This article was downloaded by: [North Carolina State University]On: 08 December 2014, At: 10:46Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Coastal ManagementPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ucmg20

Regional fishery managementcouncils: A new form ofgovernmentJim H. Branson aa Executive Director, North Pacific Fishery ManagementCouncil , Anchorage, AlaskaPublished online: 30 Sep 2008.

To cite this article: Jim H. Branson (1987) Regional fishery managementcouncils: A new form of government, Coastal Management, 15:4, 299-303, DOI:10.1080/08920758709362037

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08920758709362037

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purposeof the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are theopinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed byTaylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands,costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever causedarising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of theuse of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Coastal Management. Volume 15, pp. 299-303 0892-0753/87 $3.00 + .00Printed in the U.K. All rights reserved. Copyright © 1987 Taylor & Francis

Regional Fishery Management Councils: A NewForm of Government

JIM H. BRANSON

Executive DirectorNorth Pacific Fishery Management CouncilAnchorage, Alaska

Abstract: The Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 es-tablished eight Regional Fishery Management Councils to develop fishery manage-ment plans and regulations. This paper describes the organization of the North Pa-cific Fishery Management Council, the relationship of the Council to its parent orga-nization and constituency, and the functions of its staff.

When members of the first Regional Fishery Management Councils met in Washington,DC in September of 1976 for a national briefing, the keynote speech was given by Sen-ator Warren G. Magnuson, prime mover of the Fishery Conservation and ManagementAct of the same year. In his speech Magnuson called the council system "a new form ofgovernment," a statement which upon examination is still supported by the facts. Thereare really no parallels to the structure, functioning and responsibility of the eight Re-gional Fishery Management Councils. While there are federal regulatory bodies for otherindustries, these generally have more autonomy and power than the Regional Councilsand forego much of the seemingly endless public input and the labyrinth of coordinationbetween other regulatory or administrative bodies required of the Regional Councils.

The Regional Councils were established as a response to a complex of desires andfears within the U.S. fishing community1 while the Magnuson Act was being developed(those same forces are still evident). Coordination between coastal states was obviouslyneeded for management of marine resources—it had to be mandatory—and the stateswanted a voice in the process. There was a general concern about letting the existingfederal agency manage the resource. Centralized control by the "Feds" was feared. Inthe only area where the federal government had a history of hands-on management,pre-statehood Alaska, its tenure is remembered with apprehension. The states and in-dustry feared the loss of local input and control that might occur if the federal governmentcentralized management. There was also a sincere desire by many to strengthen the state/federal relationship through a forum in which each, as well as the industry and generalpublic, would have a voice.

The Councils thus were intended to balance the power structure of fisheries and fish-eries management in their regions. They were expected to improve coordination andworking (load sharing) relationships in the state/federal arena, be the recipients andsounding boards for all the advice and information anyone wished to give, and serve as abuffer between the regional process and the federal system. That they tend to be differentfrom other elements of government and from each other should come as no surprise.

1 Fishing community is used in the context of including the industry, resource managers, state andfederal agencies and the environmental community.

299

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

46 0

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

300 Jim H. Branson

Fisheries commissions with permanent staffs, such as the International Pacific Hal-ibut Commission (IPHC) and the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission(INPFC), play different roles from Regional Councils. The IPHC conducts research,gathers data, and decides how much resource should be or can be harvested, how it canbe harvested and by what country. INPFC does not conduct research or collect data,though it provides a forum for material developed by the member countries. INPFCdeliberations are aimed toward resolving conservation issues and resource allocation be-tween countries. Neither commission allocates resources between individuals or groupswithin countries. They usually meet only once a year.

The Regional Fishery Management Councils, on the other hand, find conservationonly one of many problems, and frequently the least difficult. Allocation of the harvest-able portions of the stocks they are managing occupies most of their time and is respon-sible for at least 95% of the contention. Five to a dozen arduous week-long meetings ayear hardly suffice to keep up with the problems.

The fact that the Councils are dealing with fiercely independent groups of entrepre-neurs who are all vying for a communally owned resource is the root cause of most of theproblems in fisheries management. The subject of this paper, however, is confined to themechanics of how the North Pacific Fishery Management Council is organized, how itsrelationships with its constituency and its parent organization have shaped its structure,and how its staff functions.

How the North Pacific Council Functions

The North Pacific Council has eleven voting members; seven are appointed, five of themfrom Alaska. Those five appointed members, with the designated member from Alaska,the Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, create an Alaskan "ma-jority" on the Council. This was done deliberately for at least two reasons. The areamanaged by the Council is the exclusive economic zone off Alaska. That there aremembers on the Council from outside its management area is unique; there are none onthe other seven Councils. They are there because much of the resource off Alaska isharvested by citizens of the states of Washington and Oregon and a very large segment ofthe industry and fishing effort is based in the Pacific Northwest, particularly in the PugetSound region. While it was apparent that those interests should be represented on theCouncil, Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, who was also one of the primary authors of theAct, made certain that Alaskan interests would have the ability to retain control of man-agement. The Alaskans have voted as a block on occasion, but more often than not theyare divided on issues. However, there is still a very strong perception by many in bothgovernment and industry that there is a strong Alaska bias on the Council. This percep-tion was strong enough to prompt the current National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-istration Administrator (NOAA) to order the Regional Director of National Marine Fish-eries Service (NMFS) Northwest Region2 to attend all North Pacific Council meetingseven though the NMFS Regional Director for the Alaska Region is already a votingmember of the Council. Fishing interests in the Pacific Northwest demanded a"watchdog" for the activities of his Alaskan counterpart even though the record showsclearly that the Regional Directors of NMFS for the Alaska Region (there have been two

2 Based in Seattle, the Northwest Region includes Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Colorado, Northand South Dakota, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

46 0

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

Regional Fishery Management Councils 301

who have served on the North Pacific Council) have represented the national interestobjectively and fairly.

It was originally assumed that the Councils would depend on existing agency per-sonnel to draft the fishery management plans required by the Magnuson Act, and tomonitor and maintain them. Council staff would confine itself to purely administrativefunctions. The Act authorizes the Councils to hire an Executive Director and such otheradministrative staff as the Secretary of Commerce deems necessary and to draw on fed-eral facilities for space and other services.

The North Pacific Council, which met for the first time in October 1976, developedoperating practices and procedures at the same time they started development of its firstfishery management plans. The Council hired an Executive Director in February 1977.3

The staff has grown from eight in 1977 to eleven in 1987. The staff function and indi-vidual roles have evolved well beyond those originally envisioned by the authors of theAct. The Council staff now consists of the Executive Director; a Deputy Executive Di-rector; two Plan Coordinators, each responsible for two or more fishery managementplans; two Economists who work on all the plans; an Executive Secretary responsible forall Council correspondence and mailings and supervision of two secretary-typists, one ofwhom doubles as receptionist and bookkeeper; and an Administrative Officer who isresponsible for budgets, procurement, travel claims and the myriad details of largemeetings and travel. One staff professional was hired as a limited entry expert. That rolehas since evolved to include inter-Council and Congressional liaison. As a limited entryexpert the incumbent staffs and coordinates Council investigations of various forms ofaccess limitation, a continuing study by the Council, that has increasing support from theindustry and the national administration.

All of the staff members, except the receptionist/bookkeeper/secretary, have specificgroups within the Council family for whom they are accountable. One secretary, forinstance, is responsible for the administrative requirements of the industry AdvisoryPanel, particularly keeping a record of its deliberations and writing its minutes. The PlanCoordinators are each responsible for the functioning of two or more plan teams; theDirector and Deputy Director staff various Council workgroups; the Executive Secretaryis responsible for assembling and distributing all of the needed materials for Councilmeetings and preparing the minutes of each meeting.

While the staff is hired and paid on the basis of similar federal positions it does notconsist of federal employees. The Executive Director is hired by the Council and isresponsible for the hiring and firing of the rest of the staff. Each Council is responsiblefor developing its own employee benefit packages. A number of different systems areused; the North Pacific Council was fortunate in being able to get under the State ofAlaska benefit package umbrella.

The Council has evolved a mix of federal/non-federal techniques that have allowed itto work about as efficiently and economically as possible. The Council takes advantageof government procurement and travel where possible but has avoided the rest of thefederal system. The Council pays travel for the eleven eligible Council members, an11-member Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC), an Advisory Panel (AP) of 20members, and a number of different workgroups that frequently include people fromoutside the immediate Council family. Rather than handle expense claims, payrolls and

3 The author had been assigned by NMFS, for whom he then worked, as chief staff support for theCouncil in June, 1976. He was ultimately hired by the Council search committee and left NMFS inFebruary, 1977.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

46 0

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

302 Jim H. Branson

other administrative procedures through the federal system, which is technically and le-gally possible, the Councils chose to develop their own systems. The staff of the NorthPacific Council handles travel claims of 50 or more people at five Council meetings everyyear as well as other necessary travel between meetings, with a turnaround time of lessthan 48 hours. The costs and time needed for this activity are nominal.

As one might expect, keeping a group of people—51 with just the Council, SSC andAP—informed of Council and industry activity and prepared to make decisions at fivemeetings a year requires an enormous amount of correspondence and printing. This isdone in house, thanks to modern copying equipment. The staff mails fishery managementplans, proposed amendments, draft documents and requests for comment to 12 differentmailing lists (several with over 1,000 addressees), newsletters after every Councilmeeting to over 1,400 people, regular mailings to the Council family between meetings,and prepares 75 briefing books for each Council meeting. The briefing books sometimescontain over 200 pages with a section for each agenda item which starts with an "actionmemo" describing the Council action required at that meeting, summarizes past actionand material that will have to be considered at the meeting, and lays out the alternativesthe Council may wish to consider. The action memo is followed by a detailed analysis ofthe problem and the probable consequences of adopting any one of several feasible alter-natives.

While it was originally envisioned that the Council staff would simply coordinate thework and product of other people, primarily members of federal and state fisheryagencies, it actually does a large share of the analysis and writing required. The typicalplan team, the basic work unit, has members from NMFS, the Alaska Department of Fishand Game, the Washington Department of Fisheries, sometimes the Oregon Departmentof Fish and Wildlife, the International Pacific Halibut Commission, as well as from theUniversity of Washington and the University of Alaska. Insofar as possible plan teamsare inter-disciplinary, usually involving biologists and resource economists. Social scien-tists other than economists are seldom on plan teams because there are few professionalsinterested in fisheries management and those who are oversubscribed.

None of the plan team members are reimbursed by the Council, except for travelexpense, nor are their agencies compensated for the time of their employees. As might beexpected, it is very difficult for state or university representatives to donate the timenecessary to develop and draft complex plans. As a result, the burden of writing has inlarge part fallen on the federal members of the plan team and the Council staff. Federalstaffing has not increased to cope with the requirements of the Act, so a great deal of theload comes back to the Council staff. Unfortunately, the staff seldom has the time orresources to do as thorough an analysis as many would like of the many complex issuesbefore the Council. The rapid Americanization of the bottomfish resources is makingthose issues much more complicated and contentious as the rivalry for a finite resourcebecomes more intense within the U.S. industry.

In summary, the Council staff is expected to objectively prepare materials and ana-lyze problems for the Council. The staff assists workgroups which have members fromindustry and a mix of agencies and organizations. The staff is responsible for a greatnumber of housekeeping, meeting and travel details. Finally, the staff provides the publicwith the information required to participate in the fishery management process.

Although this paper does not address the rather cumbersome process for Councilaction, its relationship with the National Marine Fisheries Service and other local, stateand federal agencies, it is important to mention that the relationship between the RegionalCouncils and NMFS has frequently been a stormy one. The tensions and frequent face-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

46 0

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

Regional Fishery Management Councils 303

offs between the Councils and NMFS, and the complex and evolving relationship be-tween them, is a subject for lengthy discussion in its own right.

The Councils have become a forum for fisheries unlike anything ever seen in theUnited States. The North Pacific Council works closely with three states, two majoruniversities, three major federal agencies, six nations and the broadest possible spectrumof the fishing industry. Each of the Councils has developed its own procedures to fit itsRegion and has done so with minimal internal red tape and maximum public exposure.The council system really can be called "a new form of government."

AcknowledgementThis paper was presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Society for PublicAdministration, Los Angeles, California. April 16, 1986.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

46 0

8 D

ecem

ber

2014