Company C to determine whether Joe Councilman exceeds any of the thresholds.

“At our request, NOAA and NMFS revisited the attribution policy, but to date, have declined to make changes,” Hull wrote.

Finally, on behalf of the NPFMC, Hull asked that any new legislation:

• Avoids across the board mandates which could negatively affect one region in order to address a problem in another region.

• Allows flexibility in achieving conservation objectives, but be specific enough to avoid lengthy, complex implementing regulations or ‘guidelines’.

• Is in the form of intended outcomes, rather than prescriptive management or scientific parameters.

• Avoids unrealistic/expensive analytical mandates relative to implementing fishery closures or other management actions.

• Avoids constraints that limit the flexibility of Councils and NMFS to respond to changing climates and shifting ecosystems.

• Avoids unfunded mandates.

• Prioritizes the reservation and enhancement of stock assessments and surveys among the highest when considering any changes to the Act.

This story originally appeared on Seafoodnews.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.

 

Rep Young’s Magnuson Bill to Move Ahead with Input from Calif. Rep Huffman; Aim is No Poison Pills

September 28, 2017 — SEAFOOD NEWS — Alaska’s Representative Don Young closed Tuesday’s hearing on four fisheries bills, by remarking to the panel, “We are going to use the vehicle of [HR] 200. I’m going to work with Mr. Huffman and see if we can’t come to some conclusion.

“The basic skeleton of the Magnuson Act … we’re going to keep the skeleton whole. Get those comments and suggestions to us, because we’re going to try to get something moving by October or November this year,” Young said.

Rep. Jared Huffman (D-CA) introduced a discussion draft called “Strengthening Fishing Communities through Improving Science, Increasing Flexibility, and Modernizing Fisheries Management Act.” The discussion paper includes sections on Council transparency, flexibility in rebuilding fish stocks, Saltonstall-Kennedy Act reform, red snapper cooperative research and others.

Rep. Jared Huffman said after the hearing Tuesday that Democrats and Republicans have many agreements when it comes to fishery regulations and management.

However, he said previous attempts in recent years to amend and reauthorize the law have stalled because of “poison pill” riders that would exempt fisheries from conservation policies such as the Endangered Species Act and National Environmental Protection Act.

“Instead of making meaningful improvements to our most important fisheries statute, this process has focused on weakening fundamental environmental protections in place of making meaningful improvements to our important fisheries management framework,” Huffman (D-San Rafael) said in his opening statement at the committee hearing. “This partisan process does a disservice to hardworking fishermen across the country including those in my district.”

Members from both sides of the aisle were in agreement that the law — known as the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 — has worked to prevent overfishing and replenish overfished stocks as was intended upon its passage.

Two other bills were discussed and commented on at the hearing by invited witnesses. HR 3588  and HR 2023 are focused on modernizing recreational fisheries and managing red snapper in regional ways, respectively.

The hearing was before the Water, Power, and Industry Subcommittee of the larger House Committee on Natural Resources.

Witnesses included Chris Oliver, Director of NOAA Fisheries; Mayor Johnathan Mitchell of New Bedford; Mike Merrifield, Southeastern Fisheries Association; Susan Boggs, co-owner of a charter operation out of Alabama, and others.

Chairman Doug Lamborn opened the hearing saying “Many of you here today probably consider this to be a fishery hearing, but I assure you it is much more than that. …whether we are talking about a commercial, recreational, or charter boat operation, the working waterfront that provides shore side support, a boat manufacturer or your local mom and pop bait and tackle shop, today’s hearing is about supporting American small business. It’s my hope today that we will create a strong, bi-partisan MSA that supports jobs and our fishermen, and that supports the science data and process used in federal fisheries management.”

Jonathan Mitchell, Mayor of New Bedford, pushed back on the concept of “flexibility.”

“The term “flexibility” should not be understood as a euphemism for deregulation,” Mitchell said. “The councils are in the business of finely calibrating decisions in light of relevant environmental and economic data, and their own experience and expertise.

“In the discharge of their duties, they tend not to win friends either in the fishing industry or in the conservation community, and given the goals of Magnuson-Stevens, that’s probably the way it should be,” Mitchell said.

Susan Boggs, co-owner in a charter boating operation in Alabama, supported the current MSA.

“I am here today to tell you that MSA is working. This law was written to bring fisheries back from collapse, to ensure long-term sustainability for future generations, and to provide a conduit for stakeholders to be a part of the management process.

“There are several species of fish that are critical to the charter/for-hire sector in the Gulf of Mexico, but perhaps none more than red snapper. Since 2007, when annual catch limits became a requirement, the recreational sector’s quota for red snapper has tripled. MSA has worked for us.

“A suggestion that I would offer to this committee that would have a meaningful impact on the management of this fishery would be a Federal Red Snapper angler license,” she said.

“No one can tell you how many anglers target Red Snapper in the Gulf of Mexico. This license does not have to be cost prohibitive. Even a $10 fee would provide better data on the number of anglers targeting this species and could generate millions of dollars that could be used for cost recovery, stock assessments and better landings data which should include more real-time reporting using current technology from private anglers.”

Chris Oliver listed challenges to NOAA, nationwide and how MSA can tackle them.  “We face formidable challenges managing recovering stocks to benefit both commercial and recreational user groups with fundamentally different goals and objectives, and who are experiencing increased fish interactions due to the strong management measures that have improved historically overfished populations.

“Together with our partners, it is essential that we continue to explore innovative, science-based management approaches and regional management tools. We must remain dedicated to exploring ways to maximize economic opportunities from wild-caught fisheries for commercial and recreational fishermen, processors, and communities. We are committed to working with Congress on the bills put forth by this subcommittee, to ensure that annual catch limits, accountability measures, stock rebuilding, and other aspects of our management construct are working, while protecting the overall, long-term conservation and sustainability of the nation’s fishery resources.”

This story originally appeared on Seafoodnews.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.

Members Review Proposals to Modernize Federal Fisheries Management

September 26, 2017 — WASHINGTON — The following was released by the House Committee on Natural Resources:

Today, the Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans held a legislative hearing on a series of bills aimed at improving federal fisheries management for commercial and recreational fisherman.

“Many of you here today probably consider this to be a fishery hearing, but I assure you it is much more than that. Whether we are talking about a commercial, recreational, or charter boat operation, the working waterfront that provides shore-side support, a boat manufacturer, or your local mom and pop bait and tackle shop, today’s hearing is about supporting American small businesses,” Subcommittee Chairman Doug Lamborn (R-CO) said. 

H.R. 200, introduced by Chairman Emeritus Don Young (R-AK), reauthorizes the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Since the last reauthorization, fishermen’s access has been eroded by federal agencies that ignore public input and rely upon outdated science in management decisions. Existing implementation of the law has resulted in negative impacts to local economies and a greater regulatory burden on recreational and commercial fishermen.

“My bill works to strengthen the Magnuson-Stevens Act by giving our nation’s regional fisheries councils the added flexibility they need,” Young said. “As a father of the original 1976 legislation, my goal is to reauthorize the MSA with a focus on maintaining the species; ensuring they’re healthy, can retain themselves and can continue to support coastal communities that rely on these fisheries.”

The Committee also discussed two bills from Rep. Garret Graves (R-LA), H.R. 2023, the “Modernizing Recreational Fisheries Management Act of 2017,” and H.R. 3588, the “RED SNAPPER Act,” which looked more closely at systemic issues facing recreational fishers and more specifically red snapper management.

“It is my hope that we can use these bills in front of us today to produce a strong, bipartisan Magnuson-Stevens reauthorization that supports jobs and our fishermen by strengthening the science, data, and process used in federal fisheries management,” Lamborn added.

Chris Oliver, Assistant Administrator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), conveyed the administration’s support for the added flexibility for innovative, regional management plans.

“NOAA Fisheries stands ready to work with the Congress to craft a reauthorization bill that addresses current fishery management challenges and ensures the Nation’s fisheries are able to meet the needs of both current and future generations,” Oliver stated.

Click here for full witness testimony.

Subcommittee to Review Bills to Modernize Federal Fisheries Management

September 19, 2017 — The following was released by the House Committee on Natural Resources:

Washington, D.C. – On Tuesday, September 26, 2017 at 10:00 AM in 1334 Longworth House Office Building, the Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans will hold a legislative hearing on the following bills:

  • H.R. 200 (Rep. Don Young), To amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to provide flexibility for fishery managers and stability for fishermen, and for other purposes.
  • H.R. 2023 (Rep. Garret Graves), To modernize recreational fisheries management “Modernizing Recreational Fisheries Management Act of 2017”
  • H.R. 3588 (Rep. Garret Graves), To amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to provide for management of red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico, and for other purposes. “RED SNAPPER Act”
  • Discussion Draft of H.R. ____  (Rep. Jared Huffman), To amend and reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and for other purposes.
WHAT: Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans Legislative Hearing on 4 Bills
WHEN: Tuesday, September 26
10:00 AM
WHERE: 1334 Longworth House Office Building

Visit the Committee Calendar for additional information once it is made available. The meeting is open to the public and a video feed will stream live at House Committee on Natural Resources.

Congressmen hear pitches on how to open up Alaska’s natural resources

August 18, 2017 — Alaska Rep. Don Young has spent the week guiding some of his fellow Republican members of Congress around some of Alaska’s natural resources, and the group said they’re ready to act to make drilling and mining more accessible in Alaska.

Young and four other members of the congressional Western Caucus joined with representatives of oil, gas, timber, fish, Alaska Native corporations and other industries in Anchorage on Thursday to discuss just what Congress could do to encourage more production in Alaska.

The industry representatives and Republican lawmakers agreed on the overall plan: Get the federal government out of the way. For the lawmakers, that meant naming names of troublesome bureaucrats.

The industry groups spoke of reforming regulatory programs and paring back the power of agencies and environmental groups.

Young convened the group at the Dena’ina Center downtown after travels to the North Slope to check out facilities run by ConocoPhillips and BP, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and Pump Station No. 1, start of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System.

The group also visited the Fort Knox Gold Mine outside of Fairbanks. Afterward, some of them headed south for a fishing trip this weekend.

Read the full story at the Alaska Dispatch News

Dr. Brian Rothschild: Congress Must Make Magnuson Recognize Existence, Content of National Standards in Fishery Plans

Dr. Brian Rothschild

August 9, 2017 — The following was written by Dr. Brian Rothschild, and was published in the June/July issue of Fishery News:

Four years and counting, the stalled reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) is impeding the progress of U.S. fishery management.

In December 2013, a reauthorization draft was distributed to the 113th Congress. Since that time various versions of the bill have been shuffled between the House and the Senate. The most recent version—”Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act”—was introduced to the 115th Congress on January 3, 2017 by Congressman Young as H.R. 200. On February 10, it was referred to the Subcommittee on Water, Power, and Oceans.

H.R. 200 is a step in the right direction. It builds flexibility into fisheries stock-rebuilding schedules by replacing the current law’s formulaic and impracticable rebuilding strictures. It recognizes, at least implicitly, that stocks that are at a historically low level of abundance should be designated as “depleted”, not as “overfished” and addresses, albeit weakly, improvements in research planning.

However, H.R. 200 only scratches the surface of needed reform. It falls short in failing to recognize the operational quartet that fundamentally shapes fisheries- policy implementation. This quartet consists of the interactions among 1) the “plain language of the law”, 2) the record of “legislative history”, 3) guidelines issued by the agency (NOAA), and 4) day-to-day implementation actions by NMFS.

Given this framework, it is crucial to realize that even the slightest ambiguity or equivocation in the reauthorized law will propagate uncertainty and substantial costs to the over-all economic and social performance of our fisheries.

Let’s look at an example. To begin, it is necessary to recognize that the MSFMCA is based upon 10 National Standards. So, it is only logical that reauthorization language should use the National Standards as a point of departure.

But, in H.R. 200 the National Standards are virtually ignored. This is problematic because reference to, and possible revision of, the National Standards is necessary to improve fishery policy. Not doing so creates substantial opportunity for ambiguity and equivocation.

To further exemplify, two key concepts in National Standard 1 involve: (1) overfishing and (2) optimum yield.

(1) There are many different types and shades of overfishing, so what kind and how much overfishing are we preventing?

Arriving at a determination of overfishing depends on the choice of model (there are several). The magnitude of a overfishing “value” generally differs among “models”. For example, overfishing can be defined in the context of production models, age-structured production models, or yield-per-recruit models, each of which gives a different view of stock status. It is also often the case, amidst this profusion/confusion, that all of these definitions are just simply ignored and replaced by arbitrary “proxies” that rely upon highly uncertain age-structured production models.

Consider also that two different forms of overfishing are well-known: “stock overfishing” and “recruitment overfishing”. Each is determined on the basis of different information requirements. Each has different conservation content.

Stock overfishing can be determined on the basis of data at hand e.g. landings and fishing effort, and has— despite its wide use in managing fish stocks—very little conservation importance. Alternately, determining whether recruitment overfishing exists requires several years of data—and despite its conservation importance— it is seldom done.

So, when we change “overfished” to “depleted”, how do we interpret the status of all the fish stocks previously designated as overfished or at risk to overfishing, definitions that would no longer be relevant? How do we manage stocks that are at a low level of abundance because they are truly depleted by fishing, in contrast to stocks that are depleted by environmental change? Also, there does not appear to be a universally acceptable way to distinguish fishing-depleted from environment- depleted.

(2) Optimum has a specific technical meaning. It refers to something that we want to maximize. The question arises as to what we are maximizing and over what time frame. On one hand, the extant version of the law gives some clues, but following these clues only leads to deeper uncertainty and ambiguity. First, it is clear that the intent of the extant law is to somehow maximize “a quantity of fish”. But it could be “a quantity of fish” that provides the “greatest overall benefit to the nation”, or it could be “maximum sustainable yield as reduced by economic, social, or ecological factors”, or it could be “rebuilding the fishery to an MSY level”.

And, in any event, a little thought might indicate that maximizing a quantity of fish may not be a good idea in general. For example, there are many other measures of performance that are better measures than a quantity of fish and yet optimizing these other measures seems to be virtually ignored.

A relevant example is that optimization, as it is practiced under the current law, is taken to mean that biological productivity is maximized, subject to economic and social constraints. Yet, perhaps a better and different approach would be to maximize economic and social productivity, subject to biological constraints!

So, the reauthorization of the MSFCMA gathers dust. During four decades since its original authorization in 1976, fisheries management has had its bright spots and dark patches. Future dark patches can be considerably reduced by making sure that the elements underpinning the operational quartet in the reauthorization are, at the very least, well-defined and feasible to attain. The consonance among the plain language of the law, the intent of Congress, the regulations and the actual implementation of the Act needs careful scrutiny. “If winter comes, can spring be far behind?” The time is right for fishery policy to come out of hibernation.

About Dr. Brian Rothschild: Dr. Rothschild is the Montgomery Charter Professor of Marine Science and former Dean of the School for Marine Science and Technology at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth. Prior to joining the University of Massachusetts, Professor Rothschild held professorships at the University of Maryland and the University of Washington. He has had faculty or visiting scientist affiliations with the University of Hawaii; Scripps Institution of Oceanography; Rosensteil School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami; Institut fur Meereskunde, University of Kiel; Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution; and Harvard University.

 

Senate Bill on New National Fisheries Marketing Advisory Panel Moves Through Committee

August 7, 2017 — SEAFOOD NEWS — A bill to create an advisory committee to guide seafood marketing and research projects nationwide was approved by the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee on Wednesday, August 2, 2017.

Introduced by Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK) and Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA), S. 3087, The American Fisheries Advisory Committee Act would create a 25-member national panel to advise the Secretary of Commerce on projects aimed at boosting fisheries research and/or seafood marketing initiatives across the country.

The advisory panel would assist the Secretary of Commerce “in the awarding of fisheries research and development grants.”  It establishes six regions within the AFA Committee:

1. Alaska, Hawaii, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Territories of Guam and American Samoa.

2. Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut.

3. Texas, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, Arkansas, Puerto Rico, and territory of the Virgin Islands.

4. California, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho.

5. New Jersey, New York, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.

6. Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

Membership would include one representative each from the processing, harvesting, and recreational sector, with at-large appointments from the nation’s distribution, retail, and foodservice sectors, plus a seafood marketer and an individual with experience growing seafood.

Efforts to establish national seafood promotional and research boards have had success in the past, most notably the National Fish and Seafood Promotional Council from the late 1980s.

The current plan has been supported by a coalition of fish harvesting groups who want full throated government support to increase marketing of domestic seafood.

This bill differs from the old national marketing council effort in a few important ways, however. The AFA Committee is not restricted to national promotional initiatives as it will be considering regional projects as well as those that focus on research.

Funding sources were not explicitly mentioned in the bill, but similar marketing and promotional efforts have been supported through Saltonstall-Kennedy funds, industry assessments, and other revenues.  Supporters feel once a vehicle is in place, funding will follow.

The bill was reported to the Senate for a floor vote.

A related House Bill, HR 214, also called the American Fisheries Advisory Committee Act, was introduced by Don Young (R-AK) earlier this year. It was referred to the House Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans on February 10, 2017.

S. 3087 is nearly identical to a bill introduced by Sullivan and Cantwell last year, with the notable addition of a recreational representative on the advisory panel in this year’s version. Last year’s bill was easily passed by the Committee but was never brought to the floor for a Senate vote.

This story originally appeared on Seafoodnews.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.

MSA Reauthorization Fault Lines on Recreation and Stock Target Flexibility Exposed in House Hearing

July 25, 2017 — SEAFOOD NEWS — In last week’s hearing on HR200, the latest version of amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the flash points between recreational and commercial fisheries management — one of the most visible in the suite of proposed changes to the MSA — were made clear.

The last time Magnuson-Stevens was amended, stock conservation efforts were strengthened and the standards to which the regional council system was held, were tightened. This go-around, “flexibility” in allowing conservation methods and goals to be more responsive to needs in the recreational sector is getting some traction in Congress.

HR 200, authored by Alaska’s Representative Don Young, eases requirements for a 10-year rebuilding plan, extends state’s jurisdiction to 9 miles in certain regions, and shifts authority to MSA when other laws, such as the Endangered Species Act or the Antiquities Act (to create marine monuments), are involved.

At last week’s hearing, four industry representatives before the House Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans provided balanced comments from both the commercial and recreational sectors. The four — Nick Wiley, Executive Director of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission; Jeff Kaelin from Lunds Fisheries; Charles Witek, New York angler and fisheries writer; and Sean Martin, president of the Hawaii Longliners Association — were invited to comment on “Exploring the Successes and Challenges of the Magnuson-Stevens Act” and the viability of HR 200.

The questions posed after testimonies, most focused on summer flounder, red snapper, and recreational involvement in these fisheries, shed light on what House members are thinking.

Chairman Doug Lamborn, from Colorado, noted that the “best available science” may be improved upon “dramatically, by using fisheries-based platforms.” He added that “if we work with commercial and recreational fishermen to improve the science, we’ll get more buy in.”

“Scientific uncertainty is killing us — it really is,” noted Kaelin. He explained that when uncertainty is high, managers use precautionary methods to set catch limits, season times, size limits, etc. “The error bars are like this,” Kaelin said, stretching his hands apart. “And all the decisions are being made at the lower end of the error bars.”

Lamborn said, “That indicates that we must pass this legislation.”

He also noted that “restrictive ACLs (annual catch limits) that were applied across all recreational programs may not work. It works well for the commercial sector, but not recreational.

“HR 200 would help in this matter,” Lamborn said.

Witek pushed back on some assertions that MSA was failing in management of red snapper, summer flounder, and other contentious fisheries stocks.

“The [summer founder] decision has done very serious harm to the interjurisdictional cooperative management on the east coast,” Witek said, referring the Secretary Ross’s recent overturning of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission decision that New Jersey was in violation of summer flounder catch limits, the penalty of which would be a moratorium on that fishery.

“The Secretary’s decision has taken the stick away,” Witek said. “The stick was the moratorium. The carrot was a compromise. Other states are now looking for a pass from the Secretary, for instance with striped bass in the Chesapeake.”

Witek said the red snapper decision to extend the red snapper recreational fishery by more than a month in the Gulf “could very well be the death knell to red snapper in the Gulf coast.

“It’s a death spiral that I see no way out of. Except the Gulf council may have a way out of it because they’re talking about changing the definition of overfished stock. By shifting the goals posts they solve the problem,” Witek said.

While Lamborn said the current MSA needs improved science, better transparency and more flexibility, subcommittee member Jared Huffman (California) said MSA is working well, noting that over 40 stocks have now been rebuilt under the MSA guidance and that the precursor to HR200, HR 1335 would not be acceptable by the U.S. Senate.

This story originally appeared on SeafoodNews.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.