CSS. doibiz, Proceedings of the 1 985 State Fish and Wildlife Director's Conference Washington, D.C. June 4-6, 1985 / \flf ^ U.S. Department of Commerce * National Marine Fisheries Service ^TES 0« h U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service PROCEEDINGS of the 1985 State Fish and Wildlife Directors Conference June 4-6, 1985 Capitol Holiday Inn 550 C Street, NW Washington, DC Hosted by the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Conference Theme: Fishery Resource Management for the Remainder of the 1980,s: Accommodating Change October 1985 5' q Depository CeP$ Table of Contents Page Executive Summary 1 Agenda 5 Purpose of Conference 9 Acknowledgements 11 Speeches Mr. William G. Gordon 13 Mr. Robert A. Jantzen 19 Senator James A. McClure 21 Congressman John B. Breaux 27 Secretary of Interior Donald P. Hodel 37 Mr. Russell A. Cookingham 45 Mr. W. Timothy Wapato 55 Mr. Susumu Ono 61 Mr. Alejandro Santiago Nieves 67 Mr. Ralph W. Abele 71 Mr. Richard V. Martin 75 Dr. J. Frank Cogdell, Jr. 85 Dr. John P. Harville 93 Dr. Ronald 0. Skoog 95 Purpose of Caucuses 99 Coastal Interests Caucus Report 101 Great Lakes Caucus Report 109 Inland Interests Caucus Report 113 Reaction to Caucuses Reports William G. Gordon 121 Robert A. Jantzen 125 Followup Action to Coastal Caucus Recommendations 131 Followup Action to Great Lakes Caucus Recommendations 139 Followup Action to Inland Caucus Recommendations 141 Closing Remarks -- Robert A. Jantzen 145 Questionnaire 147 Attendees (partial listing) 157 Executive Summary On June 4-6, 1985, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( FWS ) jointly hosted a conference in Washington, D.C. to discuss management of the Nation's fishery resources for the remainder of the 1980' s. The purpose of the conference was to provide a forum to discuss current needs, assess priorities, and map out strategies for State and Federal action. Primary participants included State Fish and Wildlife directors, representatives from the island governments, Indian commissions, and the Interstate Fisheries Commissions, along with the host agencies. The conference opened with a plenary session that featured Senator James McClure (ID), Congressman John Breaux (LA) and Secretary of the Interior Donald Paul Hodel. Key industry, State and Federal government and constituent spokesmen also addressed the conference to set the stage for later deliberations. The conference was separated into three caucuses representing interests of the Coastal and Marine, Great Lakes, and Inland fishery resources. The regional caucuses were the key ingredient of the conference focusing their deliberations on highest priority needs and practical actions needed for the remainder of the 1980's. William G. Gordon, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and Robert A. Jantzen, Director, FWS, served as conference moderators . Remarks made by the speakers representing both the Congress and the Administration, as well as a number of the panel members and speakers, noted the prominent role of the Wallop-Breaux funding issue as a key to the future success of the Nation's sport fishery efforts. Senator McClure noted the need for visionary leadership for the future to manage fishery resources. Congressman Breaux observed that Federal dollars will be directed toward defensible programs that directly support objectives of Federal fishery policy to achieve the optimum yield from our fishery resources. Secretary Hodel was optimistic that a creative mix of public and private interests and leadership to accommodate the change, could establish broad national resource policies that are right for America. Other speakers at the plenary session directed attention to achievements already realized this year such as the signing of the U.S. -Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty. The Coastal Caucus identified the top five priority program activities as: (1) statistics and data needs, (2) research for interjurisdictional fishery management regimes, (3) habitat conservation and relevant research to maintain and enhance fishery habitat, (4) law enforcement, and (5) fishery development and marketing. These program activities are listed in priority order from a national perspective in full recognition that some activities vary in priority by region. The Coastal Caucus also identified six policy concerns for Federal action or further consideration: (1) the need for joint management of fishery resources where a State and the Federal Government share management responsibilities, (2) the need for an interjurisdictional fishery policy for marine and estuarine resources, (3) the need to expedite the review of State grants within the Department of Commerce, (4) the need to simplify the Federal regulatory process implementing fishery management plans, (5) the need for fishery managers to consider effort management along with other management measures, and (6) the need for stable and long-term Federal funding for fishery programs. It was understood that effective fishery management is a common objective of State, tribal Indian, and Federal fishery agencies. Further, it was understood that effective fishery management is a product of well orchestrated program activities among State, tribal Indian and Federal levels. The Great Lakes Caucus developed five major topics as priority issues requiring further consideration. In the process of identifying the critical issues and strategies that pertain to Great Lakes fisheries in the 1980's, the Great Lakes Caucus determined that the previously adopted (in 1980) Strategic Great Lakes Fishery Management Plan need only be updated. Therefore, a key recommendation of the caucus involves a reconvening of the original body which oversaw and implemented the strategic plan. This body is known as the Committee of the Whole (COW) and consists of agency directors. The Great Lakes Caucus noted that as the principal Federal agencies and sponsors of the Conference, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service should assume the lead in communicating the issues and recommendations of the Great Lakes Caucus to the appropriate authorities or organizations that will be involved in coordination and implementation. The Inland Caucus identified four major issues of concern. It was perceived that Federal support for inland fishery resources and recent actions and program redirections by the FWS and NMFS have resulted in diminished support to vital inland fishery programs. The second area of concern was the abandonment of FWS fish stocking responsibility on Federal lands and in federally funded water projects. It was felt that management of fishery resources on Federal lands should be the joint responsibility of FWS and the States unless States wish to assume full responsibility. There was major concern that the rules and regulations relating to allowable uses of the Wallop/Breaux funds would be too restrictive. The Inland Caucus recommended that FWS clarify the rules and regulations and make changes where necessary to allow maximum flexibility and the widest possible latitude within Congressional authorization. Finally, the Inland Caucus noted that the actions for the protection and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources are being fragmented and/or diminished at the Federal level at a time when they should be strengthened. It was recommended that the FWS and NMFS recognize and/or provide the leadership and responsibility for coordinating and integrating Federal environmental programs affecting fish and wildlife resources of the Nation. Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2012 with funding from LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation http://www.archive.org/details/proceedingsof19800stat 5/30/R5 State Fish and Wildlife Directors Conference June 4-6, 1985 Capitol Holiday Inn 550 C Street, S.W. Washington, DC Hosted by the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Conference Theme: Fishery Resource Management for the Remainder of the 1980* s: Acconinodating Change June 4, 19P5 (Plenary Session - Clark Room) 8:30 a.m. I. Call to Order and Welcoming Remarks William Gordon/ Robert Jantzen A. Agenda Changes — Details B. Other Conference Information II. Views on Priorities for the Future A. Perspective from the Legislative Branch 9:15 a.m. — Senate 9:30 a.m. ■ — House of Representatives 9:45 a.m. B. Perspective from the Executive Branch James McClure John Breaux Secretary Hodel 10:05 a.m. Break 10:20 a.m. 10:35 a.m. 10:50 a.m. C. The States D. The Tribes E. The Island Governments Russell Cookingham Timothy Wapato Susumu Ono Alejandro Santiago III. Erqphasis - Where Should It Be? 11:10 a.m. A. The Constituency B. The Industry 11:25 a.m. — Commercial 11:40 a.m. — Recreational 11:55 a.m. C. The Profession 12:10 p.m. D. The Legislature Ralph Abele Richard Martin Frank Cogdell John Harville Ronald Skoog 12:30 p.m. Lunch 2:00 - IV. Assessing Priorities for the 5:00 p.m. Late 1980 's — Concurrent Sessions (Identify Priorities and Limitations in Achieving Effective Fishery Resource Management) Regional Caucuses A. Coastal Interests (Apollo Room) James Timmerman, SC (Includes Island Governments) Charles Fullerton, ISMFS 6:30 - 8:00 p.m. B. Inland Interests (Clark Room) C. Great Lakes Interests (Mars Room) Hospitality Hour - Hosted by Sport Fishing Institute (Clark Room) Larry Gale, MO Michael Spear, FWS C. D. Besadny, WI Harvey Nelson, FWS June 5 8:30 - 10:15 a.m. Caucuses Reconvene to Prepare Reports - Concurrent Sessions A. Coastal Interests (Lewis Room) B. Inland Interests (Clark Room) C. Great Lakes Interests (Mars Room) James Timmerman, SC Charles Fullerton, ISMFS Larry Gale, MO Michael Spear, FWS C. D. Besadny, WI Harvey Nelson, FWS 10:15 a.m. Break 10;30 a.m. - 12:00 noon Caucuses Report — Plenary Session (Clark Room) A. Coastal Interests B. Inland Interests C. Great Lakes Interests Robert Brantly, FL Moderator James Timmerman, SC Charles Fullerton, NMFS Larry Gale, MO Michael Spear, FWS C. D. Besadny, WI Harvey Nelson, FWS 12:00 noon Lunch 1:30 - V. Regional Caucuses Reconvene 5:30 p.m. for Review/Analysis — Concurrent Sessions (Develop Conclusions/Options for Action for Consideration) A. Coastal Interests (Lewis Room) B. Inland Interests (Clark Room) C. Great Lakes Interests (Mars Room) James Timmerman, SC Charles Fullerton, NMFS Larry Gale, MO Michael Spear, FWS C. D. Besadny, WI Harvey Nelson, FWS June 6 (Plenary Session - Clark Room) 8:30 - 10:00 a.m. Caucuses Report on Conclusions A. Coastal Interests B. Inland Interests C. Great Lakes Interests John Donaldson, OR Moderator James Timmerman, SC Charles Fullerton, NMFS Larry Gale, MO Michael Spear, FWS C. D. Besadny, WI Harvey Nelson, FWS 10:00 a.m. Break 10:15 a.m. VI. Reaction to Caucuses Reports 11:30 a.m. Lunch William Gordon Robert Jantzen 1:00 p.m. VII. Open Floor Discussion William Gordon 3:00 p.m. VIII. Summary and Conclusions Robert Jantzen 3:30 p.m. Adjourn Purpose of the Conference The purpose of the Conference was to provide a forum to discuss management of the Nation's fishery resources for the remainder of the 1980's, including current needs and priorities, and to map out strategies for State and Federal action* Ac knowl edg eroen t s Many people contributed to this effort. We would thank the Planning Group who organized the conference: like to Irwin M. Alperin, Jack H. Berryman, John T. Brown, U. J. Russell Fieldi Jerry C. Grover, Robert F. Hutton, Norris B. Jeffrey William P. Jensen Austin R. Mag ill , Anna J. Smith, Na Michael L. Smith, Willard M. Spauld Robert J. William Atlantic Internat Wildlife S. Fish a ng , U.S. U.S. Fish National , Nationa , Nationa National tional Ma U. S. Fi ing Jr . , s, Nation States Marine Fisheries Commission ional Association of Fish and Agenc ies nd Wildlife Service Fish and Wildlife Service and Wildlife Service Marine Fisheries Service 1 Marine Fisheries Service 1 Marine Fisheries Service Marine Fisheries Service rine Fisheries Service sh and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service al Marine Fisheries Service A special thanks should be given to the conference speakers, the caucus chairmen and moderators, and the conference participants, who made the conference a success. Special recognition should go to Senator James A. McClure, Senator Malcolm Wallop, and Congressman John B. Breaux. We would also like to acknowledge Paula Bess, Annie Brown, Anne Craig, Sarah Crews, Hope Farnsworth, Sylvia Herring, Kim Lambert, and Susan Shipley for their invaluable assistance throughout the planning for and convening of the conference, and the preparation of this conference report. Last, but not least, a special thanks is extended to Dr. Frank Cogdell and the Sport Fishing Institute for hosting the reception on Tuesday, June 4, 1985. William G. Gordoi Assistant Administrator for Fisheries National Marine Fisheries Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration amtzer/ J Robert A. J< Director *s U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 11 Fishery Resource Management for the Remainder of the 1980* s: Accommodating Change The State/Federal Partnership William G. Gordon Assistant Administrator for Fisheries National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Department of Commerce Washington, D.C. 1985 State Fish and Wildlife Directors Conference Washington, D.C. June 4, 1985 I appreciate the opportunity to be with you today. This meeting is unique in that it brings together representatives of the fish and wildlife agencies of the coastal and inland States, several island governments, and Indian Commissions to meet with their counterparts in the Federal Government — the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. Today I would like to offer some comments about the State/Federal partnership in fishery conservation and management, and to discuss circumstances which will likely lead to changes. The significance of our Nation's fisheries in many respects reflects the importance and influence of the State/Federal partnership in fishery conservation and management. In 1984, U.S. commercial harvests, including joint ventures, were 3.6 million metric tons (mmt) valued at $3.2 billion. The 1984 estimated value of domestic production of fishery products was $5.2 billion. Recreational fisheries are equally important. In 1980, the most recent year for which figures for both freshwater and marine angling are available, an estimated 54 million Americans fished. Put another way, almost one quarter of all Americans enjoy angling as a recreational pastime. This is not to mention the tremendous contribution of angling in terms of food and economic value. Per capita consumption of commercial fishery products was a record 13.6 pounds in 1984. In addition to consumption of commercially caught fish and shellfish, recreational fishermen catch and consume an estimated 3 to 4 pounds of edible meat per person. Thus, the total per capita consumption of fish and fish products in the United States during 1984 was approximately 17.6 pounds . 13 The State/Federal partnership in fishery conservation and management goes back a long way. State and Federal fishery managers have come to rely upon one another in terms of planning and management, data collection, research, enforcement, and a host of other activities associated with effective management of our fishery resources. This is particularly true with respect to interjurisdictional fisheries. The partnership, supported in part by Federal fishery grant-in-aid programs, reached new heights with the passage of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act. This legislation not only authorized increased funding for fishery management, but recognized the necessity of State/Federal cooperation in requiring that, to the extent practicable, fisheries should be managed as a unit throughout their range. The Magnuson Act also formalized the partnership through voting membership of State and Federal fishery managers on the Regional Fishery Management Councils, along with members of the commercial and recreational fishing industry, conservation and environmental groups, academia, and consumers. Much has been accomplished through the State/Federal partnership. We have dealt with biological problems affecting the fisheries and their habitats, social and economic problems affecting the fishermen and the industry, and we have even dealt with political problems associated with all of these. We have also learned a lot. Despite our impressive progress, there is even greater potential for our fisheries. It is estimated that current fishery resources in our Exclusive Economic Zone can support an annual harvest of about 8-9 mmt— more than twice the present yield. There is also potential for increased harvests in State waters, although most recreational and commercial harvesting already occurs there. Realizing this potential will require that we not only continue our State/Federal partnership, but that we seek innovative ways to strengthen it. Continuing our partnership, however, does not mean that it has to or will continue exactly the same as before. Indeed, I think we will see a number of changes. These changes will be necessitated mainly because of budget and fiscal considerations and the need to seek economy and efficiency in our fishery conservation and management activities. There can be no doubt in anyone's mind that our Federal budget is in serious trouble with a $1.6 trillion national debt and a $200 billion deficit for Fiscal Year 1984. State and local governments, by contrast, enter the second half of the decade in better financial health. President Reagan told the National Governors' Association that "there is simply no justification . . . for the Federal Government which is running a deficit to be borrowing money to be spent by State and local governments, some of which are now running surpluses." 14 The Governors of the 50 States acknowledge that the component parts of the Union are healthier than the whole. In the 1985 State of the States Report of the National Governors' Association, the Governors recognize that continuation of Federal deficits is unacceptable and seriously threatens the economic health of the United States and our role in the international economy. They recognize that the reduction of the Federal deficit will take much sacrifice and they are prepared to see the growth of Federal aid to State and local governments appropriately curtailed. However, the Governors believe that the Federal Government must play a continuing role in at least four critical areas. These relate to (1) income security for those unable to find work or to otherwise care for themselves; (2) at risk or special populations such as migrants, refugees, Indians, and, to some extent, minorities and the economically disadvantaged; (3) infrastructure, such as highways and bridges; and (4) environmental protection dealing with problems of clean air, clean water, and hazardous waste. Where do fisheries fit in the picture? We all have a role in lowering the burgeoning Federal deficit. Moreover, we should recognize that the continued economic health of the States is largely dependent upon the continuation of a strong national economy. The President's FY 1986 budget proposes to terminate Federal fishing industry development grants and grant-in-aid programs to the States. Although in the past Congress has restored these grants, I don't believe we should count on this to happen in the future. What will budget constraints do in terms of the State/Federal partnership in fishery conservation and management? Obviously, changes will occur in revenue sources to fund State fish and wildlife agency programs. A 1979 survey by the Wildlife Conservation Fund of America indicates that Federal payments comprised almost 18 percent of the total funding for these agencies. License fees accounted for 58 percent, general taxation 9 percent, interest income 1 percent. Other sources accounted for 14 percent. Of these percentages, the Federal share will almost surely decrease in the future as grant programs are reduced or terminated. However, this shouldn't necessarily be cause for pessimism since the States, in many respects, have more flexibility in generating revenue than does the Federal Government . For many years, fish and wildlife agencies financed from the sale of various license, permits, and stamps have been the backbone of natural resource programs in most States. Of all potential sources of revenue, the fee increase may offer the most 15 promising avenue for substantial increases in income in many cases. Recognizing that such increases might be difficult to accomplish for political reasons, the way in which fee increases are presented to buyers becomes important. For example, small annual increases meet less resistance than infrequent large increases . There are also gaps in the license system which could be filled. A case in point is the saltwater fishing license. Each of the 50 States obtains its principal operating revenue for inland fishery programs from a freshwater recreational fishing license, but only nine of the 23 coastal States benefit from any type of saltwater recreational fishing license, stamp, or permit. Although a saltwater fishing license has not been politically acceptable in most States, there is growing support for such a license. There are also some gaps with respect to commercial fishing licenses, landing and poundage fees. Moreover, at present foreign processors pay no poundage fees on the fish they purchase from U.S. fishermen through joint venture arrangements. The reliance on revenues from a State's general fund to finance fish and wildlife agencies varies from State to State. Most fish and wildlife agencies prefer independence from such financing for a number of reasons, but mainly because fish and wildlife often come out on the short end when competing with public welfare, education, and other programs. Nevertheless, support from the general fund for fish and wildlife remains an option to be explored more fully. Other sources of fish and wildlife agency funding have been tried with varying degrees of success by the States. These include interest on invested wildlife funds, tax check-offs, general sales taxes and other taxes, and sale of publications. Another source of State funding might be dedicated funds collected from payment of fines and penalties. In this regard, the Administration is proposing an amendment to the Magnuson Act which would authorize the use of sums received as fines, penalties or forfeitures of property for any violation of the Magnuson Act to be used to provide for temporary care of seized property and for rewards for information. Just as the States should consider alternate sources of funding to fill the Federal financial assistance gap, so should they be thinking in terms of possibly assuming some of the fishery management responsibilities now carried out by the Federal Government, along with the authority to generate funds to accomplish these activities. 16 As many of you are aware, the Administration is undertaking a comprehensive study of fishery management in the United States to assess the effectiveness of the current system of Federal fishery management and recommend organizational, regulatory, and legislative changes where needed. The study will look at accomplishments under the Magnuson Act and alternatives for managing different types of fisheries under different institutional arrangements. The purpose of the study is to find ways to reduce costs and regulatory burdens while improving the management of fishery resources. It may well be determined that the Federal Government is not the most efficient or effective institution to manage fisheries, even in Federal waters, and that this authority could be delegated to the States under an approved fishery management plan. Under this arrangement, revenues from fees and other sources, according to the plan, could accrue to the States for management and enforcement of that plan. This approach, of course, would reguire legislation. In some respects, I believe we are already heading in this direction. For example, the framework plan for king crab, developed by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, proposes to adopt State regulations and State laws for management of king crab in State waters and the Exclusive Economic Zone unless inconsistent with the principles of the Magnuson Act. Another possibility might be for the Federal Government to do more contracting with the States, the industry, and others to carry out some of the work now being done by the Federal Government. We will pursue contracting to the extent that funds are available to do so. I offer these only as examples to make the point that nothing we in the Federal Government are doing regarding fishery conservation and management is set in concrete or sacrosanct. If the States can do the job better and more efficiently, and are willing to do so, we are open to all suggestions for improvements. The President and the Administration are firmly committed to reduced Federal presence, giving more responsibility and authority to those who are more directly affected by and benefit from particular activities. This is not to say that the Federal Government is proposing to bail out of fishery conservation and management. It is to say that where others can accomplish these activities more efficiently and effectively, we are willing to support efforts in that direction. This is also true with respect to NOAA's activities relating to marine mammals and endangered species. 17 If we mean business about reducing the Federal deficit, the message is clear. State and Federal fishery managers must work even harder on our longstanding partnership in fishery conservation and management — to strengthen it where needed and, more important, to look for innovative ways of doing business more efficiently and effectively. I would also encourage State fishery directors to develop closer partnerships with the private sector and their sister agencies since fishing crosses many disciplines. One example is recreational fishing and tourism. The recreational fisherman as a tourist requires food, water, shelter, transportation, energy, weather reports, and other information. Even when fishing close to home, he experiences many of these needs. A number of industries and agencies have responsibilities related to fulfilling these needs. Any shortages or problems encountered in doing so could create changes in the demand for fishing and tour ism. In summary, I believe that there is a challenge. Can we as a group of professionals continue to provide quality fishing? More recent statistics furnished by the American Recreation Coalition point out that 63.7 million fishermen take up the sport, as opposed to 18.6 million hunters. I wonder if this is a trend when recreational fishing is now the third most popular activity in the United States. So it offers food for thought. Given that, and the rising per capita consumption, the feeling that seafood is healthy and should be eaten in larger quantities, can we as a group provide the American public with opportunities for recreation and for food? I know of no better place to begin considering these aspects than here today. We in the National Marine Fisheries Service pledge our support and we seek yours. 18 Fishery Resource Management for the Remainder of the 1980' s: Accommodating Change Priorities for the Future Mr. Robert A. Jantzen Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Department of the Interior Washington, D.C. 1985 State Fish and Wildlife Directors Conference Washington, D.C. June 4, 1985 Thank you ladies and gentlemen. About half of you I know personally and count as my friends. We are all in this business together. I hope that this room doesn't collapse because all the leading State administrators from throughout the country are here. It is quite a gathering. I would like to welcome you to the conference, and to Washington. It is unique. I have been in State Directors meetings before at the International Association, and it is commonplace to see all 50 State Directors doing their thing on a variety of issues, but this is unique in that we are really addressing fishery resources. It is the first time in my experience that this has happened. It is also unique in the fact that the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service, sister agencies, formerly in the same Department, and now in separate Departments, are co-hosting this. I think that it speaks well for the future of fishery resources. I would like to make the point that it is really your program that we are talking about. There certainly is a role for the Federal arm, but more importantly, there is and always will be that role for the States and the other political entities that have regulatory and management responsibilities under their domestic laws for the fishery resource. I would reiterate, this is your meeting. We need to get your feedback. You will see throughout the program that there is a process developed for that. We have a lot of issues, and Bill Gordon has developed a number of them. I will not try to plow that ground again. I would like to see the group address what you feel collectively, are the proper Federal, State, and tribal roles and responsibilities. All of us have been in this business long enough that we know that this is a gray area, and difficult to work through. Nevertheless, I think that we have made some headway, at least in the Fish and Wildlife Service, in attempting 19 to set those targets where we feel appropriately we should be operating. But those are targets and there are still those gray areas. Some of you may feel that our recent Statement on the Responsibilities and Role of the FWS Fishery Resources Program, an effort which took about two years of staff work and intra- departmental negotiation is, perhaps, ahead of this meeting and should more appropriately come after the meeting. I would like to reassure you that the results of this meeting are going to help us really harden and define what our future actions are going to be in the Fish and Wildlife Service. We need your input for this purpose. The priorities that you have and that we have, I think, have to be explored, and they have to be identified and put up on the table. That is the purpose of the caucuses and the reports back to the plenery sessions. Bill has mentioned the very real constraints that we have to pursue and work with, such as limited budgets. It is a fact of life. We are all familiar with this environment. It is nothing new, and I don't think that it should frighten us. There are things that are doable, and it is our job as administrators and resource managers to pick out those high priority things that should be done, and that we can do, and try to readjust our priorities if we have those limited budgets. Speaking of budgets, I would like to say with, I think, 95 percent surety, that the recent action in the House and the Senate, the colloguy that I have read that occurred on the floor of both of those chambers, says pretty strongly that we now have the issue of the Administration's proposal on Wallop-Breaux , the expansion of the Dingell-Jonnson program behind us. I think that the Congress has addressed it and has examined the proposal, and will not go along with the Administration's proposal. That will leave the legislation as it was passed last year. This means that we can look forward to very close to full funding. It is not one hundred percent sure because Congress has not completed its action, but all the signals we are getting, and I am sure those of you who have been following it have been getting, indicate to me that this will not be an issue that we are going to have to deal with in the future. It is kind of like the good news. I see the States getting a significant improvement very rapidly. That, perhaps, should help you in your discussions over the next couple of days. These are the remarks that I wanted to make. The one that I want to particularly emphasize is, welcome to this meeting. I think that it is a tremendous opportunity. Those of you that I know personally, I know will take advantage of that opportunity, and the others I am sure, will also. With that, I would like to conclude my remarks. Thank you very much . 20 Fishery Resource Management for the Remainder of the 1980 Bs: Accommodating Change Priorities for the Future Honorable James A. McClure Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources United States Senate 1985 State Fish and Wildlife Directors Conference Washington, D.C. June 4, 1985 Thank you very much, Bill. I appreciate the introduction. I wish that I could qualify as an avid fly fisherman, which means, if you are really avid, nothing else comes first, and obviously in my line of work something else comes first far too often, which is a sign of misplaced priority, not a sign of lack of interest. I am certain, for those of us who spend most of our time here in Washington and see those of you who spend as little time as possible here in Washington, our first duty is to issue you a warm welcome. I understand that the weather has been cooperating in that respect and you are warm enough. But you do have a reason to be here, and our welcome is warm, especially during National Fishing Week. I also wish to make a special welcome to my fellow Idahoans, Jerry Conley and David Hanson. Fishing is a special part of my life and always has been, and those of us from Idaho, particularly those of us in the public land states of the West, understand that recreation on those public lands is our way of life. It is the value and the quality that makes something different out of living there, and a matter of not just personal involvement, but a matter of total involvement of all of us who live in those states. It is not a change from daily pressure, as it is for many people, it is a part of our life. The fishing trips that I have been a part of go back through all of my life and through the memories of my parents and grandparents back a while longer than that, because it has been a part of the way of life of most Americans throughout the history of this country and still is for many millions of Americans. I had one memorable trip last year, it was all too brief, but I lured another Washing tonian -- another temporary resident of Washington — to Idaho for a fishing trip. I was able to take this gentleman for a trip, very brief, down the Middle Fork of 21 the Salmon River, and I am pleased to report he caught fish. That man was George Bush, the Vice President of the United States. Of course, I have to be quick to say that he didn't catch the first one or the largest one, but he did catch fish. I am not here to tell you fishing stories. Everyone of you can do a better job with some whoppers than I can. I very much appreciate the opportunity to talk to you for a few minutes about the prospects, present and future, for Federal fishing enhancement programs. First, let me say how pleased I am to be appearing before this group, because collectively you manage our nation's fishery resources. It is a star studded cast. The Federal Government plays a supporting role, but you people are the stars in this show. You are the people who are on the scene, managing the resource, and I hope that we always remember at the Washington level that ours is that, a role of support for the actions taken by the state agencies. Your efforts in the past have been visionary, and they have needed to be. The pressures of growing and a more complex society, industrial and post-industrial societies, put immense pressures on natural resources, and fishery resources are no exception, and perhaps show the signs of it as strongly as any other pressure in our society. It is not just past visionary leadership that we need, it is present and future leadership that is required, because there is nothing that we have done so well that doesn't have to be done again, and guarded and protected. Now on to the good news and the bad news. The good news is the expansion of the Dingell-Johnson funding of the Wallop-Breaux Fund last year. Through the expansion of the Federal excise tax and through the use of Federal motorboat fuel taxes, the amount of money available through grants to the states, to enhance fisheries, has climbed at least 200 percent. More good news is that an attack on this fund was repulsed in both the House and in the Senate this year through the efforts of my good friend Senator Wallop, and John Breaux in the House of Representatives, and a very active group of Americans called the American League of Anglers and Boaters. It was tragic in my view that OMB selected the Wallop-Breaux Fund as one of the areas for challenge in the first place. But you have to recognize that with a $200 billion deficit, the pressure to look everywhere within the budget is overwhelming. If your responsibility is singularly that of OMB, perhaps you can be forgiven the efforts to find money wherever it can be found in an effort to reduce the size of that Federal deficit. 22 The user fee nature of the fund was, however, in my view, overlooked by OMB when they looked there in the first place. First in the Senate, and then in the House, in the budget resolutions we have taken positive steps to provide for the Wallop-Breaux Fund to go unchanged -- that is not final action, that is initial action -- returning the boating and fishing user fees automatically and permanently -- I want to stress that, automatically and permanently. I know Jerry Conley is used to this, and I am sure that many of you are, many of the fees generated at the State level go to the funds you manage automatically and permanently, and the State legislature only has oversight over the use of the funds in retrospect in many regards. It gives you a unique opportunity for independence of action, not without the oversight of the legislative branch, certainly, which is their responsibility, as well as their right, and they will exercise that, and the same is true in the Congress . What we have done this year is a very unique thing in saying that the Wallop-Breaux funds do not need to go through the appropriations process on an annual basis, and we will make that action final, and not tentative as we have done in the budget resolution. You will have something different in the Wallop- Breaux funds than is the case with most of the funds that flow through the Federal Treasury. I want to emphasize two aspects of that. One, its uniqueness which sets it aside, which is a measure of the support which your activities have in the Congress of the United States. Secondly, to caution you, although it is unique and it bypasses the ordinary appropriations process, it doesn't take it completely outside of the purview of the appropr iators or the authorizing committees in the Congress of the United States. Now the bad news. While the Senate budget resolution supporting full funding for Wallop-Breaux was being passed, it also contained in that same resolution an 8 percent spending cut in domestic programs of all types. If that percentage is spread evenly — I want to emphasize, if it is spread evenly -- here is what it means to the natural resources program budgets under my subcommittee's jurisdiction, just under my subcommittee, a $750 million decrease in spending next year from this year's spending. Ladies and gentlemen, that kind of cut won't be easy, and it has some clear implications for you. Again, I want to emphasize, if it is spread evenly, because we certainly have the opportunity to make decisions, not just mine, but that of the entire subcommittee, and that of the full committee, then that of the full Senate, then that in consultation with and in conference with the House of Representatives. So it might be more or less than that 8 percent, or that $750 million figure. 23 First, Wallop-Breaux is an exception to the overall trend, and the very fact that it is an exception to the trend means that it is going to have more attention. Will that mean that it gets by because it is an exception, or does that make it a target because it is an exception? I think your work and mine is to make certain that we don't allow it to become such an exception that it is pulled out of that category of direct and permanent transfer of funds. That means that you have a job to do, as do our allies in Congress. Your job is in public acceptance, creating the kind of political climate in which we can maintain the exception which has already been placed there for Wallop-Breaux, a public acceptance that says, we, the users, are paying directly into fees for a specific purpose, which in my judgment justifies the exception that has been made. The second caution: don't expect any more new money from Washington. We don't have it. With a $200 billion deficit, we are borrowing money for existing programs even at the reduced levels. I don't have to emphasize what that means in terms of the national debt, or the pressure upon the regrowth of our economy, or the pressure upon our ability to maintain discretionary funds, and a whole host of different areas. The discretionary funds are in direct competition with every other expenditure of government, from food stamps and welfare programs on one end of the scale, to the defense spending at the other end of the scale. That means that there will continue to be intense pressure for the availability of those funds and for their priorities in the appropriating process. In short, you need to look to the people who are the beneficiaries of your programs for the political support that will be necessary if they are going to survive. I am not talking just special interest politics, I am talking about the people who pay into the Wallop-Breaux and who are the beneficiaries of non- dedicated funds in the appropriations process. You need to demonstrate to them that what you are doing, every dollar you spend, what you are doing is important to them in ways that justifies their stepping forward and saying to their representatives and to their senators: Maintain the expenditure in that fund at appropriate levels. This is not just to recreational users, but it also includes the commercial users of the services which you provide, the beneficiaries of the expenditures through your programs as they relate to the people that you and I jointly represent. Satisfy their wants. Show them creatively and productively in your efforts and what it is that you do that enhances the values which are important to them. Seek their counsel. Respond to their complaints . 24 Look at your own programs closely, be sure you are not being too liberal in your fishing license exemptions, for example. Look at the innovative funding sources, too, because you have to look at your income line, aside from what it is that we are doing . Think of your budget, if you will, as an election. You need to persuade more people to vote for you by buying fishing licenses, by buying equipment, by buying access where appropriate to state lands and waters and facilities. If you succeed in that contest, if you succeed in persuading the majority of the people who use your services and whose lives are enhanced by your operations, then I think you will have won a constituency which will do you and the nation much good. I can also tell you how much assistance it will be to us in our efforts to do the same. Thank you very much. 25 Fishery Resource Management for the Remainder of the 1980s: Accommodating change Priorities for the Future Perspective from the Legislative Branch Honorable John B. Breaux Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment United States House of Representatives 1985 State Fish and Wildlife Directors Conference Washington, D.C. June 4, 1985 Thank you very much Bob. Good morning to everyone, Senator McClure. Ladies and gentlemen, and distinguised guests, it is my pleasure to be with all of you. I appreciate the very kind and generous words of Bob Jantzen. He and I have been really good friends. I thought that if he would say anything about my hunting and fishing exploits, I would talk about him--but he didn't say anything. So I will go ahead and talk about him anyway. I have traveled the country, and even other ports, with Bob Jantzen. I think that we can all be very proud of the service that he has given to the Fish and Wildlife Service here in Washington. You know, it is one thing to have a person who can read a book, or write a book and teach a class, but it is really another to have someone who is one of you elevated to a position of authority, because he exercises that authority with a background and understanding that he was once where all of you are as far as being a State Director, and someone who really knows that we have to work together to make the system work. We have hunted in many places together, and I have thoroughly enjoyed all of those experiences. I still cannot understand how, when you go to the Eastern Shore in January, hunting geese, everybody is sitting around the fireplace and bundling up to sleep at night, and Bob Jantzen goes out on the porch and sleeps in his sleeping bag. That is what this guy does. It shows you that he has a real affinity for the outdoors. He is a person I have certainly enjoyed working with and sharing experiences with. I congratulate all of you for meeting together. As I understand the title of this, it is: Fishery Resource Management for the Remainder of the 1980s: Accommodating Change. I would like to think that I bring a management philosophy to the subcommittee which I have the privilege of chairing. I am not a protectionist. I think the management philosophy is the correct philosophy. No one can have it all the particular way that they would like to see things occur. There are a lot of gray areas in 27 the management philosophy. There is a lot of balancing of the various competing interests. I know that Jim McClure faces the same conflicts when people come up and say that they don't want any of one species taken at all, and others would come and say that they want no regulation, and let society take as many of a particular species as they would like to see taken. Somewhere in-between, I think, is the correct answer, and that is where you ladies and gentlemen come in, as people who are involved in the day-to-day activities of management of the resources that we are all trying to conserve and rebuild. Wallop-Breaux was mentioned. Let me start off by saying, the check is in the mail, but don't go out and spend it yet. We have worked together on this as a cooperative effort. Some have asked me why is Wallop's name first, and Breaux second since Breaux starts with a "b" and comes before Wallop. I can only say that we checked all of the legislative history as to how the program would be named, and then we flipped a nickel. Malcolm Wallop's name came up, so it is the Wallop-Breaux program, instead of the Breaux-Wallop program. It is a program that I think is good. It is solid. It is based on the user concept where the user pays, which this Administration is very supportive of, and I am very supportive of. I think, quite frankly, the sportsmen and women of this country are very supportive of this concept. They are very supportive of it as long as they know that the money they are going to pay is going to be spent for the program that somebody in Washington told them that it was going to be used for. I would not want to face a group of 20,000 sportsmen and tell them that the money they are paying as an increase in the fee for tackle, lures, bait, and other items for fishing, something happened on the way to the forum, and we are really going to use it to buy ashtrays, toilet seats, or anything else. I don't think that I would get out of the room alive, and I don't think that you would either. I think what we have to do is to live up to that commitment, and that is what we are involved in right now. Many people were involved in this from the private sector. Gil Radonski , Carl Sullivan, who I just saw here, Mike Sciulla, and many, many others were very actively involved in putting this together, and now we are in the process of defending it. I am glad that Jim McClure is here. We had a colloquy on the House floor with the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, and we had a clear agreement that the House budget resolution protects the Wallop-Breaux program, and makes it clear that there will be no change in the automatic appropriation and the funding. That is the key thing to us. 28 It is one thing to raise the money, but if we have to compete with the Defense Department, and the health programs and the highway programs, and all of the other myriad programs that are run by the Federal Government, we will lose it, I think, because they have more constituents than we have. So it is very important that we retain the direct appropriation funding. It is a user fee, and it should be used for the purpose for which it was sold. I think the House Budget process includes specific language that appropriate funding will be protected, and the money will, in fact, be spent for the purpose in which it was instituted. The Senate has agreed with that, and the conference will come out with a very clear signal. The Director of the Office of Management and Budget, I think merely did not understand the program as much as he should have. We are trying to educate him in that regard as to how the money should be spent, and I think that he is going to be willing to accept the direction of the Congress. He has no choice in that regard. If the program continues, the good news is that in the last 5 years of this decade, over a half million dollars will go to the States for projects that will benefit recreational fishing. As you know, we expanded the program to also include saltwater fishing, as well as freshwater fishing. I think that the money can make a real difference. There is no question that each State that we have surveyed could use additional funds. It is in the national interest. It is a legitimate national goal to provide cleaner water, better fishing opportunities, and better support activities for the 50 million- plus Americans who enjoy the sport of fishing. After all, they are in fact paying for it. We are only serving as a collection agency to try and distribute the money fairly to the States. So we are going to watch very carefully to make sure that nothing is done to take away from the program, from what we had intended both in the House and in the Senate. Hatchery programs are a very controversial subject, one that I think can be vastly improved in the way that the Federal Government is involved in the hatchery programs. I introduced legislation in the last Congress which would have proposed a National Fish Hatchery System to try and set some national standards, some national criteria for how the programs ought to be operated. 29 I am really concerned when national policy is based on who gets on the Appropriations Committee, in which district the hatchery happens to lie, and whether he is on the right subcommittee, or whether he is on the Fish and Wildlife Subcommittee, or whether that person happens to sit on the Appropriations Committee. That is the way national politics should be run, but it is not the way that national policy should be run. Heaven help me, but here is guy from Louisiana who is trying to take politics out of the hatchery business. However, my staff and I believe that is the correct thing to do. So we have embarked on a program to establish a national fish hatchery program that sets out some national policy and some national cirteria as to how these hatcheries and the money that will fund the hatchery should be divvied out. Last year, we introduced a bill for discussion purposes, and we did have some discussion. Most Members of Congress who had hatcheries in their district started discussing the program quite loudly. We have been involved in additional discussions this year, with an eye toward re- introducing the bill. Under the bill that we have, which is now about ready for introduction, the Federal Government would have hatchery responsibility in six major areas. The first area would be for mitigation purposes, for impact of Federal water projects. If there is a water project that is damaging a fishery resource, then there can be established clearly a national reason for putting national funds into a fish hatchery program. The second area would be for the restoration of fish stocks of national importance, which is self-explanatory. The third would be for stocking waters that are located on Federal lands. The fourth would be support for Treaty and Indian trust responsibilities, and all of you, I am sure, are aware of those obligations. The fifth would be responsibility for research and development to fish culture. Finally, a Federal purpose would be for the recovery of an endangered species which that hatchery would be involved in. Currently operating hatcheries would not be closed, but would be phased in to meet these objectives. I am not interested in closing hatcheries, far from it, but I am interested in having the hatcheries meet a national obligation which can justify a national expenditure of funds. I know that hatcheries currently exist for this purpose, but I think that it is inappropriate for a Federal facility to exist merely to stock private streams, or private lakes, or other private waters of an individual who happens to know the right people back in the State. That is not a legitimate Federal expenditure of funds. We are trying to establish national criteria and say all right, we will keep the money coming if we can show that it is a Federal responsibility in these areas. 30 An important feature of the bill would be funding by water project beneficiaries of their fair share of fishery mitigation expenses. Under our proposal, the Federal Government would simply fund mitigation hatcheries through the Fish and Wildlife Service budget, and the project beneficiaries would repay their share of cost to the Treasury, i.e., if you have a water project that is going to dam up a stream or cause some loss of fishery resources, then a fish hatchery in that area may be appropriate. But the people who are going to benefit from the project, the water or power users, are going to have to contribute to the mitigation necessary to restore the fish. I know that some people, of course, do not share my feelings with regard to the appropriate Federal responsibility. Some would like to continue to see the program operate as it is operating currently. I am really concerned, however, that if no fish hatchery legislation is enacted by the Congress that the alternative is going to be the status quo under which the Administration can attempt to operate Federal hatcheries for whatever purpose they see fit. I am concerned that as the budget crunch continues, we are really going to see a continued effort to just get out of the hatchery business completely. What I am saying to all of you is, we had better change some of the standards and change some of the purposes, otherwise we run the risk of losing them all. It is a subtle message, but I think that it should be very clear. If we can't change, we may lose the whole operation. So I think that it is appropriate to change and keep our operations working for a true national purpose. The third subject I would like to mention is wetlands. All of you know the words and the phrases and the problems that we are having with wetland loss, and I think that it is time that we start looking for a solution. We have analyzed the problems. We know what the problems are. My own State of Louisiana is now, according to the statistics that I have seen, losing about 50 square miles each year. If that continues, my entire congressional district will be in Chicago. So we would like to try to do something that would correct that, and that is what we are embarking upon this year . My staff tells me that just in Louisiana, if we calculate that 50 square mile loss each year, we lose an acre of wetlands, every 16 minutes, and I guess it means that during this speech, we will have lost an acre of wetlands in my home State. So we really ought to run down there and do something, and that is what we are trying to do up here. The problem has been attacked, of course, in a variety of ways over the years. I think the most visible way of handling it 31 so far has been the Corps of Engineers and the Section 404 dredge and fill permitting process. This program originally was not a management tool, and no one can ever tell me that, because I was here when we first got involved and so was Jim, and no one in Congress ever sat down and did the Clean Water Act in 1972 and came up with Section 404 and said: This is going to be a wetlands management tool. The courts have directed that it is going to be handled as such. Organizations, agencies of government, have said that this is a management program, but it was never intended to be a management tool. It was simply a dredge and fill permit. If you are going to dredge, you are going to get a permit. If you are going to fill an area, you are going to get a permit. Actually, it is only for filling activities. If you are just dredging and carting off the dredged material somewhere else, you don't have to get a permit, if you can imagine that. I had a group down in south Louisiana, in an area where we hunt a lot, that was dredging out the wetlands, and they were picking up the rotted moss and soil, and everything else, which made a great fertilizer. They were coming in with draglines and scooping it up, and putting it in a truck, and hauling it off to California to some flower gardens. They were selling it out there at a very great price. I got very disturbed about it because they were doing it right next to the blind that we were hunting in. They would start at about dawn and scare all of the ducks away. I called up the Corps and I said: This is outrageous. They agreed that it was in fact outrageous. But, lo and behold, I found out that since they were only dredging, they did not need a 404 permit, because they were not depositing the fill material anywhere. Can you imagine that, they were stealing my whole State right in front of my eyes, and they told me that there was nothing that we could do about it. That is a little idiosyncrasy in the permit process. As long as they were not depositing it anywhere in Louisiana, they were free to pick it up and haul it off in a truck, and send it to another State and sell part of Louisiana for whatever purpose. It is a little distasteful to think that they were selling my State for fertilizer. What we have done is to establish the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act, which I introduced last year. It actually passed the House of Representatives last year, but a little North Carolina problem got attached to it, and as a result the Senate, in their wisdom, did not accept our bill. We didn't have time to come back and do it again. We have reintroduced, I would point out to everybody, the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act. It does not have anything to do with North Carolina this year, but represents rather an effort to attack the problem nationally. It authorizes up to $75 32 million each year from the Land and Water Conservation Fund to be used for two purposes: wetland conservation, and for State matching grants for wetlands protection of up to $50 million a year. The bill also provides increases for the price of the duck stamp from $7.50 up to $15 spread out over a 5-year period. We gradually increase it each year up until in 5 years it reaches $15. I polled my State very carefully on this issue, not wanting to get all of the duck hunters in my area really outraged at me for raising the price of the duck stamp, and I found that almost 90 percent of the people in Louisiana, at least, who buy duck stamps are willing to have it increased if they know, in fact, that it is going to be used for the purpose of protecting wetlands and providing additional waterfowl habitat for the increase of duck production. They have no problem with that, but they want to be sure that that is what it is used for. Don't rip it off and put it in some other operational fund. So they support it, and I think that they do nationally, if they know that it is going to be used for the particular purpose. That is what the program would do, and I think that it is a step in the right direction. But I want all of you to know, as I know that you already realize, that acquisition is not the only answer to wetland loss. You just can't go buy it up and build a fence around it. That is not sufficient. Federal and State governments cannot simply acquire all of the remaining wetlands, the project would be monumental. However, I think we can help restore it. The Corps of Engineers, clearly, I think, has outstanding capabilities if they are properly channeled, pardon the pun on that, but they could provide substantial wetlands benefits through their operations. I want to know how Congress can best facilitate a cooperative approach between the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the States, and the Corps, and implement some innovative wetlands restoration projects . We will be having hearings this year to try and find out — we can provide the money, folks, but how can we best use it? How can we best target the problem? That will be the subject of our hearings . Another subject is commercial fisheries. I don't have to tell you, but last year the value of commercial fish landings in the United States was about $2.5 billion. Nationwide, 70 percent of these landings involve species which depend very directly on wetland habitat. Without the wetlands and the habitat and environment they provide, much of the $2.5 billion would be nonexistent. 33 I know that in the Gulf Region, the figure rises to over 90 percent of the resources that we have being dependent on the salt marsh nursery ground in Louisiana. I really shudder to think how much of a loss will mean in terms of fish that would be landed if we continue to lose an acre of wetlands every 16 minutes. It would have a direct negative effect on the fishery resources. We have reauthorized, or are in the process of reauthorizing the Fishery Conservation and Management Act, which includes provisions, for the first time, that I think are important and which would substantially strengthen the role of the Management Councils in habitat protection and management. First, the bill will require, for the very first time, that all future and existing fishery management plans contain a section in them which documents the significance of habitat for the protection of the species managed by that particular plan. If you have a management plan, all right, tell us something about how important the habitat is in order to preserve the shrimp resource. This will facilitate the role of the National Marine Fisheries Service in evaluating habitat alteration permits issued by the Corps. It will give the National Marine Fisheries Service information so that when they have an application for that 404 permit, they will be able to say, "All right, let me see how valuable this habitat is?" in order to do the balancing act that they must do according to the law. The bill also will provide for the Regional Councils to file formal comments on the actions of any State or Federal agency which impact fishery production, and will require any Federal agency to formally respond in writing to the Council within 45 days . If you have a Corps of Engineers permit application that could possibly affect the fishery resources off of New England, or off of the Gulf, or off of Alaska, or off that great fishing State of Idaho--I was checking to see if you all were awake. If it does impact, or has the potential to impact fisheries by building a dam or re-regulating a stream, or in fact building a control structure for some reason, we want to hear from the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Councils to see whether that, in fact, is something that can be handled and can be properly balanced. I think that that is important. Congressman Doug Bosco was instrumental in some of these habitat amendments to the Fishery Conservation and Management Act. I will tell you, just as a sideline, I spent this week down in Louisiana doing a number of things, but one of things that we did do was to meet with the Japanese, whom I had invited to Louisiana. I told them that if they didn't come, they would not be welcome to fish in U.S. waters anywhere. They thought that my invitation was very acceptable, and they came down to the Gulf. Lo and behold, they sent a research vessel down and, Bill, the 34 result is that they are catching somewhere between three and four thousand pounds of butterfish an hour, which has not really been caught before. The R. V. Chapman that we brought down to the Gulf was making tows of up to 20,000 pounds per hour, and this is a previously underutilized species in the Gulf. I think that it offers some real potential for a new additional fish product for export purposes. The last subject on which I would like to comment is the issue of funding with regard to the States and the Federal Government. I don't have to tell all of you resource managers that managing production of resources is only half of the issue. Effective management of commercial and recreational harvests is also a fundamental role of the States in cooperation with the Federal Government. A major source of Federal funds for the States in this area, of course, is the National Marine Fisheries Service. We have a budget deficit of immense proportions, that is the key issue in Washington now. We are all trying to find ways to reduce Federal expenditures and to balance the budget. I think that we are making progress in that. The Senate and the House, both, have produced budgets that reduce the Federal budget by $56 billion. We do it in slightly different ways, but I think that both the Senate and the House are on the right track, and hopefully we can move in that direction. That is going to affect your operations, and it will affect the budget of the National Marine Fisheries Service. Programs must be defensible from a substantive standpoint, and no longer just politically. The most defensible programs and those which will survive the scrutiny are those which directly support the objectives of the Federal fishery policy to achieve, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from our resources in fisheries . I think that this policy translates into two priorities. First, research programs which are in direct support of your management activities, and the management activities of the Councils and others. Second, the policy translates into a priority for programs which actually implement the management pol icy. Our budget recommendations this year, I think, strongly reflect this perspective. Collectively 84 percent of our subcommittee recommendations for appropriations fall into this area. Our budget proposal also includes recommendations for strong support of the various State grant programs to the extent that they are consistent with the overall Federal responsibilities and priorities. 35 I have one program, the Commercial Fisheries Research and Development Act, that will require, I think, some modest realignment that is proposed in the legislation that we have right now, which is H.R. 1028, which we have entitled "Interjurisdictional Fisheries Research Act." We currently, I think, have excellent mechanisms to manage fisheries on the State and Federal levels, but the success really hinges entirely on the quality of the research data to support the management decisions. We cannot make good management decisions without good research and good information. H.R. 1028 would focus the State's efforts entirely on the legitimate research in direct support of fishery management. It would propose interstate and State/Federal management consistency and it would limit projects to species of an interjurisdictional nature because of their preeminence in interstate and State/Federal management problems. While I think many have spoken of the relatively minor changes, and expressed some concern about the effect on each of your States for your individual PL 88-309 programs as a result of the bill, I think that very few of you would argue as to the real legitimacy of the objectives of this legislation from a national standpoint . In the 20 years since PL 88-309 was enacted, a lot has changed, and I would suggest now that a small investment in a few legislative changes would secure this program for yet another 20 years. Unless we make some changes, again, I am really concerned that we have a danger of losing the program entirely. These are some of the things that we are going to be involved in on the House side. I know we have good support over in the Senate. Hopefully, we can work together for the improvement of fisheries, not only in 1985 and 1986, but for the rest of this decade. Thank you very much. 36 Fishery Resource Management for the Remainder of the 1980*s: Accommodating Change Priorities for the Future Perspective from the Executive Branch Honorable Donald Paul Hodel Secretary Department of the Interior Washington, D.C. 1985 State Fish and Wildlife Directors Conference Washington, D.C. June 4, 1985 I didn't hear that introduction, I was busy discussing some matters of joint interest with the Congressman from Louisiana. I couldn't help but hear, during the course of your presentation, Congressman, that every time you speak for 16 minutes, the State of Louisiana loses an acre of ground. It seems to me that there is a simple solution to that--but I have not been able to figure out what it is yet. When I come up with it, I will pass it on. I very much enjoyed my association with both prior speakers here this morning. They are both well known to this group, of course. Certainly, Senator McClure is the Chairman not only of the authorizing committee before which the Department of the Interior goes for most of its activities, but also of the Appropriation Committee. He literally has me coming and going. It just doesn't do me any good at all to go up and tell the Chairman of the committee that I have a problem with the Chairman of the authorizing committee, he just looks right at me when I say that. I have tried, as I have said many times, to keep a low profile in the jobs I have had in this Government. Yesterday, I had an experience which told me that I was still succeeding in my new assignment. I went to give a talk to the Conservation Roundtable at the National Press Club building. I came in and I was greeted by somebody from the Roundtable. We went over, and here was an elevator that was being held, and they took me into the elevator. As I got on the elevator, one of the fellows holding it said, "Are you Mr. Rabin?" Whereupon, we got off the elevator -- We got on a regular elevator, rode up to the fifth floor. The meeting was being held on the 13th floor, and we rode up to the fifth floor where the elevator simply refused to proceed. We jettisoned a number of people along the way, and it still wouldn't go. Finally, we got off and walked to the 13th floor. Am I glad that I didn't have to make a speech when I got to the 13th floor because I could not have spoken for a while. 37 I have still managed to keep the low profile at the Department of the Interior, and I hope it continues. It is really a pleasure for me to be with you this morning. I think I have had the opportunity to meet with quite a number of you in the time that I have been at the Department, this tour of duty, and previously as well. It has been a very eventful year for me and for the Department of the Interior. Fish and wildlife resource issues have, in fact, occupied a fair amount of my time. It reflects not only such pressing concerns as the selenium problems at the Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge, but also how we as a Nation attach increasing more importance to issues relating to our natural resource base, and particularly our renewable resource base . In these past months, I have been very encouraged by the spirit of cooperation that we have seen among the State resource administrators. We have not always agreed on all topics, but the willingness to talk and to work toward achieving common goals is indeed heartening. I brought with me to the Department of the Interior one overriding objective and that was to try to build a national consensus on the broad policy matters that are within the jurisdiction of the Department. I believe the Nation is best served by consultation, consensus, and accord on these kinds of issues. Certainly on natural resource issues, that is true. I think that it is what the American people want. The Nation is not well served by impasse on those issues. It is not well served by confrontation. Certainly I recognize that there will be conflicts, and there are going to be controversies surrounding individual decisions and actions on peripheral issues. That is the very nature of the Department of the Interior. At the same time, I want to try to work closely with all of the interested parties in establishing broad national policies that are right for America and the American people. As you can imagine, building a consensus on the myriad of natural resource issues is not an easy task. I am sure tht all of you have tried it in given categories in which you are responsible. The responsibilities of the Secretary of the Interior are clearly conflicting on several issues. The President gave me five charges when I met with him before becoming the Secretary of the Interior. The first was preserving the Nation's national parks, wilderness, and wildlife resources. The second was enhancing America's ability to meet our energy and minerals requirements from domestic resources, and right in those two there is all the opportunity for conflict you would ever want. 38 Then he said I need to be concerned about increasing the supply of quality water resources which to me is broad enough to encompass water for fish and wildlife purposes. The fourth was to improve the Federal relationship with the State and local governments, something that we have been trying to do for the last four years, and I think with some success. Finally, developing the economic social resources of American Indians, Native Americans, and the people of the U.S. Territories. As I said, built into those charges are all the inherent conflicts and confrontations you could ever hope to have. I understand and appreciate that you, who are resource managers and administrators, have had to confront these same difficulties. I think that we have much in common in this area. I don't share your experience in fishery matters, but I can in fact, relate readily to your management responsibilities. I also have to deal with a governing board, commissions, legislators, the Congress, the press, and, most important of all, the public. I sometimes say that we have a 535 member board of directors, which is split, and is not necessarily always seeking to make the organization look good. For some of you who have experienced that in your careers, you know what that can be like, and it goes on forever. Perhaps one of the most difficult responsibilities that we have as managers is to develop stable, sensible budgets for effective long-term resource programs while we are in the midst of very serious budget deficit problems. Certainly, Congressman Breaux referred to that. There are ways to go at that which are being pursued, as we all know, aggressively, some by allocating and earmarking funds. As you can anticipate, the budget makers in the Federal system will resist as much of that as possible because they are seeking every way they can, and quite rightly, to minimize the size of that deficit. The pressure is on substantially. When I arrived at the Department in February of this year, almost the day I walked in, the budget that had been prepared was ready to be launched and to be defended. Secretary Clark, and the people that he worked with, and the Office of Management and Budget had put together a very comprehensive, and I think, basically, a sound budget. There are some things in there that obviously are not going to survive the test of time on the Hill, but I think we knew that when we submitted it. In some ways, a budget submission is a little bit like a negotiation. You don't expect your first offer to be accepted, and you know that it won't be, but you know that if you go in with a figure that is as high as the fellow on the other side of the table is asking for, you are definitely going to come out with a budget that you are comfortable with. 39 One of the areas that has been of real concern to your constituency, and I am sure to many of you, has been our proposal with regard to the Wallop-Breaux funding. As you know, what we proposed in our budget was that $77 million, which was acquired by the funds for motorboat and luxury boat import taxes, would not be allocated and distributed. It would go into the fund, but it would not be allocated and distributed. What we were looking at meant that the funding this year for Dingell-Johnson was $38 million. We were proposing that the increase in the new tax that was imposed would result in $6 million and that should be added, so you would have a $44 million contribution to Dingell-Johnson. We were proposing that the $77 million from previously collected motorboat and luxury boat taxes not be taken out of the general fund of the Treasury, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and put specifically into Dingell- Johnson. That was our proposal. I was challenged by a number of intense questioners on committees on this subject. One in particular said, "Do you know what the law is if you refused to spend the money that Congress has appropriated?" I said, "Yes, I do." But I was not proposing that what we would do is not spend money if Congress appropriated it. I need to make that clear. We were raising to the congressional attention the fact that at a time when worthwhile, important, significant projects were being cut, and cut to the bone, and in some cases eliminated or proposed for elimination, to look across the Federal budget and find one account, this account, in which there was an over 200 percent increase, I thought was to draw attention to the fact that maybe somebody was going to challenge the priorities later. I think that this is something that you need to continue to be concerned about. It may look good right up to the last minute, but I can assure you that the long knives of the budget sensitive people will be looking for egregious examples of misappropriated or misapplied priorities. I am very concerned that we may lose part of the baby with the bathwater when that long knife comes out in the final days of the budget process. It may not happen, in which case, let me assure you, whatever the Congress appropriates, we intend to spend. We do intend to carry out the assignment given to us by the Congress in those laws, which, when signed by the President, become the law of the land. I just thought that it was important to emphasize that this is where we were coming from. It was not hostility to the program, but it is hostility to an enormous budget increase to a category at a time when we are cutting Indian health activities, schooling, and a whole host of other social programs and welfare programs which are of great concern to people. 40 This is very much a matter that is going to be decided by the Congress of the United States. The Administration has done its thing. I think that what we are going to see is that the House has already indicated that it is going to maintain the permanent appropriation, and certainly a majority of the Senate has already signed up in opposition to what we proposed. This is very academic, but I thought that it was worth at least mentioning one last time. I know that budget issues are overriding in the minds of many people at the present time. Certainly it is very much on our minds because we find ourselves, across the board, faced with very difficult management choices. These tough fiscal times, however, sometimes help us become better managers. We are certainly identifying long-term opportunities this way. Our budgets may not be ideal, and we would opt for more, but when has that not been different? My experience in the Federal Government, at least, has been that at the very best, we have been on a 2-year cycle, one good, one lean, one good, one lean year. I think we can say that this is one lean and one leaner, but it is basically the same kind of concept. It is tough, but it has always been tough. I think there is an opportunity to be creative and seek options which are going to meet the resource need that we are concerned about. The work never goes away for us. In sticking to the task, I think we have the opportunity to make some real contributions, and I think to lay a foundation from which, when we get the budget deficits under control, we have a better opportunity with a properly laid foundation to move forward. We have a couple of excellent examples of things that have been happening that are beneficial in the fishery management area. The passage of the U.S. -Canada Salmon Interception Treaty, and the signing of an agreement that promises to resolve many of the long-standing Great Lakes fishery disputes. Both the Treaty and the Great Lakes agreement were the results of nearly 15 years of negotiations. Therefore, it is obvious that no single Secretary or Director of Fish and Wildlife Service, or Assistant Secretary, or anybody else can take credit for it. It is obviously something that has been on the minds of a lot of people for a long time, and it is a pleasure to see these things finally come to fruition. Another area that was talked about by John Breaux is the dwindling wetland resources. We think we have been working together in trying to resolve many of the problems. The jury is still out on how successful we are going to be, but we all know the importance of the message that we are trying to convey. The wetlands of this Nation are key to the future survival and well- being of our international waterfowl resources. 41 As you know, Bob Jantzen is accelerating the Fish and Wildlife Service's efforts to counter serious waterfowl declines through a number of far-reaching programs — wetlands preservation, reevaluation of harvest regulations, reduced bag limits, and seasons on several declining species, and stepped-up research and management aimed at increasing waterfowl production on Fish and Wildlife Service lands. Bob sees this as a vital issue for wildlife professionals, and so do I. In fact, if Bob does, so do I. One additional waterfowl program which deserves mention is the non-toxic shot implementation. Special credit, I think, must go to Under Secretary Ann McLaughlen for her dedicated efforts to move this program forward. I think that these efforts will pay off, not only because of Bob's and Ann's commitment to the task at hand, but through the support and efforts of groups and individuals such as yourselves, and with the cooperation of private industry and private individuals as well. My optimism is based on the concrete evidence that a creative mix of public and private interests can accomplish together what neither can do alone. This has proved to be the case again and again in the evolution of this country's wildlife conservation programs. It was very encouraging, last year, as we celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Federal Duck Stamp Program to see how private corporations and conservation groups stepped forward together to make meaningful contributions to waterfowl and wetland protection. That team work, the team work that has marked the duck stamp initiatives, and the spirit of cooperation and concern that brought Pitman-Robinson, Dingell-Johnson , and even Wallop-Breaux into reality, these are the unifying forces that have guided conservation successes in this country. Our belief that budget constraints necessitate some examination of priorities does not mean that we do not support these programs. They have been extremely successful, not just because of natural resource success managers have achieved, nor necessarily because of the funding our outdoor industries have so steadily provided, but in great measure because of the willing support of the public. This same spirit of cooperation has led to increased private sector support for Federal land-managing agencies. For instance, we have tens of thousands of volunteers now working in the national parks. The Park Service reports that the number of volunteers in the parks is up over 400 percent since 1981, 30,000-plus in 1984. In the national wildlife refuges, over 11,000 volunteers are helping to protect special resources. 42 We believe that these volunteers recognize that the national parks and the national wildlife refuges are not only national assets, but they also are local assets. This is, of course, also true of areas specially protected by the States. People who are fortunate enough to live near a park, or a refuge, or a special recreation area, or a wilderness area, I think, should and do care deeply about protecting these treasures from misuse and abuse . I would like to inspire more people to greater involvement in protecting our lands and our wildlife resources. You and I recognize the role and the responsibility we have to protect resources under our care. It is also our role and responsibility to help all citizens to understand better and protect the land and wildlife resources of our communities and of this Nation. I believe an important priority in the natural resource arena in the future will be effective, credible leadership at all levels of government. It will be leadership that delivers results, the kind that restores and protects our natural resources, the kind that allows fishing, for example, to remain a vital recreation and thriving industry in this Nation. This kind of leadership does not happen in a vacuum. It comes with involvement with the issues, with the resources, with the public and the private sectors. The issue for the remainder of this decade should probably be best regarded as encompassed within your theme of accommodating change. The use of change to accomplish goals will have to be result oriented. The bottom line is where the payoff is for the public and the resources that we serve. I look forward to working with you as I strive to establish broad national resource policies that are right for America. With your help, and the help of the dedicated professionals in the Fish and Wildlife Service, and throughout the Department of the Interior, I think that we can do a job that will be welcomed, appreciated, and beneficial to all Americans. Thank you, and I appreciate the chance to be here. 43 Fishery Resource Management for the Remainder of the 1980's: Accommodating Change Priorities for the Future State Perspective Russell A. Cookingham Director Division of Fish, Game, and Wildlife New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Trenton, New Jersey and President International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Washington, D. C. 1985 State Fish and Wildlife Directors Conference Washington, D. C. June 4, 1985 It is nice to be here. I do represent the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies as its President. I want to make it clear from the start that I am not an expert on all 50 states. I do, however, have a feel for some of the real issues that we have all been discussing and reviewing through the International. I will try to summarize these and get into some of the problems, as I see them, that we will have to face. Recognizing advancement in fishery conservation during the past 30 years, we may now be facing a crisis situation with major projected cutbacks in Federal funds for traditional fishery programs. How do we move through the eighties without experiencing serious reversals to our ongoing and planned fishery programs? Are we doing an adequate job of planning; of identifying our needs and developing the necessary programs including an adequate funding base to address these needs? These are some of the issues which must be addressed through this conference . Where do we stand today? A summary of the various Federal programs which we are now dependent on with an assessment of the impact on the States and the resource if drastically reduced or eliminated, must be reviewed at this meeting to provide background to help determine where we go from here. I have made an effort to evaluate several of the most important Federal programs and assess what impact they may have on States if subjected to major reductions. 45 Dingell-Johnson . Dingell-Johnson has been pretty well covered by Congressman Breaux, and I will try not to be redundant. But certainly it is truly a user fee, and traditionally it has been strongly supported by industry and the fishing public. The East Coast States and certain Gulf States, without marine fishing licenses, have derived only minimal benefits from D-J in the past. We are looking forward to D-J as really a first, a start-up for many marine programs that in the past have not been adequately funded. We look at the six years of hard work that many of us have put into this program, and the possibility that it might not have continued this year was a great concern to all of us . I think that most of us realize that without these added funds, we are going to be back pretty much to level funding of recreational programs, and we will be unable to move ahead in areas that we have identified for need. I think that I am also concerned with the fact that or the possibility that these funds may be looked on by some as a substitute for existing funded programs, which really was not the intent of the program at its inception. P.L. 89-304 , the Anadromous Fish Conservation Act. Although a number of States have independently benefitted from this program in the research and development of in-state anadromous programs, this is truly an interstate program in its broadest sense, impacting on migrating fish stocks moving through various States and Federal jurisdictions. Without continued funding, or at least an alternate funding program, I see no likelihood of advancement in coastal anadromous programs. States will be struggling to obtain appropriated funds to maintain existing anadromous fishery facilities, structures, and resources which have been developed through past P.L. 89-304 programs, with little remaining for new research and development initiatives. The salmon restoration programs of both coasts, plus the Great Lakes, would experience severe reversals. The striped bass research and restoration programs would also be severely impacted, along with other programs on species in trouble, such as shad on the East Coast. P.L. 88-309 „ the Commercial Fisheries Research and Development Act. Although Federal funding of this program has always been most conservative, this program without a doubt has been the backbone of commercial marine fishery research and development on the East Coast and the Gulf Coast, and I am sure that it has also been of importance to the West Coast programs, and also to a lesser degree to the interior States which have minimal commercial interests. This is especially true where D-J 46 funds have been practically non-existent for marine programs in the past. P. L. 88-309 has at least provided an alternative for States to obtain appropriated matching monies for commercial fishery programs. Outputs from this program provided substantial input to State/Federal marine fishery programs, and to the Regional Fishery Management Councils in their initial days of planning and development, wherein research data from the various States proved extremely valuable in moving ahead in management planning. This contribution continues today. In my State, and I am sure others can say the same, P.L. 88-309 helped convince conservative State legislators and State fiscal officers to approve necessary matching funds for receiving this Federal Grant. If P.L. 88-309 should not survive, I feel sure a number of States, such as the smaller ones, will experience irreparable setbacks in their commercial fishery programs. States' commitment to both the Councils and the Commissions may also lessen because of inadequate staff, and some States may revert to caretaker status only in their traditionally under-funded State programs . Most of the work to date accomplished under the existing P.L. 88-309 programs has interstate significance, and it makes little sense to suggest that this program is benefitting only in state fishery management. Current resource problems demand plan development and implementation for numerous species residing in and migrating primarily through territorial waters. If there is a flavor of East Coast tradition here, it is because I am from the East Coast and I feel comfortable using examples from the East Coast. Certainly, in the case of striped bass, shad, river herring, and weakfish, these are species that are benefitting from on- going programs. I am sure that the same can be said for certain Gulf and West Coast species. Either continued funding of P.L. 88-309, or a new direction in truly effective interstate management efforts, such as provided in H.R. 1028 — I am glad that John Breaux hit on that this morning — or similar legislation must be realized, otherwise the States will have to find new funding sources if such programs are to continue. FCMA. The future of our Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and our offshore marine resources development and utilization, to a large degree, is dependent on the reauthorization of FCMA, along with adequate funds to provide for active Council participation. For Councils to achieve their objectives under the Act, it is my opinion and that of many others, the Councils cannot adequately function if their budgets are materially reduced. It is easy to note some of the failures of the Councils, such as their reluctance to adequately address new entries into the fishery and come to terms with the extreme over-capitalization that most fisheries have experienced, the economic dislocation of segments of the industry, and the agonizing slowness of plan development. It is unclear that these 47 economic issues were really intended to be resolved by the Councils under the original intent of the Act. However, advances in Council work ha^e been substantial, especially in light of only eight short years of experience. Foreign fishing effort is now being tightly regulated and is on its way out in many instances, as expansion of domestic fishing and processing of certain under-utilized species is being realized either by expanded shore-side facilities or joint ventures. Squid, butterfish, and mackerel are good examples of developing fisheries on the East Coast. A few of the critics of the Magnuson Act would suggest doing away with it. State participation in FCMA has been substantial. Most Councils have had State Directors as chairmen at one time or another. The small FCMA appropriations for State participation has helped substantially, especially for small States with small staffs. Without these funds, I fear that certain States would attend Council meetings sparingly and seldom participate in committee work, not because of lack of concern, but primarily due to the lack of staff and adequate funding back home . The State Federal Program represents "end of the year" and other miscellaneous funds, which the National Marine Fisheries Service has been able to scrape together since 1972. This program has accomplished much in plan development of territorial sea fishery resources, especially on the Atlantic Coast and Gulf States . This work, more recently contracted and administered by the three Commissions, has truly brought the States along with the Federal agencies together in a cooperative and positive mode to undertake some difficult fishery issues. On the East Coast, it started with sea clams, lobsters, northern shrimp, and expanded to menhaden, striped bass, fluke, shad, river herring, weakfish, and more recently bluefish. The little State money added to the Federal pot to participate in these management efforts has come mainly from P.L. 88-309 and P.L. 89-304 funding, and to a lesser extent under D- J. In other words, little progress would have been made in State/Federal interstate management without the various roles each contributes to make the program work. Again, this identifies the need for H.R. 1028, or similar legislation, with an adequate funding base, including funding for the Commissions, with the National Marine Fisheries Service budget at least level funded. Without Federal support, the drain on States to survive, with the possible loss of other grant monies, it is likely that the Commissions will revert back to a once a year "get acquainted" meeting of State Commissions, with little, if anything, to achieve in program development. 48 Other Federal programs scheduled for elimination or reduction which have contributed greatly to in-state, inter- state, and State management initiatives, include the Federal Fish Hatchery Program, and especially the advances made in recent years in hatchery disease and nutrition research; the various Federal research centers, and their data collection and stock assessment programs, including on-going assessment programs, such as marine recreational fishery surveys; and habitat protection assessment. Without these Federal initiatives, especially in research and maintenance of existing staffs of highly skilled scientists, fishery management as we now know it will experience an irreparable setback in both the United States and North America, in my opinion. What is the State's responsibility? What is next? The following is my assessment of what may be in store for State fishery programs, and what can be expected if Federal grants are substantially reduced or eliminated. Also, I have suggested what States must endeavor to do to maintain viable fishery management initiatives, with or without Federal help, and address critical fishery issues of the 80s. Funding opportunities. If D-J reverts back to on-going programs, I see little change in recreational fishery development programs in the near future. I hope that that has been resolved. States will undoubtedly pursue other revenue sources, if need be, and many are doing this now. Examples of alternate revenue producing programs include the Missouri sales tax percentage, the Florida real estate transfer tax, the marine fuel tax revenues, which a number of States are already receiving, or other tax initiatives. Some States, like mine, have made advances in piggy-backing on State capital programs. In New Jersey, we constructed a major hatchery with State Green Acre Bond funds, and we are moving ahead in other major capital programs for road construction and access development, fishway construction, lake dredging, and dam repair. With the possible loss of D-J funding, all States must pursue new initiatives such as those mentioned above. Those unsuccessful in finding other revenue sources may have to provide substantial license increases, or face up to major reductions in programs and personnel. In any event the States must do a better job of presenting their fishery management plans and programs to constituents and lawmakers if they are to succeed in achieving the funding base necessary to carry out plans, goals and objectives. 49 A number of coastal States have recently reorganized their marine programs, and have broadened their regulatory powers, such as Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Florida, and others. Coupled with this has been some conservative increases in State appropriations for marine fisheries. In several States, like South Carolina, the increase may have been substantial, but maybe Jim Timmerman will argue with me on that. The State of Maryland enacted a marine recreational fishing license for the Chesapeake Bay, a first for the East Coast, and possibly an incentive for others to follow. I made a statement here that I understood that Virginia was moving along in the same vein, but I got squared away on that yesterday, that that is out of the window for at least another year anyway. Marine recreational fishing licenses, coast-wide, in my opinion, are still several years in the future, at least in New Jersey. The more responsible elements among recreational anglers are not altogether convinced of the value of a recreational fishing license. Many agree that if funds were dedicated to research, development, and habitat protection, with the benefits of a dedicated fund and regulatory commissions, that this would be a logical step forward for responsible fishery management. However, many fear that this cannot be achieved politically. If the Maryland program proves successful, then this may prove a strong selling point to other East Coast states. I am sure that all of us on the East Coast are watching the Maryland program very carefully, and hopefully it will move in the right d irection . East Coast spokesmen for many salt water and boating clubs traditionally oppose any salt water fishing licenses. Coastal Chambers of Commerce and Development Commissions, etc., see licenses as the economic reversal to shore business. Substantial change in these attitudes will require a major effort on the part of fishery managers and concerned fishermen, to project the long term benefits of an adequately funded program to both the resource and users. Commercial-recreational conflict. The concern to State administrators is the continuing and, in some cases, the expanding antagonism between recreational and commercial users. This, to a lesser degree, may be a problem in some interior States. Fishery commissions made up of both commercial and recreational interests can sometimes work out compromises to these issues. However, this does not always satisfy a certain vocal recreational or commmercial interest group. The result is that special interest groups utilize sympathetic legislators, anxious for recognition and exposure, to circumvent the regulatory process in favor of legislation. In fact, the regulatory responsibilities given to commissions by past legislation is now sometimes challenged by certain 50 legislators who would prefer to take regulatory authority from the executives. This will be one of the biggest challenges to the State agencies through the 80s, to institute and retain responsible regulatory authority without being forced to bow to special interest demands impacting adversely on responsible resource management . I know that I have had problems in this area in the last couple of years, and in talking to other fishery administrators, they apparently have experienced the same, where the legislators are becoming much more aggressive in trying to take over regulatory powers in many instances. Commercial fishery development. In the commercial fishery development area, certain initiatives are being undertaken by certain coastal states such as the institution of fishery development commissions. These institutions take on different forms in different States. Such a process in my State, via an action by the Governor, combines the energies of the State Treasurer, the State Department of Commerce, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Environmental Protection, along with citizen members. The purpose of the Commission is to obtain economic development funds from various sources to finance programs for commercial fisheries, planning, port acquisition and development, low interest loans for processing, etc. It is too early to tell how successful this new initiative will be, but its success or failure, in my opinion, will depend on the ability of the various agencies and individuals to work together and gain public support . The commercial fishing industry faces many problems which must be resolved at the State level -- competition for facilities with the developers, inadequate shoreside facilities for landing and processing, over-capitalization of segments of the industry, competition with recreational interests, etc. Data collection and statistics. With the real possibility of loss of Federal funds, now more than ever, States must plan and cooperate in utilizing the available funds and data collection programs if plan development is to move ahead in a positive way. This includes standardization of collection procedures, and development of computerized programs for the interchange of data between States, the Councils, and the Federal agencies . 51 States need to have equal and direct access, via a computer, if possible, to existing Federal statistics. If the Federal agencies are really concerned and serious about our expanded State role in fishery management, there must be easy access to each other's data. The Federally directed marine recreational inventory program, if reduced as planned, must be expanded by the States in a truly cooperative interstate mode. Actually the States, if funds can be found, are better equipped to undertake sampling initiatives under Federal coordination of the overall program. Habitat protection. In our efforts to fund fishery management programs at the State, Federal, and regional levels, often the environmental and habitat issues take a secondary role, not because of less concern, but because of other job priorities and our lesser role in administering these programs through our existing statutory responsibilities. The initiative of the National Marine Fisheries Service to identify habitat protection as a policy priority was a major step forward even though the program was inadequately budgeted. Efforts to incorporate habitat protection provisions in the FCMA reauthorization should be strongly supported. The responsibilities of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, along with their interaction with the State Fish and Wildlife Agencies, is probably more important now than ever with the setback in funding under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and other habitat protection programs. Hopefully, 404 will get back on track and be fully retained, or strengthened in the reauthorization of the Clean Water Act, until Congress can come up with something better. I think Congressman Breaux spelled out that 404 was never intended to do the whole job, and we do need something better. Most of the coastal States have fair to good coastal wetland protection programs. If they do not, every effort should be directed toward wetland protection legislation. Inland wetlands, however, are poorly protected in most States, some not at all. Only a few States have enacted very successful inland wetland programs. Those States endeavoring to move ahead with inland wetland protection programs are finding considerable resistance from developers, especially in urban areas where land values have exploded. Protecting inland fisheries as well as other wildlife values may be, to a large degree, contingent on the ability of States to protect the remaining wetlands, and this should receive the highest priority through the 80s. 52 The effect of chemical contamination in fish as related to public health, and the effect on fish physiology, must receive more attention through the 80s. Our experience with PCBs and dioxins in the New York bight is an example of the tremendous problem that must be addressed by State fishery agencies working with their health and water resource officials. To date, most of the emphasis has been on impacts of contaminated fish on the public health. It is imperative that we develop more research knowledge on the fish itself and what impacts the various contaminants have on fish growth, survival, reproduction, genetic change, etc. We must also be able to track these contaminants through the food chain. The success or failure of the various reauthorizations being worked on this year by Congress will have a great impact on fish habitat issues through the 80s. The Clean Water Act, Coastal Zone Act, Super Fund, etc., are all critical to the habitat protection issue and are of great concern to all of us. We must individually and collectively act to let our concerns be known to the Congress and the Administration. Education. Probably the area where most States and Federal agencies often fail is to expend adequate time and funds in informing the public on social and economic benefits of our fishery programs, both recreational and commercial. Natural resource educators have a real challenge ahead in endeavoring to develop better understanding and cooperation between recreational, commercial, and environmental protection interests. These sometimes conflicting interests must become united on the really important issues of fighting environmental contamination and physical degradation of fishery habitat. As for sharing the resource among user interests, this must be achieved through professionally sound regulations, along with public understanding and support. Some States, through their slick magazines, and better than average information and education budgets have accomplished much in addressing these issues in recent years. States must make a greater effort in obtaining appropriated State funds for information education purposes if they are to play a more positive role in addressing fishery conservation through the 80s. In conclusion, I urge all State Directors to maintain an active role in the coastal and Great Lakes Commissions, and the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. These institutions were all created to represent State interests in important regional, national, and international fish and wildlife conservation issues. Their effectiveness in recent years has been substantial. These State supported institutions, working cooperatively with each other and the responsible Federal agencies, along with our 53 private agency friends, such as the National Wildlife Federation, the Sport Fishing Institute, Wildlife Management Institute, professional societies, and other organizations, can and do help encourage the Congress and the Administration to maintain and enhance the tremendous advances in fish and wildlife conservation that has been achieved over the last 60 years. There is no argument that the States must and should take on an expanded and more responsible role for managing the $25 billion commercial and recreational fishing industries. How we take on this expanded role will be addressed fully through this conference. However, it will also be our responsibility as State Directors to make sure that we receive full cooperation from the responsible Federal agencies, that they do not renege from their responsibilities to the fishery resource of the nation and to over 50 million Americans who utilize these resources via commercial and recreational interests. On behalf of the State Administrators, we fully appreciate the efforts of the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to bring us together at this conference. Hopefully, we will leave here better able to appreciate our respective roles in fishery conservation, and with a better understanding of what will be required of all of us to maintain viable, professionally sound programs through the 80s. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the many State Directors and their staff who have worked on the many issues through the year of my presidency of the International, to write letters, to do what they had to do to make sure that Wallop-Breaux proceeded in a timely fashion, to get involved in the many other reauthorization issues, to come to Washington, in many cases, and present testimony at committee meetings. Through the coordinated efforts of Jack Berryman and the International, the three Interstate Marine Fisheries Commissions, and many others, I think we have been able to have a good track record this year. There are going to be a lot more calls to State Directors for the remainder of the year to help out on many of these issues . Thank you very much. 54 Fishery Resource Management for the Remainder of the 1980' s: Accommodating Change Priorities for the Future The Tribes Mr. W. Timothy Wapato Executive Director Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission Portland, Oregon 1985 State Fish and Wildlife Directors Conference Washington, D.C. June 4, 1985 Thank you Bob, I did find when I came to fishery management that it definitely is a contact sport. I would like to express my appreciation for the opportunity to be here, representing not only the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, but to express appreciation for those other people from Indian Commissions and Indian Tribes who are participants in this particular meeting. I would like to take a few moments and introduce those people. We have in the audience, Bill Frank, who is the Chairman of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, and with him, Jim Anderson, the Director of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission . Also representing various tribes in the Northwest are Terry Williams, Ron Allen, and Randy Harder. From the Great Lakes area, we have Tom Busiahn and Ray De Perry. From our commission, Tom Jensen, who is one of our very important staff members. I would like to explain that during the last 2 to 3 years in my position as the Director for the Commission, I have determined that I spend about 70 to 90 percent of my time on matters that pertain to relations between the Columbia River Tribes and the States of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. I have noticed that percentage has not changed very much over that time period. I have noticed, however, that several things have changed in that period; particularly recently. I have noticed that Bill Wilkerson is gaining a little weight. I can say that because I gained my weight 3 years ago, but he has gained his more recently, and I spend enough time with him to see the change coming on gradually. I have noticed also that the relationship between the tribes and the States, particularly the Columbia River Tribes, is more hopeful than it has been probably at any time in the past. I 55 think that it is a very positive change for fishery management, and a very positive change for the national interests in the management of fisheries. I consider this a positive change because Bill Wilkerson, Director for Washington Department of Fisheries, and Jack Donaldson, Director of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, are much better company than their attorneys. At least, Jack is. Secondly, and a more important difference, all of the effort and the hours that the tribes and the States spend in court, and preparing to go to court, produced not a single fish. You can be sure that we got the rules straight on how the resource pie should be split, but while we were doing that, the resource pie was shrinking around us. The time had come that we had to face up to it: neither the States nor tribes could ignore the calculation that 50 percent of zero is zero. The importance of what we have achieved in the last year cannot be overstated. We have turned our swords into plowshares, or maybe, from our perspective, we should say that we have turned our arrows into plowshares. We have taken our staffs of lawyers, biologists, and publicists, who have grown skilled and tough through the years of fighting, and turned them from fighting each other to fighting together, side by side, on behalf of the shared fishery resource. The change in relations between the tribes and Washington and Oregon is really nothing short of revolution. What are the fruits of this revolution? Given that my time up here is relatively short, let me point to just one recent example, a very important example, the U.S. -Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty. After more than 15 years of negotiation, this country and Canada, early this year, finally achieved agreement on the mechanism to conserve and fairly allocate between the United States and the Canadian fishermen the highly migratory salmon stocks of the Pacific Northwest, British Columbia, and southeast Alaska. This year alone, the commercial and sport harvests of almost 25 million salmon will proceed under the regimes established by the treaty. The reason that the negotiations dragged on for so many years was in large part that the U.S. delegation to the talks was deeply split. Pacific Northwesterners fought Alaskans, Northwest non-Indians fought Indians; Alaskans fought both of the above. Sport interests fought commercial interests. The delegation, in essence, was a mess. 56 Our splits and in-fighting made negotiations with Canada almost impossible. Moreover, with such mixed signals from the region, the Administration never pressed for the treaty as a high priority. As much as we wanted and needed the treaty, our division kept it out of reach. Beginning early in 1984, however, a small group of Washington and Oregon non-Indian recreational fishermen, and tribal leaders, actively encouraged by Bill Wilkerson and Jack Donaldson, and some sympathetic members of the press, took a bold new step by actually sitting down together in the same room, around the same table. I am not going to tell you that at the beginning it wasn't rocky, because it was. But I can assure you it didn't take much discussion for all of us to recognize and decide to act upon the tremendous potential political power in a coalition of Northwest Indian and non-Indian fishing interests. Through a series of meetings, conferences, and media events, we built a coalition, the Pacific Salmon Treaty Coalition, that came to include more than 100 organizational entities including the tribal governments, State agencies, fish and wildlife agencies, sport and commercial fishing groups, towns, counties, ports, conservation groups, Chambers of Commerce, banks, and business associations. To say the least, we got the attention of the Oregon, Washington, and Alaska delegations and the White House. Suddenly, by midsummer, the Pacific Salmon Treaty was a high priority in the President's foreign policy. Our congressional delegation pressed the State Department hard to resume negotiations and bring the treaty home for American fishermen. The coalition prepared through negotiation and compromise detailed position papers explaining what exactly we wanted from the treaty. The Northwest was unified. The negotiations resumed last December and we did bring home a treaty with enormous benefits for the fishery-dependent interests of the Northwest. We got what we wanted out of the treaty because the Northwest delegation was unified. Tribal and State technical, policy, and legal staff worked side by side during the negotiations. Proposed fishery regimes were evaluated through tribally developed computer models. Tribal lawyers worked in conjunction with State and agency representatives in the principal role of drafting the treaty itself and Public Law 99-5, the treaty's enabling legislation. The enabling legislation, by the way, made its way through the House of Representatives on a 367 to one abstention, and through the Senate by a 96 to nothing vote. 57 I am convinced that the success of the Pacific Salmon Treaty Coalition points the way for future efforts on behalf of the shared fishery resource. The same community of interests is in a position to address other issues that affect our salmon and our steelhead, and our other natural resources. Pollution, logging, habitat destruction, hydro-electric development, the list goes on and on--we can now collectively take these problems on. In fact, the Pacific Northwest fishing tribes, the Washington Department of Fisheries, the Oregon Department of Fisheries, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Washington Department of Game, and hopefully the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, and the members of the Pacific Salmon Coalition are preparing to commence an ambitious and unprecedented watershed by watershed planning effort. Our goal is one that flows perfectly from the U.S. -Canada Treaty, that is, to provide the coordinated, basin by basin, habitat production and harvest management. The benefits will accrue to all fishing interests. It is important to identify what has brought the revolution in relations between the treaty fishing tribes and the States of Washington and Oregon. The single most vital factor has been the willingness of the directors of the Washington Department of Fisheries and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to put behind them, and forever, I hope, the attitude and the misperception that Indian tribes are just another, particularly unsubmissive user group. Indian treaties established property rights. The tribes are political entities with governments. Tribes are managers of their resources. They are not just fishing or hunting clubs. Tribes have the authority to make wise use decisions in the management of their fisheries and wildlife, and other natural resources . Where, as in the Pacific Northwest and many other areas of the United States, treaties, executive orders, and other tribal rights provide for the sharing of the natural resources among the tribes and non-Indians, the tribes and the States are by law and in fact co-managers. Neither is inferior in right to the other. Of course, corresponding to the management right is a management duty to manage responsibly, particularly as to the shared resources. The Northwest tribes have demonstrated beyond any question their ability to do so. Certainly other tribes throughout the United States have equal management expertise or are now in the position to develop it. My message to you today, as the resource managers in this nation, is a simple one. As State fish and wildlife directors, many of you have the option of pursuing alliances with tribal 58 managers who share your goals for a healthy and productive natural resource. You have the option of enlisting the cooperation of some of the most politically powerful and savvy entities in this country. You have the option of turning fiscal and personnel resources away from confrontation, and toward the achievement of common goals--preservation and enhancement of the fish and wildlife resources, and protection of the environment, and the habitat for these resources. We have shown in the Pacific Northwest that tribal management authority does not need to be fought or grudgingly acquiesced in. Gatherings like this meeting tempt us to forget the fact that it is a lonely and hostile world out there for resource managers. Federal and State funding is scarce and getting more scarce, as we just heard from Senator McClure and Congressman Breaux. Logging, mining, residential, and industrial development and pollution all threaten the fish and wildlife. We do need all the help we can get. Aren't we stronger when we are all working together? I know we are! Isn't cooperative management with the tribes in the various States really a major issue for accommodating change in the 1980 ' s? We, in the Pacific Northwest know that it is. Thank you . 59 Fishery Resource Management for the Remainder of the 1980's: Accommodating Change Priorities for the Future The U.S. Pacific Islands Susumu Ono Chairman/President Pacific Fisheries Development Foundation and Chairman Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources Honolulu, HI 1985 State Fish and Wildlife Directors Conference Washington, DC June 4, 1985 Introduction Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen, it is an honor and privilege to speak here today representing the Pacific Island governments. I hope this is not a presumptuous undertaking on my part attempting to represent the islands that are so geographically dispersed. I have solicited opinions from the U.S. Pacific Island Governors and Presidents who sit on the Board of the Pacific Fisheries Development Foundation; from the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council; and from the Pacific Basin Development Council. Despite whatever disparate interests the islands may have individually, I believe my comments here today generally reflect our shared interests as a region. It is not often that we are afforded the opportunity to express our concerns directly to officials such as yourselves who are in positions of national influence and authority, particularly relating to support to the Pacific Islands. The Area The Pacific Islands which are represented here or were to be represented, consist of two Territories, a Commonwealth, three emerging Nations, and one State. Some of our delegates are having difficulty arriving on time because of logistical problems. This will help to strengthen some of my points I will be making. We have jurisdiction over approximately 3 million square miles, including water areas. This is almost as large as the total land area of the 48 contiguous states of the U.S. Our 61 land area is only 9,000 square miles, therefore, you can envision the significant role the ocean plays in our economy, particularly the fishery resources. Each of the islands is unique in history, language, culture, and politics. With the possible exception of the State of Hawaii, we share in common a tremendous need for economic development compared to the mainland U.S. In some ways the island economies are similar to those of developing nations, but the islands have the added handicap of having limited land mass, in some cases portable water is also lacking, and are far removed geographically from sources of development capital. To really appreciate the extent of our ocean resource potential, needs, and the implications and effects of underdevelopment, one has to visit the islands in person. I wish each of you could visit the islands, from my home state of Hawaii south to American Samoa, west to the Marshall Islands, Ponape , Kosrae, Truk, Guam, the Commmonwealth of the Northern Marianas, Yap and Palau; half a world away from Washington, D.C. As islanders and as a region our goal is to overcome these barriers of remoteness and small economic scales that tend to discourage development. Fishery Resources Our highest priority has been and will continue to be, at least for the next 5 years, development of our latent fishery resources that are dominated by highly migratory tunas and billfish. These species account for 90% of the annual total catches from our region. Despite the fact that the tunas are excluded as a management unit under the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act, we are staking a large part of achieving self-reliance and economic growth on the fishery resources that surround our islands. It is in our best interest to develop and maintain Pacific fishery resources for the United States family. If we do not develop these resources we can be assured that others will, and to the exclusion of our shared interests. For example, we are concerned, though not without understanding, when a Pacific island nation such as Kiribati, formerly the Gilbert Islands, Phoenix Islands, and Line Islands, negotiates an agreement with the Soviet Union for fishing rights in its waters. Kiribati lies about 1,800 miles to the south of our Hawaiian Islands and stretches out along the equator for a distance greater than the length of the United States. We view the legislative intent of the Central, Western and South Pacific Fisheries Development Act and the goal for use of 62 Sal tonstall-Kennedy (S-K) funds as a means of developing fishery resources in the Pacific Islands within and for the United States family. The Pacific Fisheries Development Foundation has kept a single purpose in mind, which is to develop fisheries in the U.S. related islands that will benefit our mutual interest. Although we have pondered the implications of Free Association status of some of our members, we have chosen to go on about our business, which is fishery development, with the interests of our fishermen in mind. We have been pursuing this course with the full knowledge and cooperation of the federal agencies that our member governments deal with, and we intend to continue to take this approach. Dedication to fishery development is what the Pacific Fisheries Development Foundation has going for it. Despite a lack of base-level funding and limited S-K funding available from year to year, the Foundation has carried on as best as possible. Our accomplishments include the expansion of the domestic purse seine fisheries in the western Pacific, development of giant clam and trochus restocking in Micronesia, fishery market development, expansion of the central north Pacific fishing grounds by U.S. albacore trollers, and introduction of new fishing methods to Pacific Islanders. Nevertheless, many vital projects such as fish quality control, boat launching ramps, fuel docks, training for longline tuna fishing, ice house and fish storage plants, and even some data collection, get denied year after year. In 1983, we identified more than 25 million dollars worth of needed fishery projects for our area; we were allocated about $300,000 to take care of this unmet need. On the other hand, being geographically closer to Asia, countries such as Japan sometimes seem more generous and helpful to some of our U.S. islands than the United States. A fleet of boats for Palau, a reefer for Yap - these are the items that are sweetening the way for trade relations with other competing countries. It's unfortunate that much of Sal tonstall-Kennedy funds intended to develop the U.S. fishing industry and thus promote the economic growth of the islands, is instead directed to pay for administrative expenses incurred by the National Marine Fisheries Service. Fishery Development It is clear to us that while sound management and monitoring of existing fisheries are important to sustain public benefit from available fish stocks, I question the support of these activities at the expense of direct support for fishery 63 development projects, particularly for Pacific Island governments. I use the term "development" to broadly denote any improvement in the domestic island fisheries or in the benefits received by U.S. fishermen, rather than in the narrower sense of just increasing fish landings. The 1984 report titled Fisheries Development Priorities and Three-Year Program for the Central, Western and South Pacific, prepared jointly by the Pacific Fisheries Development Foundation, Pacific Basin Development Council, and the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, identified four fishery development priorities. These are to: (1) stabilize island fisheries, (2) emphasize quality in island seafood production, (3) expand domestic harvesting of underutilized species and stocks, and (4) develop fishery resources in harmony with non- American Pacific Island neighbors. It is obvious that fishery development in the Pacific Islands has to take place step by step. A fishery cannot be developed in an area where there are resources but no boats, no launching ramps, and no markets. Urgent need exists to buy boats, install launching ramps, construct vessel support facilities, train fishermen, and establish markets. In the real world of harsh realities and shrinking budgets, hard decisions must be made as to where our priorities lie. In the Pacific, we need to develop our fisheries first. How else can the islands take an active role in the optimal use of our own resources for economic benefit. Regionalism Two ideas that should be included in any discussion of the Pacific Islands are first, regionalism in the context of international perspective; and second, regionalism within the context of the Pacific as part of the U.S. family. The U.S. Pacific Islands have by geographic location, common and informal relations with their island nation neighbors. Since we are all Pacific Islanders with mutual needs and concerns, regional international cooperation is the most beneficial mode of operation. For example, fishery development activities are shared because cooperation is for the common good. Regional international cooperation, therefore, is a theme that can be used to advantage by all the islands. Activities such as surveillance of the 200-mile exclusive economic zone could be carried out more efficiently and effectively through sharing of expensive technology through a regionally supported agency. The fact that this could be accomplished in cooperation with different island nations should not preclude it from receiving U.S. agency support, if it is in the best interest of the U.S. to favor such support. 64 The second idea is simply that within the United States, the U.S. Pacific Islands must be considered a region unto themselves. It is not in the best interest of the islands to link our fishery development interests with those of California and other mainland areas within the Southwest Region of the National Marine Fisheries Service. These two areas are literally and figuratively worlds apart in needs, concerns, and stages of economic development. For the islanders to have to compete for our share of fishery development funds with the West Coast states is ill-contrived. In this competition everyone loses because the island fisheries go undeveloped and the resource is lost to the U.S. economy. Funding Approaches for a Unique Area The logical way to approach economic development in the islands is through step by step planning. The islands know what they want and need and priorities are in place. We are at the implementation stage now, and this is where we need assistance. If the Federal government is sincere about wanting to save money, and if the Administration is serious in its policy to diminish the presence of the Federal government and to let local governments and private industry step in to do the job - then there is a marvelous opportunity before us in the form of fishery development in the Pacific. This can be achieved through direct appropriation for fishery development projects as authorized by the Central, Western, and South Pacific Fisheries Development Act and giving the Pacific Islanders a chance to help ourselves to develop economically. If direct appropriation through the Central, Western, and South Pacific Fisheries Development Act is not forthcoming, then we need to rely on S-K funding, but need to eliminate the cumbersome annual competition and review processes for Sal tonstall-Kennedy funds for the U.S. Pacific Region. We expend time and money every year applying for the same projects again and again. It is frustrating not knowing year to year how much money will be made available by the Federal government. I know you have heard this theme before. There must be a change so that multi-year planning can take place and budgets can be firm at the time of planning. This is the "infrastructure" of good planning and fiscal sense. I believe this is not too much to ask for especially in considering the extent of development reguired in the Pacific Islands, and the extent of the gains to be made. The logical extension of multi-year planning is a block grant approach for our islands' fishery development. Every penny counts in the Pacific where costs are high, and every bit of savings through a block grant approach would result in more development projects. Projects that may be inconsequential by 65 mainland standards are major undertakings in the islands, such as building a boat launch ramp, training a group of fishermen, or installing a fuel dock. These basic projects make a great impact. They warrant serious consideration; they are worth the effort of trying to change the grant award process. We understand that the National Marine Fisheries Service is now considering multi-year S-K projects and that these projects, once approved, would not compete for funding in subsequent years. We welcome and view this recent change in policy as a step in the direction for Pacific Island fishery development. We are here at this meeting to share whatever information we have and remain optimistic that our recommendations will be part of the Administration's accommodation for change during the remainder of the 1980 's. Thank you very much. 66 Fishery Resource Management for the Remainder of the 1980' s: Accommodating Change Priorities for the Future Alejandro Santiago Nieves Secretary Puerto Rico Department of Natural Resources San Juan, Puerto Rico 1985 State Fish and Wildlife Directors Conference Washington, D.C. June 4, 1985 Mr. Chairman, and fellow directors, it is indeed a great pleasure and honor for me to have been invited by the organizers of this conference to speak briefly to you on behalf of the island governments of the Caribbean Region about priorities for the future in relation to fishery resources. By way of clarification, I must say that although my remarks will present the situation in Puerto Rico, I believe that most of the island territories share similar fishery management problems. My agency, the Department of Natural Resources is responsible for regulation and promotion of both sport fishing and commercial fishing. I also have a related public corporation which supports commercial fishing and aguaculture. Fishery management in the islands is very different from that of the continental United States. Most of the tropical islands are of volcanic origin with narrow shelves. Thus, instead of large concentration of a few species of fish, the island fisheries are small and include many different species. Most of the habitats on the insular shelf are over-fished. Therefore, a different management approach is needed. Further, the island fisheries represent the primary source of income for many of their residents. Despite their small scale, as compared to large fisheries of Alaska, New England, and the Gulf of Mexico, the island fisheries represent an important socio-economic resource which must be managed for a current use, as well as enhanced to their utmost for the potential benefit of future generations. I want to stress this point. It is a serious error to compare the island fisheries with other larger scale fisheries because they are relatively more important to the economy of the particular islands. 67 While technical expertise has been improving during recent years, much of it is not yet available in the islands. Research in matters related to island fisheries is clearly needed, but it is almost non-existent. The Sea Grant Program can help us here. Without question, our first priority must be to develop our fisheries to the maximum. To achieve this, we need to improve technology transfer related to other species. For instance, we are promoting a pilot project to exploit the swordfish that are abundant in deeper offshore waters. The effort to develop fisheries to their maximum must be accompanied by proper conservation programs. The Caribbean Fishery Management Council cooperates with both Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands in developing management plans for the fisheries throughout their territorial waters. As stated above, most of the species in the eastern shelf have been over-exploited. Thus, we believe that limited entry could be applied in our area, but only if it does not impact adversely on those who already use those fisheries. A dislocation program is necessary whenever limited entry is imposed. This brings up the question of who will pay the cost of such a program. With the possible exception of Puerto Rico's tuna industry, it is my belief that the commercial fishing industry in the island is not able to fund such a program. While limited entry will require enforcement measures, a proper education and inspection program will be more effective. This can be achieved only through close coordination between the Federal and local authorities. Habitat restoration and conservation should be given a priority. We feel that the Coastal Zone Management Program has proven to be an important mechanism for the proper consideration of activities that may impact on coastal areas and marine habitats. We urge the extension of the Coastal Zone Management Act, with adequate levels of funding to the states and territories, for an additional period of six years, retaining provisions for Federal consistency. Sport fishing and marine recreation are fundamental for the tourist industry in the tropical islands. Generally they have developed without local or Federal public assistance. There is a great potential for further expansion. We are developing a major program for sport fishing, but it is vital that we obtain full funding under Dingell-Johnson Act. 68 To summarize. First, we need to maximize the potential use of our fisheries. Second, we need to conserve and protect habitat. Third, we need to maintain adequate levels of practical research. I want to note that it is my goal in Puerto Rico to let the commercial and sport fishermen take part in the process of developing this program. I must admit that my speech was programmed for ten minutes, but as of today, I have only five months in my office. For that reason, my speech was only five minutes. Next year, I will have 17 months, and my speech will be 17 minutes. The most important of my messages is this. I invite all of you to come to Puerto Rico to see for yourselves the conditions of our fisheries. 69 Fishery Resource Management for the Remainder of the l^SO^s: Accommodating Change Emphasis and Where It Should Be The Constituency Ralph W. Abele Executive Director Pennsylvania Fish Commission Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and Chairman Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Washington, D.C. 1985 State Fish and Wildlife Directors Conference Washington, D.C. June 4, 1985 When I heard the watch commander, Bill Gordon, say, let's shorten these up, I expected him to say, "Summarize your remarks. Send in your prepared written statements, and we will make them part of the record." I want to thank my friend, the Director from across the Delaware, for eating into my time. Some of you know from an incident that took place last November at a State Directors meeting in Island Beach, New Jersey, where, as part of a plot cooked up by this gentleman, I partook of a certain part of the physiogamy of a main entree by virtue of which I now have this strong, deep, clear bell-like voice, and I call him, Director CookingMutton . My subject has to do with the "Emphasis and Where It Should Be," and I was given the first item on the list called "The Constituency." Ordinarily that conjures up an image of the license buyer, the redneck, the hot stove crowd, the people in tweeds using barbless hooks. Basking in a record year of license sales, I can write that one off, and use a much more broader definition of constituency in the big Webster International Dictionary and it says, "Any of the substances in a system, an element, even a matrix." Listening to the comments made by Commerce, Interior, the House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate, the States, the Tribes, the Island communities, and now by industry, commercial, recreational, professional, and the legislature, I don't see anyone talking about conservation of the resources. So the constituency that I have chosen to speak to you about, somewhat parochial, has to do with fishery resources, that is the most important element about which we are speaking. 71 As late as 12 years ago, in the Pennsylvania Fish Commission, we believed that we were in the business of providing recreation. In those days, for trout at least, the best way to do that was to stock more trout. Trout fishing, for example, is a recreational pursuit, so it seemed logical that the best way to do this was to stock more trout. In the mid-60' s and early 70 * s that was certainly the needed response to the challenges facing our commission. Viewing our mission as primarily providers of recreation is still a consideration in many areas where a popular fishery exists only because the commission stocks. However, in recognition of the information and capability that we now have, to continue to regard provision of recreation as our major purpose is to fail to adequately address our responsibility to statewide conservation and management of an important and significant renewable natural resource . Our policy of emphasizing the provision of recreation through stocking of hatchery trout, for example, was quite successful and still is. We operate 17 hatcheries. Since we were successful, we have stayed with the socially determined approach to providing recreation to the point where we are probably too good at selling that product. Our socially responsive program, based on creating demand, has also created problems . Reflect, if you will why trout fishing opens at 8:00 a.m. instead of the traditional 5:00 a.m., and why we no longer provide explicit details on in-season trout stockings or why the number of multiple or high pressure in-season stockings has been reduced in many waters, and why we are encountering an increase of posted land and streams. We have developed a very good catchable trout program but because the program has been so successful and our hatcheries have made such great progress in rearing trout, Pennsylvania has perhaps placed too much emphasis on this aspect of our total responsibility. We had a job to do, and we did it, but times have changed and the needs have changed. We have come to a point where it is clear we have to address the total responsibility for the resource. As good as we are at handling the demand for recreation by stocking, that is not enough. We can, though, enlarge our mission by changing our formal policies to not only do a topnotch job as provider of recreation, but also to cover our responsibility to recognize and conserve natural resources and to shift officially from a recreational agency to a conservation agency. 72 Our commission took all the results of our surveys and inventories, and through multi-discipline task force efforts changed our emphasis to conservation. The information resulting from our resource inventory started in 1976, and it gave us a starting point, a basis, in fact, to go to a resource oriented agency. That change should not be considered as an indication or admission that we have not been concerned about resource conservation in the past. We have been and have a highly esteemed record in that. I guess it was seven or eight years of exposure to and working under a resource motivation that showed a subtle, but quite real change in personal attitudes of most of our techincal and administrative staff. The change itself is fundamental. The shift from the idea that we are here to sell licenses and provide recreation, coming about to the firm conviction that our job is conservation and management of a natural resource. With the conviction comes recognition that we have a responsibility to maintain, or even artificially provide, opportunities for a range of recreational experiences. That range includes the entire scale, from the wilderness experience to an admittedly artificial situation made possible through stocking. The Fish Commission is now much more than just a playground director. If anything, we are the people entrusted to make sure that the playground always exists. The resource is the basis for our existence. We have a responsibility to preserve that resource and to be sure that it is providing the best possible recreation. We have a very diverse resource, and we can provide diversity of recreational opportunities by simply identifying what we have and making the best of it. The policy adopted under the commonwealth documents, act and published as a result, states: "It will be the policy of the commission to protect, conserve, and enhance the quality and diversity of the fishery resource of this commonwealth, including reptiles and amphibians." If you want to get into a real hot one, try to defend a regulation that forbids sacking contests of venomous reptiles. To achieve the objectives of this policy, the commission will : (1) Establish and maintain a current data base on the quality and quantity of the aquatic fishery resources of this commonwealth for effective environmental protection and resource conservation; (2) Develop statewide management programs to assure consistent treatment of all resources with any given class. Similarly, waters will be managed to meet the same objectives under the same philosophy on a statewide basis ; 73 (3) Manage self-sustaining fish populations as a renewable natural Lesource to conserve that resource and the angling it provides; (4) Use hatchery fish to provide recreation in these waters where fish populations are inadequate to sustain the fishery at desired levels; and (5) Develop appropriate regulations and operational strategies to replace policies that are not compatible with management through resource classification. One more policy, we adopted, which occupies most of our waking efforts, and this refers to the Department of Environmental Resources. "It will be the policy of the Pennsylvania Fish Commission to advance and seek, where supported by the current data base, the highest water quality designation for waters of this commonwealth in order to achieve the objectives of this chapter." I can think of no other expression that I would want to leave you with than, let's worry about the resources as the top priority, and let the constituency, the industry, the profession, and the legislatures fall in line wherever they may come out. Thank you very much. 74 Fishery Resource Management for the Remainder of the 1980 's: Accommodating Change Emphasis - Where Should It Be? The Commercial Fishing Industry Richard V. Martin President, National Fisheries Institute 1985 State Fish and Wildlife Directors Meeting Washington, D.C. June 4, 1985 It is my pleasure to be here to talk about fishery management with so many leaders from the State fishery agencies. Sometimes with all the publicity over the Federal programs, foreign fishing, whaling confrontations, and so on, we forget about the importance of state-managed fisheries. Yet, these fisheries continue to supply the bulk of our domestic landings. Also, much of what is being accomplished under Federal law is due to the support and experience of State fishery officials. Without you and your agencies, the Federal effort to manage our offshore fisheries would collapse. My task in the next few minutes is to set out the priorities of the commercial fishing industry for fishery management in the future. Now, you and I know this is impossible. Our industry, for the most part, is made up of a diverse group of small businessmen who are fiercely independent and competitive. Priorities vary from region to region, or port to port, or sometimes even vessel to vessel. They also vary depending on who you are. Fishermen want to maintain their "way of life" and get rid of the foreign fishermen. Processors want a regular supply of cheap fish and no foreign factory vessels. The importers and exporters want lower interest rates and free trade. Those selling fish want an exclusive supply and prompt payment. Trade associations want members and often want to work on all sides of an issue. Everyone wants to conserve the resources, but rarely does everyone agree on exactly what this means. Despite this diversity, I hope I can make three general observations about what needs to be done. 75 The Allocation Issue My first observation has to do with maintaining our resources so that they can renew themselves year after year. This must continue to be our top priority. Our industry cannot make a profit harvesting, processing and selling a common property resource without regulations to limit harvests. Regulations protect our inventory. They help ensure that it will be there year after year. This regulatory job is getting tougher and tougher. Modern technology is helping fishermen be significantly more efficient. At the same time the competition for the resources is intensi f ying . The current fishery management system consumes hundreds of millions of dollars in public resources setting fishing seasons, imposing gear requirements, establishing fishing areas and so on. While some of these restrictions relate to conserving the resource, most are really intended to manage the rate of harvest or otherwise control competition among fishermen . The allocation issues in fishery management are becoming increasingly political as each user group, or gear type, arms itself with growing numbers of lobbyists, lawyers and expert consultants. It also is getting extremely expensive, both for the user groups and the taxpayer. We must learn to live with limits. There is an upper limit to how much we can catch. There also is an upper limit to what we can spend to sort out who gets the catch. We must be more careful in the future not to ask the regulatory system to solve too many issues. Regulations often protect obsolete or inefficient practices. Moreover, each new regulation imposes costs in terms of information needs and enforcement . You, as the leaders of the management system, need to find more efficient ways to allocate the fish so that more of our regulatory efforts can focus on the most important job which is conserving the resources. Focusing Attention on the Consumer My second observation has to do with the need for a marketplace orientation in fishery management. Commercial fishing is production oriented. It views fish as a food which, if caught efficiently, can be sold for a profit. When a fisherman finds a fish, he'd better catch it. If he doesn't, someone else might. 7b I suspect that many fishery managers are production oriented too. Fishery management plans and reports bristle with statistics on the nature and amount of fishery production, and the fishing effort it took to produce it. Fishery managers think and worry a lot about the resources and spend most of their time deciding how these resources will be harvested. The person who gets forgotten in the fishery management shuffle is the consumer, the person who eats or otherwise enjoys this production. Consumers, however, should be the real "bosses" of the system. Consumers today do not have a significant voice in fishery management. If they did, management would be far more sensitive to the fact that the way in which a fishery is regulated has a significant impact on the availability and price of seafood. An important priority, as far as I'm concerned, is to reorient our thinking to the needs of the marketplace and the consumer. If we do, the future directions we should take become clearer. Consumers, for example, often get forgotten during disputes over who should get the fish, sports fishermen or commercial fishermen. These disputes are becoming more prevalent, particularly in freshwater and nearshore fisheries. About 12 million people fish for fun in our marine waters each year. Almost everyone, more than 225 million people, consume fish products in some form or other. These citizens depend upon the commercial industry for their supply. Any regulations which prohibits commercial fishing for the sake of sport fishing, therefore, denies the right of a majority for the benefits of the minority. Fishery managers also need to think more about reducing the costs they are imposing through their regulations. These costs get passed along with the fish as they are processed and distributed to the consumer. Rules which stiffle efficiency or encourage waste, infringe on the needs of the consumers for fish and seafood at a_ reasonable cost . A few years ago rising fuel costs created a crisis in some fisheries. Today it is the cost and availability of vessel insurance. In both instances, you can help by modifying your regulations to promote fuel savings and vessel safety. The costs imposed by fishery management regulations, however, do not stop at the dock. Fishery management has moved on shore with restrictions on the possession, purchase, sale, transportation, import or export of a wide variety of fish and seafood products. The compliance demanded by fishery managers, particularly with respect to State laws, is imposing significant on-shore costs upon our industry and ultimately the consumer. 77 Let me illustrate what I mean with the striped bass fishery on the Atlantic coast. This fishery is regulated by 12 different States, each with its own rules. Over 140 different State restrictions apply to the harvest and possession of this species. In some places and situations it is legal to buy and sell striped bass. In others it is not. Through the application of the Lacey Act, State restrictions apply to companies throughout the United States, and not just to those companies located in the States concerned. Seafood companies on the west coast and elsewhere, therefore, can be held accountable to know what the rules are throughout the east coast. This costs money, and is placing a significant burden upon thousands of different companies which handle hundreds of different food products from different areas. Many of our most important freshwater and nearshore fisheries are like the striped bass fishery. The resources are located in several states, and so are the markets. Yet management continues on a State-by-State basis and regulations vary significantly from a businessman's point of view. My point is that there can come a time when a regulatory system can become just too complex and too expensive. As the leaders of the fishery management systems, you need to find ways to achieve greater consistency and simplicity in those regulations which impact the marketplace. Begin to think more about the consumer and look for ways to reduce the costs of fish and seafood. Promoting Development My third observation has to do with the impact fishery management regulations have upon the ability of our industry to develop new fisheries, create jobs and produce new economic wealth . Management and development are linked together. In the past ten years a number of offshore fisheries have been developed, thanks to the help of fishery managers. Examples include the tanner crab, squid and black cod fisheries. Those fishery managers involved in these developments have much to be proud of. Fishery management systems, however, still suffer sometimes from State-by-State approaches to development opportunities which are regional or national in scope. 78 What happened last year in the butterfish fishery illustrates ray point. The fishing vessels and processing plants in this fishery are located along the Atlantic coastline. The primary market for butterfish, however, is overseas. Historically, therefore, the fishery was dominated by foreign fleets . The regional fishery management councils decided to change this. They developed a fishery management plan which gradually reduced the foreign catch. This created a market demand and U.S. harvesting and processing expanded. Last year there was a sufficient number of American vessels and plants in the reg ion to take all the fish that were available. As a result, the Federal government closed the fishery to the foreign factory fleets . One State, however, decided to open its waters to foreign factory vessels because some State officials felt that the State did not have enough processing plants. The foreign vessel concerned, however, did not have to comply with all the labor and other reguirements which apply to U.S. plants and vessels. Allowing it to operate in the fishery, therefore, would have undercut the investments and commitments made by U.S. processors located in other States. Fortunately this foreign vessel did not enter the fishery. State fishery officials not only need to be aware of the impacts their decisions have on fishery development, they need to cooperate with the officials in other States in situations like this. If one State allows foreign factory vessels to operate in its waters, why shouldn't the other States do likewise? If several States allow this to happen, our fisheries could be lost again to the foreign factory fleets. Conclusion In conclusion, it is a privilege to have had the opportunity to speak to you. You are the professionals, the experts, who are guarding our inventory and making it possible for us to maintain and expand our industry. As you prepare for the remainder of this decade, I encourage you to: o find more efficient ways to allocate fish among competing users; o focus greater attention on the needs of consumers; and o seek ways to help us fully develop the vast fishery resources of our country on a regional and national basis. If you do all this, the commercial fishing industry will have an opportunity to increase its contribution to our nation. 7^ Fishery Resource Management for the Remainder of the 1980's: Accommodating Change Sport Fishing Industry Concerns Dr. J. Frank Cogdell, Jr. E. I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company, Inc. Wilmington, Delaware and Chairman of the Board Sport Fishing Institute Washington, DC 1985 State Fish and Wildlife Directors Conference Washington, DC June 4, 1985 INTRODUCTION The "hands on" front-line fishery administrators, managers and researchers serve several constituencies. One is readily recognized - the fraternity of anglers that go afield in pursuit of the quarry that the professional fishery personnel provides. There is another element of the constituency not as consistently recognized or understood by the fishery professionals, that care enormously about the results of their efforts. In fact, this group's concern translates as an issue of a bottom line importance. That constituency is the sport fishing industry. The sport fishing industry includes a diverse collection of enterprises that produce and sell the goods and services demanded by the sport fishing public. These products range from fish cookers and fishing rods, to boats, motels, and petroleum products. Marketing of consumer goods of a seemingly endless variety is being targetted directly on the sport fishing public. One only needs to turn on the television to see beverage, outdoor products, even specialty vehicle sales targetted on this group of potential customers. And why not. The estimates of the number of sport fishing enthusiasts in the United States range from a minimum of 53.9 million participants (according to the 1980 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation), to an estimate of 63.7 million fishermen (from a 1982 A.C. Nielsen Company survey). Demographics of the fishing public reflect that the angling fraternity cuts across all income brackets and life styles. People of all types fish for recreation. According to the 1980 Survey, at the retail level alone, anglers spent $17.3 billion for goods and services related to their fishing enjoyment. Applying a general rule of thumb of one job created for every $25,000 in retail expenditures, this 81 translates to a direct sport fishing industry-related job market of 692,000 persons-years of employment. Another consideration is the relatively latent but enormous political potential of the sport fishing industry. The sport fishing industry may not be well organized in the political arena. However, consequential legislative measures are not likely to be implemented into law if the sport fishing industry lobbies in opposition. As an example, in the late 1970' s a proposal was introduced to institute a three percent excise tax on the manufacturers' price of boats, motors, and trailers with the proceeds dedicated for sport fish restoration. This proposal never received serious consideration in Washington, D.C. until a compromise was offered by the Sport Fishing Institute to use pre- existing boating-related tax revenues for boating and fishing programs. This compromise constituted the essential framework of what we now know as the Wallop-Breaux program. SPORT FISHING INDUSTRY CONCERNS - SOME HIGHLIGHTS The individual business interests that comprise the sport fishing industry range from mom and pop tackle manufacturers operating out of a room above the family garage, to several of this nation's largest Fortune 500 companies. Each company, no matter how small or large, is a competitor for the American public's discretionary recreational dollar. The competition is extremely intense. A wealth of outdoor activities, products and participation-dependent industries contend for the public interest and participation market. People select their discretionary recreational activities based on a range of considerations and expected returns. Although a wide variety of "satisfactions" are inherent in a successful sport fishing trip the one distinct specialty which distinguishes sport fishing from other water-associated recreational activities is the act or expectation of catching fish for fun and/or food. Therefore, all business enterprises that comprise the sport fishing industry, both large and small, are fully reliant for their profitability and growth upon an abundance of attractive fishing resources readily available to a knowledgeable American public. The fishery resource is the one "raw material" that we all share in common. For companies reliant upon the nation's fishery, which is a common property resource, few opportunities exist for the direct investment of corporate funds in resource development that would guarantee a direct consequential profit return for our share holders. Rather, government (State and/or Federal agencies, depending upon jurisdiction), in the public trust, regulates and manages the nation's common property fishery resources, and we as individual companies compete for our share of the public's participation in the nation's diverse fisheries. 82 Thus, the daily activities of aquatic resource regulators and managers have direct and enormous impact on the employees, operators and investors of the companies that comprise the sport fishing industry. Several issues of immediate concern for the fishery resource can readily be identified. Others of equal concern could probably have been included in the discussion that follows . Aquatic Contaminants Far too many examples can be listed to illustrate the direct and adverse business implications of water quality problems on the sport fishing industry. The spector of contaminant loading of our nation's sport fish stocks is a cause for great concern within my industry. For example, at the height of the "mercury scare" in 1977, at least 26 states had either banned fishing completely or issued health warnings against eating fish from hundreds of public waters. These actions were taken in response to the one-half part per million permissible level of total mercury in fish flesh established initially by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Fortunately, as a result of more stringent controls placed on mercury discharges from industrial plants and the FDA's doubling of the maximum permissible level of mercury in fish flesh to one part per million, angling restrictions have been lifted from many of these same waters. As we improve the sensitivity of our analysis techniques and continue potential health hazard research of minute concentrations of industrial products that are released to the environment, the sport fishing industry stands in the forefront as the industry to be affected first. The recently announced new polychlor inated biphenyl (PCB) discoveries in New York waters provide an excellent example. The following quote is from a March 30, 1985, staff memo to New York's Governor Mario M. Cuomo. The memo addresses the termination of commercial fishing and the extension of health advisories for recreational fishermen relating to PCB contamination of striped bass in certain New York coastal waters. "The Health Commissioner does not recommend a ban on recreational striped bass fishing. Were this policy of informed risk to be converted to a total ban on recreational fishing in contaminated waters, he believes that it would effectively result in the closure of the entire recreational fishing industry everywhere in the State -- not only because of PCB contamination but because of a wide variety of other contaminants as well. The first-order economic loss attributable to a complete ban on recreational fishing for 83 striped bass is estimated to be in excess of $5 million, with a potential multiplier effect of two to three times that amount. DEC (New York Department of Environmental Conservation) estimates that a total ban on the entire recreational fishery would have an economic impact in excess of $1 billion." Obviously, first and foremost the public health must be protected. Our collective commitment must be to prevent further liberties of dumping inadequately treated industrial effluents into our nation's waterways. It is a massive and grave responsibl ity , and we must work at the same time to reduce existing contaminant problems where they exist. Our industry can tolerate no other course of action. Habitat Destruction In what appears to be a tediously slow process, private enterprise and governmental regulators are becoming increasingly cognizant of the direct relationships between habitat and the ultimate yield from the nation's fisheries. Perhaps, the primary change in recent months regarding habitat is the public and institutional recognition of cumulative habitat loss. As examples, the nation's coastal wetlands are estimated to have been reduced by one-half, and continue to disappear at a rate of hundreds of thousands of acres each year. There is enormous interest in developing our rivers and streams for hydropower purposes. The number of applications for hydropower dvelopment projects received by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission increased from 86 in 1980 to an average 248 per year over the last three years. There are increasing pressures to place new consumptive demands on our national system of reservoirs, for hydropower generation, irrigation, and other purposes. Such additional demands will add yet more stress to the recreational fisheries, as habitat is lost through dewatering and degraded from increased fluctuation and shoreline erosion. Major efforts were made this year to incorporate habitat considerations into fishery management plans prepared by the Fishery Management Councils under the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act. This essentially was an effort to add statutory weight to the Fishery Habitat Policy of the National Marine Fisheries Service, a policy which was adopted less than two years ago. For these and other concerns, programs designed to evaluate, protect and improve fishery habitat in both inland and coastal environs are viewed as top priority areas of emphasis by the sport fishing industry. 84 Socioeconomic Data Bases Nothing cuts to the heart of an issue pending statutory and even regulatory decision quicker than economic impact data. If I have to appear in defense of aquatic resource protection or development programs, the first things I want placed at my disposal are irrefutable statistics on economic impacts and work force data. Many fishery patrons find this approach crass and inimical to debates focusing on natural resources issues. But, to the contrary, nothing evokes positive response in this day and age as surely as such statistics. The economic impacts of sport fishing ripple throughout the economy at every level from local to national, with heretofore unanticipated force. Unfortunately, the sportfishing industry is woefully lacking in germane data bases of adequate accuracy and specificity. Given that strong advocacy arguments are developed around hard facts, the recreational fishing industry, in concert with government, must develop a strong socio-economic data base. Although biological facts are vital to management, it is socioeconomic data that provides the ammunition to compete effectively against programs vying for limited tax dollars and fishery resources. The industry already participates in one source of such data through the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration (Boating Safety and Sport Fish Restoration) program and the periodic National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. This data base has great potential for generating economic statistics of utility to the industry, although the degree of data analysis has heretofore fallen short of its potential value. Unfortunately, the marine sport fishery statistics program of the Department of Commerce is just beginning to be of value to the sport fishing industry. At the same time, the program is being threatened with funding cuts or even el imination. Interjurisdictional Fishery Management We must, as a community, resolve the perplexing problems of providing reasonable management to transboundary finfish stocks that migrate between Federal and State jurisdiction and among the waters of several coastal states. Our record of managing such interjurisdictional stocks has not been one of which we can be proud. For at least one such species, the Atlantic coast stocks of striped bass, the U.S. Congress has interceded. The law requires coastal state compliance with appropriate management plans promulgated by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. The alternative is complete harvest moratorium. As noted in the legislative report on the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act, "the harvesting and conservation of these fish have been subject to diverse, inconsistent, and intermittent State regulation that has been detrimental to the long-term maintenance of stocks of the species and to the interest of fishermen and the Nation as a whole." 85 At the current time, two to three dozen species or groups of related species, of direct importance to the sport fishing industry, can be categorized as objects of some level of concern due to their interjurisdictional nature. Must the dependent sport fishing industry anticipate extinction of important transboundary sport fisheries for want of adequate management? Resolution of these complex management concerns must be forthcoming . Funding Successful and rewarding sport fishing excursions do not just happen in today's world of conflicting resource use and high intensity demand. Viable sport fisheries of desirable species are dependent upon the professional agencies that create and perpetuate most inland resources and manage most other fisheries. Programs to acquire necessary information to carry out such management practices as necessary to protect and enhance sport fisheries require considerable financial support. Direct angler funding has been a traditional means of generating funds for fishery programs combined with certain Federal matching grants programs. Additional investment in fishery resource development must be generated to optimize return to society. As was clearly stated by the recently released Report of the Governor's Commission to Promote Hunting and Fishing in Minnesota, the investment of considerable new dollars would likely generate handsome returns in tourism expenditures. This new funding question must be dealt with at a time when the mood of the country is to "get government off the people's back." The challenge for developing innovative fishery funding programs is perhaps the number one topic of emphasis for the future. CONCLUSION We have perhaps never faced an era requiring greater introspection on the part of all segments of the sport fishing fraternity to ferret out innovative approaches to solving these many perplexing sport fishery questions. The sport fishing fraternity is comprised of three closely interdependent segments, as I see it. First, the industry that conceptualizes, produces and markets the increasingly sophisticated and attractive products that are required by a constantly more demanding angling public; second, the angling public that pays the bills and continually seeks more diverse and attractive sport fishery resources; and third, the governmental management agencies responsible for husbandry of the nation's common property fishery resources, and upon whose dedicated efforts both the industry and the angling public ultimately depend. 86 I believe that the future of sport fishing lies in cooperative efforts to work toward common goals. And I believe that the sport fishing industry, in large measure through the Sport Fishing Institute, is working to ensure this future by helping to fund such important activities as data collection and analysis, advocacy programs and research and education programs. 87 Fishery Resource Management for the Remainder of the 1980,s; Accommodating Change Emphasis - Where Should It Be? Dr. John P. Harville Interim Director National Coastal Resources Research and Development Institute Hatfield Marine Science Center Newport, Oregon 1985 State Fish and Wildlife Directors Conference Washington, D.C. June 4, 1985 I have been asked to share with you some of the concerns of fishery professionals for fishery research and management in the years ahead -- for accommodating change through the 1980' s, but also for improving our overall performance in the husbandry of fishery resources in the public interest. I approach this task with some trepidation because I think I must try to represent the views both of the leaders of the profession and of the rank and file of biologists, economists, statisticians, and other workers who make up the shock-troops of our agencies. With input to my thinking from both of these groups, I will try to suggest four areas that I think are worth emphasis. I ask you to become somewhat schizoid for the next few minutes. Think about what I have to say by putting yourself back in time, to that period when you were a member of the shock troops, working your way up through the system, and paying your dues in the long line of events leading to your present leadership role. Think about how you felt about the resources and the research needed to manage them, and at the same time consider how you may be able to do something about improvements in research and management from your present vantage point as a decisionmaker. First, let me list my four areas of particular concern. However, in the interest of time, I will develop only the first two as of particular interest to us. First, the need for effective support for the scientific endeavors that provide the information base for fishery management decisions. There is no question that that is the major underlying concern of the professional. Second, resolution of the interagency turf conflicts which divide and attenuate our abilities to carry out those scientific endeavors . 89 Third, improvement in professional interactions, particularly between the troops and their officers -- the scientists and the decisionmakers. Fourth, provision for recruitment, professional recognition, and advancement that take into account our changing times and the changing demands upon our professional fishery workers. I believe these four areas must be considered together as parts of the whole in the same way that we consider together the elements that make up fishery management. Taken together, they enable our troops to do a good job, very much as adequate planning, effective data collection, information transfer, and information analysis, relevant research, and enforcement all are components of the management process. The area of professional concern most often voiced by fishery workers at all levels of our profession relates to the need for long-term, sustained support for the scientific endeavors that provide the information base for fishery management decisionmaking. How well are we doing to serve this need? Are we recruiting a well-qualified cadre of professionals to augment the ranks of our fishery researchers and managers with a proper mix of disciplines to deal with today's fishery problems? Are we including the ecologists, the population dynamics experts, the economists who have a key role to play in providing the information required for optimum yield determinations along with our generalists — the fishery biologists and managers? Are we committed to the long term, sustained support of these research and management teams which is necessary to weld them together into stable working units; or as is so often the case, do our professional advancement practices result in constant transfers of personnel, and intenerate, evanescent expertise, rather than solid, resident development of competence? Do we enhance the working conditions of our professional teams by reasonably insulating them from the pulling and tugging of user groups and politics? Obviously, they must be concerned about the input and the concerns of the users, but do we properly protect their working conditions so that they are able to operate in the objective mode that is necessary for decisionmaking? Do we have a solid, long-term ( long-term , I would like to repeat that five times) commitment to provide the funds and other support necessary for continuity in the collection and analysis of fishery data and other information, and for the performance of relevant and necessary research? You heard Sus Ono's compelling argument for continuity in funding for fishery development and development planning. We equally need continuity in mounting and maintaining the research, 90 data management, and analysis capabilities that form the very basis of the management decisions that people in this room have to make . I am sure that we all endorse in principle this need for long-term sustained support for our scientific endeavors. However, I think we have to agree that as our rank and file people look at the events of the past few years, there has to be some question as to how close intent comes to action. There has to be some uneasiness in the ranks when we look at Federal budget proposals. For example, the proposed closure of laboratories and disbanding of their professional staff as principal targets of budget cutters. Also, administrative directives which call for reductions in higher GS levels, and therefore reduction of promotion opportunities, which is a repudiation, I think , of the importance of having high quality professionals at upper management levels. I think our fishery professionals have to be especially concerned by the continuing attrition of the professional fishery research capabilities of such important Federal agencies, as the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Environmental Protection Agency, where fishery support budgets and fishery support intent, particularly for research, has been cut back even where budgets overall have remained constant or even have increased . We have to admit that no one can blame the professional who asks about the national commitment to scientific endeavors of all our agencies when we see the Federal programs which support cooperative Federal/State work as targets, year after year after year after year, for total elimination. I don't have to enumerate these programs under annual administration attack; they have been mentioned over and over again, including the more recent OMB attempt to delete the funding for the Wallop-Breaux augmentation. The second area relates to interagency cooperation and coordination. Can we find better ways to integrate and coordinate our efforts to manage shared fishery resources? Turf conflicts weaken the ability of our professionals to work effectively on behalf of the resource. I certainly support Bob Jantzen's comment earlier that this meeting is an important step, indicating the intent on all of our parts to do something about this; and I could not possibly improve on the very eloquent remarks of Tim Wapato describing how, in the North Pacific area, arrows and swords have been turned into constructive plowshares committed to improving the use of our fishery resources. I suggest that this need for coordination among our agencies might be expanded to include coordination within the extended jurisdiction management system. 91 I just finished a most frustrating four days of work with the North Pacific Fishery Management Council where it became apparent that "we can't get there from here" on the implementation of management plans. It is not possible, given the time it takes to translate management plans and management decisions into actual management action from one year to the next. It is virtually impossible to analyze the data that have to be considered in the fishery this year, make decisions, and move them through the system in time to initiate action next year. We keep trying to speed up the systems, but I know that once again our scientists have to be frustrated and resentful when we hand them documents one day, and expect them to give us analysis and recommendations the next. Since this kind of coordination is really the central theme of this conference, I don't think I have to dwell on it particularly, but I would like to ask your help in recommending ways we can improve our coordination, particularly between our states and the Federal agencies concerned with fishery conservation and management. Bill Gordon and Bob Jantzen very generously forwarded to you, as part of the briefing documents for this conference, a memorandum for the American Fisheries Society's ad hoc Committee on Federal Fisheries Responsibilities, which I chair. That memo reviews the tasks set for the Committee, which will culminate in recommendations to improve and strengthen our cooperative efforts. On the basis of our three days together here, I hope you will provide us with your comments and suggestions as input to our further deliberations and decisions. It is worth noting also that our committee met yesterday to identify key issues and areas of major concern for the Federal role in fishery affairs. Of the several areas we identifed, the one that came back over and over again was the need for coordination of Federal, State, Indian Tribal, and local government functions in all aspects of fishery management and conservation, and this includes the planning and implementation of research, and data collection. It includes problems having to do with pollution control and habitat protection. In all instances, we said, we need more clearly to define, and then solidly support those relative roles. I hope that one of the functions of our meeting here will be to identify more clearly what those roles are. In the interests of time, I will not comment on the other areas. They are really areas of interaction within the agencies. They are, however, very important to our scientific cadre, and I think they need our attention. 92 The areas of concern, again, I think, are: support for scientific work on a long-term, sustained basis; resolution of interjurisdictional conflicts and difficulties; improvement in the flow of information and decisions through our systems; and procedures for professional improvement and advancement that recognize the changing circumstances under which we work. We all depend upon our professionals for the information we need for decisionmaking. They depend on us to address these issues and concerns constructively and at once! Thank you. 93 Fishery Resource Management for the Remainder of the 1980's: Accommodating Change Emphasis Where Should It Be The Legislature Dr. Ronald Skoog Director Michigan Department of Natural Resources Lansing, Michigan 1985 State Fish and Wildlife Directors Conference Washington, D.C. June 4, 1985 Thank you, Robert. Number 14. I have been told before that I am living on borrowed time, and I kind of feel like it. My topic is the legislative arena, and I think all of us here recognize the importance of having good laws, good policies, good regulations, because all of our programs, obviously, depend on it. It is important: whether it be a State or a Federal agency we still need the base core of laws upon which we operate. On the other hand, I think there is a tendency among many of the States to neglect legislation somewhat, particularly in the congressional area. They pay attention to their State legislation, but the Federal stuff tends to slide-by, I think, with many States. They seem content to let the other person do the job. I think that it is very necessary to emphasize that collectively , we certainly are a powerful force in this country relative to what goes on in the Congress, and we ought to be paying considerable attention to what is happening. There are various actions that occur in the Washington arena that are very important: treaties; our various laws, whether they are new or old; reauthorizations. The regulations that implement these laws are extremely important, and very often, we fall down on following those through, and commenting in an appropriate and timely manner. Certainly, the policies of the Federal agencies also impact us in the States very much. State legislative actions also are important because what one State does very often impacts on all of us. Particularly along the coastal and other areas where we have interstate fisheries that we are trying to manage, it is very important that legislation being considered or passed in one State is known and followed by other States. 95 Our needs are several, and one of them has been spoken to quite a bit already, and that is simply the funding needs. Somehow, we must maintain the funding that we have for the various programs that are essential to carrying out our management responsibilities. I think we all recognize the budget crunch we are in now, and it is not going to get better in the near future, I don't believe. The States, I think, are going to have to come up with more money one way or another to continue some of the programs we are involved with. Looking down the line, we probably will be receiving fewer State grants from the Federal coffers. We need to look at new sources of revenue, be they special tax assessments, user fees, the OCS revenue sharing program that has been around for a little while and still hasn't been passed, and our loan programs. In fishery management, we have to continually look at fine- tuning the current laws and regulations that we have in order to improve upon them. None of the laws that come out of Congress can you be assured are going to do the job in the way it ought to be done, because of the various amendment language that thoroughly is inserted. We ought to be constantly looking at these laws for needed change, and also for needed change in the regulations that implement these laws. I think most of us agree that our hatchery programs are pretty essential to our fishery management programs around the country. These, of course, are expensive, yet we need to maintain them, and we need to improve upon them. Enforcement is an area, both at the State and Federal levels, which is extremely important, yet often neglected, unfortunately. There always seems to be some reason for not putting money into enforcement. There is need to coordinate our State and Federal programs— a common theme here—both interstate as well as Federal/State. We need to maintain and reauthorize current laws, and I will list some of them. We have to be sure that we keep the Anadromous Fish Conservation Act going; the Commercial Fisheries Research and Development Act that Congressman Breaux spoke of; the Coastal Zone Management Act; the Sikes Act, the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act; the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act; and Saltonstall-Kennedy funds. There are others . These are the books now, but we need to make sure that they stay there. There is going to be constant pressure, I think, to phase some of these out in time, and we are going to have to keep alert . 96 Perhaps the most important problem we face is simply the maintenance of habitat, whether it be the wetlands, as Congressman Breaux was speaking about, or estuaries, or other aquatic habitat. Our coastal zone management programs are extremely important to our fisheries, which we all know. Water projects and development, need a constant monitoring as they come forward in the Congress to be sure that they are not adversely impacting our fishery habitat and our environment, and/or that there are adequate mitigation measures being proposed at the same time. Our environmental laws are extremely important, yet often they tend to be left to the environmental agencies, and not dealt with by fishery managers or wildlife managers. We have to become involved in these, because we all recognize that clean water is essential to a good fishery program. We all recognize that need, yet very often we do not pay adequate attention to clean air. In the Great Lakes, we face some real problems. We have health advisories out, and in some areas of the lakes people are advised not to eat the fish-especially pregnant women and children- because of certain contaminants in the flesh of the fish. This to me is not an acceptable situation, and the only way we are going to solve such problems is by keeping on top of our environmental laws and being sure that we have what we need. Clean air is very important simply because we are finding more and more that contaminants are being transported via the air, in addition to that being received into the lakes from surface and ground water discharges. Many States do not have adequate environmental laws to control emissions into the air that currently are transporting such substances as PCBs , and dioxin. We are finding these kinds of contaminants in polar bears in the Arctic and in penguins in Antarctica. Such findings are a good indication of what is happening-worldwide- in airborne transport of contaminants which most of us are not paying much attention to. Another law-the Pesticide Act-is very important, as is the whole question of non-point pollution. Much of it relates to farming practices, but urban areas as well are serious contributors . Lastly, I would like to speak to the role being played by the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. I know that most of you belong to this organization and do participate. Yet, there are many States that do not. For those of you who are in the latter category, I would like to emphasize, the important role the International plays in Washington monitoring the laws that are being considered, advising the States on those impacting our programs so they can take whatever action may be necessary. 97 The International is a good rallying force, I think, for all of us here in trying to maintain the laws that we need. They are a very important lobbying force for us in Washington, growing in importance all the time, but we need the State participation. Jack Berryman and Wes Hayden do an outstanding job in keeping track of what is going on here, and advising the States. I am chairman of the Legislative Committee of the International, and I just want to say to everyone here that this committee can furnish you information on anything you may need, and I would like to hear from you. I would like your participation as well in the legislative committee, as much as you can afford to give. I would like to know, for example, the name of a liaison person in your State or in your particular agency that I can maintain contact with. Some of these laws that are proposed are completely off-base, and we need to rally our State Directors, get them in contact with their congressional leaders in Washington, to get some of the changes that are necessary. The Wallop-Breaux funding issue is one that we all recognize. The success was brought about because of a concerted effort by all of us here, and all of the States in fighting the proposed "raid" on that fund. With that kind of involvement by all of the States, I know we can avoid many of the problems we face down the line. We can enhance our programs, and we can have the opportunity to keep pace with our needs for managing our fishery resources. Thank you. 98 Purpose of the Caucuses The purpose of the regional caucuses was to identify needs, to focus on priorities for the next five years, and to develop options with assigned responsibilities. Their deliberations were to focus on the highest priority needs and practical actions needed for near-term attention and to address State and Federal responsibilities. Because of the need to reduce the Federal budget deficit, the caucuses were cautioned not to propose initiatives which would require additional Federal funding. If new initiatives were proposed as high priorities, the funding question was to be addressed in terms of what would be given up. The caucuses were requested to prepare written reports of their deliberations and conclusions. The written reports are intended to provide the means for further discussion at both State and Federal levels. 99 Coastal Interests Caucus Report Dr. James A. Timraerman, Jr., Executive Director, South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department, and E. Charles Fullerton, Director, Southwest Region, National Marine Fisheries Service, served as co-chairmen of the Coastal Interests Caucus. Pete Jensen, Austin Magill, and Robert Williams of the National Marine Fisheries Service served as rapporteurs. The following report summarizes the conclusions reached by representatives of the coastal states and island governments during two days of deliberations. It was understood that effective fishery management is a common objective of State, tribal Indian and Federal fishery agencies. Further, it was understood that effective fishery management is a product of well orchestrated program activities among State, tribal Indian and Federal levels. The intent of the caucus was to focus on management activities and functions which serve shared responsibilities or have potential for State/Federal/Ind ian cooperation. A wide range of fishery management needs and activities were discussed and the top five priority program activities were identified. Program activities are listed in priority order from a national perspective, in full recognition that some activities vary in priority by region. For example, fishery development and marketing functions are not accorded top priority from a national viewpoint, but are a high priority in island areas and the Gulf of Mexico. In addition, six policy statements or concerns were highlighted for Federal action or further consideration. Priority 1: Statistics and Data Needs Statement of Need Statistics are fundamental to fishery management. Information must be timely and of reasonable reliability Coordinated State/Federal (S/F) data collection systems are required for commercial and recreational fishery management. Cooperative arrangements are needed to avoid duplicated effort and reduce cost. States may need more detailed information than that required for regional management. Fishery independent information is needed as well as landings and other statistics. 101 Options Discussion (not mutually exclusive) Simplify management regime and therefore reduce data requirements and costs. Improve landings data systems to provide more timely and compatible information. Conduct fishery independent surveys on periodic basis (e.g., every three years); States could handle coastal, the Federal Government the EEZ. Consider fishermen reports as another source of input to status of stocks. Establish regionally administered S/F data programs with joint S/F funding and coordination to provide necessary level of detail and precision, systems compatibility, and cost-efficiency. Allow States to supplement system to collect detail needed for State needs. Use Wallop-Breaux funds for sportfish information. Recommendations Establish regionally oriented data committees to oversee collective S/F efforts. Allow flexibility for States to supplement data collection and analysis systems. Include input from fishermen. Wallop-Breaux funds should be used by States to supplement existing marine recreational fishery data systems . Priority 2: Research for Interjurisdictional Fishery Management Regimes Statement of Need Research is the basis for conservation and management decisionmaking. Stock assessment/population dynamics studies are essential for forecasts. Social/economic information is needed for optimum yield determinations. States generally lack funding to sustain significant ongoing research and to maintain needed expertise. Federal Government has provided principal research and will need to continue to do so. 102 Options Discussion (not mutually exclusive) - Focus research on interjurisdictional fishery management needs, i.e., less basic research. Segment research responsibilities; e.g., State sector - coastal, Federal sector - offshore, private sector - marketing. Improve communications and cooperative arrangements with Sea Grant, other universities, and private research facilities to have more influence on research projects, e.g., habitat-related research. Recommendations Focus research on management priorities and improve collective efforts through coordination. Maintain Federal research expertise, particularly for stock dynamics, oceanography, etc. Establish mechanisms for communicating fishery management needs among State, tribal Indians, Federal, and private sector interests. Research priority needs are: o Conservation/stock assessment/contaminant research. o Maximun Sustainable Yield and Optimum Yield determinations (including social and economic research) . o Gear research directed at improving effectiveness of management . Priority 3: Habitat Conservation and Relevant Research to Maintain and Enhance Fishery Habitat Statement of Need Healthy and productive habitats are fundamental to producing and maintaining robust fish populations. Coastal areas are undergoing rapid human population growth with consequent increased pressure for coastal development. Coastal habitat and estuarine areas are being lost or degraded at an alarming rate. The States, tribal Indians, and the Federal Government must devise cooperative arrangements to implement effective and innovative programs to preserve and restore habitat, and to prevent further loss of wetlands. 103 Options Discussion (not mutually exclusive) Encourage cooperation with Corps of Engineers dredge and fill activities to prevent destruction and encourage restoration of habitat. Develop media programs to educate the public about the importance of wetlands. Draft and support legislation to halt the conversion of wetlands to "drylands." Fund and conduct relevant research and management to identify and undertake restoration measures for degraded wetlands, from the small mountain streams to the ocean reefs . Recommendations Review Corps of Engineers permit applications with the objective of protecting and restoring wetlands; oppose those that destroy or degrade. Use mitigation only as a last resort; mitigation must be adeguate to replace that destroyed. Follow-up on permit actions to determine compliance with, and effectiveness of, recommendations. Establish in each State a single agency, with authority, responsible for habitat and wetlands protection. Priority 4: Law Enforcement Statement of Need Enforcement is central to any fishery management regime. State and Federal enforcement programs are considered minimal at the current levels. The prospects for more funding are not good in most areas. States and NMFS have different levels of enforcement capability. Enforcement authorities are split between NMFS, FWS, Coast Guard, and State agencies. A significant problem exists because the priorities of the enforcement agencies are often directed to non-fishery enforcement. In addition, because of the diversity of State, Federal, and tribal Indian laws and regulations, and regulatory bodies involved, the regulatory regimes often are unenforceable and the objectives freguently not obtained. Options Discussion (not mutually exclusive) Achieve greater efficiency by eliminating duplication. Implement cooperative S/F/Indian agreements. 104 - Seek more innovative enforcement and effective prosecution procedures. Avoid diversions of fishery enforcement to drug enforcement and other efforts. Recommendations Fishery enforcement personnel and equipment should be dedicated to fishery enforcement and not diverted to other areas. NMFS should increase emphasis on enforcement. Regulations developed by Councils and State governments should be critically reviewed for enforceability. Priority 5: Fishery Development and Marketing Statement of Need s Fishery development and marketing policies and programs erve the interests of State and Federal governments and the industry. Approaches to development and marketing depend upon the objectives to be met, e.g., increasing domestic consumption, developing export markets, developing new products or technology advances, or developing underutilized fisheries. The regional importance of development and marketing varies considerably. Island Governments give development a high priority. Private sector involvement is essential to development and marketing programs. The Sal tonstall-Kennedy (S-K) matching grants have been an effective way of addressing development and marketing problems, but are not recommended for reauthorization in the President's proposed FY 1986 Federal budget. Options Discussion (not mutually exclusive) Establish user fee based programs. Seek greater industry participation and financial support . Continue S-K matching grants at current levels. Improve international communication of technology. Undertake development and marketing projects through State and Federal facilities (not just fishery facilities), university contacts, and the private sector. 105 Recommendations Continue S-K matching grants to industry at current level. Continue support for Fisheries Development Foundations. If S-K funds are reduced, support for Fisheries Development Foundations should be given the highest priority. Vertically integrate development programs to improve technology for fish capture, handling, and processing. Seek greater industry participation and financial support for development projects. Policy Issues or Concerns In addition to the five major priority activities discussed separately, six policy issues or items of special concern were discussed by the Coastal Interests Caucus. These are discussed below very briefly and are not listed in priority order. (1) It was felt by the group that joint management of fishery resources is essential where a State (or States) and the Federal Government share management responsibilities. Separate or conflicting regulations and management actions tend to confuse the harvesters and hinder effective fishery management. (2) The group discussed at some length the need for an interjurisdictional fishery management policy for marine and estuarine resources. While there was not unanimous support for a national policy, it was agreed that such a policy should be developed, adopted, and implemented where both the States and Federal Government feel it necessary. (3) A unanimous concern was expressed regarding the time involved in processing grants within the Department of Commerce (DOC). State management agencies were used to having grant decisions by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Regional Offices in a matter of 2 weeks or less. States now have to submit projects many weeks earlier to allow for NOAA Regional Administrative Support Centers and DOC Federal Assistance Review Board review. The States cited the review and approval procedures of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in their DJ and PR programs as a preferred process. It was recommended that the review and approval of P.L. 88-309 and P.L. 89-304 grants be returned to the NMFS Regional Offices to expedite review and timely implementation of State grant programs. 106 (4) The group discussed the complexity and cumbersomeness of the Federal regulatory process implementing fishery management plans. It felt that, whenever possible, regulations should be the minimum required to meet the objectives of management and simplified to facilitate public understanding and law enforcement . (5) A lively discussion ensued on limited entry, more properly referred to as effort management. The group agreed that effort management could be a useful tool in fishery management and should be considered by fishery managers, along with other management measures. (6) The States expressed concern about the lack of stability in Federal funding. They felt that stable and assured long-term Federal funding for fishery programs would provide for continuity of fishery programs throughout the nation. 1/ 1/ Similar concern was expressed by tribal Indians in the Inland States Caucus. Federal funding for technical fishery assistance to Tribes was cited as insufficient. It was recommended that Federal assistance to Tribes be funded at adequate levels and that budget responsibilities be consolidated into the Fish and Wildlife Service. 107 Great Lakes Caucus - 1985 Overview Statement The Great Lakes Caucus Group (GLCG) listed and reviewed 40 major areas of concern relating to management of the Great Lakes fishery. From this list five major topics were developed as priority issues requiring further considerations. In the process of identifying the critical issues and strategies that pertain to Great Lakes fisheries in the 1980's, the Great Lakes Caucus of the 1985 State Directors Fish and Wildlife Conference determined that the previously adopted Strategic Great Lakes Fishery Management Plan (GLFC-1980) was still relevant, but that a review of the progress achieved in plan implementation is needed. The GLCG believes that the key issues concerning the need for integrated fishery management plans for each lake, for improved interjurisdictional coordination, for greater emphasis on environmental problems, for coordinated enforcement, and for directed research could be handled within the framework established in the strategic plan developed under the ageis of the GLFC. Therefore, a key recommendation of the caucus involves a reconvening of the original body which oversaw and implemented the strategic plan. This body was known as the Committee of the Whole (COW) and consisted of agency directors. A steering committee, with two members of the COW, will petition the GLFC to reconvene the COW, seek Canadian participation, and assist in preparation of the meeting agenda, which will mirror concerns identified by the GLCG. As the principal Federal agencies and sponsors of the 1985 State Directors Fish and Wildlife Conference, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service should assume the lead in communicating the issues and recommendations of the GLCG to the appropriate authorities or organizations that will be involved in coordination and implementation. These recommendations represent the collective views and consensus of the participating Great Lakes States represented (WI, MI, MN, NY, and PA), the GLIFWC, FWS , NMFS, and the SFI. More specifically, those recommendations that relate to coordination by the GLFC should be appropriately addressed to that organization. The other agencies and organizations involved should also be guided by these recommendations in planning and budgeting program activities concerning the Great Lakes fishery resources. 109 ASSUMPTIONS 1985-1990 o Fewer Federal dollars—related to different institutional priorities o More positive attitude on interjurisdictional relationships o Greater focus on water use o Continued expansion of interest in fishery resources o Improved water quality o More awareness of contaminants o Greater focus on economic values o Increased program emphasis by FWS and EPA o Low-key but supportive role of NMFS LIMITATIONS TO CURRENT GREAT LAKES FISHERY PROGRAMS o Substantial differences in staffing, fiscal, and program priorities o Increased overall workloads o Understanding roles of various Great Lakes organizations o Authority of these organization to implement recommendations — presently too informal o Little involvement by policy-level people in implementation of the Strategic Great Lakes Fishery Management Plan ISSUES I. Implement integrated strategic planning building upon the framework established by the "Strategic for Great Lakes Fishery Management Plan (GLFC) ." o Strategies 1. Reconvene the Committee of the Whole within the auspices of GLFC to: a. examine the institutional arrangement to achieve fish management and environmental protection objectives, b. review and update the existing plan, and 110 c. invite participation of tribes in planning process . 2. Use the Commission as the primary coordinating body for fishery management of the Great Lakes. 3. Develop and refine implementation procedures; i.e., Lake Management Plans. 4. Formulate an ecologically based data management system. 5. Implement a common resource inventory. 6. Develop and adhere to fish community (multi- species) objectives within the context of lake management planning. 7. Develop more effective mechanisms for public involvement and dissemination of information to the public. II. Seek more efficient and effective interjurisdictional relationships . o Strategies 1. Press for more consistent fish management and environmental protection policies and practices at international, Federal, and interstate levels. 2. Integrate tribal (interests policies) with other governmental (programs entities). 3. Formulate realistic fish stock allocation systems between tribes and States and among States and the Province of Ontario. 4. Call upon GLFC to implement systems that will provide mechanisms for more effective interjurisdictional coordination. III. Give priority emphasis to environmental quality issues. o Strategies 1. Improve interagency coordination and reduce conflict among environmental quality institutions. 2. Establish uniform contaminant analysis techniques for determining levels in fish. 3. Formulate a common policy and methods for establishing fish consumption. Ill 4. Achieve a better understanding of the meaning of health-risk assessment and health advisories. 5. Establish a better and more comprehensive definition of relationship between environmental quality parameters and fisheries. 6. Determine impacts of specific environmental changes on fishery resources. 7. Develop more effective vehicles for dissemination of information to the public. IV. Develop more effective enforcement. o Strategies 1. Review the GLFC Report of Law Enforcement Workshop and recommend course of action. 2. Examine the need for coordination with environmental enforcement programs. V. Establish priorities for existing fishery programs and projects that are essential to fishery rehabilitation development and use. o Strategies 1. Maintain long-term data series to formulate and support management decisions. 2. Assess fish stock relationships to enable definition of predator- forage balance. 3. Maintain emphasis on lamprey control and related research as an essential element in fishery management . 4. Target fishery research efforts to meet high priority management needs. 112 Inland Interests Caucus Report ISSUE ONE; FEDERAL SUPPORT FOR INLAND FISHERY RESOURCES Recent actions and program redirections have resulted in diminished support by the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service in regards to vital inland fishery programs. Considering the relative value of the recreational and commercial components of the inland fishery, this trend must logically be revised. The sport and commercial fishermen who utilize these waters pay the same taxes as those who fish the Great Lakes, coastal areas, etc., yet they do not receive equal consideration for their needs. Specific areas where improved support is needed: A. Improved reservoir and basinwide fishery research development, coordination, and management. B. Improved fishery technical services. C. National Marine Fisheries Service support of inland commercial fisheries. D. Fishery technical assistance to Indian tribes. A. Improved reservoir and basinwide fishery research development, coordination, and management Background National reservoir investigational teams have been totally phased out leaving to the State the responsibility of research and management of these Federal systems. Many of these large water projects were justified, in part, by recreational opportunity which has not been fully developed. This recreation, as well as commercial fishing opportunity, cannot be realized unless there is a coordianted effort by the States and the Fish and Wildlife Service to confront the Federal regulatory agencies. Priority areas in need of improved coordinating services with the States include issues of water level management, instream flows, mitigation, habitat . degradation , research, and joint management by Federal agencies responsible for regulation of major watershed basins, i.e., for example Corps of Engineers regulations of Missouri River reservoirs. 113 Analysis Because these large reservoir systems are federally managed, dynamic systems with tremendous recreational opportunity, and contain species of national importance that are influenced by water management, the Fish and Wildlife Service should emphasize these services to the State via authorities of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. Recommendation By FY 1987 redirect or designate full-time fishery positions within the Fish and Wildlife Service to work with the States in coordinating basinwide management of these Federal water projects and provide technical assistance or research to limit habitat degradation and answer other problems of management of these aging systems. B. Improved Fishery Technical Services Background The Fish and Wildlife Service has stated a responsibility "to maintain a Federal leadership role in the scientifically based management of national fishery resources." The individual States do not possess the capability to accomplish much of the laboratory or technical assistance services currently available through the Fish and Wildlife Service. Recommendations The Fish and Wildlife Service should reaffirm its leadership role by its involvement in the following areas: 1. Fish disease diagnosis and fish health practice, 2. Introduction and control of exotic species, including the evaluation of possible beneficial species in fishery management , 3. Development and application of biochemical and traditional fish genetic techniques such as triploid identification, fish stock identification and genetic finger printing, etc . 4. Extension training services, and 5. Chemical and drug registration. 114 C. NMFS Support of Inland Commercial Fisheries Background The following is pertinent to NMFS support of commercial fisheries in inland waters: 1. Approval of inland States PL 88-309 (Commercial Fisheries Research and Development Act of 1964) projects by NMFS takes up to 4 months. 2. Breaux Amendment (H.R. 1028) will eliminate PL 88-309 Federal funding for most of inland States. 3. NMFS has responsibility for administration of PL 88-309 commercial fishery program and the approval of project documents within a reasonable period of time. 4. PL 88-309 program provides the only continuous support for commercial fisheries in the inland States. 5. Purpose of PL 88-309 is to enhance commercial fisheries in cooperation with the States. 6. Inland commercial fisheries provide a significant food resource for the nation. Options Statement NMFS should approve PL 88-309 project documents within 30 days as provided by OMB Circular A-102. PL 88-309 should be reauthorized and extended in its present form without the Breaux Amendment (H.R. 1028) in order to provide continuous support to inland States for commercial fisheries. Options Available 1. NMFS has authority for administration of PL 88-309 program. 2. Continuous funding is required to obtain a data base for management of commercial fishery resources. 3. No additional Federal funds are required. Recommendations NMFS should approve PL 88-309 project amendment within 30 days. PL 88-309 program should be reauthorized and extended for a 3-year period without the Breaux (H.R. 1028) amendment. 115 D. Fishery Technical Assistance to Indian Tribes Background Federal funding of technical fishery assistance to tribes is insufficient to adequately address tribal needs. Prior to recent changes, the FWS was responsible for budgeting and providing fishery assistance to tribes. Although the responsibilities for providing the assistance remains with FWS , the responsibility for budgeting for this assistance has been transferred to BIA. BIA is now having difficulty budgeting for additional funds needed to provide the assistance required. Options Statement 1. Return the budget responsibility to FWS for providing fishery assistance to tribes. 2. Require BIA to provide adequate funds within their budget authority to provide for fishery assistance to the tribes. Recommendation It is recommended that the FWS be responsible for budgeting and fully funding Federal fishery assistance to tribes. ISSUE TWO: ABANDONMENT OF FISH STOCKING RESPONSIBILITY ON FEDERAL LANDS AND IN FEDERALLY FUNDED WATER PROJECTS Background 1. Some Federal lands (i.e., Forest Service) are not considered equally with National Park Service or FWS refuge lands with respect to Federal fish stocking. 2. Put-and-take fishing is not recognized as a legitimate fishery management tool by FWS. 3. Existing Federal fish hatcheries are not properly maintained and operated. 4. Proposed legislation on reimbursement for federally stocked fish on Federal lands and water projects may not be practical . 116 Options and Analysis 1. Recognize responsibility for all stocking on Federal lands to meet management needs identified by the States. 2. Recognize joint responsibility with the States for stocking on Federal lands to meet management needs identified by the States. 3. Options for financing production of fish to meet these Federal responsibilities are: (a) appropriate the funds from the general revenues, or (b) reimburse the funds to FWS from land management and water resource development agencies (or beneficiaries of water resource projects). 4. Provide no fish for these Federal lands (this is not consistent with a flexible national policy to meet various regional needs across the nation). Recommendation The FWS should seek adequate funding for operation and management of Federal fish hatcheries. Management of fishery resources on Federal land should be the joint responsibility of FWS and the States unless States wish to assume full responsibility. Reimbursement seems to be a reasonable idea as long as funding to accomplish management objectives set by State fishery managers is assured. In lieu of such assurances, funds for fish stocking should be provided by FWS through the annual appropriations from general funds. ISSUE THREE: RULES RELATING TO ALLOWABLE USE OF NEW WALLOP/BREAUX (W/B) FUNDS Background 1. Concern about restrictive interpretation of allowable uses of new W/B Funds in trying to attain the national goal of enhancing and increasing State sport fishing opportunities. 2. Concern about different interpretation of uses of (W/B) Funds from FWS staff at different levels. 3. Concern about use of funds in hatchery operations and stocking program with maximum flexibility. 4. Uncertainty of what constitutes boating access development and if funds can be used for long-term operation and maintenance . 5. Uncertainty on uses of W/B Funds on "How to Fish" education as part of broad aquatic education program. ,117 Options and Analysis 1. Clarification of current and proposed FWS rules and regulations (do before October 1985 funding availability) . 2. Maximum flexibility in interpretation of rules and regulations to allow States widest latitude in use (do before October 1985 funding availability). 3. Changes in current FWS rules and regulations where necessary to achieve above goals. 4. Changes in Congressional bill when time for reauthorization where necessary (not considered a good option at this time) . 5. States may not be able to use W/B Funds providing no improvement in fishery program (not realistic or good option at this time) . Recommendation * 1. Clarify rules and regulations allowing maximum flexibility in the program by FWS and change rules and regulations where necessary to allow States widest possible latitude within congressional authorization. 2. Have FWS-Washing ton instruct regional administrators to work with States for maximum flexibility. Remove roadblocks, not put them in place. ISSUE FOUR: ACTIONS FOR PROTECTION AND ENHANCEMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES ARE BEING FRAGMENTED AND/OR DIMINISHED AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL AT A TIME WHEN THEY SHOULD BE STRENGTHENED. Background At present, national viewpoints/positions on important fish (and wildlife) issues are typically formed individually by numerous separate Federal agencies (USFS, FWS, NMFS, EPA, FDA, CoE, BOR, etc.), each with their own biological staffs. This fragmented and sometimes incomplete viewpoint does not provide the comprehensive, objective attention that these issues rightly deserve and require. An apparent lack of effective coordination among Federal agencies leads to wasteful duplication, incompatible data due to lack of standardized methodology, and delayed application of findings . 118 Recommendations regarding impacts on fishery resources made to landholding and other Federal agencies are commonly ignored, significantly diluted, or otherwise overlooked. Options Statement 1. The FWS and NMFS be designated by Congress as an objective clearinghouse for fishery and wildlife interests in the Federal Government. 2. Specific efforts by FWS, NMFS and other Federal agencies to inform States of their activities and fishery positions that are being cooperativley and/or simultaneously pursued with other Federal agencies. Options Analysis 1. A quick decisive solution to the fragmentation and diminishing effort to protect and enhance fishery resources would be for Congress to place authority to direct proper management actions by Federal agencies in FWS or NMFS or both? This might be difficult to achieve. 2. Some State agency concerns on environmental fishery issues may be more perceived than real due to inadequate Federal- State information transfer. Suggest intra-agency review of communication mechanisms currently being used with the goal of redirecting and improving these efforts rather than creating significantly increased communications workload . Recommendations The FWS and NMFS must be recognized and/or provide the leadership as the Federal agencies with the expertise and responsibility for coordination and integration of Federal environmental programs affecting fish and wildlife resources of the Nation. 1. Internal Action Education and communication are important areas to identify for the States where there is coordination for protection of fish and wildlife habitat interests among Federal agencies. Priority by the Service on maintaining capability to exercise their environmental responsibility by adequate support for appropriate branches and services as difficult decisions are made regarding allocation of available resources. 119 2. External Action Concerted efforts by States and fish and wildlife interest groups to convince the Congress/ Administration that FWS and NMFS are the proper advocates for fish and wildlife resources and should be given adequate authority and resources to serve this role at Federal level. Some of the questions left in the minds of the Inland Caucus regarding habitat/environmental issues affecting fishery resources are: On each issue at the National level 1. Who is doing what? 2. What information is available? 3. Who makes the decisions? 4. How are the State agencies involved in these decisions and what value is placed on State views? (Through agency input or through primarily political means?) o acid rain o contaminants o land use practices o low flow (minimum flows) 5. Why does it take so long to inform the agencies and the public about the results of monitoring and other studies? 120 Reaction to Caucuses Reports William G. Gordon Assistant Administrator for Fisheries National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Let me start with the coastal caucus report. It's a little closer home to me. Statistics, data needs and research are clearly the highest priority. The one problem that we are consistently facing is budgetary. Congress says, "My, God, all that money to collect information." It's an artifact of our budget structure. One of our line items is information and data analysis which indicates we are spending in excess of $50 million on information and data analysis and they look at it from that standpoint. It does appear like a lot. Candidly, it is, but I will try to address that later. One of the options discussed intrigued me — consider ing fishermen reports as another source of input to the status of stocks. I have a lot of scars on my back from a long history of trying to get fishermen to report accurately. Changing the attitude of these fishermen is a major task. We have to get the point across that it is their future they are dealing with by not reporting accurately, and they have a role, a responsibility, if you will, to assist in the management of that resource by providing accurate information, catch effort, location, etc. I was pleased to hear that the States might supplement the collection of details on marine recreational fisheries with Wallop-Breaux funds. That fits within the guidelines of new things, because that is one area in the data system that is full of loopholes and gaps. We need a lot more. Our present investment of just a little over $1.5 million on an annual survey does not go into the detail that is needed for rational management of the fisheries. This is a point that we have talked about with the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the NMFS regional directors have talked with the States. I would urge you to follow through with this suggestion. I agree with John Breaux that the Federal Government has the principal responsibility and role in research. You can contribute to it, and many of you do in a very major way, but because the Federal Government is charged with the overall view, and the overall responsibility particularly in the coastal areas offshore, we will have to shoulder that burden and work with you for your input. 121 I appreciate very much the comments on improvement of communications and cooperative arrangements with Sea Grant. Although Sea Grant is recommended for elimination, the Congress does not agree and has been restoring the funds. I think we could get a great deal more out of Sea Grant, for example, in habitat areas to fill out some of the data gaps. On habitat, about a year and a half ago, we did publish a habitat conservation policy, and one of the implementation strategies was to bring the Councils into it. They are well on their way in accomplishing this; not only to focus habitat needs of the various fisheries but to gain recognition for the critical needs for particular fisheries. We have several examples that have already taken place. One example is Nueces Bay, Texas. The Council focused on that issue and caused the Corps of Engineers to change their attitude and decision. The Corps promised not to dredge and fill-in the Nueces Bay area for at least 25 years, using marginal upland farm land as an alternative. Before the Council got involved the decison was made to fill Nueces Bay. The Council brought the issue to the public attention and the decision was reversed. Within NOAA, a little over a year ago, a decision was made to establish an estuary office as a coordinating function, not only for NOAA, but to reach out to the public, universities and the States, and try to pull together relevant information for use in these areas. The office is now housed within the National Marine Fisheries Service and is beginning to function very well. One thing that they have started has been an estuary seminar/conference of the month. Generally those conferences are well-attended, standing room only in some instances. When they are held here in town, a lot of the congressional staffers attend. It is an important way of educating the Congress on the importance of wetlands and the estuaries. One point I would make is that Congress seems to be developing a propensity to put funds in someone else's budget, and say, "Pass it on through to the agencies." Bob Jantzen mentioned it with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Sometimes the agency is reluctant to give up those moneys, having gained those funds. I am referring to the Environmental Protection Agency where they were directed to pass $4 million through to NOAA for use in several of the bays and inlets on the East Coast as well as Puget Sound on the West Coast. I do not think we are going to succeed this year in getting the $4 million out of them. I endorse Bob's comment that you, the State fishery administrators, make sure that appropriate language is in the committee reports. It would be helpful in prying those funds loose for the purposes that the Congress intended. .122 The Councils must focus on enforceability. The States must as well if their regulations are to be compatible with those regulations passed by the Council. But more importantly, we should be conscious of the cost of those regulations to the production of seafood. There is probably a concern out there among the recreational fishermen about very complicated regulations dealing with their use of certain fisheries. I was accused of having written Rick Martin's speech until he got down to the Lacey Act. But the fact is we never met until he walked into the room and into the meeting, on Tuesday. We ought to listen very carefully to those comments. Within National Marine Fisheries Service, fortunately the area of enforcement, in terms of the budget is the only area that has not been attacked by the budget-cutters. Our budget, although we don't get the cost-of-living increases, is still static there. Unfortunately, enforcement responsibilities have grown with the number of fishery management plans that are coming on-line, and with the application of the Lacey Act in support of the State programs. On inland fisheries, I would comment principally on the area of P.L. 88-309 and P.L. 89-304. Both of these Acts have served the Nation extremely well. They have been around for quite some time, and that is one of the underlying problems. They have served well and we have become complacent. We have forgotten to reiterate the reasons why they came into being in the first place--to assist the States in the national interests. Now we see an attack on those programs. They are being viewed as simply helping a State or local entity, consequently a number of the grant programs have been slated for the chopping block. John Breaux's attempt in H.R. 1028 was simply to focus it strictly on the Federal role, and in doing so, lost sight of a portion of the commercial constituency on P.L. 88-309. Your concern should be passed on to him, and perhaps some way can be found to accommodate the commercial constituency and at the same time remove some of the objectionable portions of P.L. 88-309 in terms of administration. The Administration clearly favors eliminating these programs. There was a fair degree of consensus on the Financial Assistance Review Board (FARB) in the Department of Commerce. One asked, "Well, why was FARB created?" It was created in the Baldrige Administation , because when they took over they discovered that some agencies within Commerce (it was not focused on us) were rampant with waste, fraud, and abuse. By and large they pointed a finger at EDA and Small Business, where a lot of moneys were handed out to the private sector without any controls on it. There was an assumption that we were all guilty. So, they brought P.L. 88-309 and P.L. 89-304 under the FARB and began to look at them. They found enough problems that we, the Federal 123 Government were guilty of, and some problems in the documents coming in from the States, that they have continued to focus on it, even though they have accepted that it's running pretty well. Maybe one of these days they will give it back to us. But the problems stem from incomplete documentation, presigning documentations, and some of the practices that we built into it to accommodate the timeliness of getting these documents done. I talked to them about a new system— one in which we would get long-term commitment. We would start a program by State. Instead of having a multitude of projects under that State, we would have one program with a number of phases. Perhaps, then once gaining approval of the broader program, we would not need to bring it back to the FARB for approval of each phase. We should give some thought to streamlining that program to the point that we can get a longer term approval and then, subject to availability of funds, the project or portions of it could be modified . We have a great deal of work ahead of us. What we are doing is aligning each of the fisheries, the major fisheries around the United States, as an item, and are managing the agency, and the people who do the research by management by objective, in relating these back to our budget. Then, when you take research and spread it out across 31 different fisheries — groups of species or major fisher ies--people begin to see where your investment is, not only in research, but your management costs, your enforcement costs, your habitat for marine mammals and endangered species fit, and where your fishery development takes place. Then it begins to make more sense to these people. This year was the first in preparing that way for the '87 budget. I hope the understanding is maintained, and that we will fare far better in the budget process. It is no secret that in four consecutive years now, the Administration has submitted a budget that, in a sense, calls for an in-excess-of-40-percent cut in the agency. Congress has always disagreed. I would end with one observation about this conference: Communications play a very vital role. All of the sessions included robust discussions, and there was a good exchange of ideas and views. The reports include very constructive criticisms to the agency. Let us keep the communication channels open . 124 Reaction to Caucus Reports Robert A. Jantzen Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service I'd like to make some comments on the reports this morning. I'll start with the Inland Interest Caucus. It is probably the one that I'll spend most of my time on and it's appropriate, I think, because the FWS is deeply involved in inland fishery resources. We recognize the value of that fishery and the management and research activities that go on. Some of you feel that the Responsibilities and Role Statement diminishes support for inland fishery resources. I don't share that because we have a commitment to continue to seek and provide mitigation, for example, and that's done by two programs: the Fishery Resources Program and the Habitat Resources Program. That is one of our top responsibilities and role as we view it in the next 15 years. Habitat is extremely important. The FWS, I think, will have to have its hands on to influence maintenance of habitat, and try to prevent the degradation of habitat by acting through the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and other authorities, where we are deeply involved. We plan to continue to be deeply involved in that activity throughout the United States — the inland waters as well as the coastal waters. That responsibility is very broad and our emphasis is equal, whether it's coastal or inland. The focus on interjurisdictional fishery resources allows us to become involved in the fishery management issue that is associated with major river systems. I know there is concern about the reservoir research program. But in the mitigation packages that are developed and amended—the mitigation efforts of the Fish and Wildlife Service--! see a place where we can participate the way you folks want us to. I don't think there's any question but what we want to and will continue to provide a leadership role for fish health and fish culture-related activities. You can also count on us to be there with the recovery of endangered species including the production and stocking of threatened and endangered species. Regarding the need for coordination with all groups, I'd like to make this comment by way of a reminder. We worked very hard to develop a fish and wildlife policy for the Department of the Interior about two and a half years ago and finally got one out. Then instead of letting it sit on the shelf, I asked the FWS regional directors to go to each of the States and look at what was needed under that policy in the way of cooperative agreements and cooperative efforts that would be spelled out, and that we could agree on. As a result, there were some agreements 125 that were found to be no longer needed. New ones were identified. Some were amended, but that structure and that system is in place and it's there for you to use. If you feel a need for coordination on particular issues, a particular management or research issue, use that system. I would urge you to use that vehicle at the regional office level, because the regional directors are the ones that are responsible for those agreements and for cooperative efforts with the States, and it's a critical element in their job description. In case anybody wonders, ask them! We will respond. We will respond as best we can within the laws and regulations that we have to work with, which is the same on your side, too. On the reservoir and basin-wide research recommendations, we are going to take a look at your concerns and see what we can do to cover that gap. I know there is concern about the reservoir research program. Basically, we had some problems with it, too, because we didn't know where it was going. There wasn't — and this is FWS ' fault — there wasn't good, clear direction. I recognize and do admit that there is a void there now, and go back to the point that was made several times: Data bases, good data bases, provide you with the reason and the rationale to make good management decisions. Regarding technical services, we are going to continue. We do have a problem in technical assistance to the tribes. It was well identified by the people here as far as the budgeting aspect is concerned. I think you all understand that the budget responsibility shifted to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Now, they are having problems in providing the budget that we need. Our Fishery Resources Program people are constantly in negotiation with BIA for not only the moneys available for this effort, but also the full-time equivalents, in other words, the bodies. It is an annual thing. The procedure is not very productive, really, and it's not very efficient. I recognize the solution that was recommended by the group. Another solution, which would probably work just as well, and maybe not upset the apple cart quite as much, would be to consider having Congress put more clear direction in the budget, or in the conference, or committee report to BIA for funding. Somehow, we need to fix that so that we don' t have to negotiate on a year-to-year basis and wind up with some areas of the Nation as haves and other areas of the Nation as have-nots, as far as the Indian trust responsibility of Interior is concerned. I do recognize the problem. On the use of Wallop-Breaux funds, I would like to respond to that in some fashion. The Wallop-Breaux program is a new start. We are all kind of feeling our way. The basic policy that we are approaching, the regulations implementing Wallop- Breaux, is one of creating additional flexibility. I think there 126 is a need for that on the part of the States because you have 200 percent more money. I think for a long time all of us at the State and Federal ievel have recognized the need for investment in fishery management. The States, in my view, are the hands-on fishery managers. The Fish and Wildlife Service is not, and I don't believe it would be appropriate for us to attempt to fill that void. So, we are trying to maximize the flexibility in the regulations under Wallop-Breaux . There is one thing that I think all of us will have to guard against. It is based on a comment that was made directly to me by Congressman Breaux, not once but twice, and that is that he is extremely concerned that these new funds not be used to supplant or take the place of existing State programs. He promised oversight hearings if he found that it was prevalent. He feels very strongly that the new funds be used in an adjunctive manner to improve the delivery of fish, if you will, and fishery management and research to the fisherman. They are not to be used to step in and take over the operation of an existing hatchery, for example, so that money then can be diverted some other place. He is concerned, and I would be concerned, too, if that were done and it were prevalent, that State legislatures might be taking a look at that release of money for other programs. So, that is one thing that we will need to guard against in our regulations. I know that it may impact on some States negatively. There's nothing contemplated which would prevent the use of Wallop-Breaux funds for, let's say, expanding production at an existing hatchery or renovation of a hatchery where you will get expanded production, but I think there would have to clearly be some improvement in production, stocking, and essentially fish to the fisherman. I think we can accommodate that. One of the things that occurs from time to time in a regional, decentralized administration, particularly with the Federal Aid program in both PR and D- J , is that meetings like this when you get together, you find that one region will handle the generic issue differently than another region. I'd have to say that I like to see equal treatment across-the-board. I expect the regional directors to administer the program with flexibility at the region, but within sideboards that everyone understands across the Nation. We would strive for that in our administration of the program as well as in our regulations. That's not to say, though, that there can't be some different twists and turns by region, depending upon the needs of the State in that region, but still within parameters and sideboards so that everybody understands what the game rules are. 127 We'll sort it out. I'll make that commitment to you. My analogy is that we're plowing new ground and those rows aren't going to be too straight the first time around. Part of the problem is, you know, the driver ain't too sure, and the other part of the problem is the horses in the traces aren't too sure of which way they ought to go. Maybe the second time around the field, we will iron it out. I will make a commitment to you that we will work on this and put it on a priority basis and get policy answers out. Now, you may not like some of the policy answers. We will try to lay it out for everyone to clearly understand. The manual will help quite a bit when it comes out. In the meantime, we will have our internal discussions and touch base with you fellows, too. Again, on the Wallop-Breaux funds, additive is the word. New initiatives, but not substitution of existing programs. I think that would be our bottom line in whatever comes out. I think we'll have to keep faith with the Congress because that's certainly what they intended. I would say one other thing on the point, and that is I think it behooves all of us, the States and the Federal entities, to try very hard to come forward after a two- or three-year period and demonstrate with some solid projects as evidence of what that expansion of money has done for fishery resources. I think that is key and critical. If we take the money for granted and go do good things with it, but don't go back to Congress and say, "Here, this is what this program did, and this is why it's so much better," I think, then we may jeopardize the program. Remember the comments made two days ago by a couple of speakers at the national level, the Congress, and also the Secretary of the Interior. I guess I am one of those western directors that is still very cautious about Federal intervention in what I consider to be State management responsibilities. On stocking Federal lands, I think you know where I come from philosophically. We do recognize put-and-take stocking as a legitimate fishery management tool, however, I think this is an area where the State really is the one that should be in control of that type of management regime, whatever is appropriate for the State. In our definition of the responsibilities and role of FWS we are trying to take a new direction and stay with national objectives and national issues. We looked long and hard at this business of Federal lands, and I understand the Western reaction, I think, quite well. As far as Federal lands are concerned, I can remember a fight that California got into with the National Park Service over aerial planting of High Sierra Lakes. Here is a State that felt very strongly it was their responsibility to manage those lakes in the National Park System with State operations. 128 Conversely, on the other side of town, it seems like there's a great willingness on the part of some States to let the Federal Government take over management responsibilities depending upon land ownership. I've got to tell you, I'm nervous about that. The reason I am nervous about that is that if we locked that sort of system into place, I think you would be looking at a larger issue of Federal management of resident species responsibility based on land ownership. You would tie the management of wildlife closer to land ownership than I would like to see it tied. So, FWS should approach this very cautiously and try to limit our participation to the trust responsibilities on Indian reservations as a first priority. I personally would perfer that the States come to the Fish and Wildlife Service and say, "Look, we'd like to get into management of the fisheries on your national wildlife refuges." I think that's appropriate where you have resident species involved. I would like to see your presence there. You may not be able to. In that case, we would continue to do the fishery management, create additional fishing potential, and maintain habitat protection on those Federal refuge lands. With regard to BLM and Forest Service lands, though, I think that we would be very reluctant to enter into a stocking and management program on those lands, simply because they're Federal lands. That's kind of where we are coming from. On the fragmented and diminished Federal responsibilities on environmental issues, I agree with you. I don't know what we can do to change it. I think that you folks are probably in a better position to change it through Congress, through reauthorization hearings. The Federal entities are responding to what comes out of Congress. A lot of times, this fragmentation is a direct result of that. There are mixed signals that come from Congress, because there are different constituency groups that pound on them, and they try to respond to those different and various groups . Sometimes, we are in a position where we really can't solve the problem, and if it is that big, I think it appropriate the message be delivered to the Congress by the people that are being affected by the problem. They are the ones that can put the language and the direction in legislation and the conference and committee reports that the Federal agencies will and must respond to. Regarding the Great Lakes and the strategic plans, we will recommend to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission to reconvene the Committee of the Whole. We will also recommend that it be composed of State directors, Ontario, and the Federal agencies, including the Federal Canadian agencies, and try to get a mid- course correction to make that plan as real as it can be. The FWS will continue to do its research and operational work in the Great Lakes. We'll continue to work closely with the States. If 129 we're not, we have a regional director available in Minneapolis- St. Paul, and you know my telephone number, too. So, I think we are doing well, and we want to continue to do well. On the coastal caucus, it was pointed out that statistics and management information are fundamental. I couldn't agree more and that includes research. In summarizing there is kind of an underlying common thread throughout the whole discussion by all three groups. It is that habitat conservation, research and management are key. Protection of wetlands and mitigation are high priorities for us in our budget. They are high priorities for Congress. I expect you will see much more involvement by the Fish and Wildlife Service in the area of environmental contamination, for example, in the next fiscal year, and certainly for the next two or three, because that is an issue there. Things like the happening at Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge in California, PCB's and acid rain, you hear more and more about these, you don't hear less and less. The response from Congress, will be in part, shown by the budget of the Fish and Wildlife Service to address those areas. One thing I noticed, and I'll close with this, is that in the opening remarks by all 14 speakers on Tuesday morning, there wasn't a single mention of law enforcement. I see, however, that in the caucuses it was brought out. Law enforcement is an important aspect of fishery management. It is a tool of management, and I was pleased to see that a couple of the caucuses spoke directly to that. Thank you. 130 Followup Action to the Coastal Caucus Recommendations The Coastal Caucus included representatives of the State Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the island governments, the Interstate Marine Fisheries Commissions, and representatives of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( FWS ) . Recommended actions are listed, followed by actions expected to be undertaken in the near term in response to those recommendations. NMFS intends to discuss these planned actions with State representatives at the 1985 fall meetings of the Interstate Marine Fisheries Commissions and the annual meeting of the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Our actions are subject to be modified as a result of these del iberations . Program Activities: Priority 1: Statistics and Data Needs Recommendations : - Establish regionally oriented data committees to oversee collective State/Federal efforts. Allow flexibility for States to supplement Federally funded data collection and analysis systems. Include formal input from fishermen into the data base . Wallop-Breaux funds should be used by States to supplement existing marine recreational fishery data systems . Planned Activities: The NMFS Office of Data and Information Management will work with Regional, Office and Center staff to reinforce the roles of the regionally oriented data oversight committees of the Interstate Marine Fisheries Commissions. States will be consulted regarding current and future roles and capabilities. NMFS will also work with the States and the FWS to develop arrangements for using Wallop-Breaux funds so that interested States may complement the NMFS Marine Recreational Fishery Survey by developing more specific State-level data. 131 Priority 2: Research for Interjurisdictional Fishery Management Recommendations : Focus research on interjurisdictional management priorities and improve collective efforts through coordination . Maintain Federal research expertise, particularly for stock dynamics, habitat and contaminant interactions and oceanography, that are beyond the capability of individual States. Establish mechanisms for communicating fishery management needs among State, tribal Indians, Federal, and private sector interests. Research priority needs are: o Conservation/stock assessment/contaminant research o Maximum Sustainable Yield and Optimum Yield determinations (including social and economic research) o Gear research directed at improving effectiveness of management. Planned Activities: NMFS is realigning its internal approach to planning and budget programming to relate agency objectives more directly to fisheries and other living marine resources in need of management. Under this arrangement all program activities are grouped according to the fisheries most directly served. One of the principal reasons for the reformatting was to provide a better focus and priority assessment on management needs, leading to better directed research and improved coordination. Priority 3: Habitat Conservation and Relevant Research to Maintain and Enhance Fishery Habitat Recommendations: Review Corps of Engineers permit applications with the objective of protecting and restoring wetlands; oppose those that destroy or degrade. Follow-up on permit actions to determine compliance with, effectiveness of, recommendations. Use mitigation only where it is appropriate and adequate to replace habitat that would be destroyed. Establish in each State a single agency, with authority, responsible for habitat and wetlands protection . 132 Planned Activities: Under provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) and the NMFS Habitat Conservation Policy, NMFS consults with Federal constructing, licensing and permitting agencies to minimize or overcome losses of marine and estuarine fish habitats. A prominent activity involves evaluation and commentary on Corps of Engineer Section 10 and 404 permits. NMFS attempts to assure that adequate redesign or mitigation is appropriately incorporated into any issued permit. When this cannot be accomplished, NMFS sometimes opposes issuance of Federal authorization. NMFS opposition to the Westway High project in New York City is a case- in-point . The project would remove 234 acres of essential habitat supporting young striped bass and other important fish stocks. NMFS is currently evaluating the nationwide effectiveness of its FWCA consultation efforts. Preliminary results show mixed success. Some Federal permitting agencies include and enforce conditions designed to prevent habitat loss and degradation, while others do not. This unevenness prompted introduction of a House bill (H.R. 2704) to amend the FWCA to include an evaluation of results in a report to Congress. NMFS supports this amendment with limitations to a one-time report on effects on fish and wildlife resources. NMFS does not oppose establishment of a single State agency with authority for management and conservation of wetlands and other important coastal habitats. In such cases, NMFS would favor designation of the State fish and wildlife agency assigned responsibility under the FWCA. In addition to promoting FWCA activities, the NMFS Habitat Conservation Policy encourages greater participation by Regional Fishery Management Councils in habitat conservation matters. The Councils are urged to discuss species-habitat relationships in plans, and as appropriate, to become more involved in resolution of habitat-management issues. NMFS will be as responsive as possible to Council recommendations and will give foremost attention to Corps of Engineers Section 10 and 404 permits which could affect fisheries regulated under the Magnuson Act. Priority 4; Law Enforcement Recommendations: Fishery enforcement personnel and equipment should be dedicated to fishery enforcement and not diverted to other areas. NMFS should increase emphasis on enforcement. Regulations developed by Councils and State governments should be critically reviewed for enforceability . 133 Planned Activities: NMFS continues to strive for cooperative enforcement arrangements with the States, and other Federal agencies to improve the effectiveness of fishery enforcement, but without prospects for increased funding. In recognition of the importance of enforcement, NMFS recently created an Office of Enforcement at the Headquarters level to provide higher visibility and influence within the government system. With respect to management regulations, several separate efforts are underway to examine the overall approach to fishery management, including the efficacy of management regulatory schemes. NMFS will contract for one study, and the Congressional Research Service is also looking into the matter. A task force comprised of NMFS and Council representatives will conduct a separate assessment to improve the relationship between NMFS and the Councils. Priority 5; Fishery Development and Marketing Recommendations : Continue S-K matching grants to industry at current level. (Current level is $7-10 million.) - Continue support for Fisheries Development Foundations . If S-K funds are reduced, support for Fisheries Development Foundations should be given the highest priority. Vertically integrate development programs to improve technology for fish capture, handling, and processing . Seek greater industry participation and financial support for development projects. Planned Activities: Virtually all direct industry assistance programs conducted by NMFS have been excluded from the Administration's budget proposals in recent years. These programs, including Saltonstall-Kennedy (S-K) grants, have been funded through Congressional restorations of proposed costs. If funds for S-K grants continue to be made available, NMFS will give priority to those proposals which address impediments for the development of U.S. fisheries. While Fisheries Development Foundations, as a group, have successfully competed for S-K funding since the S-K grant program's inception in 1980, NMFS does not have a legislative or regulatory basis to give Foundation proposals a higher priority for funding over other types of applicants. 134 Therefore, all proposals are equally evaluated under review criteria and program priorities published annually in the Federal Reg ister . Industry participation and financial support have been and will continue to be important components of S-K development projects. However, legislatively, recipients of S-K funds cannot contribute over 50 percent of the total cost of the project. With respect to vertical integration of development programs, NMFS has been moving in this direction on an agency- wide basis. Through its fishery-based planning system, all NMFS programs are linked to major objective plans. In so doing, we are able to identify and to address research, management, and development requirements of specific fisheries and other living marine resources. Policy Issues (not in priority order) Joint Management of Interjurisdictional Fisheries Recommendation: There is a need for joint managment of fishery resources where a State and the Federal Government share management responsibl ities. Planned Activities: NMFS remains committed to cooperative efforts with the States to manage interjurisdictional marine fisheries. In testifying on the reauthorization of the Magnuson Act, NMFS indicated a need to study the institutional structure and dichotomy of authorities for managing fisheries. Results of such a study may lead to recommended changes during the next Magnuson Act reauthorization process. It is not anticipated, however, that there will be distinct separation of responsibilities for all fisheries. Interjurisdictional Fishery Policy Recommendation: There is a need for an interjurisdictional fishery policy for marine and estuarine resources. Planned Activities: NMFS has completed a survey of all coastal States and prepared a summary of States' institutional structures and authorities. It will be available for discussion at the annual commission meetings. 135 NMFS is in the final stages of preparing a draft policy for publication in the Federal Register to solicit comment. The policy, if adopted, would clarify NMFS1 role and responsibilities for interjurisdictional marine fishery management and set out an approach for State/Federal cooperation. This draft policy was developed in coordination with the States and the Interstate Marine Fisheries Commissions. State Fishery Grants Recommendation: There is a need to expedite the review of State grants within the Department of Commerce. Planned Activities: Grants to States are subject to Department of Commerce administrative guidelines and directives including review by the Financial Assistance Review Board (FARB) and the Regional Administrative Support Center (RASC). Grants processing time has been extended as a result of these reviews. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is working with the Department of Commerce (DOC) to streamline the process. Dr. Anthony J. Calio, Acting Administrator, NOAA, has recently hired William Triplett to study the review and approval procedures within NOAA, and to improve the flow of grants between NOAA and DOC. Legislation has passed the House of Representatives which would reauthorize P.L. 88-309 but would change the purpose to address interjurisdictional fishery issues and would also modify the formula allocation basis so that most non-coastal States would not be eligible. Reauthorization of P.L. 89-304 has also passed the House of Representatives. NMFS plans to integrate consideration of funds available to States into interjurisdictional research and management budgeting discussed in this section. Federal Regulatory Process Recommendation: There is a need to simplify the Federal regulatory process implementing fishery management plans. Planned activities: Discussed earlier under "Law Enforcement." 136 Effort Management Recommendation : There is a need for fishery managers to consider effort management along with other management measures. Planned Activities: NMFS continues to support and encourage discussions of the applicability of "limited entry" to fishery management. NMFS testified in support of "fee-financed compensatory programs" as a part of a "limited access program" during the Magnuson Act reauthorization hearings. NMFS urges the Councils to consider effort management alternatives in FMP's and FMP amendments on a fishery by fishery basis. There is no clear concensus on the appropriate use of effort management in either State waters or the FCZ. Various effort management regimes have been adopted by the States for fisheries under State control. However, for many fisheries interjurisdictional cooperation is essential for effective effort management. The choice of "regulatory regime," however, must be decided through the Council process. Funding Recommendation: There is a need for stable and long-term Federal funding for fishery programs. Planned Activities: As discussed under "Research for Interjurisdictional Fishery Management," NMFS is restructuring its internal approach to planning and budgeting to conform more directly with fishery needs. It is expected that this will result in better justified and more comprehensible budget rationale, with consequent improved funding stability. However, as long as NMFS has to rely primarily on Congressional appropriations from general funds its budget is likely to remain uncertain from year to year. 137 Follow-up Action to the Great Lakes Caucus Recommendation The Great Lakes Caucus included representatives of the participating Great Lakes States (all except Ohio)/ the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, FWS, NMFS and the Sport Fishing Institute. The recommendations represent the collective views and consensus of the caucus participants. Recommendations: It was the recommendation of the Great Lakes Caucus that the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service should assume the lead in communicating the issue and recommendations of the Great Lakes Caucus to the appropriate authorities or organizations that will be involved in coordination and implementation. More specifically, those recommendations that relate to coordination by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC) should be appropriately addressed to that organization. The other agencies and organizations involved should also be guided by these recommendations in planning and budgeting program activities concerning the Great Lakes fishery resources. Planned Activity: The FWS in fulfulling the responsibilities identified in Statement of Responsibilities and Role will continue to be involved in pursuing an active coordinating role in fishery resource issues of the Great Lakes. NMFS will concentrate agency attention to the following: (1) Advice and assistance to commercial fishing interests with financial assistance, S-K and P.L. 88-309 programs. (2) Environmental and fishery interaction programs. (3) Habitat management planning. (4) Coordination of other NOAA programs, such as Sea Grant, to assure assistance to the States in implementing the "Strategic Plan for Great Lakes Fisheries." (5) Assistance to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission in programs of mutual interest as permitted by available resources. 139 Followup Action to the Inland Caucus Recommendations The Inland Caucus included representatives of the State Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( FWS ) . Recommended actions are listed, followed by actions to be undertaken in the near term in response to those recommendations. ISSUE ONE; Federal Support of Inland Fishery Resource A. Improved reservoir, and basinwide fishery research development, coordination, and management. Recommendation : By FY 1987 redirect or designate full-time fishery positions within the Fish and Wildlife Service to work with the States in coordinating basinwide management of these Federal water projects and provide technical assistance or research to limit habitat degradation and answer other problems of management of these aging systems. Planned Activities: The FWS has a commitment to continue to seek and provide mitigation through the fishery and habitat resource programs. The FWS will continue to influence maintenance of habitat and try to prevent the degradation of habitat through the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and other appropriate means. B. Improved fishery technical services. Recommendations : The Fish and Wildlife Service should reaffirm its leadership role by its involvement in the following areas: 1. Fish disease diagnosis and fish health practice 2. Introduction and control of exotic species, including the evaluation of possible beneficial species in fishery management 3. Development and application of biochemical and traditional fish genetic techniques such as triploid identification, fish stock identification, genetic finger printing, etc. 4. Extension training services 5. Chemical and drug registration 141 Planned Activities: FWS will continue to provide a leadership role in fish health, fishery research, and fish culture-related activities as identified in FWS" Responsibilities and Role Statement. These objectives will continue to be met through the operation of FWS fish health centers, fish technology centers, fish research laboratories, the national broodstock program, and FWS training facil ities. C. NMFS support of inland commercial fisheries. Recommendations : 1. NMFS should approve PL 88-309 project amendments within 30 days. 2. PL 88-309 program should be reauthorized and extended for a 3-year period without the Breaux (H.R. 1028) amendment . Planned Activities: NMFS, NOAA, and DOC have established a new system of grants review and approval to assure that all procedures are consistent with approved government practices, and to further assure that the States' and taxpayers' interests are protected. We are gradually lessening the time required to process grants, and with the use of such modern techniques as electronic mail, we may attain the requested goal of 30 days. Two separate legislative bills address reauthorizing P.L. 88-309 H.R. 1028 and S.991. The NMFS is on record as opposing H.R. 1028, and has not been asked to testify on S.991. D. Fishery technical assistance to Indian tribes. Recommendation: It is recommended that the FWS be responsible for budgeting and fully funding Federal assistance to tribes. Planned Activity: The budget responsibility for Federal assistance to tribes has been shifted to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Annual negotiations between FWS and BIA concerning dollars and personnel ceiling for the operation and maintenance of Federal fishery projects will continue unless congressional budget directives for BIA funding are changed. 142 ISSUE TWO: Abandonment of FWS fish stocking responsibility on Federal lands and in federally funded water projects. Recommendation : The FWS should seek adequate funding for operation and maintenance of Federal fish hatcheries. Management of fishery resources on Federal land should be the joint responsibilities of FWS and the States unless States wish to assume full responsibility. Reimbursement seems to be a reasonable idea as long as funding to accomplish management objectives set by State fishery managers is assured. In lieu of such assurances, funds for fish stocking should be provided by FWS through the annual appropriations from general funds. Planned Activity: The FWS will continue to seek adequate funding for the operation and maintenance of Federal fish hatcheries to carry out responsibilities identified in the Responsibilities and Role Statement. The FWS will examine the other issues raised in the context of the identified responsibilities and pursue those that are consistent with the FWS* Fishery Resource Program. ISSUE THREE: Rules relating to allowable uses of new Wallop/Breaux (W/B) Funds. Recommendations : 1. Clarify rules and regulations allowing maximum flexibility in the program by FWS and change rules and regulations where necessary to allow the States the widest possible latitude within congressional authorization. 2. Have FWS Headquarters instruct regional administrators to work with States for maximum flexibility. Remove roadblocks, not put them in place. Planned Activity: The FWS will continue its efforts to maximize the flexibility in the regulations under Wallop/Breaux. The FWS views the States as the hands-on fishery managers and will cooperate with the States for maximum utilization of Wallop/Breaux funds. 143 ISSUE FOUR: Actions for protection and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources are being fragmented and or diminished at the Federal level at a time when they should be strengthened Recommendation : The FWS and NMFS must be recognized and/or provide the leadership as the Federal agencies with the expertise and responsibility for coordination and integration of Federal environmental programs affecting fish and wildlife resources of the Nation. Planned Activity: The FWS will continue to provide leadership through programs addressing environmental concerns. The Fishery Resources Program works closely with the Habitat Resources Program to address issues impacting this Nation's fishery resources, particularly in discharging the FWS1 mitigation responsibility under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, NEPA, and other statutes. NOAA has a Memorandum of Agreement with the Corps of Engineers for a pilot study to investigate the practicality of restoring and creating fishery habitat. The pilot study will assess the process of identification and selection of restoration and creation sites; planning, design, construction and maintenance of selected measures; and, as appropriate, the progress of plan implementation accomplished within the three- year period of the study. The pilot study will also assess the cost effectiveness of the restoration and creation measures as well as the institutional arrangements required with affected Federal, regional, State, and local agencies in the process. 144 Closing Remarks Robert A. Jantzen Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service I don't think we need to go into a great deal of summary but I would like to make a couple of comments. I think it's been an excellent meeting. It's one that has been more productive than I had originally thought it would be. I think that because it has been a single-purpose meeting, we've had a chance to focus on one aspect of resource management from a number of viewpoints which has helped considerably to produce the information that has been produced. It's been an excellent meeting, because we need to know what your concerns are, the ones that have been developed and we've been talking about. You worked hard and you stayed here. The fact that you are here for the wrap-up session, probably 80 percent strong from where we started three days ago, says a lot in that regard. There is interest. You have been assiduous, you have taken it seriously, and I certainly will commit to you that we will take those comments and concerns that you have expressed seriously and attempt to address them. I said this morning that we'll try to give you answers, reasonable ones. In all cases, we may not be able to give you the answer that you want, but we will strive awfully hard to do that. I'd like to say one thing, and that is to the staffs at both the Fish and Wildlife Service and to the National Marine Fisheries Service, the support people that put the program together and have been servicing the caucuses and the conference and working the registration desk and everything else, just a very sincere thank you. One thing that I'd like to close on is that this has been a good exercise in communication. It's one that I feel strongly about and I have told my staff several times that this particular thing is something you have to work at on a daily basis. The best communication is hand, foot, and eye communication and coordination. This meeting has given that kind of an opportunity. I would urge you all, including the Fish and Wildlife Service employees, not to leave this meeting thinking, "Gee, we did a great job communicating for three days," and then forget everything that we talked about. It's something that has to be done, remembered, and put up front on a day-to-day basis. I will pledge the FWS to continue to communicate, coordinate, and understand what your problems are and try to solve them. 145 One of the things I think that, to me, is very siginificant was the participation and willingness to participate and the cooperative attitude of the Indian Nations that are represented here. I think that is a milestone. In my history and tenure as a State director, I can remember the bitter days and the recriminations when the Boldt decision first came out, and the adversary positions that were taken by all the parties. Looking at it now, I don't see that. I see a real opportunity and a positive environment for moving forward for the benefit of the resource and resource management, rather than the polarizing and spinning around in our own little circle and bumping into each other. I hope that it continues. I would urge that it does. I will reiterate again that what work has been done here will not be taken lightly by the Fish and Wildlife Service. We will take the comments, we will examine them closely, and try to get you some answers. Hopefully they will be the right answers. Thank you very much. Thanks for participating. I really meant it when I said you guys are really putting your money where your mouth is by sticking around. I, for one, appreciate it. 146 Fish and Wildlife STATE DIRECTORS MEETING June 4-6, 1965 Washington, D.C. June 6, 1985 Dear Participant, We have just spent two and a half days participating in the 1985 State Fish and Wildlife Directors Conference. As stated, this conference was purposely structured to bring together the key fishery resource officials from each of the 50 States, the island governments, Indian Commissions, Interstate Fisheries Commission, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and collectively identify priority resource needs and action programs to meet them over the next few years. Please take a few moments to tell us how we (you and I) did. Questionnaire Results Were you prepared? If not, why not? What did we do right? What did we do wrong? How could we improve? Structure of conference? Caucuses? Identifying priorities? Other? Should we do it again? Yes No " If "yes" in 2 yrs. 3 yrs. 5 yrs . other What benefits did you get from the Conference? /v\ U.S. Department of Commerce Notional Marine Fisheries Service 147 U.S. Deportment of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Key Comments 1. Were you prepared? If not, why not? Yes - 16 o Probably overprepared . Did not quite know what to expect. o Statement of current policies and programs of FWS and NMFS as background would have helped. o Specific items might have been understood better with more recent data ( Wallop-Breaux (W-B)), statement of FWS role and responsibilities. No - 5 o A summary document on NMFS and FWS programs and problems would have been helpful. o Should have been more communications on what was wanted. Written material on FWS and NMFS policies and goals should have been sent earlier. Mostly - 1 Fair - 1 o More detailed background materials needed. Fairly well - 1 2. What did we do right? o Conference organization, administration was good. o Overall everything handled very well. The candid exchanges were appreciated. o Good mix of people. Good speakers. Good objectives. o Convenient location. Structured meeting-even if not rigidly followed. 149 o Very useful and educational for directors from all regions to get together and discuss problems, etc. This meeting helped to purge parochial thoughts and focus on national interests . o Included congressional staff to observe when priorities were being stated. o Meeting went very well. Things kept moving. Good meeting place . o Reduced group to caucuses. o Brought appropriate agency administrators together to focus on fishery issues. Joint effort by NMFS and FWS more productive than if done unilaterally. Provided forum for discussion of regional/ecological issues. o Facilities good. Coffee. Presence of key Federal personnel . o Format was good, allowed for discussion and attention to details in work groups. o NMFS and FWS personnel were helpful, yet, careful not to impose their viewpoints into decisionmaking. Holding the conference was a great idea. It was well organized and ran smoothly. o Provided needed meeting to communicate State/Fish needs. Added the FWS in joint effort. o Were able to set limited number of priorities which made sense nationally. Cannot judge until followup on priorities are carried out. o Excellent forum to discuss various State perspectives and perceived needs from FWS. The variety of regional perspectives relating to issues was enlightening, both from State standpoint and FWS. o First, arranging for and funding the meeting for the right people. Second, the topic was very relevant and important. Third, sessions had the right orientation. o Brought the 50 Directors together to hear the Administration's message on budget problems, reordering of priorities very useful. 150 3. What did we do wrong? o It was not possible to limit issues received to a small number, as suggested. Therefore, the analysis and options review for the important issues identified was not comprehensive. It might have worked better to identify issues ahead of time (survey directors before conference, e.g.) and to have straw-man analysis papers drawn up by a panel of State and Federal administrators. o Conference should have been called before booklet on Fish and Wildlife policy. o Too much input from FWS/NMFS during working groups resulting in Federal Government directing the outcome of both Inland and Coastal reports. o Objectives too generalized. Topics for discussion should be more specific - too much to do in too short a time. o Not much guidance to caucus chairmen until a few days prior to meeting. New FWS Policies, Role & Responsibilities should have been reviewed before entire group. o Too many opening session speakers. o Combined inland and coastal professional facilitators is needed to get most from large groups. o A lot of time spent talking about W-B funding policy. Maybe if FWS had spent a little time at the start discussing FWS' policy on W-B funds it would have saved time for other matters. Maybe in 1/2 day sessions at start on FWS ' s new goals and policies and on NMFS ' spol icies (e.g. habitat) would have helped in the sessions that followed. 4. How could we improve? o Clearer identification of expected product(s) of conference. Perhaps prior identification of range of issues by smaller select group to focus discussions on highest priority questions from Services' viewpoint to then be re-addressed as result of conference; i.e., input from States may surface different priority questions. o More frequent (annual) directors meetings within each region should be held. Meetings should be separate (FWS and NMFS). This would help maintain a focus on regional issues and make the national meetings more productive and less time consuming. 151 o Develop background statements for principal regional issues prior to meeting and then present to entire group before caucuses. Would provide clearer understanding of overlapping regional concerns and aid priority setting process. o Better instruct caucus leaders. Structure caucuses more. Provide more formalized caucus procedures. o Format for caucus reports should be simplified and filled- out example would be helpful. o Send more background material on problems to be addressed and request homework be done. o Provide more background material earlier to facilitate future discussions at meetings. 5. Structure of Conference? o Good, Very good(l), Fairly good (1), Relatively good (1), Okay (5) . o Concept really good. o Very well done considering the large group and diversity of interests. o Good except caucuses should be further subdivided as for the 1980-82 conferences to produce more workable groups — 10-15 each. o Rather unstructured with respect to proposition for caucuses but seemed to work okay since most of the administrators and fishery staff involved knew the critical regional and local problems and restrictions. o On first afternoon the conference seemed too loosely structured. By middle of second day benefits of informal approach became apparent. The " freedom" resulted in more creative identification of issues and priorities. o Needed Regional Caucuses rather than Coastal. Excellent first day opening prepared statements. o Good - review of the emphasis (Coastal, Inland, Great Lakes) before plenary session very useful. 152 6. Caucuses? o Appropriate, except some of the non-state interests (e.g. island communities) may have been lost in the larger debate . o Good (6), Excellent (2), Okay (2). o Could have used well developed techniques for identifying issues and prioritizing them. o Most helpful in focusing interests and stimulating viable discussion. o May want to include congressional types in the caucuses. o The caucus was a good means to allow everyone a chance to speak. At times there seemed to be confusion as to what the priorities should be. However, problems that concerned the States were identified. Priorities in which we tried to include all of our concerns. o Federal representatives should not co-chair. o Better instruct caucus leaders, structure caucuses more. Provide more formalized caucus procedures. o Good approach. After being exposed to the diversity of philosophies from the various regions, caucuses appear to be the only approach. o Good for general issues. Specific detail groups should be no larger than about 20 individuals. 7. Identifying priorities? o Generally successful (1), Done very well (1); Fair, needed scoping (2), Good (2). o Took too much time, yet amount of time allowed free discussion . o Some difficulty because of different regional philosophies . o Of varying quality due perhaps to some confusion on expectations from caucuses. o A real good job was not done due to shortness of time and the diversity of interests. o Useful. 153 o Priorities were identified in which we tried to include our concerns. o Proposed national priorities by Federal Government should have been presented, then modified by State Directors especially as they relate to regional differences. o A good exercise, but difficult to achieve because of varied and provincial agency interests and responsibilities. o Needed a steering committee to identify major priorities for each caucus before meeting. 8. Others? o A successful conference. o It appears there are many common problems, but also regional problems that should be handled by the regional offices. Hopefully the regional offices will be instructed to work more closely with the States in their regions. o Focus should be on methods to accomplish specific objectives rather than re-stating generalized "motherhood, apple pie, and country," concepts. o Generally productive. A "Good Show." Good FWS and NMFS staff support at conference. 9. Should we do it again? Yes 24 If "yes" in 2 yrs._ _7 2-3 yrs. 1 No 0 3 yrs. 3-5 yrs. 5 yrs . other 3 ( see below) o Strongly feel that at least a coastal directors meeting should occur before Federal agency positions develop on reauthorization of Wallop-Breaux and the next reauthorization of MFCMA. o Regional conferences annually. o As need arises. 154 10. What benefits did you get from the Conference? o Usual benefits of informal and formal exchange of opinions and ideas with others (away from day to day detail). Also opportunity to reaffirm that major concerns and priorities are shared by other States. o Were able to reassess direction. o Able to interact with FWS people who make decisions. Learned strong and weak points and problems of other States and Federal agencies. o Primarily an improved understanding of the overall program elements and the conflicting thoughts by various States on FWS' role. o As a Director with game background it was very informational for me to hear full discussions on fishery issues . o Chance to socialize and interact with colleagues not normally encountered; i.e., many Fishery Chiefs. Better sense of fishery issues across country and better appreciation of similarity of problems. o A greater understanding of needs and priorities in other regions . o Some insight into new approaches in management for State and region. o Exchange of ideas with other State and Federal agency people . o Discussions with colleagues. Get acquainted opportunities. Chance to hear concerns of other caucus groups . o Reassessed that we are all having the same problems and that the FWS and NMFS need to continue to work together to solve them. o Good exchange with Federal, State and Indian Commission representatives. Final success of conference will depend on how well and how promptly recommendations are implemented . o Latest information on Federal policies, philosophy or lack thereof. Broader view of State and Federal problems and opportunities. Meeting was worthwhile overall. 155 o Sharing of concerns and issues with fishery administrators from across the country was the real meat and benefit of this gathering. o Exchange of views on priorities with personnel from other State departments, and NMFS and FWS, Washington, DC personnel. Greater knowledge of, and appreciation for, issues and priorities from other areas. Better knowledge of NMFS and FWS mandates. Very much appreciated hearing the first morning's speakers. Wallop-Breaux discussions were indeed timely. o Obtained national scope of issues and how they must interact in current Federal Administration and budget climates. Allowed the Federal agencies to hear and discuss State priorities. o Good feel for different regional problems, needs and priorities; also Federal perspective. o Provided an excellent forum for communication and recognition of diversity of views among various States. Provided suitable forum for overview of FWS/NMFS policy and program and provided forum for recommendations. Perhaps a discussion of some of the unclear arenas might be added at end of meeting. Open discussion forum? o Better appreciation for diversity in State needs, viewpoints, etc. A chance to meet people and discuss solutions to common problems. o Opportunity to meet and talk with others outside my own region, area of expertise. 156 Attendees (partial listing) State Fish and Wildlife Directors Conference June 4-6, 1985 Washington, DC Conference Moderators: Mr. William G. Gordon Assistant Administrator for Fisheries National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Department of Commerce Washington, DC 20235 Mr. Robert A. Jantzen Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Department of the Interior Washington, DC 20240 Conference Guest Speakers: Honorable James A. McClure (Idaho) United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Honorable John B. Breaux (Louisiana) House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Honorable Donald P. Hodel Secretary of the Interior Washington, DC 20240 Mr. Russell A. Cookingham Director Division of Fish, Game and Wildife New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection - CN 400 Trenton, NJ 08625 Mr. W. Timothy Wapato Executive Director Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission Suite 114 2705 East Burnside Portland, OR 97214 157 Mr. Susumu Ono Chairman Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources Honolulu, HI 96809 Mr. Alejandro Santiago Nieves Secretary Puerto Rico Department of Natural Resources P. 0. Box 5887 Puerto de Tierra San Juan, Puerto Rico 00906 Mr. Ralph W. Abele Executive Director Pennsylvania Fish Commission P. 0. Box 1673 Harrisburg, PA 17105 Mr. Richard Martin Meridian Products, Inc. P. 0. Box 2843 Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670 Dr. Frank J. Cogdell Manager, Stren E. I. DuPont De Nemours and Company, Inc. Plastic Products and Resins Department Wilmington, Delaware 19898 Dr. John P. Harville Interim Director National Coastal Resources Research and Development Institute Hatfield Marine Science Center Newport, OR 97365 (President, National Fisheries Institute, Washington, DC) (Chairman of the Board Sport Fishing Institute, Washington, DC) Dr. Ronald 0. Skoog Director Michigan Department of Natural Resources P. O. Box 30028 Lansing, MI 48909 158 Caucus Chairmen: Mr. C. D. Besadny Secretary Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Box 7921 Madison, WI 53707 Mr. E. Charles Fullerton Director, Southwest Region National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA 300 South Ferry Street Terminal Island, CA 90731 Mr. Larry R. Gale Director Missouri Department of Conservation P. 0. Box 180 Jefferson City, MO 65102 Mr. Harvey Nelson Regional Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Building, Fort Snelling Twin Cities, Minnesota 55111 Mr. Michael Spear Regional Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service P. 0. Box 1305 Albuquerque, NM 87103 Dr. James A. Timmerman, Jr. Executive Director South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department Box 167 Columbia, South Carolina 29202 Caucus Moderators: Colonel Robert M. Brantly Executive Director Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, FL 32303 Dr. John R. Donaldson Director Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife P. 0. Box 3503 Portland, OR 97208 159 Reception Special Guest: Honorable Malcolm Wallop (Wyoming) United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 160 State Representatives Mr. Barry W. Smith Division of Game and Fish Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources 64 North Union Street Montqomery, AL 36130 Mr. Kenneth P. Parker Director, Commercial Fish Division Alaska Department of Fish and Game P.O. Box 3-2000 Juneau, AK 99802 Mr. Joe Janisch Arizona Game and Fish Department 2222 West Greenway Road Phoenix, AZ 85023 Mr. Scott Henderson Assistant Chief, Fisheries Division Arkansas Game and Fish Comm. P. 0. Box 178 Lonoke, AR 72086 Mr. Steve N. Wilson Director Arkansas Game and Fish Commission 2 Natural Resources Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 Mr. Robert Fletcher Deputy Director California Department of Fish and Game 1416 Ninth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Mr. Jack C. Parnell Director California Department of Fish and Game 1416 Ninth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Mr. Al Petrovich Chief, Marine Resources California Department of Fish and Game 1416 Ninth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 161 Mr. Edward Prenzlow Colorado Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Denver, CO 80203 Mr. Dennis P. DeCarli Deputy Commissioner for Preservation and Conservation Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection State Office Building 165 Capital Avenue Hartford, CT 06115 Mr. Robert A. Jones Director, Bureau of Fisheries Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection 165 Capitol Avenue Hartford, CT 06115 Mr. Jack Buckley Fisheries Section District of Columbia Department of Consumer Regulatory Affairs 5010 Overlook Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20032 Mr. Dave Loveland Fisheries Section District of Columbia Department of Consumer Regulatory Affairs 5010 Overlook Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20032 Mr. James Barrett Florida Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32303 Colonel Robert M. Brantly Executive Director Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 162 Mr. Richard M. Gennings Chief, Fisheries Management Georgia Department of Natural Resources 270 Washington Street, SW. Atlanta, GA 30334 Mr. Duane Harris Director, Coastal Resources Division Georgia Department of Natural Resources 1200 Glynn Avenue Brunswick, GA 31523 Mr. Susumu Ono Chairman Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources Box 621 Honolulu, HI 96809 Mr. Henry M. Sakuda Director, Division of Aquatic Resources Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources 1151 Punchbowl Street Honolulu, HI 96813 Mr. Jerry M. Conley Director Idaho Department of Fish and Game 600 South Walnut Street Box 25 Boise, ID 83707 Mr. David Hanson Idaho Department of Fish and Game P.O. Box 2 5 Boise, ID 83707 Mr. Mike Conlin Chief, Fish and Wildlife Resources Division Illinois Department of Conservation 524 South Second Street Springfield, IL 62706 163 Mr. William James Indiana Department of Natural Resources 608 State Office Building Indianapolis, IN 46204 Mr. Marion Conover Iowa State Conservation Commission Wallace State Office Building Des Moines, IA 50319 Mr. Mike Theurer Chief, Fisheries Division Kansas Fish and Game Commission RR 2, Box 54A Pratt, KS 67124 Mr. Bennie Fontenot Chief, Division of Fish Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries P. 0. Box 15570 Baton Rouge, LA 70895 Ms. Virginia R. VanSickle Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries P.O. Box 15570 Baton Rouge, LA 70895 Mr. Penn Estabrook Director of Bureau of Marine Development Marine Department of Marine Resources State House, Station #21 Augusta, ME 04333 Mr. Owen Fenderson Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife 27 Mainewood Avenue Orono, ME 04473 Mr. Philip G. Coates Director, Division of Marine Fisheries Massachusetts Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Recreational Vehicles 100 Cambridge Street Boston, MA 02202 164 Mr. Richard Cronin Director, Division of Fisheries and Wildlife Massachusetts Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Recreational Vehicles 100 Cambridge Street Boston, MA 02202 Mr. Myrl Keller Great Lakes Fisheries Supervisor Michiqan Department of Natural Resources P. 0. Box 205 Charlevoix, MI 49720 Dr. Ronald O. Skooq Director Michiqan Department of Natural Resources P.O. Box 30028 Lansinq, MI 48909 Dr. Larry R. Shannon Director, Division of Fish and Wildlife Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 300 Contennial buildinq 658 Cedar Street St. Paul, MN 55155 Mr. Jack Herrinq Chief of Fisheries Mississippi Department of Wildlife Conservation Southport Mall P.O. Box 451 Jackson, MS 39205 Dr. Richard Leard Director, Bureau of Marine Resources Mississippi Department of Wildlife and Conservation P.O. Drawer 959 Lonq Beach, MS 39560 Mr. Larry R. Gale Director Missouri Department of Conservation P.O. Box 180 Jefferson City, MO 65102 165 Mr. Georqe Holton Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks 1420 East Sixth Helena, MT 59620 Mr. William J. Bailey Assistant Director Nebraska Game and Parks Commission 2200 N. 33rd Street P.O. Box 30370 Lincoln, NE 68503 Mr. Pat Coffin Chief of Fisheries Nevada Department of Wildlife Box 10678 Reno, NV 89520 Mr. Edward Spurr Director, Fisheries Research New Hampshire Department of Fish and Game 34 Bridqe Street Concord, NH 03301 Mr. Charles F. Thoits Chief, Inland and Marine Fisheries Division New Hampshire Fish and Game Department 34 Bridqe Street Concord, NH 03301 Mr. Russell A. Cookinqham Director, Division of Fish, Game, and Wildlife New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection CN 400 Trenton, NJ 08625 Mr. Georqe P. Howard Assistant Director, Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection CN 400 Trenton, NJ 08625 166 Mr. Gordon Colvin SUNY Campus New York Department of Environmental Conservation Building 40 Stony Brook, NY 11794 Mr. Herbert Doig Assistant Commissioner, Fish, Wildlife, and Marine Resources New York Department of Environmental Conservation 50 Wolf Road Albany, NY 12233 Mr. Kenneth Wich Director, Division of Fish and Wildlife New York Department of Environmental Conservation 50 Wolf road Albany, NY 12233 Mr. Don Tobaben North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 512 North Salisbury Street Raleigh, NC 27611 Mr. Richard Hamilton Chief, Division of Inland Fisheries North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Archdale Building 512 N. Salisburg Street Raleigh, NC 27611 Mr. Robert Mahood Director, Division of Marine Fisheries North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development P.O. Box 769 Morehead City, NC 28557 Mr. James Ragan Chief, Fishery Division North Dakota State Game and Fish Department 2121 Lovett Avenue Bismarck, ND 58505 167 Mr. Steven A. Lewis Director Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation P.O. Box 53465 1801 North Lincoln Oklahoma City, OK 73152 Dr. John R. Donaldson Director Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife P.O. Box 3503 Portland, OR 97208 Mr. Harry H. Wagner Assistant Director, Fisheries Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife P.O. Box 3503 Portland, OR 97208 Mr. Ralph W. Abele Executive Director Pennsylvania Fish Commission P.O. Box 1673 Harrisburg, PA 17105 Mr. Delano R. Graff Pennsylvania Fish Commission 450 Robinson Lane Bellefonte, PA 16823 Mr. John M. Cronan Chief, Division of Fish and Wildlife Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management 83 Park Street Providence, RI 02903 Mr. John Stolgitis Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management 83 Park Street Providence, RI 02903 Dr. Edwin B. Joseph Director, Division of Marine Resources Office of Regional, National and Scientific Affairs South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department P.O. Box 12 559 Charleston, SC 29412 168 Dr. James A. Timmerman , Jr. Executive Director South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department Rembert C. Dennis Building Box 167 Columbia, SC 29202 Mr. Art Talsma South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks Department Sigurd Anderson Building 445 East Capitol Pierre, SD 57501 Mr. Gary Myers Executive Director Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency P.O. Box 40747 Ellington Agricultural Center Nashville, TN 37204 Mr. Wayne Pollock Chief, Fish Management Division Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency P.O. Box 40747 Ellington Agricultural Center Nashville, TN 37204 Mr. Robert Kemp, Jr. Director, Fisheries Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 4200 Smith School Road Austin, TX 78744 Mr. Gary Matlock Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 4200 Smith School Road Austin, TX 78744 Mr. William Geer Director, Division of Wildlife Resources Utah State Department of Natural Resources 1596 West North Temple Salt Lake City, UT 84116 169 Mr. Steve Wright Commissioner Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department State Office Buildinq River Street Montpelier, VT 05602 Mr. Jack Wayland Director Washinqton Department of Game 600 North Capitol Way Olympia, WA 98504 Mr. William R. Wilkerson Director Washinqton Department of Fisheries 115 General Administration Buildinq Olympia, WA 98504 Mr. Bernard F. Dowler Assistant Chief, Warmwater Fisheries West Virqinia Department of Natural Resources 1800 Washinqton Street, East Charleston, WV 25305 Mr. Frank Jernejcic District Fishery Bioloqist West Virqinia Department of Natural Resources 1304 Goose Run Road Fairmont, WV 26554 Mr. James T. Addis Director, Bureau of Fish Manaqement Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Box 7921 Madison, WI 53707 Mr. Bruce Baker Director, Bureau of Water Resources Manaqement Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Box 7921 Madison, WI 53707 170 Mr. C. D. Besadny Secretary Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Box 7921 Madison, WI 53707 Mr. W. Donald Dexter Director Wyominq Game and Fish Department 5400 Bishop Boulevard Cheyenne, WY 82002 171 Island Governments Mr. Nicholas M. Leon Guerrero Director Department of Natural Resources Office of the Governor ComTn on wealth of North Mariana Islands Saipan, CM 96950 Mr. Alejandro Santiaqo Nieves Secretary Puerto Rico Department of Natural Resources P.O. Box 5887 Puerto de Tierra San Juan, PR 00906 Mr. Peter Sitan P.O. Box D Kolonia, Ponape Eastern Caroline Islands 96941 Mr. Ray Tulafono Director Office of Marine Resources Government of American Samoa P.O. Box 3730 Pago Paqo, AS 96799 Tribal Indian Mr. Ron Allen Chairman James Town Klallam 150 South 5th Avenue Secruim, WA 98382 Mr. James Anderson Director Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission 162 5 Parkmount Lane, SW Olympia, WA 98502 Mr. Tom Busiahn Chief of Fisheries Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission P. O. Box 9 Odanah, WI 54861 172 Mr. Ray De Perry Executive Administrator Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission P.O. Box 9 Odanah, WI 54861 Mr. Bill Frank, Jr. Chairman Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission 1625 Parkmount Lane, SW Olympia, WA 98502 Mr. Randy S. Harder Executive Director Point-no-Point Treaty Council 7850 NE Little Boston Road Kingston, WA 98346 Mr. Tom Jensen Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission Suite 114 2705 East Burnside Portland, OR 97214 Mr. Joseph Talikson Consultants for Pacific Nortl iwest Inc lians SENSE, Inc . Suite . L033 1511 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Mr. W. Timothy Wapato Executive Director Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission Suite 114 2705 East Burnside Portland, OR 97214 Mr. Terry Williams Fishery Manager Tulalip Tribe 6700 Totem Beach Drive Marysville, WA 98270 173 Interstate Fisheries Commissions Mr. Irwin M. Alperin Executive Director Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission 1717 Massachusetts Avenue, NW . Suite 703 Washington, D.C. 20036 Mr. Randy Eshenroder Great Lakes Fishery Commission 1451 Green Road Ann Arbor, MI 48105 Ms. Virginia Herring Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission P.O. Box 72 6 Ocean Springs, MS 39564 Mr. Jim McCallum Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission 1717 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Suite 703 Washington, DC 20036 Mr. Paul Perra Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission 1717 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Suite 703 Washington, DC 20036 Mr. Larry Simpson Executive Director Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission P.O. Box 726 Ocean Springs, MS 39564 Mr. Lawrence D. Six Executive Director Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission 305 State Office Building 1400 SW. 5th Avenue Portland, OR 97201 174 Regional Fishery Management Councils Mr. Omar Munoz-Roure Executive Director Caribbean Fishery Management Council Suite 1108 Banco de Ponce Building Hato Rey, PR 00918 Ms. Kitty M. Simonds Executive Director Western Pacific Fishery Management Council Room 1405 1164 Bishop Street Honolulu, HI 96813 175 Conqressional Staffers: Dr. Paul Carothers Subcommittee on Fish and Wildlife Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries House of ResDresentatives Washinqton, DC 20515 Mr. Jeffrey A. Curtis Subcommittee on Fish and Wildlife Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries House of Representatives Washinaton, DC 20515 Mr. Thomas 0. Melius Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries House of Representatives Washinqton, DC 20515 Mr. Georoe Pentz Minority Council Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries Subcommittee on Fish and Wildlife House of Representatives Washinqton, DC 20515 Ms. Kathrine Skinner Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries House of Representatives Washinqton, DC 20515 Mr. Timothy E. Smith Subcommittee on Fish and Wildlife Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries House of Representatives Washinqton, DC 20515 Ms. Jacquelyn Westcott Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries House of Representatives Washinqton, DC 20515 Office of Manaqement and Budqet: Ms. Carol Ballew Office of Manaqement and Budnet Room 9215 726 Jackson Place, N.W. Washinqton, DC 20 50 3 176 Department of the Interior Mr. William P. Horn Deputv Under Secretary Department of the Interior Washinqton, DC 20240 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Mr. John E. Oliver Office of Budqet and Finance National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Washington, DC 177 Fishery Organizations Mr. Jack Berryman Executive Vice President International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 1412 16th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Mr. A. D. Chandler National Fisheries Institute Suite 580 2000 M Street, NW Washington, D.C. 2 003 6 Mr. Thomas T. Conley Executive Vice President American Fishing Tackle Manufacturers Association 2625 Clearbrook Drive Arlington Heights, IL 40005 Mr. Derrick A. Crandall President American Recreation Coalition 1915 Eye Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006 Mr. Jim Gilmore National Fisheries Institute Suite 580 2000 M Street, N.W. Washington, DC 2 003 6 Ms. Patsy Goodman International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 1412 16th Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 Mr. John S. Gottschalk Counsel International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 1412 16th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Mr. Richard E. Gutting, Jr. Vice President-Government Relations National Fisheries Institute Suite 580 2000 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 178 Mr. Wesley Hayden International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 1412 16th Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 Ms. Pamela McClelland Resource Director Trout Unlimited 501 Church Street, NE Vienna, VA 22180 Mr. Norville Prosser Sport Fishing Institute 1010 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 Mr. Gilbert C. Radonski President Sport Fishing Institute 1010 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 Ms. Johanna M. Reinhart President- Elect American Fisheries Society 322, 515 St. Laurent Blvd. Ottawa K1K3X5 Canada Dr. Rudolph Rosen Fisheries Resource Specialist National Wildlife Federation 1412 16th Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 Mr. Carl R. Sullivan Executive Director American Fisheries Society 5410 Grosvenor Lane Bethesda, Maryland 20014 Mr. Lee Weddig Executive Vice President National Fisheries Institute Suite 580 2000 M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 2 003 6 179 National Marine Fisheries Service: Angelovic, Joseph W. , Washington, DC 20235 Beasley, Henry R. , Washington, DC 20235 Beaudry, Fred, Washington, DC 20235 Blondin, Carmen J., Washington, DC 20235 Brawner, Jack T., St. Petersburg, FL 33702 Brumsted, Robert B., Washington, DC 20235 Byrd, I.B., St. Petersburg, FL 33702 Craig, Anne, Washington, DC 20235 Douglas, James E., Washington, DC 20235 Everett, John T., Washington, DC 20235 Fullerton, E. Charles, Terminal Island, CA 90731 Gordon, William G., Washington, DC 20235 Grice, Frank, Gloucester, MA 01930 Hendricks, Marietta, Washington, DC 20235 Hutton, Robert F., Washington, DC 20235 Jensen, William P., Washington, DC 20235 Magill, Austin, R., Washington, DC 20235 McVey, Robert W. , Juneau, AK 99802 Roe, Richard B., Washington, DC 20235 Schaefer, Richard H., Gloucester, MA 01930 Schmitten, Rolland A., Seattle, WA 98115 Smith, Ann, Washington, DC 20235 Thompson, B. G., Washington, DC 20235 Williams, Robert J., Washington, DC 20235 180 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Brown, Annie, Washington, DC 20240 Brown, John, Washington, DC 20240 Crews, Sarah, Washington, DC 20240 Edwards, Gary, Washington, DC 20240 Farnsworth, Hope, Washington, DC 20240 Fielding, J. Russell, Washington, DC 20240 Grover, Jerry, Washington, DC 20240 Hales, Don, Washington, DC 20240 Herring, Sylvia, Washington, DC 20240 Hester, Eugene E., Washington, DC 20240 Jantzen, Robert A., Washington, DC 20240 Kutkuhn, Joseph, Washington, DC 20240 Larsen, Howard N. , Newton Corner, MA 02158 Myshak, Richard, J., Portland, OR 97232 Nelson, Harvey K., St. Paul, MN 55111 Palisoul, Allan, Washington, DC 20240 Pulliam, James E., Atlanta, GA 30347 Starnes, Lynn, Washington, DC 20240 Shipley, Susan, Washington, DC 20240 Smith, Michael L., Washington, DC 20240 Spaulding, Willard M., Washington, DC 20240 Spear, Michael J., Albuquerque, NM 87103 181