Policy News

WOTUS

What’s Up With WOTUS?

By Leanne Roulson, AFS Second Vice President Originally published as a Guest Editorial from the AFS Western Division’s Tributary newsletter. On December 11th, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) released a proposed rule that that regulates Waters of the US (WOTUS) to redefine the scope of Clean Water Act protections for certain streams and wetlands. This would replace the 2015 Clean Water Rule and seeks to remove protections for headwater and seasonally-flowing waterways. In Montana, where the west half holds the source of some of the US’s major rivers like the Missouri and the Columbia; and the east half has streams that dry out before the Fourth of July—that would leave a lot of us hanging. The Twitter version of the 253 pages of the proposed rule, is that many headwater streams, seasonally-flowing streams, and isolated ponds or wetlands would no longer be subject to the Clean Water Act. The changes in what is or is not jurisdictional (e.g., legally recognized as a Water of the US) would reduce protections from actions such as discharge into or placement of fill or bank stabilization on these waters. An important “so what” aspect is that the new rule dismisses the importance of these waters for maintaining the integrity of downstream waters. We all know that if you make changes to a watershed in one area, that often affects areas up and downstream. This rule dismisses that premise and ignores the scientific basis for the protections put in place under the 2015 rule. AFS convened a group of fisheries experts earlier this year to develop a manuscript describing the scientific evidence for the importance of headwater streams and the potential effects of adoption of this proposed rule on fish and fisheries. This scientific evidence will be published in Fisheries and submitted to the EPA as part of AFS’ comments to the new rule. AFS joined the Consortium of Aquatic Science Societies (CASS) in a statement urging the agencies to consider the far-reaching implications of a narrower rule. The CASS statement notes, “More than a half century of scientific research has unequivocally demonstrated that the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of ‘traditionally navigable’ waters fundamentally depend on ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial headwater streams, as well as the myriad associated lakes, wetlands, and off-channel habitats.” Scientists and managers who deal with water quality, fisheries, wetlands, and impacts to waterways have been awaiting the rule. Should it become final, a fisheries biologist in Montana and other places in the West could see the following changes: Rivers and streams that contribute perennial or intermittent flow to downstream traditional navigable waters in typical year are jurisdictional under the proposal; no ephemeral features are considered jurisdictional under the proposal. Isolated lakes and ponds were considered adjacent waters together with isolated wetlands under the expanded definition of “neighboring” in the 2015 Rule. Under this proposed rule, fewer lakes and ponds may be jurisdictional than under the 2015 Rule because: Under the agencies’ new proposal wetlands must either abut jurisdictional waters or have a direct hydrological surface connection to jurisdictional waters in a typical year to be jurisdictional themselves; wetlands physically separated from jurisdictional waters by a berm, dike, or other barrier are not adjacent if they lack a direct hydrologic surface connection to a jurisdictional water in a typical year (EPA Fact Sheet). Most fisheries biologists recognize the value of tributary habitat and associated wetland habitats to fish and wildlife, and the origins and maintenance of almost 30 years of “no net loss” of wetlands policy in the US are firmly based on this valuation. In addition to the changes to stream protection, the proposed rule would make it much easier for wetlands to be lost without requiring mitigation for that loss. This is a prime example of how policy can and will affect your ability to manage fisheries effectively. Even with Montana’s Steam Permit system (including the 310 and SPA 124 permits and others) this new rule would potentially reduce the regulation of discharge and fill into streams and wetland areas. Waters in states that do not have similar stream protection laws would be at even higher risk. The science is being dismissed. If you would like to let the decision makers know that, as a scientist, you disagree with the proposed rule, you can submit a comment. Some of the most chilling aspects of this proposed rule are the types of comments the agencies state that they are seeking. Some of the suggested comment topics include: Should tributaries be limited to perennial flowing waters only (exclude intermittent streams)? Should tributaries be defined by flow level—with a suggested average annual flow of 5 cfs or more? Should aerial photos be used to determine whether a stream is perennial? Does a break in flow in a channel make a stream not a tributary? (think about the Colorado River on this one). If you wish to comment, the agencies will take comment on the proposal for 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. The agencies will also hold an informational webcast on January 10, 2019, and will host a public listening session on the proposed rule in Kansas City, KS, on January 23, 2019. Additional information on both engagements is available at https://www.epa.gov/wotus-rule. Comments on the proposal should be identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2018-0149 and may be submitted online. Go to https://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for submitting comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2018-0149. References Link to proposed rule: https://www.epa.gov/wotus-rule/proposed-rule-definition-waters-united-states-recodification-pre-existing-rules EPA Fact Sheet on the Proposed WOTUS Rule: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-12/documents/factsheet_-_wotus_revision_overview_12.10_1.pdf

December 20, 2018 No Comments

Policy Letters

Replacing Clean Water Rule Would Threaten Fish, Waterfowl, and Outdoor Recreation Economy

News for Immediate Release December 11, 2018 Contact: Kristyn Brady, 617-501-6352, [email protected] Replacing Clean Water Rule Would Threaten Fish, Waterfowl, and Outdoor Recreation Economy The EPA and Army Corps of Engineers proceeds with rolling back Clean Water Act protections for headwater streams and wetlands—harming trout, waterfowl, and outdoor recreation businesses. WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers took the next step to replace an Obama-era rule that benefited headwater streams and wetlands across the country. The new rule would redefine which waters are eligible for Clean Water Act protections and leave important habitat for fish and waterfowl vulnerable to pollution and destruction. The rule proposed today would remove Clean Water Act protections for ephemeral streams, which only flow in response to rainfall, and likely excludes intermittent streams, which only flow during wet seasons. These waters are important for fish and wildlife, especially in the West. Under the new rule, adjacent wetlands will only receive protection if they are physically connected to other jurisdictional waters. This disregards the EPA’s own research that shows wetlands and ephemeral and intermittent streams, even those that lack surface connection, provide important biological and chemical functions that affect downstream waters. “No matter which party holds the power in Washington, the needs of America’s hunters and anglers have not changed since we supported the 2015 Clean Water Rule—all streams and wetlands are crucial to supporting healthy fish and waterfowl populations that power our sports, and an entire swath of these important habitats does not deserve to be overlooked or written off on a technicality,” says Whit Fosburgh, president and CEO of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. “Sportsmen and women will remain engaged in the public process of creating a new rule for how our smaller streams and wetlands are regulated, because our quintessentially American traditions in the outdoors depend on it.” “The agencies’ refusal to consider the science is detrimental to the integrity and security of our fish and wildlife resources,” says Doug Austen, executive director of the American Fisheries Society. “Headwater streams are key to the sustainability of fish stocks in both upstream and downstream waters. Now, species that are already in trouble will be harder to recover, and more species will be at risk of becoming imperiled. Loss of protections for these waters will have grave ecological consequences for fish and fisheries—and ultimately the communities across the U.S. will lose the economic, social, and cultural benefits that are derived from headwater streams.” “This proposal is fundamentally flawed for one simple reason: It focuses on the wrong criteria—continuous flow of water—rather than protecting water quality in our rivers, lakes, and drinking water reservoirs,” says Scott Kovarovics, executive director of the Izaak Walton League of America. “This misguided approach is completely unsupported by science and common sense, and it not only jeopardizes public health, it will undermine the $887-billion outdoor recreation economy.” The Obama administration finalized its Clean Water Rule in 2015 and clarified that the Clean Water Act protects smaller streams and wetlands. The Trump administration’s rule embraces the minority opinion written by late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on what constitutes the “Waters of the U.S.” Scalia’s definition was not adopted by the Supreme Court and is not supported by hunters and anglers. In fact, 80 percent of sportsmen and women in a 2018 poll said Clean Water Act protections should apply to headwater streams and wetlands. Additionally, 92 percent believe that we should strengthen or maintain current clean water standards, not relax them. “The administration’s new proposal turns its back on the importance of small headwater streams to healthy waterways and sportfishing recreation,” says Chris Wood, president and CEO of Trout Unlimited. “Small headwater streams are like the roots of our trees, the capillaries of our arteries. Sportsmen and women know that all the benefits of our larger streams, rivers, and bays downstream are dependent on the health of our small streams.” Today’s proposed rulemaking would roll back protections on diverse wetland habitats, including prairie potholes in the Great Plains region. Also known as America’s duck factory, these wetlands support more than 50 percent of our country’s migratory waterfowl. Since the Supreme Court created confusion about the application of the Clean Water Act in the 2000s, America has experienced accelerated wetlands loss—only 40 to 50 percent of the original prairie potholes remain. “From wetlands in the prairie potholes region to the riparian areas that are critical to 80 percent of all wildlife—including big game—our hunting and fishing traditions can’t exist without clean water,” says Land Tawney, president and CEO of Backcountry Hunters & Anglers. “Hunters and anglers will not stand for shortsighted policies that weaken protections and threaten the integrity of fish and wildlife habitats currently safeguarded by bedrock conservation laws like the Clean Water Act.” The new rulemaking could also threaten America’s outdoor recreation businesses and communities that rely on tourism spending related to hunting and fishing. “No one who loves the outdoors wants to fish a lake covered in toxic algae, duck hunt near a bulldozed wetland, or pitch a tent next to sewage ditch,” says Collin O’Mara, president and CEO of the National Wildlife Federation. “Yet more water pollution is exactly what will happen if the administration dismantles clean water protections. It’s bad for wildlife, and it’s bad for the nearly 8 million jobs powered by the outdoor recreation economy.” Today’s proposal will be published in the Federal Register here. At that time, the public will have 60 days to comment.

December 11, 2018 No Comments

Policy Letters

Aquatic Scientists Push Back Against Narrow WOTUS Rule

American Fisheries Society • Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography • Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation • Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society • International Association for Great Lakes Research • North American Lake Management Society • Phycological Society of America • Society for Freshwater Science • Society of Wetland Scientists Aquatic Scientists Push Back Against Narrow WOTUS Rule The Consortium of Aquatic Science Societies (CASS) is deeply concerned with the proposed rule issued today by the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to replace the 2015 Clean Water Rule (Waters of the United States Rule or WOTUS). We urge the agencies to consider the far-reaching implications to our nation’s fish and aquatic resources, wildlife and communities from a narrower rule and call for any re-definition of ”Waters of the United States” to be informed by science. More than a half century of scientific research has unequivocally demonstrated that the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of “traditionally navigable” waters fundamentally depend on ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial headwater streams, as well as the myriad associated lakes, wetlands, and off-channel habitats. Research specifically shows that downstream waters rely on headwaters and their associated wetland habitats for: uptake, retention, transformation and transport of nutrients and contaminants; control of runoff, streamflow and floodwaters moderation of water temperature and sediment delivery; food, thermal refuges, spawning sites, nursery areas and essential habitat for unique plants and animals, including numerous threatened and endangered species as well as recreationally and commercially important species. Dr. Arnold van der Valk, Immediate Past President, Society of Wetland Scientists and a professor at Iowa State University, decried the decision by the Trump administration to replace the current WOTUS rule and noted, “It will result in the loss of many of the nation’s wetlands. This decision is short-sighted and counterproductive. It will significantly reduce the multitude of ecosystem services that these wetlands currently provide us at no cost. As a result the taxpayers will have to pay to build elaborate and expensive infrastructure to replace these free ecosystem services, such as flood reduction and cleaning up polluted water.” Dr. Robert Twilley, Past President of the Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation and a professor at Louisiana State University, said: “Estuaries and coastal waters rely on clean water from upland watersheds to support productive, commercially, and recreationally valuable fisheries of the United States. The definition of ‘Waters of the United States’ was a joint effort of industry, private landowners, and government that recognized the importance of headland and other wetlands in providing the water quality that supports downstream economies.” Dr. Douglas Austen, Executive Director of the American Fisheries Society (AFS), noted that “the 2015 Clean Water Rule provided a scientifically sound definition of ‘Waters of the U.S.’ The move to replace the rule puts America’s headwater streams and wetlands at greater risk of being destroyed or polluted and imperils fish and aquatic resources.” CASS is composed of nine professional societies representing almost 20,000 individuals with diverse knowledge of the aquatic sciences. Those members work in the private sector, academia, non-governmental organizations, and various tribal, state, and federal agencies. CASS represents professional scientists and managers with deep subject matter expertise, a commitment to independent objectivity, and the critical review of environmental information. We support the development and use of the best available science to sustainably manage our freshwater, estuarine, coastal, and ocean resources to the benefit of the U.S. economy, environment, and public health and safety. For more information, please contact: Ms. Drue Banta Winters [email protected] PH 301/897-8616 x202

December 11, 2018 No Comments

Policy Letters

AFS and Other Groups Request Recovering America’s Wildlife Act Hearing in Senate Committee

The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works will hold a hearing on the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act entitled, “Examining Funding Needs for Wildlife Conservation, Recovery, and Management” on Thursday, November 15 at 10 a.m. Is your senator on the commiteee? If so, you and/or your Chapter should call to your Senator’s office to express your support for the bill and ask them to attend the hearing and speak in favor of the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act. Letter regarding the hearing sent by the Alliance for America’s Fish and Wildlife: November 8, 2018 The Honorable Thomas Carper Ranking Member Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper, The United States is facing an historic fish and wildlife conservation crisis that could alter future Americans’ opportunities to benefit from our natural heritage. However, this challenge also presents an opportunity to address the dramatic decline of so many species of fish and wildlife and the habitats they depend on. Without much needed investments in proactive conservation, we could see widespread impacts on the fundamental life benefits provided by nature such as water purification and aquifer recharge, flood abatement, pollination, recreation and food and fiber production that are essential to human health. These species declines threaten Americans’ quality of life, and our economy, and create regulatory uncertainty for businesses and industries, further impacting jobs and the health of our communities. Fortunately, solutions exist to reverse this decline and bolster our economy. We write to respectfully request that the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW) hold a hearing and markup to advance the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act (S.3223), introduced in July by Senators Risch, Manchin, Alexander and Heitkamp. We believe this legislation is a key part of a critical solution towards addressing the imminent challenges facing America’s fish and wildlife. Many of us came together to serve on the Blue Ribbon Panel on Sustaining America’s Diverse Fish & Wildlife Resources, consisting of members representing the outdoor recreation industry, retail and manufacturing sector, energy and automotive industries, private landowners, educational institutions, hunters and anglers, other conservation groups, and state and federal fish and wildlife agencies. Together, our industries represent more than a trillion dollars of economic impact, millions of non-exportable jobs, and tens of millions of members, consumers and constituents across the country, all who rely on healthy fish and wildlife populations. Today we remain united in support of legislation implementing the Blue Ribbon Panel’s recommendations as the Alliance for America’s Fish & Wildlife. The Recovering America’s Wildlife Act will help recover species at risk by authorizing $1.3 billion annually from existing royalty revenues generated by the development of energy and mineral resources on federal lands and waters. The funds will be apportioned to state fish and wildlife agencies (state agencies) to implement proactive conservation programs. Specifically, S. 3223 would direct funds to the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration subaccount that was established pursuant to the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937. The funds will be leveraged using a twenty-five percent nonfederal match and will also be utilized by new and existing public/private partnerships, many of which are already producing positive outcomes to conserve more fish, wildlife and habitat on the ground. Doing so will arm state agencies with the resources needed to assist in the restoration and recovery of federally listed threatened and endangered species like the Wood Bison, Red Knot and the Gopher Tortoise, while also preventing other species from being listed. Furthermore, this legislation will provide more certainty to landowners, sportsmen and women, outdoor recreation enthusiasts, retail businesses, the energy and manufacturing industries and many other stakeholder groups. We further urge Congress to enact the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act with mandatory funding, which would ensure financial certainty to states, and allow them to plan and implement multi-year conservation projects. The House version of this bill, H.R. 4647, includes a dedicated funding mechanism currently. We applaud the leadership of this committee in your pursuit of solutions to our most pressing conservation challenges in a way that does not place an additional burden on taxpayers. This legislation utilizes an innovative approach to the conservation of our treasured natural resources while simultaneously strengthening our economy and saving federal dollars in the long-run. During a recent hearing in your committee on the Successful State Conservation, Recovery, and Management of Wildlife, there was a mention of the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act as a path forward to securing the necessary resources to empower our state managers to get ahead of the endangered species backlog that may occur if adequate and sustained funding is not dedicated to this pressing problem. To continue this important discussion, we encourage your committee to hold a hearing and markup on S.3223. Our nation has a proud history of addressing massive conservation challenges, including bringing species back from the brink of extinction by helping fund professional fish and wildlife management. This legislation presents the opportunity for Congress to provide future generations of Americans the same opportunities that we have had in our lifetimes to enjoy our treasured natural resources. Together we can build a brighter economic future that includes conservation of our fish and wildlife and helps sustain our communities. We the undersigned appreciate your consideration of our request for action on this important legislation. cc: Senate Majority Leader McConnell, Senate Minority Leader Schumer Sincerely, Members of the Alliance for America’s Fish & Wildlife: American Fisheries Society American Sportfishing Association Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies Audubon Audubon Connecticut Backcountry Hunters and Anglers Barry Conservation District Bass Pro Shops Bat Conservation International Big Game Conservation Association Cabela’s The Connecticut Audubon Society Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Connecticut Falconers Association Connecticut Ornithological Association Connecticut Waterfowlers Association Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation The Conservation Fund Cornell Lab of Ornithology Delta Waterfowl Ducks Unlimited Fisheries Advisory Council Forest Landowners Association Grand Valley State University, Department of Biology Hawk Mountain Sanctuary Hess Corporation Houston Safari Club Huron Pines Izaak Walton League of America Jacklin Rod and Gun Club, Inc. Kalamazoo Nature Center Kemp Design Services Lake Erie Islands Conservancy Mattabeseck Audubon Society Max McGraw Wildlife Foundation Montana Audubon National Alliance

November 9, 2018 No Comments

Recovering America's Wildlife Act

Lame Duck Session Offers Opportunity for End of Year RAWA Co-Sponsor Push

The Recovering America’s Wildlife Act is gaining momentum in Congress. The House bill, introduced last December, now has over 100 co-sponsors. The corresponding Senate bill, introduced in July, is expected to be the subject of an Environment and Public Works Committee hearing in November. There’s a critical difference in the House and Senate bills in that the Senate bill only provides for annual appropriations while the House bill follows the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Panel on Sustaining America’s Diverse Fish and Wildlife that called for dedicated funding. AFS is working with our conservation partners to move the bill forward and to ensure that members of Congress understand the need to dedicate funding to address the fish and wildlife crisis in America. It is a critical time to get your members of Congress focused on this important legislation. Please consider engaging your Unit in support of the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act. Members of Congress are in their districts and will return to DC following the mid-term elections for a “lame duck” session. The Recovering America’s Wildlife Act could be folded in to a funding package that addresses the maintenance backlog on national parks and re-authorizes and funds the Land and Water Conservation Fund. If the bill does not pass before the end of the year, it will need to be re-introduced in the next Congress. It is important to continue building support for funding for proactive conservation while these discussions unfold. Here are a few ways to help: Help to secure 125 co-sponsors on the House bill before the end of the year by writing a letter from your chapter to your House delegation asking them to co-sponsor the bill. We can provide you with a template. Check to see if your Senator is a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. If so, contact them and ask them to speak up during the hearing about the need for dedicated funding for the bill. Use social media to thank current sponsors of the bill and encourage more support of Recovering America’s Wildlife Act. Contact AFS Policy Director Drue Banta Winters ([email protected]) for assistance!

October 25, 2018 No Comments

Magnuson-Stevens Act

AFS Experts Share MSA Recommendations with NOAA Fisheries and Key Hill Staff

On October 11, AFS Policy Director Drue Winters shepherded marine fisheries experts, Drs. Tom Miller and Cynthia Jones, around D.C. for robust discussions with NOAA Fisheries and Congressional staff on policy considerations for re-authorizing and amending the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA). Context: Over the last several years, Congress has made attempts to amend the MSA. In July, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 200 largely on party lines. The bill incorporates provisions of the Modern Fish Act that have made calls for flexibility in the law to deal with frustration from recreational anglers. There is currently no corresponding re-authorization bill in the Senate. However, a version of the Modern Fish Act passed out of the Senate Commerce Committee earlier this year. It is unclear whether there will be any movement on the legislation in the near future. AFS will be sure to stay engaged as attempts to amend the law progress. Meeting Details The day began at NOAA’s Office of Sustainable Fisheries, where AFS representatives met with Director Alan Risenhoover and members of his staff on a range of policy considerations. In particular, Dr. Miller highlighted the benefits of broader use of harvest control rules that have been simulation-tested by the Fisheries Management Councils to avoid the need for rebuilding plans. The AFS team also addressed opportunities created by dynamic ocean management to reduce bycatch and non-target species in mixed-use fisheries. Dr. Miller explained how the four traditional tools of fisheries management (size limits, season limits, closed areas and catch limits) and the regulations that support them, are not sufficiently flexible to respond to the dynamic seascape. He added, however, that new technologies developed over the last 25 years could help with this issue. [Today, fishing vessels know exactly where they are spatially, where they are with respect to currents and surface temperature features, exactly where their nets are, and how much is in their net. Scientists are also using this information to develop predictive models that would provide information on where stocks can be caught, and as importantly what could be avoided. However, the capabilities these technologies offer have not entered the regulatory environment. Dynamic ocean management could lead to smaller areas of the ocean being closed to fisheries, less bycatch of endangered and unwanted species, and an increase in the efficiency of individual fishing vessels. Data collected in such a system could lead to more accurate stock assessments and improved fisheries management.] Following the NOAA Fisheries meeting, the team then headed to the Hill for separate meetings with Senate Commerce Committee and House Natural Resources Committee staff members. A large part of the discussion in the Senate meeting focused on the use of Best Scientific Information Available. For example, recreational fishing stakeholders have called for the use of self-reported data via cell phone apps to estimate catch in hopes of providing anglers more days on the water, when accountability measures have led to short seasons. Dr. Jones explained that only successful anglers are likely to self-report and that insistence on using mobile phone apps for self-reported catch data will almost certainly hurt recreational anglers. Further, she said that when the reported high catch rates are transmitted without any accounting for the anglers who fished and caught nothing, the catch-per-unit effort will be higher than the true rate. A higher catch would be calculated resulting in greater catch restrictions or, in some case, even closing the fishery or shortening the season – thus, depriving anglers of catching up to the sustainable limit if true catch rates were available. Dr. Jones then explained that angler collected data from mobile devices are helpful to determine spatial distribution, movement patterns and often biological characteristics of the catch that’s particular helpful in light of changing conditions. During the meeting with House Natural Resources minority staff, Dr. Miller discussed AFS calls for flexibility and adaptability in the law. He explained that AFS stands by the fundamental framework of the law, but that transitioning out of rebuilding could be more flexible to account for uncertainties in estimates. A stock can be moved into or out of rebuilding when estimates are one fish over or under the threshold for rebuilding. He clarified that it is more flexible and adaptive to allow councils to make rebuilding determination based on three years of data rather than one, particularly for highly productive stocks. He also highlighted the challenges for fisheries management as a result of changing ecosystems. He expressed the need for significant additional resources to be directed to better understanding the unprecedented changes that we are already seeing from climate change so that information could be properly incorporated into stock assessments and management decisions. AFS staff is continuing outreach efforts to inform hill staff and others of these important recommendations. AFS thanks Drs. Miller and Jones for their tremendous service to AFS and in communicating fisheries science to policy-makers in a way that was relevant to the policy debate and understandable to the audience.

October 16, 2018 No Comments

Aquaculture Update

On Monday, Sept. 24, U.S. District Judge Jane Triche Milazzo ruled in favor of environmental, public interest and fishing groups who filed suit against the national Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), a division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, two years ago to block efforts to establish aquaculture in the Gulf of Mexico. In January 2016, in conjunction with the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, NMFS finalized regulations to authorize a federal commercial aquaculture permitting scheme in the Gulf of Mexico via a Fishery Management Plan. The agency has long interpreted the definition of fishing in the Magnuson-Stevens Act to encompass aquaculture. The judge ruled NMFS did not have the authority to regulate aquaculture under the act and that it was meant to give NMFS authority over the harvesting of wild fish, not aquaculture. “In analyzing the plain text, statutory scheme, and legislative history of the MSA, this court finds that the term ‘harvesting’ was intended to refer to the traditional fishing of wild fish,” Milazzo wrote in her opinion. “There is nothing in the MSA or its legislative history to suggest that Congress might have intended that the term be defined to include the farming of fish. The judge did not take up the issue of whether failed to consider the potential negative environmental impacts from offshore aquaculture. NOAA supports congressional efforts to clarify the agency’s statutory authority to regulate aquaculture. On Friday, September 29, Rep. Steven Palazzo, (R.-Miss.) and Rep. Collin Peterson, (D.-Minn.), introduced H.R. 6966, Advancing the Quality and Understanding of American Aquaculture (AQUAA) Act on Friday, giving a companion to S. 3138 introduced by Sen. Roger Wicker in June. Both bills seek to create an Office of Marine Aquaculture within NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service to permit new aquaculture facilities in federal waters, three to 200 miles offshore. With mid-term elections on the horizon, there is only a short window for this legislation to move this Congress. Neither bill has had a hearing.

October 5, 2018 No Comments

Policy News

AFS Seeks Feedback on Open Science Policy Implemented at Interior

The Interior Department released an “open science” policy this week that is similar to the controversial policy issued by EPA in the spring in furtherance of the Trump Administration’s efforts to increase transparency and accountability in federal decision making. The four-page order signed by Deputy Secretary David Bernhardt directs the department to “utilize and prioritize publicly available, reproducible, peer-reviewed science to the extent possible.” It also states that “Any decision that is based on scientific conclusions that are not supported by publicly available raw data, analysis, or methodology, have not been peer reviewed, or are not readily reproducible should include an explanation of why such science is the best available information.” The order also declares that all the department’s contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements will permit the agency to publicly release associated data, analysis, methodology, and other related information. The EPA proposal was made as a formal rulemaking and the public was given an opportunity to comment. The agency received more than 597,000 comments during the comment period that ended last month. It is unclear whether Interior will undertake its own rulemaking. AFS will provide details as they are available. “AFS and many other science and conservation groups are trying to better understand how this policy will impact the work of our members and whether or not this will be an obstacle or enhance good science,” said AFS Executive Director Doug Austen. To assist in this, AFS members are encouraged to submit relevant information to AFS Policy Director Drue Winters by using the form below or by email ([email protected]) regarding the impacts of the policy on fisheries science and scientists as outlined in the order.

October 2, 2018 No Comments

Recovering America's Wildlife Act

Recovering America’s Wildlife Act Reaches 100 Co-Sponsors in House

The Recovering America’s Wildlife Act (H.R. 4647) – legislation that would dedicate $1.3 billion annually towards the conservation and monitoring of at-risk species at the state level – has just reached 100 co-sponsors in the House of Representatives. The American Fisheries Society has been working in concert with partner conservation organizations to secure co-sponsors. The Blue Ribbon Panel on Sustaining America’s Diverse Fish & Wildlife Resources originally recommended the framework of this legislation in the spring of 2016. The Senate version of the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act (S. 3223) – which requires funds to be appropriated by Congress each year – has just increased its co-sponsor count to six. The Wildlife Society and the American Fisheries Society recently sent a letter (below) to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee requesting funding for proactive wildlife conservation be folded into existing discussions on an overall conservation funding framework. These discussions currently include reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund and funding for the federal lands maintenance backlog – both of which will be brought up at a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing on Oct. 2. AFS also signed onto a second letter with the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, National Audubon Society, National Wildlife Federation, Pheasants Forever/Quail Forever, The Wildlife Society, and the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. If you are interested in learning more about the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act and how AFS members can support efforts to pass this legislation, contact Drue Winters ([email protected]). You can also check out the Reversing America’s Wildlife Crisis report, which details conservation successes to date and current funding needs in order to prevent state-identified at-risk species, known as Species of Greatest Conservation Need, from further declines. AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY ● THE WILDLIFE SOCIETY September 28, 2018 Senator Maria Cantwell, Ranking Member Energy & Natural Resources Committee U.S. Senate 1329 Longworth House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Cantwell, On behalf of the American Fisheries Society and The Wildlife Society and our more than 18,000 members, we urge you to consider funding for proactive fish and wildlife conservation as you seek to address the maintenance backlog on our nation’s public lands. The Wildlife Society and American Fisheries Society are dedicated to development of natural resource professionals, promoting science, and conserving fish and wildlife. Our organizations work to advance science-based policies that empower fish and wildlife professionals on the front lines of conservation in order to hold our nation’s fish and wildlife in the public trust. Many fish and wildlife professionals are tasked with managing species on our country’s public lands. The “Restore our Parks Act” (S. 3172) provides resources to ensure current and future generations of Americans can enjoy the unrivalled landscapes, wildlife, cultural heritage, and recreational opportunities throughout our National Parks. Unfortunately, more than one-third of all U.S. wildlife species are at-risk and in need of proactive conservation measures. Habitat loss and degradation, invasive species, disease, and pollution all pose threats to our wildlife. Without adequately managed, healthy populations of fish and wildlife on our public lands, the benefits provided through the improvement of recreational access and enhancement to these special places will be diminished. The Recovering America’s Wildlife Act (S. 3223; H.R. 4647) would meet this need by proactively funding conservation of at-risk fish and wildlife species. Like the Restore Our Parks Act, the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act would direct a portion of existing energy and mineral royalties from federal lands and waters to fund the conservation and monitoring of state-identified at-risk species, known as Species of Greatest Conservation Need, which will allow Congress to adequately fund an existing proactive conservation funding model in a collaborative, non-regulatory manner. This legislation has attracted broad bipartisan support, as well as the support of diverse partners from industry to conservation organizations. America’s public lands and wildlife are inextricably linked—and we are confident Congress can address the significant challenges facing both. As the Energy and Natural Resources Committee considers passage of S. 3172, we urge members to consider the importance of adequate fisheries and wildlife conservation funding within a comprehensive natural resources federal funding policy. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Dr. John E. McDonald, Jr. President The Wildlife Society

October 1, 2018 No Comments

AFS Signs Joint Letter on USGS Cooperative Research Unit Funding

AFS joined with the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the Wildlife Management Institute, and The Wildlife Society in a letter to congressional appropriators to express support for the Cooperative Research Unit (CRU) program at the U.S. Geological Survey as they finalize the FY2019 Interior Appropriations bills. The organizations requested funding for the CRUs at the House-adopted level of $19.3 million, an increase of $1.9 million above the FY2018 appropriation to operate the program and fill critical staff vacancies. The program brings together scientists with universities, state and local natural resource agencies, and managers in the field in order to solve real-world natural resource management issues, while at the same time training the next generation of researchers and managers. The units work to address a host of real-world problems, ranging from diseases impacting wildlife and the marine aquaculture industry to minimizing the impacts of energy exploration on rare and declining species, to combatting the threats posed by invasive species, as well as many other concerns that directly impact our fish, wildlife, and habitat resources. Because the units have been so effective and productive, several states which currently do not have CRUs have expressed interest in creating new units. September 12, 2018 The Honorable Tom Udall Ranking Member Subcommittee on the Interior Committee on Appropriations U.S. Senate Washington, DC 20510 The Honorable Betty McCollum Ranking Member Subcommittee on the Interior Committee on Appropriations U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Chairwoman Murkowski, Chairman Calvert, and Ranking Members Udall and McCollum: On behalf of the state fish and wildlife agencies and U.S. fish and wildlife conservation professionals, we are writing to express our appreciation for your support for the Cooperative Research Unit (CRU) program at the U.S. Geological Survey in your respective FY2019 Interior Appropriations bills. We write to request your continued support for the program as the appropriations process moves forward. More specifically, we respectfully request that you fund the CRUs at the House-adopted level of $19.3 million, an increase of $1.9 million above the FY2018 appropriation. Both committees and chambers have recognized the importance of the CRU program by approving increases for it. As you know, the program truly is cooperative and collaborative in nature, bringing together scientists with universities, state and local natural resource agencies, and managers in the field in order to solve real-world natural resource management issues, while at the same time training the next generation of researchers and managers. The units work to address a host of real-world problems, ranging from diseases impacting wildlife and the marine aquaculture industry to minimizing the impacts of energy exploration on rare and declining species, to combatting the threats posed by invasive species, as well as many other concerns that directly impact our fish, wildlife, and habitat resources. All of this work is being performed while numerous CRU units around the country are facing staff vacancies. Both committees have noted this problem in their respective reports. While some units’ vacancy problems are more acute than others, there is a critical need to ensure that more personnel are hired for the currently existing vacant positions in the system. The House report notes, in part: “The Committee recognizes the value of the Cooperative Research Units (CRUs) program and rejects the proposed elimination of the program. The recommendation includes an additional $1,916,000 for the purposes of filling critical vacancies at research institutions as quickly as practicable.” In its report, the Senate committee states: “The Committee notes that USGS Cooperative Research Units [CRU] have served as a cooperative network with Interior partners to improve and increase youth involvement in science and resources management. The Committee recognizes the value of these programs in building the workforce of tomorrow and strongly encourages the Survey to develop a plan and address open research positions at research institutions and fill open positions at CRUs as quickly as practicable to support the educational pipeline.” In addition, because the units have been so effective and productive, several states which currently do not have CRUs have expressed interest in creating new units. We respectfully request that the conferees adopt the House-approved level of $19.3 million so that the critical work being performed by the CRUs can continue and be augmented by filling open vacancies and address the interest in creating new units in an appropriate manner. Sincerely, Virgil Moore, President Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Dr. Douglas Austen, Executive Director American Fisheries Society Dr. John E. McDonald, Jr., President The Wildlife Society Dr. Steven Williams, President Wildlife Management Institute

October 1, 2018 No Comments

About

Quick Links

Contact