{"id":122,"date":"2008-04-28T10:22:39","date_gmt":"2008-04-28T14:22:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/?p=122"},"modified":"2008-04-28T10:22:39","modified_gmt":"2008-04-28T14:22:39","slug":"policy-news-from-esas-public-affairs-office-15","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/2008\/04\/28\/policy-news-from-esas-public-affairs-office-15\/","title":{"rendered":"Policy News from ESA&#8217;s Public Affairs Office"},"content":{"rendered":"<h3>A Bi-Monthly Publication of the Ecological Society of America<\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>AGRICULTURE:  Long-awaited farm bill agreement heads to conference<\/li>\n<li>OCEANS: Sweeping  oceans, NOAA authorization bill clears first hurdle<\/li>\n<li>PUBLIC LANDS:  Contentious Alaska road proposal clears House panel<\/li>\n<li>INVASIVE SPECIES:  Ballast water program hitches ride in Coast Guard bill<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<hr>\n<p><strong>AGRICULTURE:  Long-awaited farm bill agreement heads to conference<\/strong>With an agreement among key farm bill negotiators finally in hand, the  conference committee is expected to work swiftly the week of April 28 on the  reauthorization of the five-year bill overseeing agriculture, conservation,  energy and nutrition programs.<\/p>\n<p>The committee will hold a formal conference meeting April 28, where they are  expected to approve a new framework for funding and offsets for the bill that  key House-Senate negotiators from the tax and agriculture panels agreed to.<\/p>\n<p>The  new framework for the bill includes a $4 billion boost above the current  baseline for conservation programs and $10.3 billion in new spending on  nutrition.<\/p>\n<p>Crop  subsidies and reductions to a proposed disaster relief program took the brunt  of the spending cuts to offset the new spending.<\/p>\n<p>The  framework also includes a pared-down version of the Senate\u2019s tax package that  would roll back tax cuts for corn-based ethanol and give new tax breaks for the  cellulosic ethanol and timber industries.<\/p>\n<p>The  leaders of the House and Senate Agriculture committees reached the agreement April  25 after several days of intense closed-door negotiations in the Capitol.  Lawmakers still have to work out some details of the $300 billion, five-year  measure, but they said they expect a swift resolution of the conference.<\/p>\n<p>The  agreement still must reach approval of the conference committee and the full  House and Senate, as well as the White House. President Bush has held a hard  line with the farm bill, threatening to veto it unless it reforms crop  subsidies and avoids tax increases.<\/p>\n<p>Bush  administration officials were not present for the negotiations. A White House  spokesman said they are reserving judgment until they can review the entire  package.<\/p>\n<p>The  leaders of the House and Senate tax panel agreed to rely on customs-users fees  to offset much of the $10 billion in new spending for the bill. The fees, most  of which would come from importers, do not classify as a tax and have not  raised a red flag with the White House.<\/p>\n<p>The  agreement also includes a package of tax incentives that totals close to $1.5  billion, according to members of the Finance Committee.<\/p>\n<p>The  package includes extensions and reductions of the ethanol tax credits and  tariffs. The move is a step toward gradually transitioning the corn-ethanol  industry to standing on its own. The package instead favors support for  cellulosic ethanol.<\/p>\n<p>Corn-ethanol  subsidies would see an almost 12 percent hit. The current 51-cent-a-gallon tax  credit for corn-based ethanol would drop to 45 cents. In conjunction with that,  it would also reduce the tariff on imported ethanol.<br>\nThe  winner in the tax package is cellulosic ethanol \u2014 made from corn stalks, woody  plants or grasses. It would get a $1-per-gallon subsidy.<\/p>\n<p>The  $4 billion increase for conservation trails the numbers negotiators had  previously discussed, but still would give a significant boost to most farmland  conservation programs.<\/p>\n<p>Much  of the conservation money would go to restore funding for programs that would  otherwise expire under current law. The expiring Wetlands Reserve Program would  get $1.3 billion above the 10-year baseline and the Grasslands Reserve Program  would get $300 million.<\/p>\n<p>The  framework shifts almost $2.5 billion from the Conservation Reserve Program to  other conservation programs \u2014 cutting down the Agriculture Department\u2019s  largest conservation program but infusing other working-lands programs with  some of the money in its budget.<br>\n<strong>OCEANS: Sweeping  oceans, NOAA authorization bill clears first hurdle<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>A sweeping oceans bill long sought by environmentalists cleared a House  subcommittee on April 23, after a series of failed attempts from Republicans to  eviscerate it.<\/p>\n<p>The Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans Subcommittee sent the  \u201cOCEANS-21\u201d bill to the full committee. Oceans advocates have been  pushing for the comprehensive OCEANS-21 bill for three years. The subcommittee  approval is the furthest it has progressed.<\/p>\n<p>The bill from Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA) would formally authorize the National  Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), coordinate federal and state  agencies and offer guidelines for regional coordination and ecosystem planning.  It would also establish a \u201cNational Oceans Adviser\u201d for the President  and federal advisory bodies on ocean policy.<br>\nAs it now stands, oceans and fisheries governance is balkanized, with  approaches that can differ wildly at the local, state, regional and federal  levels.<\/p>\n<p>The sprawling bill draws on recommendations by the Joint Oceans Commission  Initiative, the Pew Oceans Commission and the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy.  The sheer breadth of provisions in the bill has slowed its progress through the  House.<\/p>\n<p>Advocates of the bill say it would provide better structure, improve  regional ocean governance and prioritize marine ecosystems.<\/p>\n<p>But the measure may face more hurdles before the full committee.  Subcommittee ranking member Henry Brown (R-SC) raised a series of objections to  the bill. Brown and other Republicans filed 17 amendments against it, most of  which would strike entire sections of the bill, including the creation of a  committee on ocean policy, requirements for ecosystems-based management and a  charge for agencies to develop a national oceans policy.<\/p>\n<p>Brown\u2019s objection is that the bill\u2019s requirements for agencies to consider  oceans health could go too far. He is concerned the bill could create further  confusion and regulatory hurdles that could interfere with aquaculture and  offshore natural gas development, as well as dredging projects at his home port  in Charleston, SC.<\/p>\n<p>All of the Republicans present for the vote objected to the bill\u2019s passage,  with the exception of Reps. Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland and Jim Saxton of New  Jersey, longtime oceans advocates who have frequently crossed party lines on  environmental legislation.<\/p>\n<p><strong>PUBLIC LANDS: Contentious  Alaska road proposal clears House panel<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>A proposal to link two remote Alaska towns with a road through a wildlife  refuge sailed through the House Natural Resources Committee April 23 despite  environmentalists\u2019 concerns the road would harm the refuge.<\/p>\n<p>With a resounding voice vote in favor, the committee sent ranking member Don  Young\u2019s (R-AK) bill to the full House unaltered.<\/p>\n<p>The bill would transfer 206 acres of land across the isthmus of the Izembek  National Wildlife Refuge to the state to construct a road connecting the remote  villages of King Cove and Cold Bay.   Residents of King Cove say the road is necessary to connect them to the  airport in Cold Bay that provides access to the outside world, especially in  medical emergencies.<\/p>\n<p>In exchange, Izembek and the nearby Alaska Peninsula National Wildlife  Refuge would get an additional 61,723 acres of wildlife habitat controlled by  the tribal King Cove Corp. and the state of Alaska. Of that land, 45,493 acres  would be designated as wilderness.<\/p>\n<p>But House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick Rahall (D-WV) said after  the markup that the bill would probably not fare well in the full House if  brought to a vote because of the bill\u2019s environmental implications, including  the possibility of opening up the door to more road proposals through other  refuges.<\/p>\n<p>Congress first addressed the issue of connecting the two communities a  decade ago, but rather than authorize a road, it appropriated $37.5 million  under the King Cove Health and Safety Act to fund improvements to the King Cove  medical clinic and airport, along with infrastructure for a hovercraft that  could transport citizens to and from Cold Bay.<br>\nSince its launch the hovercraft has completed more than 25 successful  medivacs, but residents of King Cove say the hovercraft has proven fiscally  unviable.<\/p>\n<p>Evan Hirsche of the National Wildlife Refuge Association said that if  funding is an issue Congress should instead focus its efforts on getting more  money for King Cove to operate the hovercraft rather than build a road that  could do irreparable harm to the refuge.<\/p>\n<p><strong>INVASIVE SPECIES:  Ballast water program hitches ride in Coast Guard bill<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The House passed a bill on April 24 that aims to end the transfer of  invasive species from ship ballasts into U.S. waters by 2015. The legislation, part of a larger Coast Guard reauthorization bill, mandates  that all ships entering U.S. waters conduct ballast water exchange at least 200  miles off the coast. It also requires ships to install ballast water treatment  equipment after their first drydocking after Jan. 1, 2009, but no later than  Dec. 31, 2013.<\/p>\n<p>The bill, sponsored by Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman James  Oberstar (D-MN), comes in the midst of a spate of problems with invasive  species such as sea lampreys, zebra mussels and the VHS \u201cfish  killing\u201d virus in the Great Lakes. Under the bill, the Agriculture  Department\u2019s Animal and Plant Inspection Service would mandate Great Lakes  vessels install equipment to kill off the virus in their ballast water systems.<\/p>\n<p>The legislation also says ships must designate an officer to be responsible  for ensuring the ballast water plans are properly implemented. It requires  ships to keep an English-language record of all ballast water and sediment  discharges readily available on board for three years after the date of the  last entry.<\/p>\n<p>Ballast water discharges are prohibited unless the water has been treated to  kill at least 98 percent of organisms larger than 50 microns.<\/p>\n<p>The legislation also would require a ballast water program for Armed Forces  vessels, including ballast water exchange and treatment standards and sediment  management.<\/p>\n<p>The uptake or discharge of ballast water would be allowed to ensure the  safety of a vessel in an emergency situation or save a life at sea. Ships also  will not be penalized for accidental uptake or discharge that is the result of  damage to the vessel as long as they took all reasonable precautions to prevent  it.  Ship operators making a short voyage  may request a waiver to discharge ballast water if they would otherwise  experience \u201csubstantial business hardship.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Certain ships traveling geographically limited routes within the Great Lakes  or Hawaiian Islands would be exempt from some ballast water requirements.<\/p>\n<hr>\n<p>Sources: Environment and Energy Daily,  Greenwire, and Land Letter<\/p>\n<p>Send questions or comments to Nadine Lymn, ESA Director of Public Affairs, <a title=\"blocked::mailto:Nadine@esa.orgmailto:Nadine@esa.org\" href=\"mailto:Nadine@esa.org\">Nadine@esa.org<\/a> or Colleen Fahey, Policy Analyst, <a title=\"blocked::mailto:Colleen@esa.org\" href=\"mailto:Colleen@esa.org\">Colleen@esa.org<\/a>If you received Policy News from a friend  and would like to receive it directly, please send an e-mail to <a href=\"mailto:listserv@listserv.umd.edu\">listserv@listserv.umd.edu<\/a> with the following in the body of the message: sub  ESANEWS {your first and last name}<\/p>\n<p>If you wish to  unsubscribe to ESANEWS and your biweekly Policy News, send the command \u00e2\u20ac\u0153signoff  ESANEWS\u00e2\u20ac\u009d to <a title=\"blocked::mailto:listserv@listserv.umd.edumailto:listserv@listserv.umd.edu\" href=\"mailto:listserv@listserv.umd.edu\">listserv@listserv.umd.edu<\/a>Visit ESA\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s website at <a title=\"blocked::https:\/\/esa.org\/https:\/\/esa.org\/\" href=\"https:\/\/esa.org\/\">www.esa.org<\/a><\/p>\n<p>See past editions of ESA\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Policy News at <a title=\"blocked::https:\/\/esa.org\/pao\/policyNews\/https:\/\/esa.org\/pao\/policyNews\/\" href=\"https:\/\/esa.org\/pao\/policyNews\/\">https:\/\/esa.org\/pao\/policyNews\/<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Read the latest biweekly Policy News from ESA&#8217;s Public Affairs Office.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":50,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[10,91],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-122","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ecology-in-policy","category-policy-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/122","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/50"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=122"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/122\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=122"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=122"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=122"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}