1 / 22

Reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

Reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Presentation for the Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee John H. Dunnigan Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries January 12, 2005 Honolulu, Hawaii. Outline of Presentation. Where are we now?

taber
Télécharger la présentation

Reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Presentation for the Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee John H. Dunnigan Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries January 12, 2005 Honolulu, Hawaii

  2. Outline of Presentation • Where are we now? • Principal Issues and Advice • Ecosystems and the MSA • National Standard 1 Issues • Separation of Science and Allocation • Council Appointments • NEPA and MSA • EFH • Other Issues • What’s Next

  3. Where Are We Now? • Administration Positions in 107th and 108th Congresses • 109th Congress will start anew • NOAA doing complete review • All options are open -- no positions established yet • MAFAC Advice • Pro’s and con’s of alternatives; recommended preferences • Are there other alternatives? • Status Quo is always an alternative

  4. Principal Issues and Advice

  5. Ecosystems and MSA The Issue: • Should MSA be amended to be more compatible with EAM? • What does EAM mean in the context of fisheries management, and how does it differ from how we do business today? • What is the relationship between fishery management plans and fishery ecosystem plans? • What role should Councils play in ecosystem management? How should they relate to possible ecosystem-level groups?

  6. Ecosystems and MSA Considerations: • Complicating the process -- litigation risks • The Councils and NOAA regulatory processes are already overstressed Options: • Ecosystem Plans and FMP’s • Fishery Ecosystem Plans and FMP’s • Stand-alone Fishery Ecosystem Plans

  7. National Standard 1 Issues The Issue: • Implementation of certain SFA features has been conceptually problemmatic, e.g., the rebuilding time frame, including discontinuity; lack of clarity between “stocks” and “fisheries” Alternatives: • Amend the MSA to incorporate a simpler rebuilding standard, e.g., one mean generation time plus 10 years • MSA should focus more on fishing mortality than on biomass rebuilding

  8. Separation of Science and Allocation The Issue: • Should SSC’s set TAC levels and leave Councils only to allocate allowable harvest? • Should SSC’s be appointed by the Secretary, meet strict conflict of interest standards, and receive compensation? Considerations: • Is it really possible to separate the amount and the allocation issues? • Would this politicize the science community?

  9. Separation of Science and Allocation Alternatives: • More clearly articulate the relationship and roles of NOAA, the Councils, and the SSC’s. • Require the Councils, if not following SSC advice, to carefully document all of the reasons. • USCOP Recommendation. • Clarify the issues in National Standards Guidelines

  10. Council Appointments The Issue: • A common criticism of the Council system is that its voting members are drawn excessively from resource user groups, in particular the fishing industry, and do not include adequate representation of non-users. • Governors often nominate from only specific sectors -- not broadly based. • MSA currently only requires equitable balance between commercial and recreational sectors.

  11. Council Appointments Considerations: • Strict formula may inhibit flexibility to tailor Council membership to meet the regional needs. • Often hard to put Council member interests into boxes. Alternatives: • Require Governors to submit broader list of nominees; e.g., the 2-2-2 requirement (USCOP) • Revise Council balance language • Designate seats for interest groups

  12. NEPA and MSA The Issue: • Does the need to integrate the requirements of NEPA and MSA inherently lead to an overly lengthy and complex administrative process? • Do the different time frames for NEPA and MSA reviews contribute to regulatory process difficulties? • Do NEPA considerations lead to over-analysis and bureaucratic inefficiency? • Do the Councils and the Secretary need more flexibility than the current process allows? (e.g., so many decisions seem to be “major federal actions” under CEQ regulations)

  13. NEPA and MSA Alternatives: • Amend MSA to exempt fishery management actions from NEPA. • Include revisions to MSA to insure that NEPA concerns are addressed.

  14. Essential Fish Habitat The Issue: • Is the designation or application of essential fish habitat overly broad? • Does the MSA fail to protect other EFH that may not be related to FMP species? • Should EFH be considered on a species or FMP basis, or more on a broad ecosystem basis? Alternatives: • Amend MSA to prioritize of habitats of higher concern. • Allow Secretary to designate additional EFH. (e.g., non-managed or state-managed species)

  15. Other Issues • Ecosystem Approaches to Management • National Standards • NS1 and Rebuilding Times • NS2 and Separation of Science and Allocation • NS9 and Bycatch • Definitions • “Fisheries” and “stocks” • MSY and OY • “conservation and management” • “fish” • “protected species”

  16. Other Issues (cont’d.) • Council Appointments • Discrepancies between NEPA and MSA • IFQ’s and Limited Entry • IFQ Requirements • Central Lien Registry • Legal Issues • Pay Attorney Fees from DOJ Judgement Fund • Judicial Review of MSA Actions • Idaho County Codification • Facilitate Framework Actions • APA Waiver for Emergencies

  17. Other Issues (cont’d.) • Data Issues • Social and Economic Data • Use of Other Agency Data • Permits and Fees • Single SSN/TIN Permit Identifier • Fees for permits • Cost Recovery Fees • Essential Fish Habitat

  18. Other Issues (cont’d.) • Observer Issues • Confidentiality of Observer Data • Fund new observer programs\ • Definition of an observer • Mandatory Reports • Status of Stocks • Ecolabels and the MSA • Standardized VRS and FIS • CDQ Issues • Eligible Communities • Alaska state allocations

  19. Other Issues (cont’d.) • Aquaculture • Federal and State Jurisdiction • Federal Jurisdiction beyond 200 miles • Alaska salmon and certain crab fisheries • Dungeness crab • Council Administration Issues • Industry Assistance • Fishing Capacity Reduction Program • Fisheries Disaster Relief

  20. Other Issues (cont’d.) • What have we missed??

  21. Next Steps • NOAA will continue to review issues • Managing the Nation’s Fisheries II • March 24-26, 2005, in Washington, D.C. • Prepare final NOAA Recommendations and seek Administration concurrence • Send Administration bill to Hill • Continue to work with Hill, partners and stakeholders

  22. Reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Presentation for the Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee John H. Dunnigan Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries January 12, 2005 Honolulu, Hawaii

More Related