50 



a stock from beingoverfished. It utilizes the definition of overfishing currently re- 

 quired in each FMP as the triggering mechanism. The required amendment must 

 address the prevention of current or ruture overfishing and must incorporate provi- 

 sions to restore the stock to a condition that is not overfished. 



Strengthening the overfishing standard for directed fishing effort, however, is not 

 sufficient of itself to rebuild and maintain fishery stocks at their maximum level. 

 We must also address the tremendous mortality and waste of fish taken as bycatch. 

 We have undertaken numerous programmatic activities to address bycatch, includ- 

 ing scientific evaluation of bycatch in various fisheries and the development of fish- 

 ing gear to eliminate unnecessary bycatch. Recently, we implemented a regulation 

 to require the use of finfish excluder devices, such as the Nordmore grate, in the 

 northern shrimp fishery. Testing has indicated that this gear has great potential 

 and reports indicate that the gear has been effective in reducing the bycatch of 

 groundfish in the shrimp fishery off New England. 



Although we are pleased witn our current and potential programmatic efforts in 

 this area, we also believe that every fishery management plan must consider the 

 adverse efTects of bycatch. The Administration, therefore, nas proposed adding a 

 new national standard requiring conservation and management measures to mini- 

 mize incidental catches that result in the waste of living marine resources. The 

 councils or NMFS would develop measures, where possible, that would eliminate the 

 wasteful take of non-target species, particularly where these stocks are depleted. 

 This new standard recognizes that not all incidental catch is undesirable (e.g., legal 

 incidental take of skate in the multispecies fishery). Rather, it focuses on tne inci- 

 dental catch that wastes living marine resources, in whatever form, through dis- 

 carding and highgrading. We would interpret "living marine resources" to include 

 marine mammals or threatened/endangered species. 



While controlling fishing effort to rebuild and maintain fishery stocks at their 

 maximum levels, we must also protect fishery habitat if our management programs 

 are to be fully effective. We believe, in fact, that habitat degradation may be the 

 greatest long-term threat to the continued production of many marine fisheries. The 

 amendments, therefore, emphasize the importance of habitat protection and define 

 a new term, "essential fish habitat." The definition would guide the identification 

 of areas of habitat that are considered essential to the production of optimum yield 

 from one or more fisheries under management by a council. We anticipate that 

 these habitats would include areas used for spawning, nursery, feeding, and migra- 

 tion, as well as other areas that are vital for life cycle functions of specific fisheries. 

 The word "essential" is used to avoid confusion with "critical habitat' as used in the 

 Endangered Species Act. The amendments would require the councils to prepare an 

 annuaflisting of all essential fish habitats for all FMPs. This listing would provide 

 a ready reference for all projects being developed that may affect fishery habitat, 

 and for all project-reviewing officials. 



All the initiatives I just reviewed are extremely important if we are to meet our 

 goals, but require the increased efforts of our scientific, management, and enforce- 

 ment staff if we are to be successful. How we fund this effort is a major concern. 

 So far, most of the cost of fisheries management has been borne by the general pub- 

 lic, unlike other industries that pay for the opportunity to use a public resource. 



Currently, the Magnuson Act allows only for the collection oi the administrative 

 costs of issuing permits. These funds are deposited in the General Fund of the 

 Treasury and are not available to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 

 for conservation and management activities. Right now, NMFS collects permit fees 

 for only nine fisheries. Expansion of current fees is necessary to ensure a return to 

 the Nation for the use of^ these public resources and to provide for the adequate 

 management of marine fisheries in the future. 



The marine fisheries resource fee proposal in S. 2138 is based on the rec- 

 ommendations of the National Performance Review, and discussions with Congres- 

 sional staff and constituents. The Administration's goal in developing this proposal 

 was to ensure that it is equitable to all participants and that the fees are reasonable 

 and do not represent an onerous burden. It is important to note that the use of 

 these fees would be dedicated to the management and conservation of marine fish- 

 eries by NMFS. 



The fee proposal is made up of four elements: 1) establishment of user fees above 

 administrative costs for any permit issued under the Magnuson Act, consistent with 

 the Independent Offices Appropriations Act (31 U.S.C. 9701); 2) a one percent levy 

 on the value of fish and shellnsh at the point of first sale; 3) establishment of a 

 three percent annual fee on the value of^ fish allocated under individual harvest 

 shares to recover costs associated with this form of management; and 4) establish- 

 ment of a fee on vessels to cover the costs of special management measures, such 

 as observers, that directly benefit specific fisheries and fishermen. 



