COMMERCE
Subscriber Services
Classified Ads
Subscribe
Advertise
NEWS
This Month
Editorial
Letters
F/V Safety
Past Issues
ABOUT US
Contact Us
Latest Issue
Subscribe
History
MORE CONTENT
CFN Archives
Links
Each month exclusively in the PRINT edition of CFN
Along the Coast
Ask the Lobster Doc
Bearin’s
Classifieds
Coming Events
Editorial
Enforcement Report
FISH SAFE
Fleet Additions
Letters
Lobster Market Report
New Boats
News Catch
Quahog Market Report
|
Commercial Fisheries News
Volume 33 Number 10
June 2006
Pombo’s MSA bill clears House committee
WASHINGTON, DC - After hours of contentious debate, the US House Committee on Resources concluded a May 17 mark-up session by approving a revised version of HR 5018, “The American Fisheries Management and Marine Life Enhancement Act.”
Sponsored by US Rep. and committee Chairman Richard Pombo (R-CA) and Reps. Barney Frank (D-MA) and Don Young (R-AK), HR 5018 passed on a vote of 26 to 15, making it the major House bill lawmakers will consider as they work toward reauthorizing the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) before the end of the year.
The two major points of contention involved areas where the bill attempted to clarify the MSA’s authority in relation to other “competing” statutes, primarily the National Marine Sanctuaries Act and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Sanctuary language
A House staffer explained that, under current law, if a sanctuary administrator wants to propose a fishery management action, the appropriate fishery management council gets the first crack at writing the action into the plan.
“But the sanctuary is not bound (to adopt) what the council writes or by the MSA,” he said. “If a sanctuary wants to adopt an IFQ in the sanctuary, they could.”
IFQ is the acronym for individual fishing quota.
According to a section-by-section analysis of the original version of the bill, HR 5018 proposed adding a new provision requiring the commerce secretary to review any proposed regulation for the conservation and management of fish – whether or not managed under a fishery management plan – or essential fish habitat within the boundaries of a national marine sanctuary.
And before such regulations could be implemented, the secretary would have to certify that they met the MSA’s national standards and other provisions and that they were consistent with any ecosystem-based fishery management plan developed by a council.
Due to heavy pressure from environmental groups, that language was dropped from the bill.
NEPA
The bill’s sponsors were, however, able to deflect intense pressure to remove or substantially modify the NEPA language in HR 5018.
NEPA is an entirely separate, very complex process the councils and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) must comply with anytime they consider taking a major fishery management action, and it is often cited as the reason it takes managers so long to make adjustments to changes in the fisheries.
HR 5018 adds to the MSA the only two provisions of NEPA that aren’t already in the MSA. One would require councils to write descriptions of all of the alternatives they studied during a plan or amendment development process. The other would require the councils to examine the cumulative impacts of conservation, economic, and social impact of their plans and amendments.
In addition, HR 5018 allows the secretary to make a determination that a fishery management plan prepared under MSA provisions meets the requirements of NEPA and clarifies that the timelines for the secretary’s actions under the MSA shall be the same as those used for NEPA compliance.
LAPP language
The committee made a number of changes to the Limited Access Privileges Program (LAPP) section of the bill during the mark-up.
LAPP is one of several terms being used to describe “privatized” or “market-based” quota allocation systems. The most familiar of these are probably IFQs and ITQs (individual transferable quotas).
There is now no doubt that these management systems will be used more frequently once the MSA reauthorization is complete. NMFS has already made it clear that one of its major goals is moving towards “market-based” management.
Among the changes to the LAPP section of HR 5018 are:
New language clarifying that the cap on excessive quota shares is for the purpose of “preventing significant adverse economic or social impact on any fishing community or other person”;
New language clarifying that no person who is qualified to receive an initial allocation is required to join any entity or association that would limit his ability to sell his catch as a condition of receiving the initial or annual allocation;
Modified language to require all petitions for LAPP programs to be signed by at least 50% of the permit holders in the affected fishery; and
New language to the “New England council IFQ referendum provision” to allow the council to determine whether captains or crewmembers who have substantial participation in the fishery should be eligible to vote in a referendum.
Other LAPP provisions in HR 5018 include: specific criteria for developing LAPPs; a requirement that LAPPs undergo a formal review every five years to ensure that the program is meeting the council’s goals; clarification that LAPPs involve a privilege – not a right – to harvest fish; and creation of discretionary authority and criteria for the allocation of shares to “fishing communities” and “regional fishery associations.”
Passage this year
The Senate Commerce Committee approved its primary reauthorization bill, S 2012, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2005, last December.
Late in May, staffers for the House Resources and Senate Commerce Committees again confirmed the commitment of both Pombo and Commerce Committee Chairman Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) to get the reauthorization job done during this session of Congress.
“This is legacy legislation for Sen. Stevens,” said one Senate staffer who predicted the bill could go to the floor by early June and, for sure, would be passed out of the Senate “well before” the August recess.
Added a House staffer, “We’d like to go to the floor before the August break.”
Proponents of a provision to include a pilot health care program for fishermen are working to convince lawmakers to attach the provision to the bill when it reaches the House floor.
Once both bills clear their respective houses, they will go to a conference committee, which will work out any differences, and then to the president for enactment.
Lorelei Stevens
Back to story list
|
|
Tell us what you think.
