Policy News

AFS Supports Conservation Funding Bills and a Science-based Endangered Species Act

July 23, 2024 Chairman Cliff BentzU.S. House of RepresentativesCommittee on Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife, and Fisheries1324 Longworth House Office BuildingWashington, DC 20515 Ranking Member Jared HuffmanU.S. House of RepresentativesCommittee on Natural ResourcesSubcommittee on Water, Wildlife, and Fisheries1324 Longworth House Office BuildingWashington, DC 20515 Re: Legislative Hearing on H.R. 7544, H.R. 8308 & H.R. 8811 Dear Chairman Bentz and Ranking Member Huffman: The American Fisheries Society (AFS) respectfully submits the following information in response to the July 9, 2024 legislative hearing of the U.S. House of Natural Resources Committee Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries on H.R. 7544, H.R. 8308 & H.R. 8811. AFS is the world’s oldest and largest professional society of fishery and aquatic scientists and managers. AFS seeks to improve the conservation and sustainability of fishery resources and aquatic ecosystems by advancing fisheries and aquatic science, promoting the development of fisheries professionals, and promoting the use of best available science in policy-making efforts. AFS supports the America’s Conservation Enhancement Act (ACE), particularly as it relates to re-authorization of the National Fish Habitat Partnerships. The society also supports dedicated funding for state fish and wildlife agencies, as provided for in the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act, S. 1149, to prevent Endangered Species Act (ESA) listings and to recover listed species. AFS has concerns with several proposed changes to the ESA as provided in the draft discussion bill that we explain more fully below. America’s Conservation Enhancement Act AFS supports the ACE Act, particularly as it relates to re-authorization of the National Fish Habitat Partnerships. NFHP is a voluntary, non-regulatory, and locally driven program that has funded more than 1,300 on-the-ground aquatic habitat improvement projects since 2016. AFS urges swift, unanimous passage of the ACE Act and supports funding levels for the NFHP, as authorized in the Senate-passed S. 3791. AFS Support Recovering America’s Wildlife Act AFS supports dedicated funding for imperiled species conservation as called for in the bi-partisan Recovering America’s Wildlife Act (RAWA), S.1149, as introduced by Sen. Martin Heinrich and Sen. Tom Tillis. Populations of many species are in decline and at least 40 percent of the nation’s freshwater fish species are now rare or imperiled. Recovering America’s Wildlife Act would be the only federal conservation program that provides sustained funding to tribal nations and state fish and wildlife agencies for the proactive conservation of at-risk species and populations. With increasing habitat loss and evolving threats as a result of a changing climate, state and federal agencies will need adequate funds to address the biodiversity crisis. Currently, funding only covers a fraction of the need. As a result, states must focus on very few species, with many more at-risk and heading towards endangerment. The Recovering America’s Wildlife Act would provide funding to implement three-quarters of every State Wildlife Action Plan, state-led, congressionally mandated, science based blueprints for imperiled species conservation. Through actions such as reintroduction of imperiled species, conserving and restoring important habitat, and fighting invasive species and disease, states would have the ability to significantly reduce the number of species in decline and prevent these species from needing protections afforded under the ESA. Without significant funding to address these declines, many more species will qualify for protection under federal and state endangered species laws, vulnerable species are more likely to progress to more dire conditions where regulatory actions are required, time is short, and litigation and community resistance impede recovery. AFS Supports a Science-Based, Collaborative ESA The ESA is a powerful science-based tool for recovering America’s fish and wildlife. The law has been the catalyst for successful delisting or down listing of many endangered fish, which took decades of planning and commitment by interdisciplinary teams of individuals. Under the current structure of the ESA and its regulations, including high levels of private, state, and federal collaboration, several species of fish have recovered sufficiently to be delisted (Okaloosa Darter, Snail Darter, Borax Lake Chub, Foskett Speckled Dace, Modoc Sucker, Oregon Chub). Four of these six species have ranges in Oregon, a state that has invested revenue in watershed conservation and restoration through matching grants. Thus, delisting takes investment of collaborative teams, resources, and most importantly, time for imperiled populations to recover once threats are reduced and habitat is restored as illustrated in the following examples. The Borax Lake Chub is endemic to Borax Lake in southeastern Oregon and was listed in 1982 and delisted in 2020. Geothermal energy development, water withdrawals, livestock grazing, and recreational vehicles threatened its habitat. After listing, habitat was protected by land leases and purchases by The Nature Conservancy from willing private landholders, cessation of irrigation diversions and livestock grazing, fencing, and passage of the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management & Protection Act, which limited private lands development in the basin (Bangs et al. 2020). Historically widespread in off-channel habitats along the main stem Willamette River, the Oregon Chub was listed in 1993 and delisted in 2015. Population declines were caused by habitat losses from channelization, dams, wetland drainage, and non-native fishes. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife guided recovery along with the Oregon Chub Conservation Agreement and Oregon Chub Recovery Plan while safe-harbor agreements with private landowners and land purchases by tribal governments enabled success. Today, chub occur in 59 previously undocumented populations and 19 introduced populations; half the latter are on private property (Hughes et al. 2019). The Foskett Speckled Dace was listed in 1985 and delisted in 2019. Livestock grazing and groundwater pumping threatened this fish found in a single eastern Oregon spring/wetland system. The Bureau of Land Management obtained the spring and its riparian zone via a land exchange with private landholders and livestock were excluded from most of the habitat thanks to private, state, academic, and federal participants and a Cooperative Management Plan (USFWS 2019). The Modoc Sucker is endemic to the upper Pit River basin of northeastern California and southeastern Oregon. It resides in small streams that traverse nearly equal amounts of public and private lands. It was listed in 1985 because of habitat losses

July 24, 2024 No Comments

Policy Letters

AFS Calls for Funding of Interior and Forest Service Programs

May 10, 2024 Representative Michael Simpson Chair Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related AgenciesCommittee on AppropriationsUnited States House of RepresentativesWashington, DC 20515 Representative Chellie PingreeRanking MemberSubcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related AgenciesCommittee on AppropriationsUnited States House of RepresentativesWashington, DC 20515 Dear Chair Simpson and Ranking Pingree: Thank you for the opportunity to provide recommendations on federal appropriations for Fiscal Year 2025. Founded in 1870, The American Fisheries Society is the oldest and largest professional society of fisheries biologists, managers, and researchers in the world. The mission of AFS is to improve the conservation and sustainability of fishery resources and aquatic ecosystems by advancing fisheries and aquatic science and promoting the development of fisheries professionals. AFS respectfully submits the following funding recommendations for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and the U.S. Forest Service to secure critical funds for conservation and restoration of our country’s important fisheries and aquatic ecosystems. U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceFish and Aquatic Conservation (FAC) works with States, landowners, and other partners and stakeholders to achieve the goals of healthy, self-sustaining populations of fish and other aquatic species. Within this program, the National Fish Hatchery System has served an important role in recovering and restoring aquatic species through conservation aquaculture. AFS fully supports an increase in funding for this program for Restoring Salmon in the Columbia River Basin. However, we are particularly concerned with Administration’s proposed funding reductions for Aquatic Habitat and Species Conservation. The program’s important work to protect, restore, and recover native fish and our nation’s freshwater ecosystems must be maintained to address increasing impacts to freshwater ecosystems and native fish populations from habitat loss, fragmentation, aquatic invasive species, pollution, and climate change. AFS requests $253 million for FAC for FY 2025 to maintain funding for Aquatic Habitat and Species Conservation and for additional appropriations for Restoring Salmon in the Columbia River Basin. The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program (STWG) is the nation’s only program that encourages development and implementation of State Wildlife Action Plans. Collectively, STWG funds support strong partnerships among federal, state, tribal, private, and nonprofit entities that enable fish and wildlife professionals to implement on-the-ground conservation activities that benefit over 12,000 at-risk species, with the goal of eliminating the need to list them under the Endangered Species Act. In FY 2010, appropriations were at $90 million for the program – allowing states to complete more projects deemed necessary for monitoring and management of at-risk fish and wildlife. Subsequent budget reductions in STWG, however, have not allowed this highly successful program to reach its full potential. AFS requests that Congress increase funding for the program to at least $100 million annually. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) – Ecosystems Mission AreaThe Climate Adaptation Science Centers program addresses evolving challenges posed by climate change on regional fish and wildlife, ecosystems, and community-based stakeholders. Modest budget increases in recent fiscal periods have bolstered the program’s ability to swiftly respond to demands and expand its capacity, facilitating proactive engagement of tribal communities in project design and resource allocation. Nevertheless, funding levels have failed to match identified needs, especially in equipping USGS with adequate resources to effectively convey scientific insights to stakeholders for actionable decision-making based on project outcomes. For FY 2025, AFS recommends the full realization of the Administration’s proposal, reaching no less than $69.3 million. The Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Units (CRUs) foster federal, state, nongovernment organization (NGO), and academic partnerships to provide actionable science tailored to the needs of natural resource managers. This science plays a pivotal role in the implementation of state and federal management decisions. CRUs are an exemplary model for cooperative natural resource science programming; with the support of collaborators this program leverages an average of three dollars in outside funds for every federal dollar invested. Thanks to support from Congress, Indiana was able to establish the Indiana Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit hosted by Purdue University. Despite growing interest from other states, limited federal funding has constrained the expansion of units and continues to result in vacancies at existing units. To address this gap, AFS recommends a funding increase to $36 million in FY 2025, enabling CRUs to capitalize on emerging partnerships and fill vacancies in an effort to meet longstanding commitments. U.S. Forest Service (USFS)The Forest Service administers a large transportation and trails infrastructure system including roads, trails, bridges, and other types of stream crossing features. Stream crossings pose a significant challenge to water quality and the health of fish and aquatic species habitat. Legacy Road and Trail Remediation Program improves fish and aquatic species passage and reduces erosion and sediment into streams to improve water quality while increasing flood resilience. AFS requests the full $6 million in annual appropriations for FY 2025 in the Administration’s proposal for decommissioning roads, removal or replacement of stream crossing structures that are barriers to aquatic organism passage, road and trail repair and improvements and associated activities in environmentally sensitive areas; and repair and improvements on roads and trails subject to recent storm damage. Thank you for your commitment to conserving our country’s natural resources. We appreciate your consideration of this request. Sincerely, Douglas J. Austen, Ph.D.Executive Director

May 16, 2024 No Comments

Infrastructure

AFS Requests Changes to Culvert Removal Grant Program

April 5, 2024 The Honorable Pete ButtigiegSecretaryU.S. Department of Transportation1200 New Jersey Ave.Washington, DC 20590 Dear Secretary Buttigieg: On behalf of our millions of members and supporters, the undersigned hunting, fishing, and conservation organizations, scientific societies, and businesses contributing to the $1.1 trillion outdoor recreation economy write to express our continued commitment to working closely with the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on implementation of the landmark Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA)/Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL). We have approached the mid-point for implementation of BIL program funding. Our organizations continue to be appreciative of the momentum behind key provisions supported by our community including the National Culvert Removal, Replacement, and Restoration Grant Program; the Promoting Resilient Operations for Transformative, Efficient, and Cost-Saving Transportation (PROTECT) Discretionary Grants Program; and the Wildlife Crossings Safety Pilot Program. Our organizations worked closely with the Biden-Harris Administration and Congressional leaders on the foundational structure and purpose of these provisions. Firstly, we write to thank the Department and FHWA for issuing the initial notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) for the National Culvert Removal, Replacement, and Restoration Grant Program, and are eagerly awaiting notice for subsequent funding. We admire FHWA’s focus on delivering a program that meets the standards set forth in recent Presidential Executive Orders focusing on Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government (EO 12898) and Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (EO 14008). We were also pleased to see FHWA actively coordinating the parameters of this new program with other federal fish passage and conservation grant programs. While we recognize the intent to achieve these objectives, we have concerns with other elements of the NOFO. In our opinion, the criteria in Section B – Federal Award Information, and Section C – Eligibility Information, precludes the program from successfully achieving the aforementioned standards in on-the-ground project implementation. Specifically, Section B states that “Grant awards are administered on a reimbursement basis. Culvert AOP Program funds will reimburse recipients only for reasonable and authorized costs incurred and for work performed after a grant agreement has been executed, allowable expenses are incurred, and valid requests for reimbursement are submitted.” We were alerted to this potential funding strategy early in the NOFO development and immediately initiated conversations with project partners throughout the country, with a focus on the Pacific Northwest, to determine if this reimbursement requirement would preclude them from pursuing this funding opportunity. We heard unequivocally, particularly from Tribal and rural underserved community partners, that this criteria effectively eliminates their ability to pursue funding from this Program. A majority of the communities where our organizations work are historically resource-dependent, capacity-limited communities that have been identified as disadvantaged by the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool and have a ‘moderate to high’ or ‘high’ level of vulnerability according to the CDC Social Vulnerability Index. The majority of potential eligible applicants from Tribes or units of local governments within these geographies simply do not have sufficient upfront funding to implement these projects on a reimbursable basis. Numerous other federal agencies recognize this dilemma, and as such, implement grant programs to ensure that historically underfunded communities can access critically important federal funds. We have serious concerns with DOT/FHWA opting not to follow tried and true federal funding disbursement methods, particularly in light of the aforementioned Executive Orders to address equity and barriers to opportunity in the disbursement of federal funds. We recognize that DOT/FHWA indicated potential for an alternative funding mechanism in the NOFO: “At DOT’s sole discretion alternative funding arrangements may be considered on a case-by-case basis.” However, we recommend that DOT amend the Program to automatically enable alternative funding arrangements for Tribal and underserved community applicants. Clearly identifying eligibility for this alternative path will remove the burden on already capacity strapped entities (such as rural counties and Tribes) who would otherwise dedicate limited staff time to develop grants with no knowledge of whether they meet the criteria for an undefined alternative funding mechanism. Further, given the capacity challenges that many rural local government and Tribal partners face, we also see implications to the success of the program under Section C of the current NOFO language: Section C – Elegibility InformationEligible Applicants are: (1) States; (2) a unit of local governments; or an (3) Indian Tribe.DOT expects that the Eligible Applicant that submits the application will administer and deliver the project. Numerous other federal funding programs allow for the pass through of funds, to enable entities such as conservation non-profits not under the same capacity limitations and often times with increased access to private philanthropic match funding, to contract with the eligible applicant to perform the on-the-ground project implementation and management duties. If the expectation of DOT is that the applicant must administer and implement the project directly, your solicitation will only secure project applications from large, well-staffed entities and fail to deliver projects. If that is not the intent of the NOFO, and funding can be passed through to alternative implementation entities, we recommend that future NOFOs be amended to clearly indicate that the pass through of funds from eligible entities is permitted. In addition to our recommendations to improve equitable access to the Program, we believe that there is significant need for the inclusion of minimum design standards in the NOFO. Given that the intent of the Program is to benefit fish passage, design criteria that includes minimum fish passage requirements and hydraulic design methodology that incorporates climate influence on hydrology should be required as part of project design funded through the Program. Hydraulic design methodology to facilitate fish passage, such as stream simulated design, is already a key component of minimum fish passage criteria for other federal funding programs. Additionally, the Program should require a minimum project design life and sizing that is climate resilient. Projects that utilize these minimum design standards will provide greater ecosystem benefit, including in many cases the dual purpose of terrestrial passage, while also

April 16, 2024 No Comments

Infrastructure

AFS Calls for Improvements to Infrastructure Implementation

April 15, 2024 The Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr.PresidentThe White House1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President: The undersigned organizations, representing hundreds of thousands of hunters, anglers, wildlife professionals, and outdoor enthusiasts, write today regarding the implementation of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), known also as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law or “BIL” and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Together, these laws infused billions of dollars into programs and projects that balance infrastructure investments with landscape and watershed conservation, improve fish and wildlife habitat on working forests and agricultural lands, advance natural infrastructure and nature-based solutions, connect Americans to their public lands and waters, and offer long-term benefits for climate resilience. Our coalition, co-led by the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership (TRCP) and the Association and Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA), has played a pivotal role over the past few years in actively supporting the Administration’s implementation of these historic investments. Our collaborative efforts extend across jurisdictions and include federal, state, territorial, Tribal, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in local partnerships that focus on BIL and IRA programs targeting ecosystem restoration, wildfire resilience, aquatic connectivity and fish passage, wildlife crossings, clean water, and drought and flood resilience projects. Over the past year and a half, our coalition has consistently convened to explore BIL and IRA implementation opportunities and challenges. We have engaged with federal, tribal, state, territorial, and NGO stakeholders to examine implementation constraints and to develop recommendations and strategies that may achieve more efficient, meaningful, and lasting conservation outcomes. We have also focused on addressing capacity needs and other barriers to getting funding to on-the-ground projects in an efficient and environmentally beneficial manner. Following enactment of this historic funding, our coalition drafted a letter to this Administration to offer expertise and resources to ensure BIL and IRA funding delivery would be driven by science, targeted and strategic, built upon years of on-the-ground conservation and recreation partnerships, and sustainable for the long-term. As we approach the mid-point of this historic funding opportunity, we appreciate the opportunity to continue this important work together, and offer the following recommendations to address some remaining areas of concern based on our shared experiences with BIL and IRA implementation. Enhanced Federal Agency Coordination and Collaboration for Durable Conservation and Outdoor Recreation at the Landscape and Watershed Scale It is critically important to maximize benefits for fish and wildlife by continuing to direct the historic funding from BIL and IRA to achieve transformational change at the landscape and watershed levels. The broad and extensive funding opportunities provided through BIL and IRA span numerous federal agencies and programs. The magnitude of funding provides great opportunity, but in some instances has led to siloed decision making. We continue to be concerned that simply funding a large number of projects without an overarching coordinated vision or plan, including the utilization for existing landscape level plans, will not have the desired impact for fish and wildlife conservation. This approach has also created a complex network of funding opportunities that grantees need to knit together to address the full scope of a project or artificially fragment a project into parts. This adds to the administrative burden for grantees, particularly in underserved communities, and reduces the potential for transformational outcomes. We support the use of existing landscape and watershed-scale plans to guide federal investments of BIL and IRA funds. Further, enhanced coordination amongst the Federal agencies that receive funding for similar and related purposes is essential to maximize potential for landscape and watershed scale conservation. We encourage the administration to require federal agencies to coordinate their funding and programs for enhanced successful conservation outcomes. We are encouraged by the formation of the Interagency Fish Passage Task Force, under the leadership of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and we would support similar efforts that facilitate the development of shared priorities and outcomes in other areas. Address Federal Agency Workforce Capacity Common themes of challenges and hurdles that federal agencies face throughout the implementation process are primarily associated with a lack of staffing capacity and technical expertise needed to effectively deploy the resources granted by unprecedented amounts of BIL and IRA funding. Another major concern shared by officials across the federal family is a lack of technical and scientific expertise on the ground, especially because each state, territory, and region in the United States faces different needs and challenges. A recent Department of the Interior (DOI) Inspector General (IG) Report found that DOI bureaus and offices are still 20-to-30 percent below the capacity needed to get the dollars out the door responsibly. Since the adoption of the BIL, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has worked to accelerate hiring for key federal positions, including engineers, scientists, project managers, IT, HR specialists, and construction managers. Integral to this effort was the release of OPM’s Talent Surge Executive Playbook and the utilization of specific hiring flexibilities, including temporary appointments, to address discrete agency critical hiring needs. Despite these efforts, several key agencies still face challenges in ensuring they can promptly deploy the funding, maintain staffing and resource capacity, produce reliable information, and establish appropriate program controls. We recommend expanding initiatives such as OPM’s Talent Surge Executive Playbook, Schedule A authority, and the Intergovernmental Personnel Act Mobility Program to address staffing and technical expertise challenges. We strongly encourage the use of federal contractors with a demonstrated ability and track record for managing large project portfolios, who can navigate the planning and federal review processes, and deliver federal funds to on-the-ground projects in an efficient and environmentally beneficial manner.One example of increasing capacity through partnerships includes work by The Nature Conservancy (TNC), who is expanding their collaboration with the Forest Service to conduct controlled burns in some of the places in the United States that need them most. Throughout North America, a dizzying array of landscapes need fire in some intervals. When they do not get the fire they need, many become prone to potentially destructive and extreme wildfires because of the natural fuels

April 16, 2024 No Comments

AFS Urges Passage of Bipartisan Resilient Coasts and Estuaries Act

March 13, 2024 The Honorable Cliff BentzChairHouse Natural Resources CommitteeSubcommittee on Water, Wildlife, and FisheriesUnited States House of Representatives409 Cannon House Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20515 The Honorable Jared HuffmanRanking MemberHouse Natural Resources CommitteeSubcommittee on Water, Wildlife, and FisheriesUnited States House of Representatives2445 Rayburn House Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20515 Dear Chairman Bentz and Ranking Member Huffman, The undersigned hunting, fishing, and conservation organizations, and professional societies write to share our support for the bipartisan Resilient Coasts and Estuaries Act (H.R.6841) and to encourage the committee to advance this legislation. With your efforts, Congress can conserve coastal and estuary habitats across the United States and defend outdoor recreation opportunities and economies that rely on effective conservation and research. Along the almost 100,000 miles of American shorelines, outdoor recreation is a pillar for local coastal communities. Nationwide, the economic output of outdoor recreation is calculated at $1.1 trillion, accounting for 2.2 percent ($563.7 billion) of the total U.S. GDP and 3.2 percent of total U.S. employment. As of 2021, all of the top ten states for outdoor recreation spending were located along our oceans or Great Lakes. And according to NOAA, “the ocean-based tourism and recreation sector alone employs more Americans than the entire real estate industry, as well as more people than building construction and telecommunications combined.” For the 40 percent of Americans living in coastal counties and for the millions of Americans that travel to our coasts every year, the ability to hunt, fish, and recreate along our shorelines represents both a lifestyle and a lifeline. As we recognize the reliance of coastal and Great Lakes communities on outdoor recreation, it’s also crucial to recognize outdoor recreation’s own reliance on forward-thinking conservation and research. This industry and its traditions are deeply tied to the health of our natural spaces and local ecosystems. Through the Resilient Coasts and Estuaries Act, the House Committee on Natural Resources has the opportunity to strengthen our coastal and Great Lakes environments in the face of growing challenges.H.R.6841 centers on two vital conservation and research programs established under the Coastal Zone Management Act: the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program (CELCP) and the National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS). CELCP was originally authorized to conserve ecologically important coastal lands and recreational opportunities. The program helped conserve more than 110,000 acres through assistance to state and local governments for conservation easements in coastal and estuarine areas across the country – including the Nemadji River in Wisconsin and Minnesota, Chowan Swamp in North Carolina, Lapakahi Marine Life Conservation District in Hawaii, South Slough Reserve in Oregon, Cat Island in Mississippi, and beyond. However, in recent years, CELCP has lost its funding sources, after dedicated Congressional appropriations were rolled back in 2013 and other federal funding avenues were depleted in 2017. The NERRS was created to provide for the stewardship, research, training, and education necessary to conserve and study estuarine systems. Today, the system serves as a network of 30 coastal sites covering 1.4 million acres of study area, offering vital information on nonpoint source pollution, community resilience, habitat restoration, and invasive species. Of the 32 largest cities in the world, 22 are located on estuaries, and our research reserves help ensure that we maintain and expand the biodiversity, ecosystemhealth, community benefits, and economic impacts that estuaries foster at home and abroad – providing social, economic, and environmental benefits, particularly toward outdoor recreation, that far exceed their cost of operation. If enacted, the Resilient Coasts and Estuaries Act would take necessary and overdue steps to reinforce both the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program and the National Estuarine Research Reserve System. The bill would revitalize CELCP, renaming the program to the Coastal and Estuarine Resilience and Restoration Program, reauthorizing funding to restore conservation practices, and recalibrating program language to address emerging challenges to coastal communities. It would also enable the NERRS to expand their research and data monitoring supporting local conservation and management. The passage of the Resilient Coasts and Estuaries Act would help ensure the continued prosperity of our coastal and Great Lakes environments, safeguarding outdoor recreation opportunities for millions of Americans and strengthening the widespread economic benefits of one of America’s most impactful and growing sectors. As hunters, anglers, conservationists, and professional societies, we support H.R.6841 and we strongly encourage the House Committee on Natural Resources to advance this legislation.Thank you for your time and for your support for outdoor recreation. We look forward to working with you to pass this important bill. Sincerely, AFFTA Fisheries FundAmerican Fisheries SocietyAmerican Fly Fishing Trade AssociationAmerican Forest FoundationAmerican Shore & Beach Preservation AssociationAmerican Sportfishing AssociationAngler Action FoundationAssociation of State Floodplain ManagersBackcountry Hunters and AnglersBass Anglers Sportsman SocietyBonefish & Tarpon TrustCoastal Conservation AssociationCoastal States OrganizationDucks Unlimited Guy Harvey FoundationInternational Game Fish AssociationIzaak Walton League of AmericaLand Trust AllianceNational Audubon SocietyNational Estuarine Research Reserve AssociationNational Wildlife FederationNew York State Conservation CouncilNorth American Falconers AssociationRestore America’s EstuariesThe Nature ConservancyThe Wildlife SocietyTheodore Roosevelt Conservation PartnershipWild Salmon Center cc:The Honorable Bruce Westerman, Committee on Natural Resources, ChairmanThe Honorable Raúl M. Grijalva, Committee on Natural Resources, Ranking MemberCommittee on Natural Resources, MajorityCommittee on Natural Resources, Minority

March 27, 2024 No Comments

Past Webinars

Snake River Dams Congressional Briefing

Policy Statement: Statement of the American Fisheries Society (AFS) and the Western Division AFS (WDAFS) About the Need to Breach the Four Dams on the Lower Snake River Fact sheet: Restoring the Salmon Runs of the Snake River Basin Fact sheet: Salmon Science: From the River to the Sea Fact sheet: The Science Is Clear: Breach the Snake River Dams

March 5, 2024 No Comments

Distribution

AFS Urges Removal of Lower Snake River Dams to House Committee

December 23, 2023 Chairman Cliff BentzSubcommittee on Water, Oceans and WildlifeCommittee on Natural ResourcesU.S. House of Representatives Ranking Member Jared HuffmanSubcommittee on Water, Oceans and WildlifeCommittee on Natural ResourcesU.S. House of Representatives Re: Examining the Biden Administration’s Efforts to Eliminate the Pacific Northwest’s Clean Energy Production Dear Chairman Bentz and Ranking Member Huffman: On behalf of the American Fisheries Society (AFS), we submit this information for the record in follow-up to the December 12 hearing of the Water, Wildlife and Fisheries Subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources entitled “Examining the Biden Administration’s Efforts to Eliminate the Pacific Northwest’s Clean Energy Production.” AFS is the world’s oldest and largest professional society of fishery scientists and resource managers. At its core, AFS is a science organization. AFS promotes the conservation and sustainability of fishery resources and aquatic ecosystems through dissemination of fisheries science via scientific journals on fisheries, conferences, and continuing education. Many of AFS’ members live and work in the western United States and have long-studied salmon and their declining populations. The science is indeed clear and compelling, supported by decades of rigorously peer-reviewed published reports and manuscripts, and demonstrates removing the four lower Snake River dams is essential to restore critically at-risk populations of wild Snake River salmon and steelhead. Snake River populations are currently hovering on the brink of extinction and action is urgently needed. After carefully reviewing the science on this issue, AFS adopted a policy statement in support of breaching the lower four Snake River dams in January 2023 (Winters 2023). We attach it here for your consideration. The policy statement concludes that “[i]f Snake River basin salmon and steelhead are to be saved, then policymakers and stakeholders at all levels will need to implement appropriate processes and funding provisions to breach the four dams on the Lower Snake River, as well as implement all necessary habitat rehabilitation.” Today, only 1–2% of formerly abundant, historic wild salmon and steelhead return to the Snake River to spawn (Winters 2023). Despite billions of dollars spent to date on Snake River anadromous fish restoration (including hatchery stocking), recovery efforts have not been effective (Hatch Magazine 2021; Storch et al. 2022; Jaeger and Scheuerell 2023; Winters 2023). Recent reports demonstrate that 42% of Snake River wild spring/summer Chinook Salmon and 19% of steelhead populations have declined to the threshold where extinction is highly likely (O’Toole 2021) and will continue to decline without breach. The climate crisis increases the urgency for action and will continue to worsen conditions for these and other coldwater species. Ensuring access to the Snake River basin’s intact and high elevation habitat provides the best opportunity for broadscale population recovery and persistence in the face of the climate crisis (Storch et al. 2022). In the 1990s, 30 scientists from state, federal, tribal, and other entities participated in the PATH (Plan for Analyzing and Testing Hypotheses) process that evaluated smolt-to-adult ratios and the probability of achieving the interim survival and recovery standards of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries (Marmorek et al. 1998). The PATH analyses concluded that the Natural River option to restore the Snake River (via breaching the four lower Snake River dams) was the only option that would provide recovery. This option was found to have the “highest certainty of success and the lowest risk of failure.” (Storch et al. 2022). The PATH conclusions have been reaffirmed by scientific review panels, agencies, and scientists for the past 25 years (ISAB 2019, Hatch Magazine 2021, NOAA Fisheries 2022). In 2020, the Northwest Power and Conservation Council “reaffirmed the prior benchmark of smolt-to-adult returns (SAR) averaging 4% (range: 2%–6%) for spring/summer Chinook Salmon… (A) minimum SAR of 2% is required to consistently maintain existing populations, whereas SARs greater than 2% indicate degrees of population growth… Smolt-to-adult return rates equal to or greater than 4% achieved on a regular basis should promote a high likelihood of recovery (i.e., consistent generational increases in abundance… The Independent Scientific Advisory Board…has reviewed…the 2–6% SAR objective and identified extensive evidence to support these goals…” The need to breach the four lower Snake River dams is further confirmed by comparisons of SARs versus the number of dams anadromous fish must pass. Recent SARs for Snake River wild spring/summer Chinook Salmon have averaged 0.7% above eight dams, in comparison to SARs for non-ESA listed, wild spring Chinook Salmon that pass fewer dams in the mid-Columbia River and continue to meet sustainable SAR objectives (McCann et al. 2019). From 2000-2017, wild Chinook Salmon SARs averaged 3.6% in the John Day River above three dams, 2.5% in the Yakima River above four dams, and 0.7% in the Snake River above eight dams (McCann et al. 2019). Importantly, temporal analysis also demonstrates that the productivity of Snake River Chinook salmon declined much more precipitously after construction of the Federal Columbia River Power System compared to productivity of Chinook salmon in the John Day River (Schaller et. al 2014). The John Day, Yakima, and Snake River populations experience the same treaty and nontreaty fisheries, pinniped predation, and ocean conditions; the primary difference among them is the number of dams they must pass (Storch et al. 2022). Wild, Snake River anadromous salmon above eight dams are unable to meet SAR goals and are declining toward extinction. Importantly, recent models also demonstrate the population’s ability to recover and grow with SARs approaching 2% (Jacobs et al. 2023). The Columbia Basin Partnership established healthy and harvestable levels as the population goal for wild Chinook salmon and steelhead recovery (NMFS 2020). During the December 12 hearing, recent salmon returns were falsely characterized as “strong.” Clearly, returns are not meeting established healthy and harvestable populations. Indeed, 2022 was a very low return year for wild Chinook salmon in Central Idaho. The Middle Fork Salmon River total redd count was n=322. That number is only 1.3% of estimated wild Chinook salmon returns to the drainage that occurred into the mid-1960s. Many areas with exceptionally high quality and

January 8, 2024 No Comments

Policy Letters

AFS Urges Ballast Water Management for Great Lakes Shipping to Limit Spread of Invasive Species

December 18, 2023 Mr. Jack FaulkOceans, Wetlands, and Communities Division, Office of Water (4504T)Environmental Protection Agency1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NWWashington, DC 20460 In re: EPA–HQ–OW–2019–0482 (EPA standards of performance under the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act) Dear Mr. Faulk: The American Fisheries Society and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission together provide the following comments about the EPA’s proposed ballast water rule (Proposed Rule), published on October 18, 2023 pursuant to the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act (VIDA). Founded in 1870, the American Fisheries Society (AFS) is dedicated to improving the conservation and sustainability of fishery resources and aquatic ecosystems by advancing fisheries and aquatic science and promoting the development of fisheries professionals. The Great Lakes Fishery Commission (Commission) was established by treaty between Canada and the United States in 1955 to improve and perpetuate fish stocks of common concern between the two nations. Since the 1980s, both AFS and the Commission have been strong proponents of ballast water regulations, laws, and best management practices that protect the Great Lakes and North American waters because ship ballast is a primary vector for injurious invasive species that hurt the economy and alter and damage the ecology. AFS and the Commission support effective ballast water standards and practices for vessels—new and old—that operate in the Great Lakes. The practices should be uniform across state and international boundaries. Many of the region’s most damaging invasive species—like zebra and quagga mussels, European ruffe, Bythotrephes—have been brought to the Great Lakes via oceangoing vessels (“Salties”). Several of those species have made the Great Lakes home and have spread throughout the system, mainly by “Lakers,” which are vessels that do not leave the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence system yet remain a significant vector for the spread of invasive species. These comments relate to the portions of the Proposed Rule that exempt the Lakers from meaningful action to prevent the spread of invasive species. As the economic and cultural powerhouse of the region, the Great Lakes generate almost $6 trillion annually in economic activity. The fishery alone generates more than $7 billion each year. The lakes contain 84% of North America’s surface freshwater, supplying tens of millions of Canadians and Americans with drinking water supplies. This natural wonder attracts millions of tourists, enhances property values, and accounts for an unrivaled quality of life. Invasive species threaten all that is valued about the Great Lakes. Whether accidentally or intentionally introduced, the lakes harbor more than 185 non-native species, many of which are harmful. Once a new invasive species enters the lakes and establishes a population, the ability to control, let alone eradicate, the species is virtually impossible. It is imperative that policymakers take the necessary steps to stop new introductions and prevent the spread of those that are present. EPA is now considering whether an equipment standard for new Lakers may be technologically available, be economically achievable, and have acceptable non-water quality environmental impacts. In 2018, Congress enacted the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act of 2018 (VIDA) and directed the EPA to establish national standards for vessel discharges, such as ballast water. In October 2020, EPA released its proposed draft VIDA rules that regulate oceangoing vessels but exempted all Lakers from having to treat ballast water. The Proposed Rule would now require “new” Lakers to install, operate, and maintain ballast water management systems. The existing Lakers would be exempt under the Proposed Rule, leaving a major pathway for invasion open. The Proposed Rule inadequately addresses the significant vector of invasive species from Lakers and, in fact, is a step backward in attempts to protect the Great Lakes from interlake movement of harmful species. Studies are clear and compelling. Recent sampling and analysis research,[1] conducted by Fisheries and Oceans Canada, builds upon considerable research to confirm that ballast water management systems (BWMS) reduced the abundance of living organisms in Great Lakes ballast water by more than 98%. Based on this assessment, Lakers using BWMS would represent a significant reduction in the risks posed by Great Lakes ships for spreading invasive species. Lakers move and discharge a considerable amount of ballast water[2]. Lake Superior, for instance, has received eleven new species from other Great Lakes, Lake Michigan five, Lake Huron seven, Lake Erie four, and Lake Ontario three[3]. Laker ballast water contains zooplankton and phytoplankton, including invasive species. A Canadian-government assessment3 conducted in 2014 demonstrates the considerable risk Lakers pose by moving species throughout the Great Lakes system and Adebayo et. al.[4] demonstrate that the St. Lawrence River is a gateway to the Great Lakes; Salties leave exotic AIS in the river and Lakers pick them up and bring them to the Great Lakes. According to Casas-Monroy et. al.,[5] Lakers, on a per-discharge basis, carry more non-indigenous zooplankton than other shipping pathways, such as Atlantic and Pacific transoceanic voyages and east coast of Canada coastal domestic voyages. Moreover, Rup et. al.,[6] note that the relatively short nature of interlake voyages accounts for the release of a high volume of healthy organisms, and Casas-Monroy et. al.,[7] assert that the environmental similarity between Laker ports means the likelihood of survival once an organism is discharged is quite high. The literature about the Laker risk is more extensive than cited here. While AFS and the Commission sympathize with domestic shippers in that they did not transport invasive species into the St. Lawrence River and Great Lakes region, the fact remains that Lakers move species throughout the system, either by expediting the expansion of their range or by bringing species to areas where they would not have arrived without human means of transport. Both outcomes hasten and exacerbate the economic and ecosystem losses. The Vessel Incidental Discharge Act was quite clear in expecting that Lakers be regulated. Indeed, it bears stressing that US law has not exempted Lakers from ballast water regulation and, as such, the proposed rule should require steps to ensure Lakers treat their ballast before discharge into the Great Lakes. Canada is confident enough in BWMS that it intends to require BWMS on Lakers

December 18, 2023 No Comments

Policy Letters

AFS Supports Removal of Snake River Dams

August 9, 2023 Ms. Brenda Mallory Chair Council on Environmental Quality 722 Jackson Place, NW Washington, DC 20503 Via regulations.gov Re: Columbia River Salmon and Other Native Fish, Docket No. CEQ-2023-0002 Dear Chair Mallory: On behalf of the American Fisheries Society (AFS), we thank you for the opportunity to submit comments supporting a long-term strategy to restore Columbia River basin salmon and other native, migratory fish populations to healthy and harvestable abundance levels. AFS is a scientific organization of over 7,000 professional fishery scientists and resource managers across the world, many of whom live and work in the western United States and have long-studied salmon and their declining populations. AFS promotes the conservation and sustainability of fishery resources and aquatic ecosystems through dissemination of fisheries science via scientific journals on fisheries, conferences, and continuing education. The science is clear and compelling; removing the lower four Snake River dams is necessary to restore critically at-risk populations of wild Snake River salmon and steelhead that hover on the brink of extinction. Today, only 1–2% of formerly abundant, historic wild salmon and steelhead return to the Snake River to spawn (Winters 2023). Recent reports demonstrate that 42% of Snake River wild spring/summer Chinook Salmon and 19% of steelhead populations have declined to the threshold where extinction is highly likely (O’Toole 2021). Climate change will continue to worsen conditions for these and other coldwater species. Ensuring access to intact and high elevation habitat in the Snake River basin provides the best opportunity for broadscale population recovery and persistence in the face of a changing climate (Storch et al. 2022). Because the science is clear and compelling and effective action is urgently needed, in January, AFS adopted a policy statement in support of breaching the lower four Snake River dams (Winters 2023). We attach it here for your consideration. The policy statement concludes that “[i]f Snake River basin salmon and steelhead are to be saved, then policymakers and stakeholders at all levels will need to implement appropriate processes and funding provisions to breach the four dams on the Lower Snake River, as well as implement all necessary habitat rehabilitation. There are other services that must be accounted for if dam breaching were to occur.” In addition to this policy statement, we ask you consider the following information as you formulate actions to restore wild, anadromous salmonids and other native fishes in the Columbia/Snake River system: Why is Hydropower not a “green” energy source? Hydropower dam/reservoir systems are actually not ”green” because of their profound effects on water quality, cyanobacteria, instream flow, habitat blockage, and greenhouse-gas (methane/nitrous oxide) emissions (Storch et al. 2022; Twidell 2022; Winters 2023). What constitutes “restoration” of the lower Snake River and what steps should the federal government take to restore the lower Snake River? Restoration of wild anadromous fish to healthy and harvestable levels is an appropriate restoration goal. In Idaho, recreational harvest of wild Chinook Salmon has been closed since 1978, a 45-year period. Endangered Species Act (ESA)-driven minimum requirements for recovery are insufficient to achieve agreed-upon socially, culturally, economically, and ecologically grounded high range goals as established by the Columbia Basin Partnership (CPB; https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/vision-salmon-and-steelhead-goals-restore-thriving-salmon-and-steelhead-columbia-river-basin).Decades of science showing lack of effective recovery (Jaeger and Scheuerell 2023) demonstrates the need to breach the lower four Snake River dams to reach this restoration goal (Hatch Magazine 2021; Storch et al. 2022). The need to breach these dams is confirmed by a comparison of smolt-to-adult returns (SARs) versus the number of dams anadromous fish must pass. Recent SARs for Snake River wild spring/summer Chinook Salmon have averaged 0.7% above eight dams, in comparison to SARs for non-ESA listed, wild spring Chinook Salmon above fewer dams in the mid-Columbia River that have sustainable SAR objectives (McCann et al. 2019). From 2000-2017, wild Chinook Salmon SARs averaged 3.6% in the John Day River above three dams, 2.5% in the Yakima River above four dams, and 0.7% in the Snake River above eight dams (op. cit.). The John Day, Yakima, and Snake River populations experience the same treaty and nontreaty fisheries, pinniped predation, and ocean conditions; the primary difference among them is the number of dams they must pass (Storch et al. 2022). Dam removal will also help meet ecological benchmarks for anadromous fish restoration (Storch et al. 2022). In 2020, the Northwest Power and Conservation Council “reaffirmed the prior benchmark of smolt-to-adult returns (SAR) averaging 4% (range: 2%–6%) for spring/summer Chinook Salmon… (A) minimum SAR of 2% is required to consistently maintain existing populations, whereas SARs > 2% indicate degrees of population growth… Smolt-to-adult return rates ≥ 4% achieved on a regular basis should promote a high likelihood of recovery (i.e., consistent generational increases in abundance… The Independent Scientific Advisory Board…has reviewed…the 2–6% SAR objective and identified extensive evidence to support these goals…” Connectivity in the lower Snake River is further critical for steelhead, Bull Trout, White Sturgeon, and Pacific Lamprey. Restoring the Snake River will reestablish opportunities for repeat spawning to maintain their populations (Vadas 2000; Vadas et al. 2016; Storch et al. 2022), as dams and low/warm flows negatively affect immigrations of adults and outmigration of both juveniles and spent adults that survive and may spawn again in future years. This approach has been successfully used in Maine, where dam breaching increased abundances of repeat spawning Atlantic Salmon and nonsalmon species (Chelminski 2015; Whittum et al. 2023; Winters 2023). What considerations should inform the federal government’s approach to restoring the lower Snake River? The science on the need for and efficacy of dam breaching is clear. The billions of dollars spent to date on recovery of Snake River anadromous fish have not been effective (Hatch Magazine 2021; Storch et al. 2022; Jaeger and Scheuerell 2023; Winters 2023).In the 1990s, 30 scientists from state, federal, tribal, and other entities participated in the PATH (Plan for Analyzing and Testing Hypotheses) process that evaluated SARs and the probability of achieving the interim survival and recovery standards of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries (Marmorek

August 10, 2023 No Comments

Policy News

Supreme Court WOTUS Decision Puts Fisheries, Water Quality, and Human Health at Risk

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 30, 2023 Contact: Drue Winters [email protected] FISHERIES, WATER QUALITY, AND HUMAN HEALTH AT RISK DUE TO LOSS OF WETLANDS PROTECTIONS UNDER SUPREME COURT SACKETT DECISION Last week’s U.S. Supreme Court decision on a significant Clean Water Act case, Sackett vs. EPA, dealt a crippling blow to the future of our nation’s fish and aquatic ecosystems. The very narrow test established by the court for determining when wetlands are “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS) under the Clean Water Act removes federal safeguards for the majority of wetlands in the United States. The decision flies in the face of sound science and will have a staggering impact on fish, fisheries, wildlife, aquatic ecosystems, and human health. This decision leaves more than 50% percent of wetlands in some watersheds without Clean Water Act protections. A cascade of consequences from poorer water quality, increased flooding and pollution, lost fish and wildlife habitat, and reduced carbon storage will result from this decision. This U.S. Supreme Court case opinion is at odds with the Clean Water Act’s singular objective: restoring and maintaining the water quality of the Nation’s waters. The Clean Water Act’s mandate can only be met if the science regarding wetlands and streams is used to determine which waters the Clean Water Act protects. However, the court’s decision to provide Clean Water Act protections only to wetlands that have a “continuous surface connection” to a traditionally navigable water has no scientific basis. With this case, the court has ignored fifty years of science that demonstrates that traditional navigable waters are part of interconnected aquatic systems and that wetlands deliver important services such as consistent stream flows, floodwater storage, and water filtration to navigable waters through both surface and subsurface connections. Wetland loss in some regions of the U.S. already approaches or exceeds 85 percent. Unchecked dredging and filling of wetlands will cripple wetlands’ ability to filter pollutants, absorb flood waters, reduce drought, recharge groundwater aquifers, and stabilize shorelines. With climate change bringing more numerous extreme weather events such as flooding and droughts, this decision will most certainly impair the functioning of wetlands that help ensure that navigable waters are drinkable, fishable, and swimmable. In the face of climate change, it has never been more important to protect our valuable wetlands. The American Fisheries Society joined several other aquatic science societies in an amicus brief to the Supreme Court arguing for stronger Clean Water Act protections. We showed that narrowing the reach of the Clean Water Act would have devastating effects on wetlands, rivers and streams, fish and wildlife habitat, and for people. The U.S. Congress should and must act to ensure the Clean Water Act can meet the mandate of the law, to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters and preserve our drinkable, fishable, swimmable waters. # # # Editor’s Notes: Founded in 1870, the American Fisheries Society (AFS) is the world’s oldest and largest fisheries science society. The mission of AFS is to improve the conservation and sustainability of fishery resources and aquatic ecosystems by advancing fisheries and aquatic science and promoting the development of fisheries professionals. With five journals and numerous books and conferences, AFS is the leading source of fisheries science and management information in North America and around the world.

May 30, 2023 No Comments

About

Quick Links

Contact