Dr. D. James Baker
Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere
U.S. Department of Commerce
Washington, D.C. 20230
Dear Dr. Baker:
I am writing to report to you on the results of the Marine
Fisheries Advisory Committee (MAFAC) meeting held at the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Southwest Fisheries
Science Center, La Jolla, CA, on March 23 - 24, 1999.
As you requested at our meeting in December, MAFAC devoted
a significant period of time examining proposed legislation
on marine aquaculture and discussing the issue of marine
reserves. I have enclosed a draft copy of the resolution
adopted on aquaculture and our report on marine reserves.
On the latter, please note that MAFAC members were especially
concerned that discussions on marine reserves involve a collaborative, "bottom-up" approach
with significant communication among all stakeholders. Marine
reserves can be logical extensions of current fisheries conservation
and management programs, but their establishment will only
be supported if all affected parties believe that their concerns
have at least been acknowledged. MAFAC provided a number
of recommendations to NMFS in this regard.
MAFAC also (with one dissenting vote) endorsed the NMFS Report
to Congress on Impacts of California Sea Lions and Pacific
Harbor Seals on Salmonids and West Coast Ecosystems and
urged NMFS to expeditiously provide suggested legislation
to Congress to carry out the recommendations contained
in that report.
In regard to vessel monitoring systems, MAFAC recommended
that NMFS work with the regional fishery management councils
to develop appropriate regional approaches in designing such
systems. MAFAC noted that systems should not be limited to
enforcement use, but should be examined for use in fisheries
research and management. As a result of our recommendation,
MAFAC has disbanded its Vessel Monitoring System Committee
and will provide any needed future policy guidance at the
full MAFAC level. MAFAC also suggested that NMFS examine
confidentiality regulations as a way of improving enforcement
in the Alaska fisheries.
Finally, MAFAC made some additional minor adjustments to
its committee structure in order to further streamline MAFAC
operations. These adjustments will also provide an opportunity
for new MAFAC members to fully participate.
On behalf of MAFAC, I want to thank all of the NMFS and
NOAA personnel who took the time to participate in our meeting,
provide us with information, and seek our advice. Special
thanks is due to Rollie Schmitten for his support over the
last several years. We look forward to working with Penny
Dalton when she assumes the position of Assistant Administrator
for Fisheries.
Please feel free to contact me if I can provide any additional
information on our meeting or on the material contained in
this report. I plan on being in the Washington, D.C., area
at the end of this month and will contact your staff to see
if we can meet for a short time and discuss future MAFAC
assistance to NOAA.
Sincerely,
Rod Moore
Vice Chair
Encl. (2)
cc: MAFAC members
MARINE FISHERIES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE MOTION
Regarding Draft Aquaculture Legislation
Approved March 24, 1999
MAFAC supports the Department of Commerce moving forward
in developing legislation to authorize the Secretary to establish
a regulatory regime for the development and licensing of
marine aquaculture facilities in the federal portion of the
EEZ.
MAFAC members have a number of concerns with the draft bill
and request the Secretary to amend the bill and the supporting
documentation to address the issues identified below. MAFAC
also requests an opportunity to review and comment on any
revised legislation prior to its submission to Congress.
Environmental Standards: The bill requires
the Secretary to develop environmental standards for marine
aquaculture facilities located in federal waters. MAFAC is
concerned about the lack of specificity with respect to these
standards. To the extent possible, MAFAC recommends that
the environmental standards be more fully articulated in
the bill to avoid confusion and to establish some general
national standards against which the regulations and proposed
criteria can be measured.
Timing: The bill requires that licenses
be issued and that the standards developed under Sec. 6 be
applied to all facilities within two years. The bill also
requires a research and development program (Sec. 5) that
will among other things determine what regulatory and other
controls are necessary to protect the environment. MAFAC
recommends that the standards required in Sec. 6 and the
regulatory controls called for in Sec. 5 be developed and
implemented prior to the issuance of any licenses. This should
occur within two years after date of enactment.
Economic Development Assistance: MAFAC
opposes the inclusion of Sec. 4 at this time and requests
the Secretary to provide additional information establishing
the need for such financial assistance programs for the development
of marine aquaculture.
Sec. 5: MAFAC recognizes that the legislation
will most likely not be enacted this year. Therefore, MAFAC
requests that the Secretary, under existing authority, direct
NOAA and NTA to immediately begin the National Marine Aquaculture
Research and Development Program required in Sec. 5. This
work will need to be completed prior to the issuance of any
licenses and there is no reason to wait until legislation
is passed. MAFAC also encourages the Secretary to involve
as many interested parties as possible in the development
of this Program. This would allow the Department to get a
jump-start on the development of standards and regulatory
controls.
Economic Rent: Economic rent for marine
aquaculture facilities is a potential source of income, much
like OCS royalties that are paid to the government for the
use of public resources. While MAFAC does not want economic
rent to be a deterrent to the development of environmentally
sound aquaculture, this issue should be debated in Congress.
MAFAC recommends that the legislation include a provision
that would allow for the collection of economic rent, without
requiring it, so that the issue continues to be fully debated
in the context of congressional consideration of the bill.
Role of Councils: It is not clear what,
if any, legal role the Councils have in the licensing process.
Sec. 7 requires that the Councils be provided at least 120
days to review any proposed license, but the responsibilities
of the Councils and the opportunity to amend a license are
not clear. In addition, once a proposed license is published
and provided to the Councils, it will be much harder to require
additional conditions. MAFAC recommends that the legislation
be amended to require the Secretary to provide the appropriate
council with a copy of the license application and proposed
conditions before it is publish for public comment. The Councils
should be given 120 days to review the application and provide
the Secretary with proposed license conditions. If the Secretary
does not agree with any of the conditions, the Secretary
shall explain in writing to the council why such conditions
were not approved. This process is similar to that used for
foreign fishing applications under the MSFCMA and provides
the Councils with a meaningful role in development and licensing
of marine aquaculture facilities.
Licenses: MAFAC understands the need for
long term licenses but is concerned about the lack of oversight
during this period. Consequently, MAFAC recommends that for
any license issued for a period of more than 7 years, the
Secretary require at a minimum a 5-year public review. At
a minimum every five years, the Secretary would publish a
public comment notice and allow the public and the Councils
to review the license and conditions. At that time the license
could be amended to require additional conditions or possibly
withdrawn in cases of poor performance. This process would
ensure continual public scrutiny of marine aquaculture facilities
without jeopardizing the term of the license.
Rights and Responsibilities of License Holders:
The legislation is unclear as to the precise rights and prerogatives
of license holders. The bill should be amended to include a section
that clearly identifies the rights and responsibilities of license
holders, particularly with respect to safety issues, environmental
performance, competing uses of the marine environment and rules for
transferability. MAFAC also recommends that the Secretary develop
a consolidated license process to streamline the marine aquaculture
licensing process.
Bonds: MAFAC recommends that the legislation be
amended to include a provision that would allow the Secretary to
require a license applicant to post a bond. States have experienced
cleanup costs of failed aquaculture facilities and a bond could
be used to ensure that any failed facility would be cleaned up
quickly and in an environmentally sound manner.
State CZM Programs: MAFAC recommends that the
legislation expressly state that state CZM programs may adopt more
stringent environmental standards than those required by the federal
government.
Delineation: The bill or supporting documentation
should clearly delineate the areas where this new regime would
apply. MAFAC members are particularly concerned about U.S. territories
and possessions.
Individual MAFAC members may have additional comments and will provide those
to NOAA in the near future. MAFAC hopes that these recommendations are useful
and we look forward to working with the Secretary in developing sound legislation
that will foster the development of environmentally friendly marine aquaculture.
MARINE FISHERIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Report on Marine Reserves Discussions
There exists sufficient and credible evidence that Marine
Reserves (a.k.a. Marine protected areas, marine management
areas, marine fishery reserves, MFRs) are a viable component
of fishery management. This evidence plus a perception in
some cases that no other known alternative is available,
contributes to the fact that MFRs are and will continue to
be a significant issue in marine fishery management. So far
as MAFAC members are aware, there exist no coherent guidelines
within NMFS that relate to MFR creation and management. NMFS
involvement in MFR programs, as a result, is widely variable
and for the most part reactive in nature. In general, the
overall approach of NMFS and many other groups has been to
establish scientific criteria, facilitate enforcement, and
attempt to resolve gear conflicts and other fishery issues
as they relate to MFRs. In its examination of the issue,
MAFAC perceived a substantial disconnect between scientists,
managers, and stakeholders in the processes of creating and
enforcing MFRs. MAFAC recommends that NMFS take a more pro-active
approach to MFRs.
The NMFS approach should include as its centerpiece stakeholder
education and assistance with MFR design and management.
Stakeholders should include all fishers (recreational, commercial,
artisanal), other related federal agencies such as NOS Marine
Sanctuaries Program, regulators, scientists, and the general
public. We present the following recommendations to NMFS:
1. NMFS should acknowledge Marine Reserves as a major issue
and management tool. In doing so, NMFS should examine its
allocation of staff who are facilitating MFR discussion and
outreach. Because staffing is likely to be a problem, we
suggest NMFS fully investigate and utilize alternative sources
of expertise including but not limited to
- Interagency collaborations (Councils,
Commissions, States, etc.)
- Internships (Universities)
- Volunteers (general public)
- Consultant contracts
2. NMFS should collaborate with other groups to develop
commonly accepted definitions of the terms "reserve," "refuge," "sanctuary," "closed
area," "protected zone," etc.
3. NMFS should synthesize information and make it available
for use by Councils / Commissions / Territories / States
/ local groups to facilitate their discussion of MFRs. In
particular the information should include
- Definitions of terms
- Synthesis of data, results, and effects of MFRs for the
purposes of stakeholder education and collaboration prior
to creation of MFR regulations.
4. NMFS should further work with the groups listed above
to
- Identify the current overall extent of no fishing areas
(military, disposal, no take, etc.) as a baseline for coordinating
and evaluating the need for MFRs, and in particular, for
each major coastal region synthesize information on existing
closures, regulations, and other management practices that
serve as the basis for de facto reserves
- Facilitate processes that are pro-active and characterized
by a bottom-up approach and that involve input from stakeholders
at all levels
- Develop features that are customizable by region and
that allow for dynamic problem solving
- Develop inter- (& intra-) agency collaborations
that address issues related to MFRs such as NPS pollution
(Dept.
of Agric.), sedimentation (EPA), community ecology
concerns (USFWS), communication cable siting (FCC),
fishing by users
from other territories (Territorial Governments,
fishing associations), dredge spoils (COE), other broad
issues
of regulation and enforcement (NOAA Sanctuaries,
wildlife refuges, national parks), etc.
- Collect and disseminate information relating to performance
of MFRs, including both scientific evidence and testimonials
of large and small scale fishers (domestic and global)
- Characterize essential selection criteria (biological,
economic, and sociological)
- Focus on intact ecosystems
- Develop information on the complexity of non-fishing
factors that also affect fish habitat and include examination
of activities that would affect biodiversity within MFRs
- List expected outcomes that can be quantified in terms
of both positive and negative socioeconomic and environmental
results
- Outline conditions that define when an MFR might be
terminated after having completed the job for which it
was established
NMFS should take full advantage of the five year Sanctuary
Review and the National Marine Sanctuary Act Reauthorization
that currently are underway. In particular, NMFS should look
for disjunctions between Federal and State/Territorial management
relations.
|
