127 



CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATIONS 



Aleutians East Borough shares the growing national concern regarding the effects 

 that habitat loss and degradation have on the marine environment. However, we 

 do not support amending the Magnuson Act to give the councils an additional role 

 in designating critical habitat or actively participating in the permitting process for 

 construction and other projects. The councils do not have the staff, the expertise, 

 or the time to devote to such a critical task. We strongly support developing legisla- 

 tion that strengthens NMFS's role in overseeing permits for projects that nave po- 

 tential iLl effects for the marine environment. We strongly support improving the 

 Clean Water Act, to clean up our nation's watersheds and oceans. 



Aleutians East Borough believes that NMFS should be adequately funded so that 

 critical habitats for marine species can be identified and protected. Lacking appro- 

 priate funding, habitat designations are contentious and difficult to implement. 



"EMERGENCY ORDER CLOSURE AUTHORITY" 



Aleutians East Borough believes that the act should be amended to grant the Re- 

 gional Director authority to implement closures without waiting for publication in 

 the Federal Register. The due process considerations supposedly served by such 

 publication are better served during the amendment of fishery management plans. 

 The delay in implementing closures has too often meant that NMFS cannot respond 

 fast enough to close a fishery before a quota or cap is reached. 



CONFLICT OF INTEREST 



Let me begin by saying that AEB supports the Council process. We believe in the 

 separation ofbiology and allocation. NMFS clearly has the mandate to conserve and 



firotect the nation's fish stocks, but should play no role in the allocation of those 

 ish. The Councils, with their greater expertise in fishing practices, are primarily 

 a political body. All allocations are political and are appropriately given to such a 

 body. The public process involving the industry Advisory Panel, the Scientific and 

 Statistical Committee, and an open forum for decision making are in the best inter- 

 ests of the public. 



Right now conflicts of interest on the various Regional Fishery Management 

 Councils appears to be a hot issue. 



This is a difficult issue to address. By their very nature, the councils are com- 



Bosed of people who have some kind of interest in the fisheries conducted in the 

 LS. EEZ. Why would anyone who had no interest in these fisheries subject them- 

 selves to these grueling meetings? How can reasonable decisions be made by a group 

 of people with no interest or experience in these fisheries? We do not believe sci- 

 entists or fish managers are free from biases or conflicts. 



The councils are composed of competing interests. To a large extent, those compet- 

 ing interests minimize the power of any one council member or interest group to 

 drive the process. It is the Secretary's job to ensure that diverse interests are rep- 

 resented on all councils. Where balanced representation is a problem. Secretarial ac- 

 tion, not MFCMA amendment, is all that is required. If council representation is 

 not balanced the Secretary must simply return the list to the appropriate Governor. 



All that being said, in attempting to regulate conflicts of interest, the question 

 seems to be not whether it is possible to find conflict free council members, but rath- 

 er when do conflicts rise to a level that should preclude participation in a vote? We 

 believe that financial conflicts are the only measurable conflicts. Therefore, AEB has 

 submitted proposed language to be considered in addressing financial conflicts and 

 recusal of council members. The substance of this proposal is that Council members 

 shall disclose on the record at each meeting or hearing the nature of all financial 

 interests in fishing, ir a Council member or an immediate family member has a sig- 

 nificant financial interest in a fishery, that council member shall not participate in 

 the debate or vote on any proposal that allocates fishing privileges for that fishery. 



We did not attempt to define all of the terms, but we believe that this language 

 addresses most if not all of the conflict issues raised in the recent past. 



Thank you for your consideration of these comments. 



PROPOSED CONFLICT OF INTEREST LANGUAGE 



(1) Participation by a voting member of a Council in any Council action involving 

 an allocation of fishing privileges shall be prohibited when such action would result 

 in a direct financial benefit to such member or a member of his or her immediate 

 family, except that participation shall not be prohibited if, as to a specific matter, 

 the financial interest in the matter is of a type that is possessed generally by the 

 public or a large class of persons to which the Council member belongs. 



