Washington

WASHINGTON — May 30, 2014 — House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (WA- 04) delivered the following opening statement (as prepared) at Thursday’s Full Committee markup of H.R. 4742, “Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act.”

“The Committee will now be considering HR 4742, the Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act.

This bill will renew the Magnuson-Stevens Act that provides the fundamental framework for our Nation’s fisheries management. The last renewal, or reauthorization, of the Magnuson-Stevens Act was in 2006 and expired in September 2013.

The goal of HR 4742 is to strengthen and improve the Act through common sense reforms that increase management flexibility based on science, ensure greater government transparency, promote responsible fishing and prevent overfishing, improve fish data collection, and provide predictability and certainty for American jobs and local communities whose economic livelihoods depend on fishing.

The impact of fishing in many coastal regions – including in the State of Washington and in the Ranking Member’s state – help define that region. According to a recent report by NOAA, the U.S. seafood industry supported approximately 1.3 million jobs and generated $141 billion in sales impacts, $39 billion in income impacts, and $59 billion in value added impacts.

Read the full story from Boating Industry

WASHINGTON — June 2, 2014 — The House Natural Resources Committee approved a measure introduced by Rep. Jon Runyan (R-N.J.) on Thursday that would require more timely economic data on the impact natural disasters have on fishing communities.

Runyan introduced an amendment to the Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act, which would reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act for five years.

Runyan’s amendment would require the secretary of commerce to estimate and publish the economic toll a natural disaster like Hurricane Sandy had on a region’s fishing industry within 30 days of a fisheries resource disaster declaration.

Read the full story from The Ripon Advance

WASHINGTON, D.C. –- May 29, 2014 — Today, Congressman Frank Pallone, Jr. (NJ-06), a senior member of the House Committee on Natural Resources, criticized the Magnuson-Stevens reauthorization bill offered by Chairman Doc Hastings (R-WA) as being too partisan.  The bill would amend and reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), which is the law governing management of fisheries in the United States.

“It had been my hope that this reauthorization would have taken a more bipartisan approach to reform fisheries policies,” said Pallone.  “While the bill includes important fisheries management reforms I strongly support, such as important flexibility language and modifications to the annual catch limit requirements, I am troubled by language in the bill that would make unnecessary changes to important environmental protection policies.  In its current form, it is unlikely that the bill would pass in the Senate or be signed into law.”

The bill would vest National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Endangered Species Act (ESA) authority in the fishery management councils instead of with the appropriate federal agencies, according to Pallone. Pallone voiced his concern that the regional councils lack the expertise to appropriately review and analyze the impacts and requirements of NEPA or the ESA.

Congressman Pallone offered his own amendment to the bill, which was passed by the committee, to ensure the fishery management councils are collecting the best information possible about recreational fishing based on scientific data.  

Read the full story at the Atlantic Highlands Herald 

 

WASHINGTON — May 29, 2014 — The following was released by the office of Representative Bradley Byrne:

Today, Representative Bradley Byrne (AL-1) applauded passage of the Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act out of the House Natural Resources Committee. This act reauthorizes the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, last reauthorized in 2006, which has jurisdiction over all federal fisheries, including authorizations for setting Red Snapper season in the Gulf of Mexico each year.

Major reforms in the Chairman’s mark of the legislation and subsequently passed by the committee include:

– Repeal of Section 407(d) mandating quotas on Red Snapper fishing in the Gulf of Mexico. Rep. Byrne introduced legislation, the SNAPR Act, which would repeal this section to allow for greater flexibility in setting federal fishing seasons.

– Extension of Alabama state water boundary to 9 nautical miles from shore, effectively giving the state more control over its resources and the option for a more reasonable fishing season.

Additionally, Representative Byrne introduced an amendment accepted by the full committee that would remove the stock assessment and data collection responsibilities for reef fish currently held by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), transferring this authority to the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, a state-run organization.

Byrne has concurred with experts like Dr. Bob Shipp of the University of South Alabama who argue that the federal government’s data collection practices are flawed and do not accurately reflect the amount of Red Snapper stocks in the Gulf of Mexico. This provision will provide more reliable data on which fishery managers are able to base management decisions moving forward.

Read the full press release here 

 

 

 

 

May 29, 2014 — The U.S. House Natural Resources Committee today moved a bill to update the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the primary fisheries law in federal waters. Alaska Congressman Don Young amended the bill to allow subsistence fishermen a voice on the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council.

Fish like halibut and pollock are caught at sea, but Young says inland fishermen should also have a say in how they’re managed.

“All I want is for them to have a voice, the same voice that the commercial and sport fisheries have, so they have utilization for a living source of food,” Young said.

Nominees for the North Pacific Council can be qualified based on their commercial or recreational fishing expertise. The law doesn’t mention subsistence users, and Young says they’re being short-changed on the Council.

“There has been a decline in fisheries that are used for subsistence and yet the subsistence users are neglected as far as taking in consideration the amount of fish that can be caught,” Young said.

His amendment would require the Alaska governor to consult with subsistence users before nominating North Pacific Council members. Tribes in the Y-K Delta and the Interior have been asking for representation on the Council. People there suspect Bering Sea fisheries are aggravating the Chinook salmon crisis. The Pollock industry says its cut way down on its Chinook bycatch, down to about 30,000 fish. But to subsistence users barred from catching even one, it sounds like a lot.

Read the full story and listen to the audio at Alaska Public Media 

 

WASHINGTON — May 30, 2014 — The following was released by the House Committee on Natural Resources:

House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (WA-04) delivered the following opening statement (as prepared) at today’s Full Committee Markup of H.R. 4742, “Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act.”

“The Committee will now be considering HR 4742, the Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act.

This bill will renew the Magnuson-Stevens Act that provides the fundamental framework for our Nation’s fisheries management. The last renewal, or reauthorization, of the Magnuson-Stevens Act was in 2006 and expired in September 2013.

The goal of HR 4742 is to strengthen and improve the Act through common sense reforms that increase management flexibility based on science, ensure greater government transparency, promote responsible fishing and prevent overfishing, improve fish data collection, and provide predictability and certainty for American jobs and local communities whose economic livelihoods depend on fishing.

The impact of fishing in many coastal regions – including in the State of Washington and in the Ranking Member’s state – help define that region. According to a recent report by NOAA, the U.S. seafood industry supported approximately 1.3 million jobs and generated $141 billion in sales impacts, $39 billion in income impacts, and $59 billion in value added impacts.

Congress should be focused on policies that promote an America that works – and when over a million Americans’ jobs are tied to fishing, whether commercial or recreational fishing, renewing and improving the Magnuson-Stevens Act should be a priority. And it has been for this Committee. Over the past three years, the Committee has held ten hearings with 99 witnesses on the Act and related fisheries issues.

What we’ve repeatedly heard, is that the Act is fundamentally sound. But as with any federal statute, working well does not mean it’s perfect. This is a statute that requires a balance between the goal of maximizing the use of our Nation’s fishery resources and the need to prevent overfishing. It requires a balance between user groups. It also requires a balance between achieving national goals and allowing regional flexibility. As such, it needs to be reviewed and revised on occasion.

One of the key messages the Committee has heard is that while the 2006/2007 amendments to the Act were good, those requirements have been hard to achieve in some regions without significant economic pain and that some level of flexibility is necessary.

This debate today isn’t just about the use of a natural resource – it is about providing a sustainable source of protein as well as providing economic vitality to coastal communities. In some regions of the country, fishing communities are struggling. A report from NOAA stated that groundfish revenues “fell in 2012 in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island with Massachusetts and New Hampshire seeing a four year low in groundfish revenues.” In New Bedford alone, the value of groundfish landed dropped from $31 million in 2011 to $19 million in 2013. The report went on to state that the number of active vessels dropped from 916 vessels in 2009 to 764 vessels in 2012 and of the 764 active vessels only 401 took a groundfish trip in 2012. And in the Gulf of Mexico, the recreational harvest of red snapper in Federal waters is down to just 9 days despite encouraging reports on the health of the resource.

So while the Act is working, it does not work equally well across the country. This indicates that some regions may need a certain amount of flexibility to address their challenges.

This year, a number of knowledgeable groups have added to the reauthorization discussion – the National Academies of Sciences issued a report on rebuilding flexibility, the Managing Our Nation’s Fisheries conference made 128 recommendations – many of which were related to statutory changes, the Secretary’s Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee released a number of papers related to the reauthorization, and the eight regional fishery management councils have met as a group to make specific recommendations to Congress.

We took a look at all of these recommendations and last December released a Discussion Draft bill text to continue this conversation. Quite a number of comments have been received and a hearing was held to specifically review the Discussion Draft to gather more input. In addition, I have met with the Ranking Member several times and our staffs have worked for months to attempt to reach agreement on provisions and compromise.

As a result of all of these comments and the discussions with the Minority, I introduced H.R. 4742 last week. While I do not have enough time to go through all of the changes made to accommodate concerns of Members, I will note a few:

Three provisions were dropped that the minority was concerned would allow overfishing to take place.

The electronic monitoring provisions were totally rewritten to accommodate concerns raised by the Ranking Member.

Several provisions were inserted at the request of the Ranking Member, including a requirement that the Secretary of Commerce report to Congress and the Councils on how much money is collected from catch share fisheries and how that money is used.

Data confidentiality language was modified to address some of the concerns raised by the Ranking Member and others.

Language was clarified regarding the relationship between the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the Endangered Species Act to address concerns raised by minority Members of the Committee at the Discussion Draft hearing.

Language was added to encourage and promote the use of cooperative research at the request of the Ranking Member.

And the text of H.R 2646, the Revitalizing the Economy of Fisheries in the Pacific Act, was added, which I know is a priority for both Ranking Member Defazio and Rep. Herrera Beutler of Washington state.

Having said all of that, I know there are still areas of disagreement. But even with areas of disagreement, I believe we have addressed a lot of concerns raised by outside groups and the Ranking Member.

In addition, this markup is certainly not the last opportunity for us to make changes to accommodate Members’ issues and concerns. I continue to be open to working with the Ranking Member, members of the Committee on both sides of the aisle, and with Members from New England and the Gulf who are struggling with real fishing challenges."

View a PDF of the release here

May 23, 2014 — Alaska’s Republican Senator got a special kind of birthday present Thursday when her “Frankenfish” amendment was added to the 2015 Agriculture spending bill by a congressional committee.

The language requires companies to label genetically engineered salmon if the federal Food and Drug Administration makes the “wrong-headed” decision to allow the fish to be sold.

“Why would we be messing with Mother Nature like this?” Murkowski asked senators before the vote on the amendment. “Why would we put so much at risk? Why would we invent a species that will outgrow our healthy natural stocks?

“This Frankenfish experiment puts at risk the health of our fisheries not only in Alaska, but our fisheries nationwide,” she added. “I don’t even think we should call this science experiment a salmon at all.”

Read the full story from Juneau Empire

May 22, 2014 — The United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (together "Services") proposed two new rules and a policy related to the Services' process of protecting and designating "critical habitat" for species protected pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA). (See the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service news release: Federal Agencies Propose Revised Rules to Improve Implementation of the Endangered Species Act, May 9, 2014.) The proposal was made on May 12, 2014. Collectively, the proposed rules and draft policy guidance would radically change the regulatory definition and significance of "critical habitat," resulting in a considerable expansion of the impact of the ESA on private land.

Regulatory Change: The Proposed Definition of "Adverse Modification"

The first proposed regulation would revise the definition of "adverse modification" of critical habitat. (See the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service proposed rule, 50 CFR Part 402.) This regulation responds to two separate court decisions (in 2001 and 2004) that set aside the 1986 definition of "adverse modification." The 1986 regulations defined "destruction or adverse modification" as "a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat for both the survival and recovery of a listed species. Such alterations include, but are not limited to, alterations adversely modifying any of those physical or biological features that were the basis for determining the habitat to be critical." (50 C.F.R. §402.02). The courts invalidated the definition for failure to properly require consideration of the impact of adverse modification on recovery of the species in favor of focusing on survival. Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 245 F.3d 434 (5th Cir. 2001); Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004).

Under the proposed regulation, "destruction or adverse modification" is defined as "a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the conservation value of critical habitat for listed species. Such alterations may include, but are not limited to, effects that preclude or significantly delay the development of the physical or biological features that support the life-history needs of the species for recovery." The requirement to focus on the conservation value of the species is likely to be controversial in that it appears to push recovery efforts onto private landowners. In determining whether the action will "appreciably diminish" the conservation value of the critical habitat, the proposed rule calls for the Services to look at whether the effects are "noticeable" rather than "significant" and requires the Services to examine factors such as whether recovery of the species will be delayed, less likely, or more difficult.

Focusing on "effects that preclude or significantly delay the development of the physical or biological features that support the life-history needs of the species for recovery" is a significant departure from current practice in that it would allow the Services to seek protection for habitat features that are not there presently or are of poor quality. Further, under the proposed standard, any impact could be argued to be likely to delay recovery or make it more difficult.

Regulatory Change: The Proposed Changes to the Critical Habitat Designation Process

The second proposed regulation would amend the procedures related to designating critical habitat. (See the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service proposed rule, 50 CFR Part 424.) The regulatory changes proposed are described by the Services as "minor changes to the regulations to: better describe the scope and purpose of critical habitat, add and remove some definitions, and clarify the criteria for designating critical habitat." Some of the changes are minor as the Services state. However, others are not. Specifically, the Services propose to define the previously undefined term "geographical area occupied by the species" as "the geographical area which may generally be delineated around the species' occurrences, as determined by the Secretary (i.e., range). Such areas may include those areas used throughout all or part of the species' life cycle, even if not used on a regular basis (e.g., migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and habitats used periodically, but not solely by vagrant individuals)." While couched as an attempt to "clarify the critical-habitat-designation process," the reality is that this new definition would expand the area that could be designated to include land that is not occupied by the species and land occupied only marginally.

The Services also propose a definition for the term "physical or biological features," which is used in the statutory definition of "critical habitat" to assist in identifying the specific areas within the entire geographical area occupied by the species that can be designated. The proposed definition allows inclusion of "habitat characteristics that support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions." This would allow the Services to designate land where they believe that there may have been the required features if they believe there is a "reasonable expectation of that habitat occurring again." As with the proposed definition of "adverse modification" discussed above, this change would allow the Services to prospectively designate habitat that does not currently have the features that would make it "critical" to the species.

Read the full story here

May 20, 2014 — The following was released by the Commerce Department Office of Inspector General:

The Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Commerce, has released a report that details the findings of an investigation into allegations received from a whistleblower alleging that a NOAA grantee may have improperly applied for and received Hurricane Sandy funds under the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act and Sandy Recovery Improvement Act.

The OIG investigation concluded that NOAA’s actions resulted in questioned costs of approximately $550,200 – over half of the $1 million dollars of funds disbursed – for items that should not have been eligible for funding based on the plain language of the disaster relief law.
 
The investigation was initiated following a whistleblower complaint that Hurricane Sandy relief funds were being used by NOAA to replace assets that were not actually damaged by Hurricane Sandy.  Nine research facilities that are part of the National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) applied for and together received approximately $1 million in Sandy relief funds from NOAA. The facilities (listed in the report) receiving funds under the grant are located in: New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Maryland, Virginia, Delaware, New Hampshire, Maine and Rhode Island.
 
The OIG investigation found that NOAA expanded the Act to include assets that they could argue were “compromised” by Hurricane Sandy.  This was done in response to concerns raised by NERRS facilities (e.g., prospective grant recipients) objecting to receiving disaster relief funds to purchase aging assets that were not actually “damaged” by the storm.  Accordingly, NOAA advised the NERRS facilities that research equipment that was “compromised” by the storm was eligible for Hurricane Sandy funding, despite the law’s requirement that equipment be “damaged” in order to receive disaster relief funds.
 
The OIG made several recommendations including:
 
– NOAA conduct an improper payments analysis and seek the recovery of any disaster relief funds improperly paid out.
 
– NOAA, in consultation with the Department of Commerce Office of General Counsel, determine whether it violated any laws or regulations when funds for items listed in the report were spent by grantees.
 
– NOAA review other programs, amounting to approximately $6 million, to determine whether the scope of the Act was similarly expanded and report on the results of that review.

Read the full Inspector General Report here

May 15, 2014 — After another year when federal fisheries managers have announced three different recreational red snapper seasons, Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., and CCA-Louisiana executive director David Cresson are calling for passage of the Red Snapper Conservation Act.

Landrieu said she and Cresson met with Sen. Mark Begich, D-Ark., the chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, to push for changes in red snapper management after National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries managers announced a nine-day recreational red snapper season in federal waters. The announced season is set to run from 12:01 a.m. local time June 1 to a close at 12:01 a.m. June 10.

It’s the third announced season after NOAA regional director Roy Crabtree announced a 40-day season late last year, a season that was reduced to 11 days by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council met in Baton Rouge in early April.

In Wednesday’s GMFMC announcement, NOAA managers said the reduction in the number of recreational days was traced to the Council’s addition of a 20 percent buffer in the estimated daily take and number of pounds Gulf-wide by recreational anglers. That 20 percent buffer was set in place to ensure recreational anglers did not exceed their annual quota, which is 49 percent of the current total allowable annual red snapper take of 11 million pounds. Commercial fishermen get 51 percent of that total.

Read the full story at The Advocate