[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1996 AMENDMENTS TO THE
MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 22, 1999, WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Serial No. 106-45
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
60-043 WASHINGTON : 2000
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
ELTON GALLEGLY, California DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California Samoa
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
KEN CALVERT, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
RICHARD W. POMBO, California OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
HELEN CHENOWETH-HAGE, Idaho CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
CHRIS CANNON, Utah ADAM SMITH, Washington
KEVIN BRADY, Texas CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania DONNA MC CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
RICK HILL, Montana Islands
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado RON KIND, Wisconsin
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada JAY INSLEE, Washington
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
GREG WALDEN, Oregon TOM UDALL, New Mexico
DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania MARK UDALL, Colorado
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
Lloyd A. Jones, Chief of Staff
Elizabeth Megginson, Chief Counsel
Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk/Administrator
John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah Samoa
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
RICHARD W. POMBO, California PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
Carolina SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho Rico
ADAM SMITH, Washington
Harry Burroughs, Staff Director
Dave Whaley, Legislative Staff
Jean Flemma, Democratic Legislative Staff
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held Month Day, 1999..................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Hon. Jim Saxton, a Representative in Congress from the State
of New Jersey.............................................. 00
Prepared statement of........................................ 00
............................................................. 00
............................................................. 00
............................................................. 00
............................................................. 00
Statement of Witnesses:
Dalton, Penelope D., Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,
National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Department of
Commerce; accompanied by Andy Rosenberg, Deputy
Administrator of Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service, U.S. Department of Commerce....................... 00
Brancaleone, Joseph M., Chairman, New England Fishery
Management Council......................................... 00
Prepared statement of........................................ 00
............................................................. 00
............................................................. 00
............................................................. 00
............................................................. 00
............................................................. 00
............................................................. 00
............................................................. 00
............................................................. 00
............................................................. 00
............................................................. 00
............................................................. 00
Additional material supplied:
............................................................. 00
............................................................. 00
............................................................. 00
............................................................. 00
............................................................. 00
Communications submitted:
............................................................. 00
............................................................. 00
............................................................. 00
............................................................. 00
............................................................. 00
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1996 AMENDMENTS TO THE
MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 22, 1999
House of Representatives,
Committee on Resources,
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and
Oceans,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:02 a.m., in
room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Jim Saxton
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Saxton, Hayes, and
Faleomavaega.
Mr. Saxton. Good morning. I have been handed a note asking
me to point out that testimony for today's hearing was
requested to be delivered by 4 p.m. on Monday, July 19th, 1999.
I would like to thank Mr. Brancaleone for complying with that
request. The National Marine Fisheries Service testimony had
not been delivered at the close of business yesterday. Some of
you may be aware that Chairman Young recessed the hearing
yesterday before the Administration witness could testify,
because the full Committee had not had sufficient time to
review the Administration's testimony. I will not do this.
However, this has become a disturbing trend that we do not
appreciate.
Having said that, we will proceed with the hearing.
STATEMENT OF HON. JIM SAXTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Saxton. The Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation,
Wildlife and Oceans is meeting today to discuss the
implementation of the 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
In 1996, Congress passed the Sustainable Fisheries Act. The
Act was a major revision to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act, and it directed the Secretary
of Commerce and the regional councils to undertake a number of
new initiatives.
It was a forward-looking piece of legislation that focused
attention on three main areas: reducing bycatch; identifying
and protecting habitat; and identifying, protecting and, when
necessary, rebuilding over-fished fisheries. These are
important initiatives for the National Marine Fisheries Service
to undertake.
It has now been almost 3 years since the enactment of the
Sustainable Fisheries Act, and this hearing will examine how
well NMFS is implementing the provisions of that historic
fisheries act.
In addition, this examination represents the first of
several hearings that will hopefully result in the
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act during this session of Congress. I expect
there will be a number of issues that members will want to
focus on during these hearings.
Today we will hear from just two witnesses: Ms. Penny
Dalton, who represents NMFS; and Mr. Joe Brancaleone, who is no
stranger to the Committee, who will testify on behalf of the
eight regional fishery management councils.
I believe this deliberation will set the stage for our
reauthorization process, and I look forward to hearing from our
distinguished witnesses.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Saxton follows:]
Statement of Hon. Jim Saxton, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey
Today we are discussing the implementation of the 1996
amendments Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act.
In 1996, Congress passed the Sustainable Fisheries Act.
This Act was a major revision of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act and it directed the Secretary
of Commerce and the Regional Councils to undertake a number of
new initiatives. It was a forward-looking piece of legislation
that focused attention on three main areas: reducing bycatch;
identifying and protecting habitat; and identifying,
preventing, and, when necessary, rebuilding overfished
fisheries. These are important imitiatives for the National
Marine Fisheries Service to undertake.
It has now been almost three years since the enactment of
the Sustainable Fisheries Act and this hearing will examine how
well the National Marine Fisheries Service is implementing the
provisions of that historic Fisheries Act. In addition, this
examination represents the first of several hearings that will
hopefully result in the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act. I expect there are a
number of issues that Members will want to focus on during
these hearings.
Today, we will hear from just two witnesses: Ms. Penny
Dalton, who will represent NMFS; and Mr. Joe Brancaleone, who
is no stranger to this Committee, will testify on behalf of the
eight regional fishery management councils.
I believe this deliberation will set the stage for our
reauthorization process and I look forward to hearing from our
distinguished witnesses.
Mr. Saxton. I would now ask Penny if you would like to take
your place, and Mr. Brancaleone, if you would like to take
yours. You may proceed with your testimony. And let me remind
you that we generally have a 5-minute rule. Obviously, at
today's hearing we have some flexibility because of the fact
that we have only you folks to hear from. So you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF PENELOPE D. DALTON, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR
FISHERIES, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF COMMERCE; ACCOMPANIED BY ANDY ROSENBERG, DEPUTY
ADMINISTRATOR OF FISHERIES, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Ms. Dalton. Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to
testify today on implementation and reauthorization of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. I am
Penny Dalton, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries of NOAA.
As we approach the close of the 20th century, we are at a
critical point in fisheries management, with considerable work
ahead of us. In the 23 years since the enactment of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, we have seen the complete Americanization
of Federal fisheries, the expansion of the U.S. seafood
industry, declines in many marine resources, and the rise of
public interest in fisheries issues.
We have seen some successes from our management actions,
including a rebound in Georges Bank haddock, the rebuilding of
Atlantic king mackerel, and the continued health of Alaskan
fish stocks. Yet considerable work remains. Scientists estimate
that we could increase U.S. fishery landings by up to three
million metric tons by rebuilding fisheries and harvesting them
at long-term potential yields.
Over the years, the Magnuson-Stevens Act has changed and
evolved through several reauthorizations. The most significant
has probably been the 1996 revisions of the Sustainable
Fisheries Act that address a number of conservation issues.
First, to prevent over-fishing and rebuild depleted fisheries,
the SFA caps harvests at the maximum sustainable yield and
requires fishery management plans to rebuild any over-fished
fishery.
Second, the SFA sets protection of fishery habitat as a
management priority. To enhance this priority, the SFA requires
that plans identify habitat that is necessary to fish for
spawning, feeding, or growth. The new law also clarifies our
existing authority to comment on Federal actions that affect
essential fish habitat.
Third, to reduce bycatch and waste, the SFA adds a new
national standard requiring that plans minimize bycatch and the
mortality of bycatch that cannot be avoided. It also calls for
assessment of bycatch and steps to reduce it.
The new conservation requirements may have far-reaching
effects on recreational and commercial fishing, and on
fishermen, their families, and communities. To address this
concern, the SFA establishes a new national standard which
requires fishery management plans to ensure sustained
participation of fishing communities and minimize adverse
impacts. In addition, a national standard has been added on
promoting the safety of human life at sea.
Finally, the SFA provides a number of new tools for
addressing problems related to the transition to sustainable
fisheries, including amendments to provide for fisheries
disaster relief, fishing capacity reduction programs, vessel
financing, and grants and other financial assistance.
NOAA Fisheries takes seriously its new mandates under the
SFA. We are continuing to work to ensure that SFA requirements
are implemented, and that management programs fully protect
marine resources and provide for the needs of fishing
communities. A great deal of work remains to be done, and the
benefits of the changes we make now may take years, perhaps
decades, to realize.
We need to direct resources and effort to the scientific
and technical aspects of our work. In addition, the fishery
decisions that we face are becoming ever more complex and
contentious; therefore, we must build consensus among various
stakeholders that moves us toward healthy and sustainable
fisheries.
Nearly all of the regulations and policy guidance related
to SFA implementation have been developed and published. These
regulations and guidelines address such issues as foreign
processing in internal waters, observer health and safety,
procedures for monitoring recreational fisheries, Secretarial
emergency actions, and negotiated rulemaking. Proposed
regulations for carrying out fishing capacity reduction
programs were published in January 1999. Final regulations
currently are under review.
The national standard guidelines were one important area
where substantial revisions were necessary because of the
significant changes made by the SFA. The national standards are
the guiding principles for management of our nation's fishery
resources, and any management plans or associated regulations
must comply.
The national standard guidelines were revised and published
as a final rule in May 1998. They address the need to end over-
fishing, reduce bycatch, and rebuild stocks. They also provide
guidance for evaluating impacts on fishing communities and
enhancing safety at sea.
Another significant change is the increased emphasis of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act on conserving and enhancing essential fish
habitat. In December 1997, NOAA Fisheries published an interim
final rule that establishes guidelines for describing and
identifying EFH and fishery management plans, including adverse
impacts on such habitat from fishing, and other actions to
conserve and enhance EFH. The rule also provides procedures for
consultations on actions that affect EFH.
To date, NOAA Fisheries has conducted over 400
consultations with Federal agencies whose actions may adversely
affect EFH. We have completed seven agreements with other
Federal agencies to establish specific procedures for using
existing environmental review processes to handle those
consultations. And we are working on 36 more agreements.
In addition to revising the national standards, the SFA
established a number of other new requirements for fishery
management plans that necessitate their amendment. The SFA
imposed a deadline of October 11, 1998 for amendments to each
of the 39 existing fishery management plans. As of June 1999,
52 amendments were either approved or partially approved.
Another two amendments were under Secretarial review. And the
remaining 13 were scheduled to begin Secretarial review this
summer.
Despite the councils' best efforts, there were some
proposed amendments that did not satisfy requirements, or for
which the analyses were inadequate. NOAA Fisheries disapproved
or partially approved these amendments, and is working with the
councils to improve them.
I cannot over-emphasize the critical role and contribution
of the councils in implementing the SFA and bringing Federal
fishery management into compliance with its requirements. The
councils have performed admirably over the years in developing
plans, resolving conflicts, and making recommendations to the
Secretary, particularly in light of the controversy and
conflicts surrounding many fishery decisions. While both NOAA
Fisheries and the councils are adjusting to the changes made by
the SFA, we remain committed to working together in the
transition to sustainable fisheries.
Another initiative of the SFA was to establish a new title
on fishery monitoring and research. Meeting our
responsibilities under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other
applicable laws requires collection of a considerable amount of
data, and in many fisheries we do not have what we need.
Consequently, we are vulnerable to overlooking or accepting
alternatives with unanticipated effects, due to the limitations
of our models and underlying data.
NOAA Fisheries is addressing this vulnerability by placing
a high priority on using funds to fill in gaps, particularly in
the area of economic and social data. In January of this year,
NOAA Fisheries delivered a report entitled ``Implementation of
a Fishing Vessel Registration and Fisheries Information
System,'' that calls for Federal-state partnerships to improve
the quality and quantity of information available. Such
partnerships are an important mechanism for sharing resources
and reducing duplicative efforts.
In addition to the data management report, the SFA required
about 20 other studies and reports to Congress that address
many critical issues in fisheries management. We will be using
the findings and recommendations of these reports to improve
our conservation and management programs. They also contain a
great deal of useful information that could inform and guide
the reauthorization process.
We are still working to understand and effectively
implement the SFA, and would not propose major changes to the
Magnuson-Stevens Act at this time. However, we have established
an internal agency taskforce to evaluate SFA implementation,
and the group has identified some revisions that may be useful
to improve efficiency and resolve relatively minor problems.
We are also reviewing issues raised by the taskforce, the
councils, and some of our stakeholders. Among the issues
identified thus far:
One, a review process for fishery management plans,
amendments, and regulations. The SFA attempted to simplify and
tighten the approval process for management plans and
regulations. However, it creates two distinct review and
implementation processes; one for plans and amendments, and
another for implementing regulations. As a result, the decision
to approve or disapprove a plan or amendment may be necessary
before the public has had an adequate opportunity to comment on
the accompanying regulations. This disconnect should be
addressed during the reauthorization process.
In addition, the Committee may wish to consider reinstating
the initial review of fishery management plans and amendments
by the Secretary. At present, 2 or 3 months may elapse before
the Secretary makes his determination on a plan or amendment.
And if it is then disapproved, months may lapse before the
council can modify or resubmit it. While the initial review was
eliminated by the SFA to shorten the review process, it
actually may provide a mechanism to shorten the time to get a
plan or amendment in place, because it allows us to identify
early problems.
As I indicated in the April hearing on this topic, the
Magnuson-Stevens Act currently restricts the collection of
economic data from processors. Removal of this restriction
could improve the quantity and quality of information available
to meet the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and
other laws requiring economic analysis.
Three, coral reef protection. Special management areas,
including those designated to protect coral reefs, hard
bottoms, and precious corals, are important commercial
resources and valuable habitats. Currently, we have the
authority to regulate anchoring and other activities of fishing
vessels that affect fish habitat. Threats to those resources
from non-fishing vessels remain largely outside agency
authority. We would like to clarify and strengthen NOAA
Fisheries' authority to regulate the actions of a vessel that
directly impacts resources being managed under the Magnuson-
Stevens Act.
Caribbean Council jurisdiction. The current description of
the Caribbean Council limits its jurisdiction to Federal waters
off Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. As a result, the
council cannot develop FMPs governing fishing in Federal waters
around Navassa Island or any other U.S. possession in the
Caribbean. Jurisdiction of the Caribbean Council could be
expanded to cover Navassa Island.
Five, council meeting notification. The Magnuson-Stevens
Act currently mandates that the councils spend a great deal of
money every year to publish meeting notices in local newspapers
in regional fishing ports. By contrast, e-mail, public service
announcements, and notices included with marine weather
forecasts are much cheaper, and could be more effective in
reaching fishery participants and stakeholders.
In conclusion, we look forward to working with the
Committee on the reauthorization and on high-priority policy
issues such as observer programs, individual transferrable
quotas, and funding and fee authorities.
This concludes my testimony. Thank you for the opportunity
to discuss the Magnuson-Stevens Act. And I am ready to answer
any questions that members may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Dalton follows:]
Statement of Penelope D. Dalton, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,
National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
inviting me to testify today on implementation and
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). I am Penelope
Dalton, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries for the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Building a Foundation for Sustainable Fisheries
The fishery resources found off our shores are a valuable
national heritage. In 1997, U.S. commercial fisheries produced
almost $3.5 billion in dockside revenues. By weight of catch,
the United States is the world's fifth largest fishing nation,
harvesting almost 10 billion pounds annuall. The United States
also is the third largest seafood exporter, with exports valued
at over $3 billion in 1996. In addition to supporting the
commercial seafood industry, U.S. fishery resources provided
enjoyment for almost 9 million saltwater anglers who caught an
estimated 366 million fish in 1997.
As we approach the close of the 20th century, we are at a
crucial point in fisheries management, with considerable work
ahead of us. In the 23 years since the enactment of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, we have seen the complete Americanization
of fisheries in Federal waters, the expansion of the U.S.
fishing industry, declines in many fishery resources, and the
rise of public interest in fisheries issues. We have seen some
successes from our management actions, including the initial
rebound of a few depleted stocks like Georges Bank haddock, the
rebuilding of Atlantic king mackerel, and the continued strong
production of fish stocks off Alaska. However, 12 percent of
U.S. living marine resources are overfished or are approaching
overfished, 24 percent are not overfished, and there is another
64 percent whose status is unknown. Scientists estimate that we
could increase U.S. fishery landings by up to 3 million metric
tons by rebuilding fisheries and harvesting them at long-term
potential yields.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act, of course, provides the national
framework for conserving and managing the wealth of fishery
resources found within the 197-milewide zone of Federal waters
contiguous to the United States. To allow broad-based
participation in the management process, the Act created eight
regional fishery management councils (Councils) composed of
state fishery managers, the regional NOAA Fisheries
administrator, and qualified fishing industry, academic, and
environmental representatives. Each Council has authority over
the fisheries seaward of the states comprising it while NOAA
Fisheries has management authority over most highly migratory
species (e.g. swordfish) in the Atlantic ocean. The primary
responscility of the Councils is the development of fishery
management plans that set the rules for each fishery and meet
national conservation and management standards established in
the Act.
zOver the years, the Magnuson-Stevens Act has changed and
evolved through several reauthorizations. In 1996, Congress
ushered in a new era in fisheries management, making
significant revisions to the Magnuson-Stevens Act in the
Sustainable Fisheries Act (SPA). The SFA addresses a number of
conservation issues. First, to prevent overfishing and rebuild
depleted fisheries, the SFA caps fishery harvests at the
maximum sustainable level and requires fishery management plans
to rebuild any overfished fishery. NOAA Fisheries reports
annually on the health of marine fisheries and identifies
fisheries that are overfished or approaching an overfished
condition. Second, the SFA sets a new direction for fisheries
management that focuses on protecting fisheries habitat. To
enhance this goal, the SFA requires that management plans
identify habitat that is necessary to fish for spawning,
feeding or growth. The new law also clarifies our existing
authority to comment on Federal actions that affect essential
fish habitat. Third, to reduce bycatch and waste, the SFA adds
a new national standard requiring that conservation and
management measures minimize bycatch and the mortality of
bycatch that cannot be avoided. It also calls for management
plans to assess bycatch and to take steps to reduce it.
The new conservation requirements may have far-reaching
effects on recreational and commercial fishing and on
fishermen, their families and communities. To address this
concern, the SFA establishes a new national standard which
requires, consistent with conservation objectives, that fishery
management plans ensure sustained participation of fishing
communities and minimize adverse impacts. In addition, a
national standard has been added on promoting the safety of
human life at sea. Finally, the SFA provides a number of new
tools for addressing problems relating the transition to
sustainable fisheries, including amendments to provide for
disaster relief, fishing capacity reduction programs, vessel
financing, and grants and other financial assistance.
Implementation of the Sustainable Fisheries Act
NOAA Fisheries takes seriously its new mandates under the
SFA. We are continuing to work to ensure that SFA requirements
are implemented, and that conservation and management measures
fully protect the resource and provide for the needs of fishing
communities and the Nation. A great deal of work remains to be
done. We are laying a better foundation for future fisheries
management, yet the benefits of the changes made by Congress in
1996 will take years, perhaps decades, to realize. In addition,
the management decisions that we face are becoming ever more
complex and contentious, and good solutions are hard to come
by. We need to direct resources and effort to the scientific
and technical aspects of our work. We also must build consensus
with the public and among various stakeholders to facilitate
progress in developing management programs that will move us
toward the goal of healthy and sustainable marine resources.
Regulations and guidelines. Nearly all of the regulations
and policy guidance related to SFA implementation (other than
implementing regulations lor plan amendments) have been
developed and published. These regulations and guidelines
address such issues as foreign processing in internal waters,
observers' health and safety, procedures for monitoring
recreational fisheries, Secretarial emergency actions, and
negotiated rulemaking. Proposed regulations for carrying out
fishing capacity reduction programs were published in January
1999; final regulations currently are under review in the
agency clearance process. However, sectors of the fishing
industry that are interested in pursing buyouts can proceed
with the development of buyout plans while this rule is being
finalized.
The national standard guidelines were one important area
where substantial revisions were necessary because of the
significant changes made by the SFA. The national standards are
the guiding principles for the management of our Nation's
fishery resources, and any management plans or associated
regulations prepared by either the Secretary or the Councils
must satisfy the criteria which they establish. The Magnuson-
Stevens Act requires that the Secretary prepare advisory
guidelines on their application to assist in the development of
management plans. The guidelines build on the national
standards, providing more detailed advice for plan development
and a guide to the Secretary in the review and approval of
proposed plans and regulations. They were revised to reflect
the changes made by the SFA and published as a final rule in
May 1998. The final rule addresses the need to end overfishing,
reduce bycatch and rebuild stocks, emphasizing use of the
precautionary approach. It adds important guidelines on
evaluating impacts on fishing communities, and provides
guidelines to enhance safety at sea.
Among the changes made by the SFA, one of the most
important may be a strengthened standard for preventing
overfishing accomplished by revising the definition of terms
used in National Standard 1. The effect of this revision is to
cap the optimum yield from a fishery at the maximum sustainable
yield (MSY) and require all stocks to be rebuilt to and
maintained at levels consistent with MSY. In addition, fishery
management plans must establish clear criteria for determining
when overfishing of a stock is occurring. NOAA Fisheries has
worked with the Councils to develop an understanding of the new
requirements to prevent overfishing. The Councils, in turn,
have worked hard to develop new overfishing definitions,
management rograms to achieve the revised goals, and rebuilding
programs where stocks were found to be overfished. This has
proven to be a very difficult task--in part because of the
complex biological structure of fisheries and complicated
calculations of MSY and other fishery parameters--but also
because of the necessity to consider impacts on fishermen and
dependent communities while achieving conservation goals.
The Act calls for ending overfishing and rebuilding the
fishery in the shortest time possible, taking into account a
number of factors and within 10 years except under certain
circumstances. As a result, the national standard guidelines
allowed the Councils to take into account potential impacts on
the industry or communities to extend the rebuilding period up
to the 10-year limit, even when the stock could otherwise be
rebuilt in a much shorter period. For long-lived and slow-
maturing species like red snapper, the rebuilding period may be
as long as the time it would take the stock to rebuild without
any fishing plus a period equal to the species generation time.
This solution balances the need to meet the conservation
requirements within a reasonable period while minimizing
effects on the industry and dependent communities.
Another significant change that resulted from passage of
the SFA is the increased emphasis of the Magnuson-Stevens Act
on conserving and enhancing essential fish habitat (EFH). NOAA
Fisheries published a proposed rule in April 1997 for the
implementation of the EFH provisions of the SFA, and an interim
final rule in Decemer 1997. The extended timeframe was
necessary so that all interested groups and individuals had
ample opportunity for comments on the rulemaking. These rules
establish guidelines to assist the Councils and the Secretary
in the description and identification of EFH in fishery
management plans, including identification of adverse impacts
on such habitat from fishing and identification of other
actions to encourage conservation and enhancement of EFH. The
rule also provides procedures for EFH consultations on actions
that may adversely affect EFH. The interim final rule became
effective in January 1998, and is treated as final for the
purposes of implementing the EFH provisions. We currently are
reviewing the comments received on the interim final rule and
plan to issue a final rule early next year. This will enable us
to benefit from experience with EFH consultations with other
Federal agencies and from the practical experience we will have
gained from the first round of fishery management plan
amendments on EFH. To date, NOAA Fisheries has conducted over
400 consultations with Federal agencies whose actions may
adversely affect EFH. We have completed seven agreements with
other Federal agencies to establish specific procedures for
using existing environmental review processes (e.g., NEPA) to
handle EFH consultations, and we are working on 36 more.
Federal agencies have been generally receptive to the new
consultation requirements and have begun responding to NOAA
Fisheries EFH conservation recommendations, as mandated by the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. We expect consultations to increase as
outreach efforts with Federal agencies continue to build
awareness of the EFH statutory requirements.
Turning to Council operations, Council members currently
are exempt from conflict-of-interest provisions of the criminal
code, as long as they are in coimpliance with the financial
disclosure requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Concern
that these provisions were not adequate to prevent the
financial interests of Council members from influencing the
decision making process led to their revision in the SFA. As a
result, NOAA Fisheries prepared regulations that prohibit
Council members from voting on matters that would have a
significant and predictable effect on any personal financial
interests disclosed in accordance with existing regulations.
Amending fishery management plans to meet SFA requirements.
In addition to revising the national standards, the SFA
established a number of other new requirements for fishery
management plans that necessitate their amendment. NOAA
Fisheries and the Councils have made dedicated efforts to meet
most SFA deadlines for 121 major activities and approximately
400 separate tasks to bring fishery management plans into
compliance with the new requirements. Commendably, this has
been accomplished in a relatively short period of time. The SFA
imposed a deadline of October 11, 1998 for amendments to each
of the 39 existing fishery management plans to prevent over-
fishing and rebuild overfished stocks descriptions and analysis
of trends in landings for commercial, recreational and charter
sectors; and assessment of effects on fishing communities As of
June 1999, 52 amendments were either approved or partially
approved, another two amendments were under Secretarial review,
and the remaining 13 amendments were scheduled to begin
Secretaial review this summer. Despite the Council's best
efforts there were some proposed amendments that did not
satisfy the requirements, for which the analyses were
inadequate, or that did not minimize socioeconomic or
environmental impacts to the extent possible and achieve
management objectives. NOAA Fisheries disapproved or pertially
approved those amendments and is working closely with the
Councils to improve them, particularly in the areas of over-
fishing definitions, bycatch reduction measures, and EFH
identifcation and protection.
I cannot over-emphasize the critical role and contribution
of the Councils in implementing the SFA and bringing Federal
fishery management into compliance with its new regirements.
The Councils have performed admirably over the years in
developing p ans, resolving conflicts among stakeholders, and
makin recommendations to the Secretary, articularly in light of
the controversy ang conflicts surrounding manK fishery
decisions. While both NOAA Fisheries and the Councils are
adjusting to t e changes made by the SFA, we remain committed
to working together in the transition to sustainable fisheries.
Turning to the management of wide-ranging Atlantic fish
like tunas and billfish, NOAA Fisheries has taken the lead in
preparing management plans and rebuilding programs. Of these
Atlantic highly migratory species (HMS), the following are
currently classified as overfished: bluefin tuna, big eye tuna,
Northern albacore tuna, swordfish, blue marlin, white marlin,
and the 22 species that make up the large coastal shark
management complex. Yellowfin tuna are fully exploited, with a
fishing mortality rate that is probably above the levels that
support the maximum sustainable yield. This past April, NOAA
Fisheries completed a fishery management plan for Atlantic
tunas, swordfish and sharks (HMS Plan) and an amendment to the
billfish fishery management plan (Billfish Amendment) that
contained rebuilding programs. Numerous and substantial changes
were incorporated in the final rule to implement the HMS Plan
and Billfish Amendment, based on the thousands of public
comments received by the agency. Advisory Panels established
under the SFA and composed of representatives of commercial and
recreational fishing interests and other knowledgeable
individuals, including members of the ICCAT Advisory Committee,
participated in the development of the management measures. The
final rule became effective July 1, 1999.
Improving technical and scientific information and
analyses. Another initiative of the SFA was to establish a new
title in the Magnuson-Stevens Act on fishery monitoring and
research. NOAA Fisheries is committed to using the best
possible science in the decision-making process, and to
incorporating biological, social, and economic research
findings into fisheries conservation and management measures.
Meeting our responsibilities under the Magnuson- Stevens Act
and other--applicable laws requires collection of a
considerable amount of data, and in many iisneries we do not
have all the data we need. We will continue to support a
precautionary approach in the face of scientific uncertainty.
At the same time, we are expanding our collection efforts and,
wherever we can, partnering with the states, interstate
commissions, fishermen and others to collect and analyze
critical data. In addition, we are using a variety of methods
to improve public input in the management process and the
availability of socioeconomic data to assess and minimize
impacts to communities and small entities and to meet the
requirements of other applicable laws such as the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
Despite these efforts, we are vulnerable to overlooking or
accepting alternatives with unanticipated effects, due to the
limitations of our models and underlying data. NOAA Fisheries
is addressing this vulnerability by placing a high priority on
using funds to fill in gaps, particularly in the area of
economic and social data collection and analysis. In January of
this year, NOAA Fisheries delivered a Report to Congress
entitled Proposed Implementation of a Fishing Vessel
Registration and Fisheries Information System that calls for
innovative state-Federal partnerships to improve the quality
and uantity of information for marine resource stewardship.
Such Federal-state partnerstips are an important mechanism for
sharing resources and reducing duplicative efforts.
Just as important as the collection of timely and complete
data is sophisticated modeling to analyze the complex
interactions between management measures and various impacts.
State-of-the-art modeling techniques that incorporate
information from the biological and social sciences, for
instance, would improve NOAA Fisheries' ability to make
accurate predictions about economic impacts and benefits. As we
improve our capabilities to conduct integrated analyses,
scientific assessments of the effects of management decisions
on both fish and fishermen will be enhanced. This information
will enable managers to choose the alternative that best
balances conservation needs and community impacts.
Reports to Congress. In addition to the data management
report, the SFA required about 20 other studies and reports to
Congress that address many critical issues in fisheries
management. We will be using the findings and recommendations
of these reports to improve our conservation and management
programs. They also contain a great deal of useful information
that could inform and guide the reauthorization process.
One of the most thorough and interesting of these reports
is the National Research Council's study, Sharing the Fish:
Toward a National Policy on Individual Fishing Quotas (IFQs),
an examination of the issues surrounding the use of such quotas
to manage fisheries. The report recommends that IF programs be
retained as a fisheries management tool. It also contains a
number of useful suggestions for developing potential ground
rules for and key elements of IFQ programs if they are
authorized.
Another NRC report, The Community Development Quota Program
in Alaska, highlighted some of the current successes of
existing CDQ programs, and recommended expanding the programs
over the long term to ensure overall success in meeting a
variety of community development goals. We look forward to
transferring some of the lessons learned to future programs.
Earlier this month, the Federal Fisheries Investment Task
Force released its report analyzing the Federal role in
subsidizing expansion and contraction of fishing capacity. We
will be looking closely at the recommendations in the report,
including those that propose to rework existing programs and
develop new funding mechanisms, to address problems of
overcapacity and resource degradation.
The National Research Council's report entitled Sustaining
Marine Fisheries and the Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panel's
Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management Report to Congress both
advocate greater use of the precautionary approach and an
ecosystem-based approach to management. In the latter report,
the authors maintain that the burden of proof must shift to the
fishery to ensure that the ecosystem will not be harmed by
fishing. They also suggest that we develop indices of ecosystem
health as targets for management. We will be looking to these
reports and others for ideas as we continue to move toward
ecosystem-based fisheries management.
Reauthorization Issues
We are still working to understand and effectively
implement the changes to fishery management policies and
procedures made by the SFA. Consequently we would not propose
major changes to the Magnuson-Stevens Act at this time.
however, we have established an internal agency task force to
evaluate SFA implementation, and the group has identified some
revisions of existing provisions that may be useful to make the
management process more efficient and to resolve some
relatively minor problems. We currently are reviewing various
issues raised by the task force. We currently are reviewing
various issues raised by the task force, the Councils, and some
of our stakeholders. Among the issues identified are the
following:
Review process for fishery management plans, amendments and
regulations. The SFA attempted to simplify and tighten the
approval process for management plans and regulations. However,
one result of that effort has been two distinct review and
implementation processes--one for plans and amendments and
another for implementing regulations. This essentially
uncouples the process for plans and amendments from the process
for regulations, and as a result the decision to approve or
disapprove a plan or amendment may be necessary before the end
of the public comment period on the implementing regulations.
This prevents agency consideration of public comments that
could be germane to the decision on plan or amendment approval.
We are considering amendments that would modify the process to
address this issue.
In addition, the Committee may wish to consider reinstating
the initial review of FMPs and FMP amendments by the Secretary.
Considerable energy and staff resources are expended on plans
or amendments that are ultimately disapproved because of
serious omissions and other problems. At present, two to three
months must elapse before the Secretary makes his
determination, and if the amendment is then disapproved, it can
be months or longer before the Council can modify and resubmit
the plan or amendment. While the initial review was eliminated
by the SFA to shorten the review process, it actually may
provide a mechanism to shorten the time it takes to get a plan
or amendment approved and implemented.
Restrictions on data collection and confidentiality. As I
indicated in the April hearing on this topic, the Magnuson-
Stevens Act currently restricts the collection of economic data
from processors. Removal of this restriction could improve the
quantity and quality of information available to meet the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and other laws
requiring economic analysis. In addition, the SFA changed the
term ``statistics'' to ``information'' in the provisions
dealing with data confidentiality. The change has raised
questions about the intended application of those provisions,
particularly with respect to observer information, and
Congressional clarification would be useful.
Coral reef protection. Special management areas, including
those designated to protect coral reefs, hard bottoms, and
precious corals, are important commercial resources and
valuable habitats for many species. Currently, we have the
authority to regulate anchoring and other activities of fishing
vessels that affect fish habitat. Threats to those resources
from non-fishing vessels remain outside agency authority except
when associated with a Federal action that would trigger EFH
consultation or where addressed in regulations associated with
a national marine sanctuary. We suggest amending the Act to
clarify, consolidate, and strengthen NOAA Fisheries' authority
to regulate the actions of any recreational or commercial
vessel that is directly impacting resources being managed under
the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Caribbean Council jurisdiction. The current description of
the Caribbean Council limits its jurisdiction to Federal waters
off Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. As a result, the
Council cannot develop FMPs governing fishing in Federal waters
around Navassa Island or any other U.S. possession in the
Caribbean. Jurisdiction of the Caribbean Council could be
expanded to cover Navassa Island, by including ``commonwealths,
territories, and possessions of the United States'' within the
description of that Council's authority.
Council meeting notification. Pursuant to the notification
requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, Councils spend tens
of thousands of dollars a year to publish meeting notices in
local newspapers in major and/or affected fishing ports in the
region. By contrast, e-mail, public service announcements, and
notices included with marine weather forecasts are much cheaper
and could be more effective in reaching fishery participants
and stakeholders. The Committee may wish to consider modifying
notification requirements to allow Council use of any means
that will result in wide publicity.
We also look forward to working with the Committee on high-
priority policy issues such as observer programs, individual
transferable quotas, and funding and fee authorities. We
appreciate the concern of the Congress and industry regarding
the Administration's fee proposal, and NOAA is interested in
working with all relevant parties to develop a viable fee
proposal. However, at this time, we have no specific
recommendations for changes in the Act to address these issues.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. Thank you for
the opportunity to discuss the implementation and
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. I am prepared to
respond to any questions members of the Subcommittee may have.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you very much, Ms. Dalton.
Mr. Brancaleone.
STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN, NEW ENGLAND FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL
Mr. Brancaleone. Thank you. On behalf of myself and the
seven other council chairmen, I would like to thank the members
of the Subcommittee for the opportunity to present our views.
First, let me say that the council chairmen believe that
the Magnuson-Stevens Act, as amended in 1996, is a good piece
of legislation, and it is working. Many of our most important
fisheries are prospering, and we are now seeing significant
improvements in a majority of the over-fished stocks under
management.
The changes we suggest are not substantial, but we believe
that they will serve to enhance and improve the Act. The points
I make in this presentation concern only the reauthorization
issues on which the chairs have reached consensus. I believe
that individual councils have positions on additional topics
which I am sure they will communicate as the reauthorization
process moves forward.
On the issue of rescinding the Congressional prohibitions
on IFQs or ITQs, currently Section 303(d)(1) of the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act prohibits a
council from submitting, or the Secretary from approving, an
Individual Fishing Quota system before October 1 of the year
2000. Section 407(b) prohibits the Gulf Council from
undertaking or continuing the preparation of a red snapper IFQ
program or any system that provides for the consolidation of
permits to create different trip limits for vessels in the same
class before October 1 of the year 2000.
If the reauthorization process is completed in 1999, the
council chairmen support rescinding these provisions before the
year 2000 deadline. The chairmen also oppose extending the
moratorium on IFQs.
On the issue of establishing fees, the council chairmen are
opposed to the imposition of fees that are not regional in
nature and dedicated by the councils; and are concerned, deeply
concerned, about the ability of depressed fleets to pay these
fees. However, we do support the National Academy of Sciences'
recommendation that Congressional action allow councils maximum
flexibility in designing IFQ systems and allow flexibility in
setting those fees to be charged for initial allocations, first
sale, and leasing of IFQs.
Coordinated review and approval of plans and their
amendments and regulations: The Sustainable Fisheries Act
amended Sections 304(a) and (b) of the Act to create separate
sections for the review and approval of plans and amendments,
and for review and approval of regulations. Accordingly, the
approval process for these two actions now proceeds on separate
tracks, rather than concurrently.
The SFA also deleted the 304(a) provision allowing
disapproval or partial disapproval of an amendment within the
15 days of transmission. The council chairmen recommend
modification of these provisions to include the original
language allowing concurrent approval of plans and amendments,
as well as regulations providing for the initial 15-day
disapproval process. The councils would also like the ability
to resubmit responsive measures without having to submit a
complete fishery management plan or amendment, as now required
by subsection (4) of Section 304(a).
On the issue of regulating non-fishing activities of
vessels, the council chairmen recommended that Section 303(b)
of the Act be amended to provide authority to councils to
regulate non-fishing activities by vessels that adversely
impact fisheries or essential fish habitat. One of the most
damaging activities to such habitat is the anchoring of large
vessels near habitat areas of particular concern or other
essential fish habitat; for example, the coral reefs. When
ships swing on the chain deployed for anchoring in 100 feet of
water, 20 to 70 acres of bottom may be plowed up by the chain
dragging over the bottom. Regulation of this type of activity
by the councils should be allowed.
On the issue of collection of economic data, language
throughout the Magnuson-Stevens Act specifies the collection of
biological, economic, and socio-cultural data to meet specific
objectives of the Act, for the fishery management councils to
consider this information in their deliberations.
However, Section 303(b)(7) specifically excludes the
collection of economic data, and Section 402(a) precludes
councils from collecting proprietary or confidential commercial
or financial information. The National Marine Fisheries Service
should not be precluded from collecting such proprietary
information, so long as it is treated as confidential
information under Section 402. Without this economic data,
multi-disciplinary analyses of fishery management regulations
are not possible, preventing NMFS and the councils from
satisfying the requirements of the Act and the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. These inconsistencies should be resolved.
The chairmen recommend amending the Magnuson-Stevens Act to
eliminate the restrictions of the collection of economic data.
Amending Section 303(b)(7) by removing the words ``other than
economic data'' will allow NMFS to require fish processors who
first receive fish that are subject to a plan to submit
economic data. Removing this current restriction will
strengthen the ability of the National Marine Fisheries Service
to collect necessary data, and eliminate the appearance of a
contradiction in the law requiring economic analysis without
allowing collection of the necessary data.
On the issue of confidentiality of information, Section 402
replaced and modified former Sections 303(d) and (e). The
Sustainable Fisheries Act replaced the word ``statistics'' with
the word ``information,'' expanded confidential protection from
information submitted in compliance with the requirements of an
FMP to information submitted in compliance with any requirement
of the Act, and it broadened the exceptions to the
confidentiality to allow for disclosure in several new
circumstances.
The following draft language clarifies the word
``information'' in 402(b)(1) and (2) by adding the same
parenthetical used in (a), and deletes the provision about
observer information. The revised section would read as
follows:
Confidentiality of information:
(1) Any information submitted to the Secretary by any
person in compliance with any requirements under this
Act, and that would disclose proprietary and
confidential commercial or financial information
regarding fishing operations or fish processing
operations, shall not be disclosed, except:
(A) To a Federal employee and to council employees
who are responsible for fisheries management plan
development and monitoring;
(B) To state or Marine Fisheries Commission
employees, pursuant to an agreement with the Secretary
that prevents public disclosure of the identity or
business of any person;
(C) When required by a court order;
(D) When such information is used to verify catch
under an individual fishing quota program; or
(E) 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.
(2) The Secretary shall, by regulation, prescribe
such procedures as may be necessary to preserve the
confidentiality of information submitted in compliance
with any requirement under this law----And we would
also add:
``----and that would disclose proprietary or
confidential commercial or financial information
regarding fishing operations or fish processing
operations, except that the Secretary may release or
make public any such information in any aggregate or
summary form which does not directly or indirectly
disclose the identity or business of any person who
submits such information. Nothing in this subsection
shall be interpreted or construed to prevent the use
for conservation and management purposes by the
Secretary or with the approval of the Secretary, the
council, of any information submitted in compliance
with any requirement or regulation under the Act, or
the use, release, or publication of bycatch information
pursuant to Paragraph (1)(E).''
On the issue of enforcement, the council chairmen support
the implementation of cooperative state-Federal enforcement
programs patterned after the National Marine Fisheries Service
and South Carolina enforcement cooperative agreement. While it
is not necessary to amend the Act to establish such programs,
it is consistent with the changes needed to enhance management
under the Act to suggest to Congress that they consider
establishing and funding such cooperative state and Federal
programs.
On the issue of council member compensation, the Act should
specify that council member compensation be based on the
general schedule that includes locality pay. This action would
provide for a more equitable salary compensation.
Salaries of members serving in Alaska, the Caribbean, and
Western Pacific are adjusted by a cost of living adjustment.
The salary of the Federal members of the councils includes
locality pay. The Department of Commerce has issued a legal
opinion that prohibits council members in the continental U.S.
from receiving locality pay. Congressional action, therefore,
is necessary.
Observer programs: The chairmen reaffirm their support to
give discretionary authority to the councils to establish fees
to help fund observer programs. The authority would be the same
as granted to the North Pacific Council under Section 313 for
observers.
Essential fish habitat: The 1996 Act required the councils
to identify and describe essential fish habitat, but gave
little direction on how to designate EFH. The EFH definition--
for example, ``those waters and substrate necessary to fish for
spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity''--allows
for a broad interpretation.
The EFH interim final rule encouraged councils to interpret
data on relative abundance and distribution for the life
history stages of each species in a risk-averse manner. This
led to EFH designations that were criticized by some as too
far-reaching. ``If everything is designated as essential, then
nothing is essential,'' was a common theme throughout the EFH
designation process, on a national and regional scale. Either
the EFH definition should be modified, or the guidance on how
to use different types of data should be more specific.
On the issue of rebuilding periods, the councils should
have greater latitude for specifying rebuilding periods than is
provided under the National Standard Guidelines. Social and
economic factors should be given equal or greater consideration
in determining the schedules that result in the greatest
overall net benefit to the nation.
Redefine ``Over-fishing'': The chairmen believe that there
are a number of problems related to MSY-based definitions of
over-fishing. For example, data deficiencies may lead to
inappropriate calculations of MSY, which in turn affect over-
fishing definitions. Ultimately, this could lead to unnecessary
social and economic impacts for fishermen who are subject to
measures that are tied to stock rebuilding schedules.
While we have no specific recommendations at this time, we
would like to work further with the Subcommittee in seeking
solutions to our concerns as the reauthorization process
proceeds. This is an extremely important issue to the councils,
but through our conversations with the National Marine
Fisheries Service staff we appreciate that there are varying
viewpoints to be considered before we are able to present
clear, concise, and productive recommendations on what is the
foundation of the SFA.
Receive funds from any state or Federal Government
organization: Currently, councils can only receive funds
through the Department of Commerce, NOAA, or the National
Marine Fisheries Service. The councils routinely work with
other government organizations to support research, workshops,
conferences, or to procure contractual services.
In a number of cases, complex dual contacts, timely pass-
throughs, and unnecessary administration and grant oversight
were required to complete the task. The councils request a
change that would give them authority to receive funds or
support from other local, state, and Federal Government
agencies and non-profit organizations. This would be consistent
with Section 302(f)(4) that requires the Administrator of
General Services to provide support for the councils.
On the issue of bycatch, the appears to be an inconsistent
definition of ``bycatch,'' depending on geography. In the
Atlantic, highly migratory species harvested in catch-and-
release fisheries managed by the Secretary under 304(g) of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act or the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act, are
not considered bycatch; but in the Pacific, they are.
We suggest that highly migratory species in the Pacific,
managed under the Western Pacific Council fisheries management
plan and tagged and released alive under scientific or
recreational fishery tag-and-release programs, should not be
considered bycatch.
Note that there are also inconsistencies between the
Magnuson-Stevens Act definition of ``bycatch'' and the NMFS
Bycatch Plan. The NMFS definition is much broader, and includes
marine mammals and birds and retention of non-targeted species.
The council chairmen prefer the Magnuson-Stevens Act
definition. We also wish to retain turtles in the definition of
``fish,'' because of their importance in every region, and
especially in the past and possible future fisheries pursued by
indigenous peoples of the Western Pacific Region.
The chairmen believe that the National Marine Fisheries
Service in its review of proposed plans, amendments, and
framework adjustments, has failed to adequately communicate to
the councils perceived problems in a timely manner. We propose
the inclusion of a mandate in the Act to require the National
Marine Fisheries Service to consult with the councils before
disapproving fisheries management plans, amendments, or changes
made through the abbreviated rulemaking process.
NMFS regional administrator emergency action vote: For the
purpose of preserving the Secretary's authority to reject a
council's request for emergency or interim action, the NMFS
regional administrator is currently instructed to cast a
negative vote, even if he or she supports the action.
While we recognize the extreme sensitivity in recommending
a change in the voting responsibilities of our partners in the
National Marine Fisheries Service--we certainly do not wish to
appear disparaging to the regional administrators in any way--
the council chairmen believe that Congressional intent is being
violated by this policy.
We instead suggest a modification to the language of
Section 305(c)(2)(A) as follows:
``(A) The Secretary shall promulgate emergency
regulations or interim measures under paragraph (1) to
address the emergency or over-fishing if the council,
by unanimous vote of its members, excluding the NMFS
regional administrator, who are voting members, request
the taking of such action----'' and so forth.
The Mid-Atlantic At-Large Seat: The council chairmen
recommend that an additional at-large seat be added to the Mid-
Atlantic Fishery Management Council, along with the funding
identified for that purpose. Such a seat would most likely be
filled by an individual from the State of North Carolina. This
would allow the state to have both recreational and commercial
representatives on the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for this
opportunity to comment on the Magnuson-Stevens Act. I am sorry
for going over my time. And I will be happy to answer any
questions, if I can. If not, I am sure I can get back to you
with some answers. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brancaleone follows:]
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brancaleone follows:]
Statement of Joseph M. Brancaleone, Chairman, New England Fishery
Management Council
On behalf of myself and the other seven Council Chairman, I
would like to thank the members of the Subcommittee for the
opportunity to present our views. First let me say the Council
Chairmen believe the Magnuson-Stevens Act as amended in 1996 is
a good piece of legislation and it is working. Many of our most
important fisheries are prospering and we are
seeingimprovements in a majority of the overfished stocks under
management. The changes we suggest are not substantial, but we
believe they will serve to enhance and improve the Act. The
points I make in this presentation concern only the
reauthorization issues on which the chairs reached consensus. I
believe individual Councils have positions on additional topics
which I'm sure they will communicate as the reauthorization
process moves forward. The Chairs discussed this document in a
fair amount of detail at our meeting in late June. I'm happy to
answer questions on any of the issues we covered or on issues
of concern to the New England Council.
Rescinding the Congressional Prohibitions on IFQs or
ITQs
Currently Section 303(d)(1) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (M-S Act) prohibits a Council
from submitting or the Secretary from approving an Individual
Fishing Quota (IFQ) system before October 1, 2000. Section
407(b) prohibits the Gulf Council from undertaking or
continuing the preparation of a red snapper IFQ program or any
system that provides or the consolidation of permits to create
different trip limits for vessels in the same class before
October 1, 2000. If the reauthorization process is completed in
1999, the Council chairmen support rescinding these provisions
before the year 2000 deadline. The chairmen also oppose
extending the moratorium on IFQs.
Establishment of Fees
The Council chairmen are opposed to the imposition of fees that
are not regional in nature and dedicated by the Councils, and
are concerned about the ability of depressed fleets to pay
fees. However, we do support the National Academy of Sciences
recommendation that Congressional action allow the Councils
maximum flexibility in designing IFQ systems and allow
flexibility in setting the fees to be charged for initial
allocations, first sale and leasing of IFQs [M-S Act Sections
303(d)(2-5) and 304(d)(2)].
Coordinated Review and Approval of Plans and their
Amendments and Regulations
The Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA) amended Sections 304(a) and
(b) of the MS Act to create separate sections for the review
and approval of plans and amendments and for the review and
approval of regulations. Accordingly, the approval process for
these two actions now proceeds on separate tracks, rather than
concurrently. The SFA also deleted the 304(a) provision
allowing disapproval or partial disapproval of an amendment
within the first 15 days of transmission. The Council chairmen
recommend modification of these provisions to include the
original language allowing concurrent approval of plans and
amendments as well as regulations and providing for the initial
15-day disapproval process. The Councils would also like the
ability to resubmit responsive measures without having to
submit a complete fishery management plan or amendment, as now
required by subsection (4) of Section 304(a).
Regulating Non-Fishing Activities of Vessels
The Council chairmen recommend that Section 303(b) of the Act
be amended to provide authority to Councils to regulate non-
fishing activities by vessels that adversely impact fisheries
or essential fish habitat (EPH). One of the most damaging
activities to such habitat is the anchoring of large vessels
near habitat areas of particular concern (HAPQ or other EFH
(e.g., coral reefs, etc.). When these ships swing on the chain
deployed for anchoring in 100 feet, 20 to 70 acres of bottom
may be plowed ug by the chain dragging over the bottom.
Regulation of this type of activity by the Councils should be
allowed.
Collection of Economic Data [Section 303(b)(7)]
Language throughout the M-S Act specifies the collection of
biological, economic, and socio-cultural data to meet specific
objectives of the Act and for the fishery management councils
to consider this information in their deliberations.
However,303(b)(7) specifically excludes the collection of
economic data, and Section 402(a) precludes Councils from
collecting ``proprietary or confidential commercial or
financial information.'' NMFS should not be precluded from
collecting such proprietary information so long as it is
treated as confidential information under Section 402. Without
this economic data, multi-disciplinary analyses of fishery
management regulations are not possible, preventing WS and the
Councils from satisfying--the requirements of the M-S Act and
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). These inconsistencies
should be resolved.
The chairmen recommend amending the M-S Act to eliminate the
restrictions on the collection of economic data. Amending
Section 303(b)(7) by removing ``other than economic data''
would allow NMFS to require fish processors who first receive
fish that are subject to a plan to submit economic data.
Removing this current restriction will strengthen the ability
of NMFS to collect necessary data and eliminate the appearance
of a contradiction in the law requiring economic analyses
without allowing collection of the necessary data.
Confidentialty of Information [Section 402(b)]
Section 402 replaced and modified former Sections 303(d) and
(e). The SFA replaced the word ``statistics'' with the word
``information,'' expanded confidential protection from
information submitted in compliance with the requirements of an
FMP to information submitted in compliance with any
requirements of the Act and broadened the exceptions to
confidentiality to allow for disclosure in several new
circumstances.
The following draft language clarifies the word ``information''
in 402(b)(1) and (2) by adding the same parenthetical used in
(a), and deletes the provision about observer information. The
revised section would read as follows (additions in bold):
(b) CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION--
``(1) Any information submitted to the Secretary by any person
in compliance with any requirement under this Act, and that
would disclose proprietary or confidential commercial or
financial information regarding fishing operations or fish
processing operations shall not be disclosed, except--
A. to Federal employees and Council employees who are
responsible for fishery management plan development and
monitoring;
B. to State or Marine Fisheries Commission employees pursuant
to an agreement with the Secretary that prevents public
disclosure of the identity or business of any person;
C. when required by court order;
D. when such information is used to verify catch under an
individual fishing ota program; or
when the Secretary has obtained written authorizzation 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.''
(2) The Secretary shall, by regulation, prescribe such procedures
as may be necessary to preserve the confidentiality of information
submitted in compliance with any requirement under this Act, and that
would disclose proprietary or confidential commercial or financial
information regarding fishing operations, or fish processing
operations, except that the Secretary may release or make public any
such information in any aggregate or summary form which does not
directly or indirectly disclose the identity or business of any person
who submits such information. Nothing in this subsection shall be
interpreted or construed to prevent the use for conservation and
management purposes by the Secretary or with the approval of the
Secretary, the Council, of any information submitted in compliance with
any requirement or regulation under this Act or the use, release, or
publication of bycatch information pursuant to paragraph (1)(E).
Enforcement
The Council chairmen support the implementation of a cooperative
state/Federal enforcement programs patterned after the NMFS/South
Carolina enforcement cooperative agreement. While it is not necessary
to amend the Act to establish such programs it is consistent with the
changes needed to enhance management under the Act to suggest to
Congress that they consider establishing and funding such cooperative
state/Federal programs.
Council Member Compensation The Act should specify
that Council member compensation be based on the General
Schedule at includes locality pay. This action would provide
for a more equitable salary compensation. Salaries of members
serving in Alaska, the Caribbean, and Western Pacific are
adjusted by a COLA. The salary of the Federal members of the
Councils includes locality pay. The Department of Commerce has
issued a legal opinion that prohibits Council members in the
continental U.S. from receiving locality pay. Congressional
action, therefore, is necessary.
Observer Program
The chairmen reaffirm their support to give discretionary
authority to the Councils to establish fees to help fund
observer programs. This authority would be the same as granted
to the North Pacific Council under Section 313 for observers.
Essential Fish Habitat
The 1996 Act required the Councils to identify and describe
EFH, but gave little direction on how to designate EFH. The EFH
definition, i.e., ``those waters and substrate necessary to
fish for spawning, breeding, feeding orto maturity,'' allows
for a broad interpretation. The EFH Interim Final Rule
encouraged Councils to interpret data on relative abundance and
distribution for the life history stages of each species in a
risk-averse manner. This led to EFH designations that were
criticized by some as too far-reaching. ``If everything is
designated as essential then nothing is essential,'' was a
common theme throughout the EFH designation process, on a
national and regional scale. Either the EFH definition should
be modified, or the guidance on how to use different types of
data should be more specific.
Rebuilding Periods
The Councils should have greater latitude for specifying
rebuilding periods than is provided under the National Standard
Guidelines. Social and economic factors should be given equal
or greater consideration in determining schedules that result
in the greatest overall net benefit to the Nation.
Redefine ``Overfishing''
The chairmen believe there are a number of problems related to
MSY-based definitions of overfishing. For example, data
deficiencies may lead to inappropriate calculations of MSY,
which in turn affect overfishing definitions. Ultimately, this
could lead to unnecessary social and economic impacts for
fishermen who are subject to measures that are tied to stock
rebuilding schedules. While we have no specific recommendations
at this time, we would like to work further with the
Subcommittee in seeking solutions to our concerns as the
reauthorization process proceeds. This is an extremely
important issue to the Councils but, through our conversations
with NMFS staff, we appreciate that there are varying
viewpoints to be considered before we are able to present
clear, concise and productive recommendations on what is the
foundation of the SFA.
Receive Funds from any State or Federal Government
Organization
Currently Councils can only receive funds through the
Department of Commerce, NOAA or NMFS. The Councils routinely
work with other government organizations to support research,
workshops, conferences or to procure contractual services. In a
number of cases, complex dual contacts, timely pass-throughs
and unnecessary administration or grant oversight were required
to complete the authority to receive funds or support from
other local, state and Federal Government agencies and non-
profit organizations. This would be consistent with Section 302
(f)(4) that requires the Administrator of General Services to
provide support to the Councils.
Bycatch Issues
There appears to be an inconsistent definition of bycatch,
depending on geography in the Atlantic, highly migratory
species harvested in catch and release fisheries managed by the
Secretary under 304(g) of the Magnuson Stevens Act or the
Atlantic Tunas Convention Act are not considered bycatch, but
in the Pacific they are. We suggest that highly migratory
species in the Pacific, managed under a Western Pacific Council
fishery management plan and tagged and released alive under a
scientific or recreational fishery tag and release program,
should not be considered bycatch.
Note that there also is an inconsistency between the Magnuson-
Stevens Act definition of byeatch and the NMFS Bycatch Plan.
The NMFS definition is much broader and includes marine mammals
and birds and retention of non-target species. The Council
chairmen prefer the Magnuson-Stevens Act definition. We also
wish to retain turtles in the definition of ``fish'' because of
their importance in every region and especially in past and
possibly future fisheries pursued by indigenous peoples of the
Western Pacific Region.
FMF Review Program
The chairmen believe that NMFS, in its review of proposed
plans, amendments and framework adjustments, has failed to
adequately communicate to the Councils perceived problems in a
timely manner. we propose the inclusion of a mandate in the Act
to require that NMFS consult with the Councils before
disapproving fishery management plans, amendments or changes
made through the abbreviated rule-making process.
NMFS Regional Administrator Emergency Action Vote
For the purpose of preserving the Secretary's authority to
reject a Council's request for emergency or interim action, the
NMFS Regional Administrator is currently instructed to cast a
negative vote even if he/she supports the action. While we
recognize the extreme sensitivity in recommending a change to
the voting responsibilities of our partners in the National
Marine Fisheries Service--we certainly do not wish to appear to
be disparaging the Regional Administrators in any way--the
Council chairmen believe that Congressional intent is being
violated by this policy. We instead suggest a modification to
the language of Section 305(c)(2)(A) as follows (new language
in bold):
(A) The Secretary shall promulgate emergency regulations or
interim measures under paragraph (1) to address the emergency
or overfishing if the Council, by unanimous vote of the members
(excluding the NMFS Regional Administrator) who are voting
members, requests the taking of such action; and . . .
MAFMC At-Large Seat
The Council chairmen recommend that an additional At-Large seat
be added to the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC)
along with funding identified for that purpose. Such a seat
would, most likely, be filled by an individual from the state
of North Carolina. This would allow the state to have both a
recreational and commercial representative on the MAFMC.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to
comment on the Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization. As I mentioned
earlier, I'm also happy to answer questions or provide further
information about the positions taken by the Council chairmen.
Mr. Saxton. May I just ask you to elaborate on the last
point that you made relative to the change that you are
suggesting with regard to the relationship between NMFS and the
councils?
Mr. Brancaleone. The last point? You mean the regional
administrator?
Mr. Saxton. About emergency action.
Mr. Brancaleone. Yes. There have been many times where
everyone sitting around the table at a council meeting feels
that an emergency action or an interim action is very important
in the process. The regional administrator is directed to vote
``No,'' to save the integrity of the Secretary, in the event
that the Secretary wishes to disagree. However, there are times
when----
Mr. Saxton. So there is a standing policy--I am sorry; I
did not mean to interrupt you, but I want to understand this.
Mr. Brancaleone. Sure.
Mr. Saxton. There is a standing policy within NMFS that the
Secretary's representative is instructed to vote ``No''?
Mr. Brancaleone. That is my understanding, Mr. Chairman. I
may be corrected. But that is the usual case at every council
meeting around the country.
Mr. Saxton. That seems kind of strange.
Ms. Dalton. I think the concern is that if there is a
unanimous vote, then the decision to ask for the emergency rule
basically becomes binding. And the concern is that the council
is, in some respects, an advisory body to the Federal
Government. And there is concern that we retain the ability to
go back and do the analysis and the determination on the
emergency rule, without being bound by the law to go ahead in
accepting the council's recommendation.
So the only time that that would apply is if there is a
unanimous vote other than the regional administrator.
Mr. Saxton. But is it so that there is a policy statement
that instructs the representative to vote ``No'' in these
emergency cases?
Ms. Dalton. I do not know if there is a formal statement.
And we can find out about that. But I think it has been a
longstanding kind of informal policy. And the concern is to
retain the flexibility.
Mr. Saxton. OK. We understand. I am not sure we agree.
With regard to highly migratory species, Ms. Dalton, the
long-line fishery, if you will--or the long-line gear, I guess
is the correct way to say it. There has been, both within the
long-line gear industry, as well as in the sport fishing,
recreational industry, a growing desire to put in place a buy-
out program for long-liners.
And over the last several years, this has been something
that has been of great interest to me. And our staff has worked
very closely with me in monitoring the various steps along the
way to get there. First, we needed to have you folks put in
place a limited entry plan, which I understand has now been
done; to be followed, I thought, or hoped--still do--by a buy-
out program.
Now, your agency has stated that you do not think you have
the statutory authority to implement a buy-out program. And I
find that curious, because we think you do have the statutory
authority. Can you explain your position?
Ms. Dalton. OK. I have one request. My deputy administrator
is here, Dr. Andy Rosenberg, and I want to see if he could join
me at the table.
Mr. Saxton. He is welcome.
Ms. Dalton. Thanks. On that issue, I think there is a
question. There are specific provisions that apply to highly
migratory species, and they are done--At least on the Atlantic
side, they are done by the Secretary, rather than by the
councils.
The question that has come up is really a technical
drafting issue, in the way that the buy-back provisions are
written; in that it is drafted as a request from the council.
And the Secretary is not mentioned in the initial provisions.
So it is not really a policy issue. I think we would be
supportive of doing a buy-out program. There is the question of
whether that legal authority needs to be clarified in the
Magnuson-Stevens Act before we can move forward with it.
Mr. Saxton. Do these need some technical changes?
Ms. Dalton. Yes, that would be one way to handle it, would
be to do the technical changes.
Mr. Saxton. Do you have to have the technical changes in
order to proceed?
Ms. Dalton. We are not sure right now. I mean, it has been
a question that we have been discussing.
Mr. Saxton. I think Mr. Rosenberg would like to speak.
Ms. Dalton. Sure.
Mr. Rosenberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we are
trying to determine whether to conclude the process we would
need those technical changes. But we have been working
intensively with the industry, providing as much information as
we can, so that we are not waiting for that determination on
technical changes.
We are trying to move forward with all aspects, as far as
we can. And we have had staff working with industry to try to
develop what the industry proposal would be, the industry
including recreational proposal would be, for a buy-out
program, while we try to sort out those technical details.
Mr. Saxton. Can you describe where you think you are
currently in the process?
Ms. Dalton. We recently released information that was
requested by the long-line fishery, an analysis that was done
by our Southeast Region and Center, to the industry. One of the
issues is that they are interested in dealing with it
legislatively. And so if we deal with it legislatively, we
would need to wait for that legislative proposal to move on
through. There is no funding in the budget for doing it. Right
now, what we have been doing is trying to provide them with the
support that they would need to develop a proposal.
Mr. Saxton. Well, this is kind of surprising to me. We have
been avoiding the legislative route, because we thought you
were going to do it. And until you and I entered into this
conversation, right up until now, I thought you were going to
proceed--I thought that NMFS was going to proceed to implement
the buy-back program. Is that not the case? I mean, you just
said that you are waiting for us to do it legislatively?
Ms. Dalton. Well, there has been draft legislation. I do
not know that it has primarily been--There is a draft bill that
Senator Breaux was working on. We have kind of gotten mixed
signals.
I think we are willing to work with the industry and
proceed however folks want to proceed with it. At least some
indication that we had gotten is that there was interest at
least on the Senate side in doing it legislatively.
Mr. Saxton. Well, that is fine. I have no problem with
doing it legislatively.
Ms. Dalton. Yes.
Mr. Saxton. But as I just said, we have been sitting,
waiting for you to do it, because we thought you were going to.
A, we thought you had the authority; you are not sure. B, we
have been literally waiting for the proposal to come down; and
it is surprising to hear that you are waiting, or counting on
us.
Ms. Dalton. Well, no, I think we have been counting on the
industry to fully develop their proposal more.
Mr. Saxton. Let me move to a different question. The eight
regional fishery management councils have taken action to
describe and identify essential fish habitat by amending the
fisheries management plans, FMPs, under their jurisdiction. In
some cases, the entire coastline of an area under the council's
jurisdiction has been designated as essential fish habitat.
Did NMFS give the councils adequate guidance in developing
the essential fish habitat amendments to their fisheries
management plans? I guess you can both respond to that.
Ms. Dalton. I think we felt that it was the guidance that
we could provide. The limitations on essential fish habitat are
basically the limitations of our understanding. Very often, if
you look at the definition--that is, the areas that are
necessary for fish to spawn, grow, breed, or feed--then it does
encompass very large areas offshore of the ocean.
The other thing that we anticipate is, as we get more
information and begin to develop information on essential fish
habitats, that these will be able to identify the areas that
really are critical to the continued productivity of the
fisheries.
Mr. Saxton. Now, I understand that you have another
definition, known as ``habitat areas of particular concern''?
Is that right?
Ms. Dalton. Do you want to answer that?
Mr. Rosenberg. Yes, Mr. Chairman, it is. And we have
encouraged the councils to identify habitat areas of particular
concern, so that we can focus our attention on those areas that
we currently know, or believe, are truly critical. That helps
us prioritize our work with regard to essential fish habitat.
So the EFH designation is very broad. We have asked
wherever possible, when we have good information, to identify
additionally habitat areas of particular concern, so that we
can focus attention.
Mr. Saxton. Mr. Rosenberg, we were aware that you had the
authority to identify essential fish habitat. And frankly, what
we envisioned 3 years ago was something a little different than
what actually occurred. We thought you were going to identify
habitat for a species--bluefish, for example, in the Northeast,
or whatever species you want, redfish in the Gulf of Mexico, et
cetera.
The maps that we have here indicate that the entire East
Coast and around the tip of Florida into the Gulf of Mexico is
essential fish habitat; looks like it is several hundred miles
offshore, I guess.
And in the case of Alaska, which has drawn concern from at
least one Member of Congress----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Saxton. [continuing] this area, the yellow area, is
Alaska, and the red area surrounding it is essential fish
habitat. And the entire Gulf of Mexico and the entire West
Coast. So I guess our thought was that somebody in NMFS, in
conjunction with the councils, would identify some special
areas that were essential for various species, and identify
some science to support those notions, and then outline some
areas.
You know, if we had had this kind of a notion, we could
have just said in the law that the coastal areas of the United
States are essential fish habitat, because that is what you all
did; or at least, that is what it looks like you did.
Mr. Rosenberg. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Saxton. So that is premise No. 1. And premise No. 2,
then, when we come to the designation of habitat areas of
particular concern, I guess the second part of this question
relative to this issue is, we did not know that we had given
you the authority to make that separate designation.
So would you explain to us, on the one hand, the broad
definition that you use for EFH, ``essential fish habitat'';
and then, where you get the authority to designate ``habitat
areas of particular concern''?
Mr. Rosenberg. Mr. Chairman, with regard to the broad-scale
nature of ``essential fish habitat,'' as Penny said a moment
ago, some of this relates to the ability to determine what is
truly essential, in terms of the scientific ability to do that.
And we recognize that we would like to improve, greatly
improve, our habitat science.
But I do need to point out that, for example, with
bluefish, the area that you showed in your chart is in fact the
migratory area that bluefish inhabit as juveniles and adults.
And so it is difficult to say, ``Well, even though they do
inhabit that area, they do not really need to.'' That is the
scientific question you would have to answer, of how you could
constrain the population without injuring the population.
So in many cases, we have looked at what has been the
distribution of the stock: Where did they actually go? And once
you overlap all the various fisheries that we have in the 39
fishery management plans, it does end up being very broad
areas.
We did believe that we have the authority, previous
authority, in our consultations on habitat concerns prior to
the amendments in 1996, to identify habitat areas of particular
concern. And the intent there on the part of the agency was to
do as you have suggested, and that is focus on those areas that
we truly know are essential for a particular stock or species;
not to complicate the picture, but to make sure that the
councils who are asked to make these identifications,
proposals, for us, can tell us what they think the highest
priority areas are for habitat protection, because of the
broad-scale nature.
Unfortunately, you know, the answer is that fish live in
most of the coastal waters. And it is difficult to decide that
a particular area is not really needed for a given stock, if it
has historically inhabited that area.
Mr. Saxton. Mr. Rosenberg, can you explain what type of
regulatory measures NMFS envisions in implementing these
special areas?
Mr. Rosenberg. We do not have additional regulatory
authority under the essential fish habitat provisions, but the
councils, in considering those areas, may decide that they want
to, through their fishery management regulation
recommendations, focus attention on habitat areas of particular
concern. And that is something that the councils have done in a
number of cases.
As I believe Mr. Brancaleone pointed out, the councils are
concerned in some cases that when they have focused fishery
regulations on a particular area of special concern, like a
coral reef, they and we do not have the authority to deal with
other impacts, such as anchoring and shipping. So our intent
there is to, again, provide a mechanism by which in regulation
we can consider whether fishery regulations are needed for
those areas; and in consultation on essential fish habitat with
other agencies, we can advise them of what truly we think are
the most important problems, based on current information, as
opposed to more general concerns about impacts on broad-scale
habitat.
Ms. Dalton. Just as an additional point, our gear
restrictions primarily occur in the habitat areas of particular
concern. We also have more of a tendency to use retention
restrictions there, too. So they have been used as a regulatory
mechanism.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you. Mr. Faleomavaega has joined us, of
course. And I would like to ask unanimous consent at this point
that his statement be included in the record at the beginning
of the hearing, following the Chairman's statement.
Mr. Faleomavaega, your questions?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I do
appreciate your calling this hearing this morning as an
oversight concerning these two important Congressional
enactments.
As a followup of the Chairman's question, I want a little
more enlightening statements here, if you could just describe.
When you talk about habitat, and the map that the Chairman had
indicated to you, Ms. Dalton, we are talking about how many
miles out? Is it beyond the 200-mile EEZ zone, or within 50
miles?
Ms. Dalton. It is hard to tell, but that looks like it is
probably 200 miles----
Mr. Faleomavaega. How about Alaska? Is it about 500 miles
out?
Ms. Dalton. Is it limited by 200?
Mr. Faleomavaega. It is about 22 miles?
Ms. Dalton. Two hundred.
Mr. Faleomavaega. It is 200 miles?
Ms. Dalton. Which is the Federal Exclusive Economic Zone.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Yes. So it is within the EEZ zone. OK.
And if you were to describe what is an essential habitat, what
would that be described as, as far as the geography of the
site? Is that within still the same scope, or is there a
different definition? What is the difference? If you have an
essential habitat, what are you talking about?
Ms. Dalton. Well, that is the essential fish habitat. And
it is not necessarily a biological definition, as much as it is
the definition that is in the Act.
Mr. Faleomavaega. OK. So once it is classified as a
habitat, it is an essential habitat?
Ms. Dalton. That is the defined term in the Act, is to
identify ``essential fish habitat.'' And those are areas that
are required for fish spawning and feeding and growing.
Mr. Faleomavaega. We are talking about two acts, the
Magnuson-Stevens Act and the Sustainable Fisheries Act. What is
the current cost in the administration of the Magnuson-Stevens
cost, on an annual basis?
Ms. Dalton. Our request--We currently are spending about
$165 million for implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
And then our request for next year is just over $168 million.
The Sustainable Fisheries Act is in large part in a series of
amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I see. On the status of our regional
councils, I understand from your recent statement here that
regional councils are strictly on an advisory basis. They are
not policymaking bodies?
Ms. Dalton. No, they really are a unique creature in the
Federal bureaucracy. The problem is that they do not fit into
either a category of being an advisory----
Mr. Faleomavaega. Would you rather get rid of them?
Ms. Dalton. No.
Mr. Faleomavaega. No? OK.
Ms. Dalton. But they do not fit neatly into either an
advisory status or a Federal status. And those are really the
only two defined things. They are kind of an amalgam of both.
So for many situations, again, they are treated as advisory
groups.
Mr. Faleomavaega. So when does it become advisory? When
something really hits the fan, or rubber hits the road?
Ms. Dalton. Primarily, for administrative purposes.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Suppose there is an advisory position
that is different from the Administration position. How would
such a conflict be resolved?
Ms. Dalton. That is where we come into the approval and
disapproval process. We take the recommendations of the
council. If they meet the requirements of the national
standards and the other requirements of the Act, then we
approve them.
Mr. Faleomavaega. So are we somewhat duplicating our
efforts here, in having the council do one thing and the NMFS
doing something else? I mean, where are the positives, as far
as the relationship? It sounds to me that you are constantly
fighting each other.
Ms. Dalton. I do not think we really are constantly
fighting each other. I think the councils really are a unique
opportunity to bring in Federal managers together with state
managers and the stakeholders, to really have a participatory
process to develop fishery management decisions. And it is
predicated on the belief that the industry can contribute to
the regulatory process.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Is that a fair statement, Mr.
Commissioner, or Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Brancaleone. That is a fair statement. But I did want
to disagree with Ms. Dalton about the councils not being
policymakers, because in our minds we are policymakers. And we,
at least in the Northeast, have formed a partnership with the
National Marine Fisheries Service, and it usually works pretty
good.
The only time it does not work good is when everyone
sitting around the table feels that an emergency action is
necessary, but someone there has to stymie it for us. And I am
not saying that that is intentional, but that is exactly what
happens at times. In my understanding, it is not just the New
England region; it is all around the country.
Mr. Faleomavaega. For 3 years now, since we have
implemented the Sustainable Fisheries Act, Ms. Dalton, do you
consider the Act worthy of its purpose? Or do you think that it
is just another added layer of bureaucracy that just starts
shuffling paper? Or do you think that the Act really is being
effectively implemented in such a way that it meets the goals
or the intent of the Congress?
Ms. Dalton. I may be slightly prejudiced, having spent a
great deal of time working on developing it, but I think it has
worked. The biggest problem that we have is that there is going
to be a time line. We are dealing with issues, we are trying to
rebuild over-fished stocks, we are beginning to wrestle with
essential fish habitat and with reducing bycatch. But a lot of
the decisions that we make now, we will not even see whether
they work or not for a number of years, particularly in the
area of rebuilding stocks.
So what we have tried at this point, I think, is to get all
of the ground work laid and all of the tools in place for the
councils and the National Marine Fisheries Service to move
forward with the implementation.
Mr. Faleomavaega. It is my understanding that there are
three basic objectives or intents of the Congress, for the
reasons why the Congress passed the Magnuson-Stevens Act: To
reduce the bycatch; to identify and protect habitats; to
identify and protect and rebuild over-fished fisheries.
So the Congress then went and passed the Sustainable
Fisheries Act. Is there a conflict here? Are we duplicating the
purpose and the intent of the two enactments?
Ms. Dalton. The Sustainable Fisheries Act, probably 90
percent of it are amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act. And
the authorities that resided in the Magnuson-Stevens Act,
probably all of the authorities that were necessary to have
healthy and sustainable fisheries were in place before the
Sustainable Fisheries Act was passed.
What it did was to clarify and provide additional
procedures to the councils and to the National Marine Fisheries
Service, and clarify policies that we needed to achieve those
goals.
Mr. Faleomavaega. You mentioned that the U.S. had exported
over $3 billion in the seafood industry. How much have we
imported in seafood?
Ms. Dalton. I think it is more.
Mr. Faleomavaega. How about $7 billion?
Ms. Dalton. OK.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Now, I am curious, and this is from a
layman's point of view. If we are exporting three billion and
we are importing seven billion, are we making any real serious
effort to produce fish domestically to meet the demands of the
American consumer? I mean, why do we have to import $7 billion
worth of fish or seafood? Why can we not do it domestically, on
our own?
Ms. Dalton. And this is one reason why it is so important
to rebuild fisheries, because we can increase our domestic
production if we have healthy fisheries. The problem is that we
have some fisheries that are in trouble and they are not
producing at the long-term potential yields that they could
produce. The other thing is that American consumers have a very
large appetite for seafood.
Mr. Faleomavaega. How do we compare in our technology, as
far as the seafood industry is concerned, with other countries?
Mr. Rosenberg. Congressman, I think we compare extremely
well. Our companies are extremely competitive. There are other
countries, of course, that produce large amounts of seafood in
various areas.
I do not believe that we could, through natural production,
meet the entire demand for American consumers. We certainly
could get closer, if we rebuilt the over-fished fisheries and
had them producing at their maximum level. But I would suspect
there always will be some demand for imported products; not
because we are doing something wrong, but because, you know,
our appetite for seafood will extend beyond the production of
our natural system, as augmented by aquaculture and other
sources--which has been increasing rather dramatically.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Well, I will withhold further followup on
that. But just quickly, I note that there were 80 species of
fish that were listed as being over-fished. Where are we with
those 80 species, having proper regulations? Are we up to date
on all that? You do not have to have--I mean, is it pretty
good?
Ms. Dalton. I think we have rebuilding plans for 59 species
at this point. So we are still working on some of them.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Very essential fish to our industry? That
is a lot. Eighty species? Like what?
Mr. Rosenberg. In some cases--I believe we have rebuilding
plans in place for virtually all of the major species; but
there would be additional species that are not yet under
rebuilding. And we are working, of course, under the mandates
of the Act, to develop rebuilding programs for all species. In
some cases, some of the ones that do not formally have a
rebuilding plan are dealt with under other provisions of law,
or international issues.
So we do have rebuilding plans, and are making progress on
many of those over-fished fisheries. But it is quite difficult
bringing back a natural resources, as I am sure you know.
Mr. Faleomavaega. We have kicked this issue around now for
how many years? And I notice also, one of the essential
elements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act was to look at the problem
of bycatch. And I think I may have mentioned in previous
hearings too, Mr. Chairman, the very serious problem of
bycatch, where total waste is being conducted in the fact that
these fish are just as good, edible, and yet just being wasted
out in the ocean when the fishing industry goes out only for
one particular species, and to the detriment of other fish that
are just as good for consumption.
Where are we exactly on the issue of bycatch, as a policy
in our country? And what are we doing with other countries?
Because they are probably the worst abusers of this bycatch
issue that we have been talking about.
I understand in the billions of dollars worth--billions of
dollars worth--of fish that is being wasted, or ``bycatch,'' as
it is commonly known, that people of the world--You know,
people are starving to death. And yet, this fish is being
wasted.
Do we have a definite policy? Are we aggressively pursuing
this issue with international forums? How do I tell a purse
seiner coming from San Diego that, ``If you catch three tons of
fish that are not tuna, go ahead and just throw it overboard''?
Mr. Rosenberg. Congressman, a lot of the bycatch problems
are an economic issue. Of course, the reason in some cases that
fish are thrown overboard, such as the example you gave, is
because the value of the products is very low relative to the
target. That is not always the case with bycatch, but it is
often the case with bycatch.
We do have domestically and internationally an aggressive
program. Under the Sustainable Fisheries Act, we are mandated
to try to minimize bycatch. Under the agreement that we were
instrumental in promoting within the United Nations, there is
an international agreement to try to minimize bycatch wherever
possible. That is the U.N. treaty on straddling fish stocks and
highly migratory fish stocks. That treaty we expect to come
into force fairly soon.
And in addition, in the Food and Agricultural Organization
of the United Nations, and in all of the regional fishery
organizations around the world that we participate in, we have
strongly promoted bycatch reduction measures, to the extent
possible.
It still is a large problem. But I do think that we are
making substantial progress, both internationally and
domestically. It is a difficult problem, though, not only
economically, but sometimes it relates to the complications of
the regulations and so on, which can have impacts on bycatch.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you very much.
Ms. Dalton. We do have a document that we can provide you
that discusses our efforts to diminish bycatch.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Please. I would appreciate getting a
copy.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Mr. Saxton. I thank you.
Mr. Brancaleone. Mr. Chairman, may I just comment on one
issue that the Congressman brings up?
Mr. Saxton. Sure.
Mr. Brancaleone. And it is the redundancy and the
duplication and the relationship, and how accountable is the
system----
Mr. Saxton. Could you do me a favor, and pull the
microphone just a little closer?
Mr. Brancaleone. I am sorry.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you.
Mr. Brancaleone. And whether the council system is working
or not. I would like to speak, if I could, as just a taxpayer,
and not a member of the council, but as one who has fought long
and hard years ago for the council process. And I would hope
that no changes in the Act would lead to any deletion of the
councils. Because in my opinion, it is the expertise on the
council that is going to bring some sanity to the whole
process.
If you put it in light with the issue of emergency action
and having the regional administrator vote on those actions,
let me say that Andy Rosenberg and I sat on the council
together when he was regional administrator. And he and I
locked horns many times, but we walked away as friends.
But when you have industry people on the council who feel
that there is an emergency at hand, and you have, as in our
case, five state directors who feel there is an emergency at
hand, and all of those people vote in favor, then it is not the
time for the regional administrator to vote against it--which
in my opinion is wrong. But for the most part, we work
together, hand in hand, especially in the last few years, on
getting the job done.
I just wanted to stress that if you do away with the
councils, then all that the industry has fought for years ago
with the advent of the 200-mile limit is just going to go down
the tubes. And I hope that there is not even a consideration of
that.
Mr. Saxton. May I just ask you why you think there is a
notion of doing away with councils?
Mr. Brancaleone. Well, there are people who feel that there
are--Maybe I should not even bring it up, but I mean I have
heard it said that it is a case where the fox is watching the
chicken coop. And it is so far removed, it is not funny. That
is not the way it works.
The whole problem with the council process is that a lot of
times common sense cannot come into the picture here: You know,
industry people sitting around the table, who have common sense
and know the business, know that this is the way to go; but
people who sit behind desks, or scientists, say, ``No, that is
not.'' And that is where we butt heads once in a while. But in
a democracy, as you know, we come to some agreements.
Mr. Saxton. Just to give you some reassurance, I know of no
one on the Subcommittee, nor anyone on the full Committee, who
has any notion of doing away with the council part of the
partnership. Now, there may be some notion of doing away with
the other half of the partnership----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Saxton. I am glad you are laughing, Penny.
Mr. Brancaleone, a two-part question: Do you believe the
definition of ``essential fish habitat'' is too broad in the
current statute? And was NMFS guidance in the identification of
``essential fish habitat'' helpful to the council process?
Mr. Brancaleone. Yes, and yes. Yes, on the first one. And
they did not give us the guidance they had. And I do not fault
them for that, because I do not believe they had the
information. I think that the critical habitats of concern is
where we have the better information, and that to me is where
regulation should come in to deal with fish habitat.
I do not know about other councils, but a lot of our fish
habitat looked a lot like the maps that you have. And if you go
back and look at the record, I do not think you will find
anybody that voted that opposed the essential fish habitat.
Because it is motherhood and apple pie: Everyone wants to
protect fish habitat.
But 3 years ago when this was implemented, we knew it was a
freight train coming at us. No. 1, we did not have enough data.
No. 2, we did not have the manpower. No. 3, we did not have the
money. So nine times out of ten--and no disrespect--when laws
are made and changed, then there has to be something behind it
to back it up in the way of financing.
So again, there are either abstentions or ``Yeses,'' on the
votes when dealing with essential fish habitat.
Mr. Saxton. You answered ``Yes'' to the first part of that
question, and that is interesting. Do you have suggestions as
to how you think the definition could be improved?
Mr. Brancaleone. No, we were looking toward coming up with
some suggestions for you and the National Marine Fisheries
Service.
Mr. Saxton. Well, we would certainly appreciate that. Let
me ask you both kind of a general question, something that
people that have been in my company have heard me say before.
As we look at the history of the regulatory process under
Magnuson-Stevens, if you go around the coast of the United
States it is easy to pick out examples that have been less than
successful. And I am not being critical of anybody on this. I
am only asking this to get some ideas about how we can make the
process work better from our side.
But as you look around the coast of the United States, if
you start in New England and look at the groundfish fishery, we
promoted consumption. We helped enlarge the fleet. I am saying
``we.'' The fishermen went out and caught too many fish. The
fishery collapsed, and then we had to put in place programs to
help it recover.
And the same thing happened with striped bass on the East
Coast of the United States. The same thing happened with
sharks, is currently going on with the shark fishery. It
happened with redfish in the Gulf of Mexico. It happened with
sea urchins on the West Coast. I do not know whether salmon is
a good example or not, but certainly there is a problem that we
can point to there.
And what happens is, we have this cycle that occurs: We
promote consumption; fishermen go out, sometimes with our help
from financial aid; the fishery collapses; and then we have a
success, we call it a success, when the fishery recovers. That
is a cycle that we ought not to see so often. Is there anything
in the law, is there anything in Magnuson-Stevens, that you
would like to see to help us get ahead of these collapses that
seem to occur so often?
Ms. Dalton. I think there are a couple of things that are
in there now. One is the report that we do every year that
basically does the assessment and kind of gives you a heads-up
on what fisheries are getting into problems.
We probably also need to see if there are some things that
we can do to act more proactively when we have got a new stock
of fish, or a stock is coming back that has been depleted for a
long period of time, to proactively get ahead of the fleet, so
that they are not making the investment and then we are forcing
them out of business, or cutting back on them, or making it
difficult for them to make a living.
We need somehow to match up the capacity and the resource
on a long-term basis. And that is basically what we are trying
to do with these rebuilding programs, so that we do not have
too many fishermen chasing too few fish. Because as long as we
do have that situation, we are creating economic hardship, and
we are also going to make management decisions excruciatingly
difficult.
The question is going to be now, for species like striped
bass: We have brought them back; can we keep them back? And I
do not know. Personally, I am optimistic that this is really an
evolutionary process, and we are learning as we develop each of
these different fishery management plans on what the best way
to manage the resource is, and how to keep it in better
condition.
Mr. Saxton. Do you have any specific suggestions on
legislative changes that need to be made?
Ms. Dalton. Probably, the biggest thing that we need is to
encourage improvements of the scientific basis for management
decisions. And I will let Andy chime in on this.
Mr. Rosenberg. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I think the
scientific basis is a very important consideration. But I would
also point out, in one of the reports that was produced under
the Sustainable Fisheries Act, that report on ecosystem
management by the National Research Council, they also discuss
the idea of, if you like, precautionary management plans for
resources that may not yet be--or umbrella management plans.
Not necessarily because you are trying to address a problem,
but because you want to prevent one in the future.
And ight now, the focus of the Act certainly is on
addressing problems such as over-fished stocks that need
rebuilding. Although it is allowed, there is not the mandate to
implement management plans for stocks that are newly exploited,
or have not been exploited in some time. And I believe Joe
Brancaleone has a good example in New England of the herring
stock. Now the council has worked toward providing a new
herring management plan, because that stock is at very high
levels. The same thing with mackerel in the mid-Atlantic.
But those discussions are extraordinarily difficult,
because people are not very willing to accept restrictions on a
stock that is in very healthy condition and in fact could
benefit by fishing down. So if we had greater ability to move
forward under a mandate for precautionary management plans, or
the idea suggested in the ecosystem report, that would probably
address in part some of the problem that you have raised, sir.
Mr. Saxton. Mr. Brancaleone, would you like to comment?
Mr. Brancaleone. I am sitting here racking my brain, Mr.
Chairman, as to what changes might be made in the Act. And
frankly, I do not know what they could be.
Mr. Saxton. Let me ask this specific question. One of the
things that I find kind of ironic is that we have legislated at
least two general goals. One is to promote consumption; and the
other is to conserve fish. Is that as much of a conflict in
your jobs as it appears to me to be?
Mr. Brancaleone. No, because I think if we do our jobs and
we conserve fish, then we will have enough as far as
consumption. I do not see that as a problem.
Mr. Saxton. Well, why do you have to promote consumption? I
am a little bit lost. Years ago, maybe we had to promote the
consumption of chicken. Years ago, maybe we needed--When I was
a kid, my mom used to promote the consumption of broccoli. When
I go to the fish store today and pay $10 a pound for fish, it
seems to me that there is pretty good demand for fish.
Mr. Brancaleone. Depends on what you are buying, Mr.
Chairman. Years ago, we were promoting pollock----
Mr. Saxton. Yes.
Mr. Brancaleone. [continuing] which was a trash fish.
Mr. Saxton. And--excuse me--we did promote the consumption
of shark, didn't we?
Mr. Brancaleone. I do not know. I think so.
Ms. Dalton. Yes.
Mr. Saxton. Yes. I mean, we even issued pamphlets with
recipes for shark meat. Now look what we did to shark. Does
that not create a conflict? I mean, you identify an under-
fished fishery, shark; promote the consumption of shark; and
now the fishery is in danger, if it has not already collapsed.
Mr. Brancaleone. If you had promoted the consumption of
shark, and we stayed with using--what do they call it?--
harpooning, we would still have a lot of sharks around. The
problem is the fishermen become too efficient in what they do.
Mr. Saxton. Well, of course.
Mr. Brancaleone. I mean, and that is the name of the game
to them. Their concern is making money. And just as technology
goes, they are going to go, too. So again, I do not think that
that is the problem. I think it is just having the guts to do
what you have to do to conserve fish. And I mean, that is
evident in New England lately.
Mr. Saxton. But does it not make it harder to conserve
fish? I am not trying to argue. You know more about this than I
do. You have been in it for a long time.
I have another job here. I am the Chairman of the Joint
Economic Committee. And we talk a lot about supply and demand,
and what demand does for the economy. And in the world of
fisheries, every time we increase the demand for fish, we
increase the likelihood that more people want to go and be
involved in the industry and catch more fish. Because the price
goes up because the demand goes up, and it becomes profitable,
and so we find more fishing pressure as a result of the demand.
And I find it kind of ironic that we have all these
problems with fish conservation, and yet the very agency that
is supposed to be carrying out the conservation efforts also is
in charge of creating demand.
Ms. Dalton. I think at this point, though, we spend almost
no resources or dollars on promoting consumption.
Mr. Saxton. That made me feel better.
Ms. Dalton. Yes. I think things like that, we do do things
with the industry if there is a market for a product overseas,
to help them get through the bureaucratic hurdles that they
need to do. There also was a move a few years ago to make
seafood eligible under the Ag-Marketing Act, and I think they
probably do more to promote seafood than we do at this point.
Mr. Saxton. I have just been handed a note. The real
problem--and you can respond to this--the real problem is the
lack of science for making sure demand does not outstrip
conservation. Is that a fair statement?
Ms. Dalton. That is a huge problem for us. And that is what
we need to keep working to improve, the scientific basis for
our management decisions.
Mr. Saxton. Mr. Brancaleone, would you like to comment?
Mr. Brancaleone. Just I echo what Penny just said.
Mr. Saxton. I would like to ask a question on behalf of Mr.
Gilchrest, who could not be here today. The question is: Why
does North Carolina need an additional seat on the Mid-Atlantic
Council?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Brancaleone. Most of the states have an at-large seat
and an obligatory seat. And in the last reauthorization, North
Carolina was given an obligatory seat on the Mid-Atlantic
Council. And there are members who feel that that is not
proper; that they should have an opportunity to have an at-
large seat as well as an obligatory seat.
Mr. Saxton. Thank you.
Mr. Brancaleone. You are welcome.
Mr. Saxton. Mr. Brancaleone, the issue of using maximal
sustainable yield as a fishery management target has caused
confusion in many fisheries. How does NMFS use maximal
sustainable yield? And should this concept be replaced with a
more concrete target?
Mr. Brancaleone. I will let the Service answer how they use
it, Mr. Chairman, if I may. But as you see in my statement from
all of the chairmen, we disagree with the use of the MSY.
Again, we do not have any specific recommendations for you, but
we are working on getting that for you. And we want to work
with you to come up with something else.
Mr. Saxton. Penny, do you want to comment?
Ms. Dalton. I am sorry, I missed the question.
Mr. Saxton. Is MSY working well, and should it be replaced
with a more concrete target?
Ms. Dalton. I think that one we will turn over to Dr.
Rosenberg.
Mr. Saxton. OK.
Mr. Rosenberg. Mr. Chairman, I think in general MSY is
working well. I think it is important to realize that MSY is a
reference point that fishery scientists have developed. You
could use alternative reference points. Probably it would
change slightly the specifics of how over-fishing definitions
and rebuilding programs would look, but it probably would not
change the overall need to ensure that you are not over-
harvesting the stock.
The MSY is fairly straightforward in terms of how it is
calculated, based on the available data. Sometimes the data is
rather scanty to actually calculate it, but that would be true
for most reference points. So in some ways, I think people are
concerned that the use of the concept of MSY is the culprit,
and I am not really sure that that is the case. As long as we
want to have some kind of a clear measure of whether we are
over-fishing or not, you need to have a reference point. MSY is
one example of a reference point, and I do not believe that
changing to a different version would really help very much.
Of course, there was a substantial change in 1996 of
requiring that there be a very clear definition of over-fishing
in the Act. And the alternative would be go to back the other
direction and have a more nebulous concept of over-fishing, and
I do not think that that would actually help in the process of
rebuilding the over-fished stocks. Thank you.
Mr. Saxton. I have a letter here from the North Pacific
Council, and they note here that MSY is not definable in every
fishery. Can you elucidate on that for us?
Mr. Rosenberg. While I do not agree with the statement
technically, I think you may not be able to estimate it in
every fishery, because you may not have sufficient data
available; although it is likely that you can make an estimate,
with varying degrees of uncertainty, for most every fishery.
That would be true if you chose another reference point, as
well. What we have done in terms of implementing the provisions
for defining over-fishing based on MSY is, we have said that
you should use MSY, and if you do not have sufficient
information you should develop a proxy. In other words, do the
best you can to try to meet the intent of defining an over-
fishing standard based on MSY. And in fact, I think we have
been very successful at that in the various fisheries around
the country.
So the basis is not as rigid as some people have
interpreted, because we have specifically in our guidelines
said in those cases where you do not think you have sufficient
information, use a proxy. And there are many well-known proxies
for portions of that definition. For example, long-term average
landings in some cases is used as a proxy for MSY. And for most
fisheries we have something like that.
There are problem areas, but it is based on the data,
rather than the concept, I believe.
Mr. Saxton. OK. Well, listen, I want to thank all of you
very much for being with us this morning. I just want to ask
unanimous consent at this point that other members who may not
have been able to make it here today may submit their
statements for the record.
[The statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Mr. Saxton. In addition, there may be some other questions
that we will want to submit to you in writing. And if you would
be so kind as to respond to those, we would appreciate it.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Saxton. And I would just like to remind everyone that
this is the first of several hearings on the Magnuson-Stevens
reauthorization, and we look forward to working with you
through the process. Thank you very much. And the hearing is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:22 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0043.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0043.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0043.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0043.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0043.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0043.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0043.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0043.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0043.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0043.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0043.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0043.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0043.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0043.014