An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century - California Ocean ...

Although the Secretary of Commerce can legally choose to develop a fishery managementplan within the agency instead of waiting for a RFMC to do so, this is almost alwaysimpractical. Since Congress clearly desired the Councils to have the lead in fishery management,the Secretary can either enter into a protracted, contentious, and politicizedprocess to develop a departmental plan, or continue to wait for the RFMC to act. Undereither scenario, the resource may remain unprotected for an extended period of time.Indecision on the part of SSCs or RFMCs, for whatever cause, should not delay measuresto ensure the long-term health and economic viability of a fishery. By setting cleardeadlines for action, and activating established default measures if a deadline is missed,the roles of the different entities can be maintained without sacrificing the resource.Recommendation 19–5Each Regional Fishery Management Council should set a deadline for its Scientific andStatistical Committee (SSC) to determine allowable biological catch. If the SSC does not meetthat deadline, the National Marine Fisheries Service Regional Science Director should set theallowable biological catch for that fishery.Recommendation 19–6Once allowable biological catch is determined, whether by the Scientific and StatisticalCommittee or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Regional Science Director, theRegional Fishery Management Council should propose a fishery management plan in timefor adequate review and approval by NMFS. If the plan is not in place in a timely fashion,NMFS should suspend all fishing on that stock until it is able to review the adequacy of themanagement plan.Both of these recommendations will require that NMFS review its procedures and makeany changes necessary to ensure timely reviews of, and responses to, RFMC proposed actions.Making Research RelevantAs noted above, independent reviews have generally concluded that NMFS stock assessmentprograms are technically sound and highly credible. However, improvements could be madeto better serve the RFMCs’ information needs, support recreational fisheries, and expandopportunities for cooperative research to involve scientists and fishermen in joint projects.RFMC Input on Research PrioritiesRFMC members need access to reliable information to do their jobs. The NMFS scienceprogram has done well in providing biological information to manage single species.However, the research program is less well-positioned to answer many other pressingquestions. Generally, questions that involve interactions among fisheries, habitat, andother protected species, as well as social science and economic questions, have receivedless attention than traditional stock assessment science and fishery biology. 9,10 The movetoward ecosystem-based management, including considerations such as essential fishhabitat, highlights these shortcomings. As the agency charged with responsibility for federalfishery management, NMFS should ensure that its research agenda supports the informationneeds of the RFMCs.Recommendation 19–7The Regional Fishery Management Councils and their Scientific and Statistical Committeesshould develop an annual, prioritized list of management information needs and provide itto the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). NMFS should incorporate these needs to themaximum extent possible in designing its research, analysis, and data collection programs.280 A N O CEAN B LUEPRINT FOR THE 21ST C ENTURY