Washington

June 1, 2015 — WASHINGTON — The House on Monday passed legislation to overhaul federal management of marine fisheries nationwide.

Passage fell largely along party lines by a vote of 225-152.

The measure would amend the Magnuson-Stevens Act, first enacted in 1976, that is aimed at preventing overfishing, replenishing depleted fish stocks and sustaining the seafood supply. Magnuson-Stevens further established eight regional councils to develop plans for local fishery management.

Monday’s bill would, among other provisions, set timeframes for rebuilding expended fisheries based on how the individual stock would replenish itself naturally plus the timespan of one generation, instead of within a ten-year requirement. It would also replace the current requirement that fish stocks be restored in the shortest timeframe “possible” with “practicable.”

Supporters of the measure say that many of the deadlines are arbitrary and inflexible.

“This bill is a win for consumers, it’s a win for the industry that puts food on our tables, it’s a win for the restaurants, it’s a win for the recreational fishermen, it’s a win for better and more transparent science, it’s a win for our environment, it’s a win for the American taxpayers,” said House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah).

Read the full story at The Hill

SEAFOODNEWS.COM by John Sackton — June 2, 2015 — NGO’s were swift to condemn the version of the Magnuson Reauthorization passed by the House yesterday.

The bill attracted far less democratic support than in the past.  At issue is whether flexibility sought by many in the industry with widespread bipartisan support should extend to weakening a number of other environmental practices – such as requiring Environmental Impact statements for major changes to Fishery Management plans.

As the bill moves forward, Obama’s veto threat may lead to more negotiations in the Senate.

As reported by the Associated Press, Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, called the vote “a win for the consumer, a win for the industry that puts food on our tables and restaurants, a win for the recreational fisherman, a win for better and more transparent science and a win for the American taxpayers.”

Rep Don Young, chief sponsor of the bill, said the bill was “written for fish and communities — not interest groups” and would ensure that “the needs of our fisheries resources are balanced with the needs of our fishermen and coastal communities.”

Young said the provision allowing local managers to consider the economic needs of fishing communities in setting catch limits was crucial to the health of fishing communities from New England to the Gulf of Mexico to Alaska. The bill also would revise the fishing law to more closely reflect the current science, management techniques and knowledge of local fishermen and regional management councils.

Pew’s Ted Morton, director of their U.S. Ocean policy team, said “Tonight, the House of Representatives voted to weaken the Magnuson-Stevens Act, our nation’s primary ocean fish management law, in a divided vote. This is the wrong way forward.”

“H.R. 1335 is significantly flawed legislation. It hurts U.S. fishermen and coastal communities by undercutting progress in ending overfishing and rebuilding depleted fish populations. It erodes science-based management. It fails to tackle tough 21st century problems, such as habitat loss and warming ocean temperatures, with a more comprehensive approach.”

“ I hope and expect the U.S. Senate will take a different, more consensus-based course, as it works on this important law.”

Matt Tinning,  Senior Director of Environmental Defense Fund’s U.S. Oceans Program said  “The House of Representatives put our proud record of success in U.S. fisheries management at risk tonight by passing HR1335. The bill creates loopholes that remove hard deadlines to rebuild depleted fisheries and could exempt hundreds of species from annual catch limits. It undercuts bedrock environmental laws, including the Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Antiquities Act and National Marine Sanctuaries Act. And it imposes unnecessary restrictions on the decisions of regional fishery management councils, long the principal forums for fishery management in the United States.”

“The turnaround of U.S. fisheries has been one of the great conservation success stories of the last two decades. Overfishing in federal waters is being eradicated, and depleted stocks are rebuilding at an impressive rate. In an April report, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) confirmed that overfishing and overfished numbers hit all-time lows in 2014, and that the number of stocks fully rebuilt since 2000 now stands at 37.”

“Rather than weaken a successful federal law, we should focus our energies on effective implementation. The regional fishery management councils have the authority they need to address concerns where they exist, and to implement more innovative management approaches where required.”

Finally, the Marine Conservation Network’s Robert Vandermark, which represents a number of conservation organizations in Washington, said

“We are disappointed with the House passage of HR 1335. The legislation passed by the House undermines the strong science and conservation measures within the current law and promotes greater uncertainty in the future management of our fisheries. We hope the Senate will follow in the tradition of Senators Magnuson and Stevens and work across the aisle to draft a bill that builds upon the law’s success and strengthens it to meet the new challenges our oceans and fisheries face. We look forward to working with the Senate to renew the Magnuson-Stevens Act for the benefit of fishermen, seafood business owners, coastal communities, and all Americans who rely on healthy oceans and productive fisheries.”

This story originally appeared on SeafoodNews.com, a subscription site. It has been reprinted with permission.

June 2, 2015 — WASHIGNTON — The following summary of the proceedings of the House of Representatives regarding H.R. 1335, the “Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act,” was provided to Saving Seafood by Kelley Drye and Warren:

Bill:  H.R. 1335, Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act.

Summary:  H.R. 1335 reauthorizes the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act through FY 2019 and modifies the law to provide greater authority to regional fishery management councils and the fishing industry in setting the conditions under which overfished or depleted fisheries are to be restored.

Summary of Roll Call Votes

·         Rep. Dingell Amendment – Strikes the bill’s environmental streamlining requirements that allow the regional fishery councils to concurrently do NEPA reviews while assessing Fishery Management Plans.  FAILED 155-223 (54 NOT VOTING).  Official Tally

·         Rep. Lowenthal Amendment  – the National Ocean Council, operating under Executive Order 13547, to develop a process for decommissioning oil and gas rigs that eliminates harm to the red snapper stock and improves habitat.  FAILED 149-227 (56 NOT VOTING).  Official Tally

·         Democratic Motion to Recommit (Rep. Peters) – protect fishing communities in the aftermath of an oil or hazardous materials spill by requiring: (1) the relevant Regional Fishery Management Council fully assess the impacts of the spill to stocks of fish, fishing communities, and the marine environment; (2) the polluter pay for any cleanup or removal of pollution impacting fishery; (3) the polluter pay for testing of fish and water quality, in order to protect consumers and fishermen.  FAILED 155-223 (54 NOT VOTING).  Official Tally

·         Final Passage of H.R. 1335.  PASSED 225-152 (55 NOT VOTING). Official Tally

Amendments Adopted (by voice vote)

Rep. Young Amendment (10 minutes of debate) – Provides for additional information for stock assessments, the use of students to collect marine recreational fishing data and clarifies information for Council reviews.

Rep. Wittman Amendment (10 minutes of debate) – Gives NOAA the authority to use alternative fishery management measures.

Reps. Keating / Lynch / Moulton Amendment (10 minutes of debate) – Amends Section 10 (3) Use of Asset Forfeiture Fund for Fishery Independent Data Collection to include fishery research and independent stock assessments, conservation gear engineering, at-sea and shoreside monitoring, fishery impact statements, and other priorities established by the Council as necessary to rebuild or maintain sustainable fisheries, ensure healthy ecosystems, and maintain fishing communities. 

Amendments Not adopted (by voice vote)

Rep. Huffman Amendment (Democratic Substitute) (20 minutes of debate) – Reauthorizes the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and improves fisheries management and data collection.

Amendments Withdrawn

Rep. Farr Amendment (10 minutes of debate) – Allows the use of vessel information under Executive Order 13547 to aid in restoring fisheries habitat at the Secretary's discretion.

Rep. Graves Amendment (10 minutes of debate) – Confers  management of snapper fisheries to Gulf of Mexico states similar to the management of Atlantic Striped Bass to Atlantic states. Seeks to improve the science of snapper fisheries monitoring.

General Debate

Rep. Bishop (R-UT) – This bill makes a good law even better.  It’s good for our economy and for US jobs.

Rep. Grijalva (D-AZ) – This has been named the empty oceans act by the fishing community.  This bill overrides the ESA, NEPA, and the Antiquities Act.  These are major problems.    Let’s go back to the drawing board and help our fisheries.

Rep. Young (R-AK) – This bill is written for the fishermen and communities, not for the government or groups like Pew.  We sought to balance conservation with allowing for economic growth.  Rebuilding the fish stock will be based on the availability of the fish stock.  It does not ignore science.

Rep. Grijalva (D-AZ) – The Magnuson Act is working and should be allowed to continue to work.  I yield to Ms. Capps.

Rep. Capps (D-CA) – I oppose H.R. 1335.   Magnuson has worked.  Ensuring that fish stocks are healthy is vital.  This bill will dismiss management standards and fish stock rebuilding laws.  Creates gaping loopholes under the guise of flexibility.    It unravels the current system, like the ESA, NEPA, and National Marine Fisheries Service.

Rep. Wittman (R-VA) – I support H.R. 1335.  We need to have quality scientific data that allows for effective fishery management.  I am glad also that this bill has the support of numerous recreational sports associations.

Rep. Dingell (D-MI) – I oppose this bill.  This is historically a bipartisan issue.  But this bill will take our fisheries management in the wrong direction.  The number of stocks overfished has been cut in half since 2006.  This isn’t broken.  I hope we can come to an agreement to reauthorize it in a bipartisan manner.

Rep. Hice (R-GA) – HR 1335 makes needed improvements to the Magnuson Act.  With these improvements, our fisherman will be able to increase their contributions to the economy.  It encourages our local professionals to play a role in regulatory matters rather than a one size fits all approach from the federal government.  It strikes a balance between the commercial and recreational fishing interests.

Rep. Pallone (D-NJ) – The fishing industry is important to my state’s economy.   The President has threatened a veto and this bill did not get one Democratic vote in Committee.  I am troubled with the changes to NEPA, ESA, NMSA, and the antiquities.  Fishery managers play an important role with NOAA but lack the expertise on the regulatory impacts of certain issues.  There are positive reforms of Magnuson in this bill but unfortunately rolls back valuable environmental protections.

Rep. Bishop (R-UT) – I would like to mention that this bill has the support of the Garden State Seafood Association.

Rep. Duncan (R-SC) – I am pleased that my amendment on the Morris Dill study was included.  It will help allocations for fisheries.  It encourages a science-based review of fisheries in the South Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico.  We want policy based on science and what’s going on in the water, not a bureaucrat in Washington.

Rep. Pingree (D-ME) – I support the reauthorization of the Magnuson act but not this bill.  Many of my neighbors and constituents make their living on commercial fishing.  We must keep our fisheries sustainable and not allow them to be devastated by overfishing.  We must rebuild the fish stocks and support more funding for the science.

Rep. McArthur (R-NJ) – There is the same amount of boats as people in my district.  I hear a lot from charter and commercial fisherman.  They say the Magnuson Act no longer works.  Nobody wants the Wild West days of unregulated fishing but this bill relies on science to keep fish stocks healthy while allowing commercial fisherman to create jobs.

Rep. Graham (D-FL) – The fishing industry is so important to my district.  The prevalence of red snapper in my district shows me that Magnuson is working.  There are healthy reforms in the bill that will improve the Act.  We should get the states and stakeholders involved.  We must improve data collection techniques – like was included in the CJS bill.

Rep. Weber (R-TX) – We have a great snapper industry in my district as well.  I want to discuss the Graves (R-LA) amendment.  I don’t think this amendment is needed.  We want the industries to last.  The Restaurant Association is opposed to the Graves amendment.  Snapper should be available to all.  We should not be picking winners and losers.  I urge my colleagues to oppose the Graves amendment.

Rep. Lowenthal (D-CA) – This bill will weaken many environmental laws.  It makes Magnuson the controlling statute in any conflicts with other conservation laws (i.e. Antiquities).  This is outside the scope of a fisheries bill.

Rep. Scott (R-GA) – The commercial fishermen get to fish all year for red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico.  But the government restricts recreational fisherman to 10 days.  We should use science to examine the fishing seasons for recreational fisherman.

Rep. Grijalva (D-AZ) – The Magnuson Act was been valuable to fishing stocks.  This is not a bipartisan bill.

Rep. Bishop (R-UT) – We have heard that there are problems with the status quo and we are presenting our proposal to fix the problems.  We must cut red tape, increase transparency, as we must reauthorize this Act.

Debate on Amendments 

·         Rep. Dingell Amendment #1 (10 minutes of debate) – Strikes the bill’s environmental streamlining requirements that allow the regional fishery councils to concurrently do NEPA reviews while assessing Fishery Management Plans.

Rep. Dingell (D-MI) – This bill would short circuit public review.  Casts NEPA aside and make regional fishery management councils the sole decision maker without consideration of impacts to local communities. We should not limit public input.

Rep. Bishop (R-UT) – This amendment would give more opportunities to delay and litigation.

Rep.  Pingree (D-ME) –  I support the amendment.  Our fisheries don’t work on artificial timelines.  We must not allow NEPA analyses to be rushed.

Rep. Dingell (D-MI) – This bill would eliminate federal responsibility under NEPA.  Businesses and individuals would be given less consideration.  The regional fishery councils would be given too much power.

Rep. Young (R-AK) – This provision was requested by the communities.  It does not eliminate NEPA.  This amendment puts the interest of outsiders above the community.

Rep.  Bishop (R-UT) – This provision eliminates duplication of processes.

Roll Call vote on Dingell Amendment ordered.  Amendment #2 (Farr) withdrawn.

·         Keating / Lynch / Moulton Amendment #3 (10 minutes of debate) – Amends Section 10 (3) Use of Asset Forfeiture Fund for Fishery Independent Data Collection to include fishery research and independent stock assessments, conservation gear engineering, at-sea and shoreside

Rep. Keating (D-MA) – My amendment would ensure that AFF funds are used for specific items.  I am concerned about the shifting of NEPA to the councils, but I believe we need to provide increased resources to the councils.

Rep. Moulton (D-MA) – I support this amendment so we can make smart investments in our fishing industry.  The fishermen and the environmentalist want the same thing – a healthy and sustainable fishing stock.

Rep. Bishop (R-UT) – I do not oppose the amendment.  The IG reported that NOAA misused the funds which is why were are addressing some of the problems with the status quo.  The Keating amendment is a very constructive approach to a problem.

Keating Amendment adopted – by voice vote 

·         Rep. Lowenthal Amendment #4 (10 minutes of debate) – the National Ocean Council, operating under Executive Order 13547, to develop a process for decommissioning oil and gas rigs that eliminates harm to the red snapper stock and improves habitat.

Rep. Lowenthal (D-CA) – My amendment would develop a transparent process to preserve red snapper in oil gas rig decommissioning.

Rep. Young (R-AK) –   This amendment failed in committee.  I have heard that the oil rigs serve as man-made reefs that the red snapper love.  I am not in favor of giving the Oceans Council any power.

Rep. Lowenthal (D-CA) – The colleagues across the aisle are opposed to this amendment because they are opposed to Oceans Council.  It urges agency and stakeholders to work together on a process.

Rep. Graves (R-LA) – I oppose this amendment.  I want time for industry to work on a solution.

Rep. Bishop (R-UT) – This amendment would give validity to the Administration’s oceans policy, which was done in secret.

Roll Call vote on Lowenthal Amendment ordered. 

·         Rep. Young Amendment #5 (10 minutes of debate) – Provides for additional information for stock assessments, the use of students to collect marine recreational fishing data and clarifies information for Council reviews.

Rep. Young (R-AK) – My amendment clarifies some portions of the bill.

Rep. Grijalva (D-AZ) – We have not yet gotten feedback from the Administration on the requirements of this amendment.  I urge a no vote.

Young Amendment adopted – by voice vote

·         Rep. Graves Amendment #6 (10 minutes of debate) – Confers  management of snapper fisheries to Gulf of Mexico states similar to the management of Atlantic Striped Bass to Atlantic states. Seeks to improve the science of snapper fisheries monitoring.

Rep. Graves (R-LA) – We have seen the National Marine Fisheries Service to limit recreational fishing using science that is not robust.  It has allowed the charter fishing industry to fish 45 days, commercial to fish all year and recreational fishermen only 10 days.  The 5 Gulf States came up with an agreement and my amendment would codify that agreement

Rep. Grijalva (D-AZ) – This amendment failed in committee.

Rep. Young (R-AK) – I think this issue needs additional discussion.

Rep. Graves (R-LA) – This amendment has support of many fishing and recreational sporting associations.

Rep. Bishop (R-UT) – I concur there is an access problem for the red snapper.  I want to work with Mr. Graves on this issue.

Rep. Graves (R-LA) –  I look forward to working with my colleagues and having additional hearings on this.  I withdraw my amendment.

Graves Amendment #6 withdrawn

·         Rep. Wittman Amendment #7 (10 minutes of debate) – Gives NOAA the authority to use alternative fishery management measures.

Rep. Wittman (R-VA) – I would give NOAA authority to use recreational fishery management processes that are important to recreational fishermen.  It provides flexibility for management of recreational fisheries.

Rep. Grijalva (D-AZ) –  I appreciate the intent however,  this amendment does not include important safeguards that would prevent overfishing.

Wittman Amendment adopted  – by voice vote

·         Rep. Huffman Amendment #8 (20 minutes of debate) – Democratic Substitute.  Reauthorizes the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and improves fisheries management and data collection.

Rep. Huffman (D-CA) – I believe this bill falls short in many ways.  We need to maintain domestic fish stocks.  Our current science-based approach is working and this bill will undue much of that good work.  This bill is a partisan bill.  My amendment has many provisions similar to my bill, the Fishing Economy Improvement Act, which was introduced with Rep. Sablan.

Rep. Bishop (R-UT) – This is a much better amendment than was introduced in the committee.  However, I feel this amendment takes away much of the flexibility in the bill.  There are too many problems in the status quo that need to be addressed.

Rep. Pingree (D-ME) – This amendment would update many processes without doing away important environmental protections.

Rep. Young (R-AK) – The goal of the Magnuson Act was sustainable fisheries and sustainable communities.  There is a lot in this bill that reflects this amendment.

Rep. Beyer (D-VA) – I support this amendment.  I would complement the current Magnuson processes.    I would modernize data collection.

Rep. Bishop (R-UT) – This amendment does not move us forward.  It erases flexibility, transparency, and regulatory efficiencies.

Huffman Amendment is not adopted – by voice vote.

WASHINGTON — June 1, 2015 — The House voted Monday to approve legislation designed to ease limits on the number of fish caught in federal waters, a move that recreational anglers applauded as long overdue and that environmental groups blasted as ecologically reckless.

The legislation passed 225-152, with Republicans largely in favor and Democrats largely opposed.

The bill would mark the most significant overhaul of federal fishing law in nearly a decade. It now heads to the Senate, where its prospects remain murky,

Supporters and opponents of the current law, known as the Magnuson-Stevens Act, say it has gone far to help once-threatened stocks rebound.

Environmentalists say it’s too early to bail on the law, but recreational anglers and charter boat captains — who have suffered economically under shortened fishing seasons — say the stocks have bounced back enough to raise the limits.

Read the full story from the Asbury Park Press

May 30, 2015 — PORTLAND, Maine — A White House pledge to veto proposed changes to federal fishing laws has divided fishermen over whether the rule changes should be saved or scrapped.

U.S. Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, has proposed a bill to change the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to provide fishery managers with more flexibility in rebuilding fish stocks. The bill includes a provision that fishery regulators should be able to consider the “economic needs of the fishing communities” in setting annual catch limits.

The White House has said the administration “strongly opposes” the changes and President Barack Obama’s senior advisers would recommend a veto if the bill to authorize them passes. White House officials said Young’s changes would undermine efforts to prevent overfishing and “impose arbitrary and unnecessary requirements that would harm the environment and the economy.”

Read the full story from The Boston Herald

May 30, 2015 — Stock assessment processes could be improved right now, under an FY 16 appropriations bill reported in Congress. The House Appropriations Committee reported the Commerce, Justice, Science & Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016, (H.R. 2578), which officially was placed on the congressional website on Saturday, May 30, 2015 The bill was placed on the Union Calendar for a vote. The bill calls for some improvement in the way NOAA handles fish stock information, even before reauthorization.

The bill includes $828.743 million for the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and approves NOAA’s plan to restructure its budget. The committee said that NOAA needs to improve its stock assessments and OK’d increasing use of electronic monitoring and reporting, such as e-logbooks and video to help measure catch and provide more accurate stock counts. It ordered NOAA to continue to provide Congress with quarterly briefings on its methods of assessing stocks, costs of its surveys and how it uses data.

Read the full story from Examiner.com