79–006

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

REPORT

[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

2

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.

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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.

7

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 esti- mates 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.

8

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.

ø(a) AUTHORIZATION.—For each of fiscal years 1998, 1999, and

2000, there are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this

Act—

ø(1) $800,000 to the Secretary of Commerce; and

ø(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.

* * * * * * *

Æ