```

[House Report 106-698]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

106th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     106-698

======================================================================

 
       REAUTHORIZATION OF ATLANTIC STRIPED BASS CONSERVATION ACT

                                _______
                                

 June 26, 2000.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

  Mr. Young of Alaska, from the Committee on Resources, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 4408]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill 
(H.R. 4408) to reauthorize the Atlantic Striped Bass 
Conservation Act, having considered the same, report favorably 
thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.

                          Purpose of the Bill

    The purpose of H.R. 4408 is to reauthorize the Atlantic 
Striped Bass Conservation Act.

                  Background and Need for Legislation

Atlantic striped bass

    Atlantic striped bass (Morone saxatilis) are an important 
commercial and recreational fish found along the U.S. East 
Coast from the St. Lawrence River in Canada to the St. John's 
River in Florida. Striped bass can live up to 30 years and are 
anadromous, meaning that they spend the majority of their adult 
lives in salt water but return to freshwater rivers to spawn. 
Mature females (age 4 and older) produce large quantities of 
eggs, which are fertilized by mature males (age 2 and older) as 
they are released. The fertilized eggs drift downstream while 
developing, eventually hatching into larvae. After arriving in 
nursery areas located in coastal sounds and estuaries, the 
larvae mature into juvenile fish. The juveniles remain in the 
estuary from two to four years, and then migrate into the 
Atlantic Ocean. In the ocean, many populations of adult striped 
bass migrate seasonally, wintering off the coast of the 
Carolinas and ranging as far north as Maine in the summers. 
These fish usually remain in nearshore State waters (less than 
three miles offshore). With warming water temperature in the 
spring, striped bass return to the riverine spawning areas to 
continue their life cycle. Unlike Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus 
spp.), Atlantic striped bass may spawn year after year. The 
Chesapeake Bay produces the vast majority of coastal migratory 
striped bass, but smaller spawning populations exist in the 
Delaware and Hudson Rivers.

Economic value of the fishery

    Striped bass are an important economic resource to the 
States in the region. According to a 1999 report to Congress, 
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) estimate that despite a 
declining share of the harvest, the commercial striped bass 
fishery ranks 25th for landings and 17th for ex-vessel revenues 
among Atlantic finfish species. Among States allowing a 
commercial harvest in 1998, fishermen harvested 1.2 million 
fish, weighing 6.5 million pounds. These landings represent an 
increase of 165,000 fish and 567,000 pounds since 1997. Among 
States allowing a commercial fishery, those with the largest 
proportion of the harvest were Virginia and Maryland. New 
Jersey, Maine, New Hampshire, Connecticut and Delaware do not 
have a commercial fishery.
    Recreational fishermen consider striped bass to be one of 
the premier saltwater game fish along the East Coast. These 
anglers support a coast-wide industry of charter boats, bait 
and tackle shops, and related businesses. The 1996 Survey of 
Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, conducted 
by the FWS, estimated that 886,000 anglers spent 10.7 million 
days fishing for striped bass in saltwater during 1996. Average 
expenditures for all Atlantic Coast saltwater trips were about 
$800 per angler in 1996, for a total estimated annual 
expenditure in this fishery of $762 million. Recreational 
landings in 1998 total 1.4 million fish, weighing an estimated 
12.9 million pounds. These landings represent a decrease of 
155,000 fish and 3.1 million pounds since 1997.

Fluctuating populations

    Striped bass populations, along with other important 
species such as bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix), fluctuate from 
year to year. When Europeans first colonized America, striped 
bass were so common that it was said that one could walk across 
the Delaware River on the backs of the stripers. Since that 
time, the striped bass population has fluctuated radically 
between abundance and scarcity. In the early 1970s striped bass 
were abundant and supported a large commercial fishery. By the 
late 1970s, heavy fishing pressure combined with habitat 
degradation and other poorly understood factors caused the 
population to crash. Commercial landings plummeted from 14.7 
million pounds in 1973 to 2.9 million pounds in 1984. During 
this time, the species disappeared as a game fish. Currently, 
the population of Atlantic striped bass has recovered to near 
all-time record abundances with a total harvest of 19 million 
pounds in 1998, but the causes of the huge population 
fluctuations over the last century remain poorly understood.
    Scientists and fishery managers believe that populations of 
striped bass and other important East Coast species, including 
bluefish, are linked. Many of these other species are managed 
under the 1990 Atlantic Coastal Fishery Cooperative Management 
Act which was modeled after the Atlantic Striped Bass 
Conservation Act (ASBCA, 16 U.S.C. 1851 note). Because bluefish 
and striped bass compete for similar prey species, abundant 
striped bass populations may result in a decline in the number 
of bluefish. The reverse is expected to hold for abundant 
bluefish populations. Thus, fishery managers recognize the 
importance of multi-species management techniques for striped 
bass, bluefish and associated forage fish species.
    The recovery of the striped bass fishery since the crash of 
the late 1970s is an example of successful State and federal 
cooperation and angler support over the last two decades, but 
maintaining healthy striped bass stocks will require continued 
coordination and careful management. In its 1999 report to 
Congress, the Atlantic States Marine Fishery Commission (ASMFC) 
stated that total landings of Atlantic striped bass have 
increased since the early 1990s, peaking at nearly 22 million 
pounds in 1997 before dropping to about 19 million pounds in 
1998. The ASMFC report highlights concerns resulting from 1998 
fishery-independent indices. While juvenile indices were about 
average for the time series, indices of adult abundance showed 
a stable or decreasing population, and preliminary 1999 
estimates of spawning biomass were among the lowest this 
decade. The report also states that striped bass were fished 
above the target level in 1998 and 1999. Of particular concern 
was the finding that fishing mortality for older (age 8 and 
above) fish exceeded the definition of overfishing in 1998. 
These age 8 and older fish represent the most important age 
class for recreational fishermen, and provide a large 
percentage of the spawning biomass. Regulations for the 2000 
season include harvest reductions to meet the target fishing 
mortality rate and to increase the number of large fish in the 
population. The Committee is concerned with the negative trends 
in juvenile production, particularly in the Chesapeake Bay, as 
well as removal of too many large fish from the population, and 
urges the ASMFC and the States to take the necessary steps to 
ensure that the population is protected.

Legal regime for management

    Because of the migratory patterns of the fish, the 
management of striped bass is subject to the regulation of many 
States. The Atlantic States Marine Fishery Commission (ASMFC) 
is an interstate commission that was established by interstate 
compact in 1942 to coordinate the management efforts of the 
States on the Atlantic Coast for a variety of 
interjurisdictional fisheries, including striped bass. The 
Commission consists of representatives from Maine, New 
Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, 
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North 
Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida. In addition, the 
District of Columbia and the Potomac River Fisheries Commission 
(PRFC) have an interest in striped bass management. Atlantic 
striped bass management is based on the Atlantic Striped Bass 
Fishery Management Plan (FMP) of the ASMFC. The FMP was first 
adopted in 1981, and has undergone five amendments and various 
addendums through 1999. The interstate plans developed by ASMFC 
establish guidelines for State regulations to reduce harvest 
pressure in coastal waters. Under the FMP, 14 coastal 
jurisdictions (12 States, D.C. and PRFC) have principal 
management responsibility for striped bass and these 
jurisdictions adopt regulations consistent with the FMP. 
Although they are not given seats on the Commission, the 
District of Columbia and the PRFC are required to comply with 
the FMP and the provisions of the Atlantic Striped Bass 
Conservation Act, and may participate on the ASMFC's striped 
bass Management Board and technical committees.
    In 1979, Congress first authorized the Emergency Striped 
Bass Study as part of the Anadromous Fish Conservation Act 
(Public Law 96-118) to address the problem of declining striped 
bass stocks. The study was carried out jointly by FWS and 
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and investigated 
climate change, predation, competition among species and 
fishing mortality in the search for the cause of the decline. 
The primary conclusion of the study was that, regardless of the 
cause, major reductions in fishing mortality were required if 
the species were to recover. In response, the ASMFC prepared 
the first coast-wide management plan for Atlantic striped bass 
in 1981. To ensure that the States would comply with the plan, 
Congress passed the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act of 
1984 (ASBCA). This Act created a federal mechanism for 
enforcing the interstate fishery management plan. Under the 
ASBCA, the ASMFC is required to notify the Secretaries of the 
Interior and Commerce if a State is not complying with the FMP. 
After receiving notice that a State is not in compliance with 
the plan, the Secretaries can jointly declare a moratorium on 
fishing for Atlantic striped bass within the coastal waters of 
that State. This strict enforcement policy is unique to the 
ASMFC and has not been extended to the other interstate fishery 
commissions approved by Congress.
    Amendments to the ASBCA in 1988 authorized the Secretary of 
Commerce, acting through NMFS, to regulate Atlantic striped 
bass within federal waters of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) 
from 3 to 200 miles offshore. Using this authority, the 
Secretary is required to develop offshore regulations that are 
consistent with the national standards set forth in the 
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 
U.S.C. 1851 et seq.) and are compatible with the ASMFC striped 
bass FMP. In 1990, NMFS declared a moratorium on fishing for 
striped bass in federal waters to ensure the effectiveness of 
strict catch limits in State waters. This moratorium remains in 
effect today. The 1988 amendments also included provisions 
authorizing NMFS and FWS to carry out annual studies and 
population assessments of striped bass populations. The ASBCA 
and associated striped bass studies have been reauthorized a 
number of times. Congress last reauthorized the ASBCA in 1997 
with the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act Amendments of 
1997 (Public Law 105-146). This Act provided a substantial 
overhaul of the statute by revising, reorganizing and 
integrating various statutory provisions related to striped 
bass. The amendment combined the studies and research 
authorizations from the existing ASBCA and the Anadromous Fish 
Conservation Act, and provisions of the 1988 reauthorization 
governing the federal management of striped bass in the EEZ. In 
addition, the 1997 amendments required biennial reports from 
ASMFC to Congress concerning the status of striped bass stocks, 
mandated public participation in the preparation of management 
plans, and provided funding for continuing research efforts 
related to striped bass and related species.
    The 1997 amendments to the ASBCA authorized important 
ongoing research and studies on striped bass. Section 6 of the 
ASBCA directs the Secretaries to conduct continuing studies of 
striped bass, including annual stock assessments, 
investigations into population fluctuations of striped bass 
populations, investigations into the effects of water quality, 
land use and other environmental factors on recruitment, 
spawning, mortality and abundance of striped bass. Section 6 
also directs the Secretaries to conduct investigations of the 
interactions of striped bass and other fish such as bluefish, 
and the effects of interspecies predation and competition on 
the recruitment, spawning, mortality and abundance of striped 
bass. The Committee feels that these striped bass predator/prey 
and interspecific competition studies have not received 
adequate attention to characterize the impacts of interspecific 
competition on striped bass. The Committee encourages the 
Secretaries to focus additional resources into these areas.
    The Atlantic Coastal Fishery Cooperative Management Act of 
1990 (Public Law 103-206) gave the Secretary of Commerce the 
authority to impose moratoria in State waters for other 
Atlantic fisheries managed under ASMFC-approved fishery 
management plans. In general, the ability of the federal 
government to impose a moratoria has been effective in 
encouraging State compliance with fishery management plans. 
Since 1984, the Secretaries have only imposed one brief 
moratorium for striped bass.
    Authorization of appropriations for the ASBCA expired on 
September 30, 1999. H.R. 4408 is a simple reauthorization of 
the ASBCA. The legislation authorizes a total of $3.75 million 
over three years to carry out the ASBCA, which includes an 
additional $200,000 a year for fiscal years 2001 through 2003 
for ongoing striped bass research. The Committee intends that 
the additional dollars be used for peer-reviewed research under 
Section 6 of the Act to study the interactions between striped 
bass, bluefish and their prey species. This research should be 
funded in addition to continued work on stock assessments, 
investigations into the cause of striped bass population 
fluctuations, and the effects of interspecies predation and 
competition on the recruitment, spawning potential, mortality, 
and abundance of Atlantic striped bass. The Committee would 
like to see the Administration and the ASMFC place greater 
emphasis on improving harvest reporting and statistics programs 
to ensure that current allocations and commercial and 
recreational fishery harvest levels do not endanger the long-
term health of striped bass populations.

                            Committee Action

    H.R. 4408 was introduced on May 9, 2000, by Congressman Jim 
Saxton (R-NJ). The bill was referred to the Committee on 
Resources, and within the Committee to the Subcommittee on 
Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans. On April 28, 2000, 
the Subcommittee held a hearing in Toms River, New Jersey, on 
striped bass. On May 18, 2000, the Subcommittee met to mark up 
the bill. The bill was ordered favorably reported without 
amendment to the Full Committee by voice vote. On June 7, 2000, 
the Full Resources Committee met to consider the bill. No 
amendments were offered and the bill was ordered favorably 
reported to the House of Representatives by voice vote.

            Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations

    Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
Committee on Resources' oversight findings and recommendations 
are reflected in the body of this report.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United 
States grants Congress the authority to enact this bill.

                    Compliance With House Rule XIII

    1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the 
rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and 
a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be 
incurred in carrying out this bill. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B) 
of that rule provides that this requirement does not apply when 
the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted 
cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
    2. Congressional Budget Act. As required by clause 3(c)(2) 
of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this 
bill does not contain any new budget authority, spending 
authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in 
revenues or tax expenditures.
    3. Government Reform Oversight Findings. Under clause 
3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives, the Committee has received no report of 
oversight findings and recommendations from the Committee on 
Government Reform on this bill.
    4. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate. Under clause 
3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives and section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act 
of 1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate 
for this bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                     Washington, DC, June 21, 2000.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 4408, a bill to 
reauthorize the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Deborah 
Reis (for federal costs), and Marjorie Miller (for the state 
and local impact).
            Sincerely,
                                        Steven M. Lieberman
                                    (For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
    Enclosure.

H.R. 4408--A bill to reauthorize the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation 
        Act

    Summary: H.R. 4408 would authorize the appropriation of 
$1.25 million annually through 2003 for the management and 
conservation of striped bass. This program is carried out by 
the Departments of Commerce and the Interior, which would be 
authorized to receive $1 million and $0.25 million, 
respectively.
    Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO 
estimates that implementing H.R. 4408 would cost $1 million in 
2001 and $3.75 million over the 2001-2003 period. The bill 
would not affect direct spending or receipts; therefore, pay-
as-you-go procedures would not apply.
    The bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 
and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal 
governments. Enacting this legislation would benefit the states 
that are eligible for financial assistance under the Atlantic 
Striped Bass Conservation Act.
    Estimated Cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of H.R. 4408 is shown in the following table. 
For this estimate, CBO assumes that the amounts authorized by 
H.R. 4408 will be appropriated for each fiscal year and that 
outlays will follow historical spending patterns for the 
authorized programs. The costs of this legislation fall within 
budget function 300 (natural resources and environment).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
                                                        2000      2001      2002      2003      2004      2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Spending Under Current Law:
  Budget Authority \1\..............................         1         0         0         0         0         0
  Estimated Outlays.................................         1         0         0         0         0         0
Proposed Changes:
  Authorization Level...............................         0         1         1         1         0         0
  Estimated Outlays.................................         0         1         1         1         0         0
Spending Under H.R. 4408:
  Authorization Level \1\...........................         1         1         1         1         0         0
  Estimated Outlays.................................         1         1         1         1         0         0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 2000 level is the amount appropriated for that year for the management and conservation of striped bass.

    Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
    Estimated impact on state, local, and tribal governments: 
H.R. 4408 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in 
UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal 
governments. Enacting this legislation would benefit the states 
that are eligible for financial assistance under the Atlantic 
Striped Bass Conservation Act.
    Estimated impact on the private sector: The bill would 
impose no new private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Deborah Reis. Impact 
on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Marjorie Miller. 
Impact on the Private Sector: Natalie Tawil.
    Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                    Compliance With Public Law 104-4

    This bill contains no unfunded mandates.

                Preemption of State, Local or Tribal Law

    This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or 
tribal law.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

    In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

        SECTION 7 OF THE ATLANTIC STRIPED BASS CONSERVATION ACT

SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS; COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.

    [(a) Authorization.--For each of fiscal years 1998, 1999, 
and 2000, there are authorized to be appropriated to carry out 
this Act--
          [(1) $800,000 to the Secretary of Commerce; and
          [(2) $250,000 to the Secretary of the Interior.]
    (a) Authorization.--For each of fiscal years 2001, 2002, 
and 2003, there are authorized to be appropriated to carry out 
this Act--
          (1) $1,000,000 to the Secretary of Commerce; and
          (2) $250,000,000 to the Secretary of the Interior.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                                

```