{"id":126,"date":"2008-05-12T15:04:46","date_gmt":"2008-05-12T19:04:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/?p=126"},"modified":"2008-05-12T15:04:46","modified_gmt":"2008-05-12T19:04:46","slug":"policy-news-from-esas-public-affairs-office-16","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/2008\/05\/12\/policy-news-from-esas-public-affairs-office-16\/","title":{"rendered":"Policy News from ESA&#8217;s Public Affairs Office"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>A Bi-Monthly Publication of the Ecological Society of   America<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>AGRICULTURE: New farm bill still faces threat of   Presidential veto<\/li>\n<li>FISHERIES: Menhaden moratorium meets stiff   opposition<\/li>\n<li>MINING: Full Senate could add environmental protections to   mining bill<\/li>\n<li>OCEANS: Senate panel to vote on sanctuary expansions and   double hulls for oil ships<\/li>\n<li>PUBLIC LANDS: Washington forest becomes wilderness area as   Bush signs land bill<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<hr>\n<p><strong>AGRICULTURE: New farm bill still faces threat of   Presidential veto<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>House-Senate negotiators announced a final agreement on the   nearly $300 billion five-year farm bill on May 8, and Bush Administration   officials vowed to veto it.<\/p>\n<p>The five-year bill includes spending increases for nutrition and conservation   and a new program that pays farmers to grow dedicated feedstocks for   next-generation cellulosic fuels.\u00c2  It also includes a sweeping tax package that   gives incentives for landowners who conserve endangered species, a new   $1-per-gallon bonus for cellulosic ethanol and scales back the blenders credit   for corn-based ethanol.<\/p>\n<p>Democrats and Republicans from both chambers reached agreement on the bill   after months of negotiations over spending levels, offsets and thousands of   pages of farm policy.<\/p>\n<p>Hours after lawmakers triumphantly announced their agreement, the White House   sent out word that the legislation would not receive the President\u2019s   signature.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThis legislation lacks meaningful farm program reform and expands the size   and scope of government,\u201d Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer said in a statement.   \u201cI have visited face-to-face with our President, and he was direct and plain.   The President will veto this bill.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Schafer criticized the bill\u2019s spending levels and permanent disaster program   and said it does not go far enough to limit crop subsidies for wealthy   landowners.<\/p>\n<p>The legislation has the backing of key Republicans on the Agriculture   Committee in the House and Senate, and those lawmakers said they are hopeful   they can override a veto. It had 79 votes of support on the Senate floor in   December, but the two-thirds margin may be harder to gain in the   House.<\/p>\n<p>The House is scheduled to take up the agreement May 14. The Senate schedule   is not set, but Senators said they hope to take it up the same   day.<\/p>\n<p><strong>FISHERIES: Menhaden moratorium meets stiff   opposition<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>On May 8, House Republicans clashed over a proposed moratorium on menhaden   fishing during a Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans Subcommittee   hearing.<\/p>\n<p>Reps. Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD) and Jim Saxton (R-NJ) defended H.R. 3840, which   would impose a partial moratorium on fishing while more research is conducted on   the health of the fish population, and H.R. 3841, which calls for an immediate   five-year moratorium.<\/p>\n<p>Rep. Robert Wittman (R-VA) says the moratorium would cause needless economic   damage. \u201cThe National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) says the population is   healthy. The 2007 harvest was larger than in 2006,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n<p>Gilchrest\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s and Saxton\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s bills stem from concerns of sport fishers,   conservation groups and academics that stocks of menhaden are collapsing,   particularly in the Chesapeake Bay area.<\/p>\n<p>Menhaden fulfill two important roles in the Atlantic ecosystem: They filter   algae from up to 4 gallons per minute of ocean water and provide a critical food   source for carnivorous fish, marine mammals and birds. They are fished   commercially because their omega 3 oils are critical ingredients in industrial   lubricants, pet food and human health products.<\/p>\n<p>Wittman wants fishery management to be left to NMFS and the Atlantic States   Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). Both organizations have said that stocks   are healthy and that overfishing is not occurring.\u00c2  A 2006 cap froze the   allowable menhaden catch until 2010.<\/p>\n<p>But the nonprofit National Coalition for Marine Conservation argues the   fishery\u2019s regulatory boards are squandering their time for more research and   says that ASMFC improperly measures population.<\/p>\n<p>In 2003, the National Coalition for Marine Conservation made a report to   ASMFC urging them to decrease the total allowable catch, saying that a lack of   menhaden was responsible for observed declines in predatory birds and fish in   the Chesapeake Bay.<\/p>\n<p><strong>MINING: Full Senate could add environmental protections to   mining bill<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The full Senate could add environmental safeguards and land protection   provisions to hardrock mining legislation if such language isn\u2019t in the Energy   and Natural Resources Committee\u2019s version of the bill, according to Sen. Maria   Cantwell (D-WA).<\/p>\n<p>As members of the committee grapple with how best to update the 1872 law that   governs hardrock mining on federal lands, Cantwell said the different interests   of panel members may make those issues difficult to include in a bill the   committee would approve.<\/p>\n<p>The panel has been working for months to develop a bill that would bring the   hardrock mining law, which is 136 years old, into the 21st century. To do so,   the Senators must determine if and what kind of royalty hardrock mining   operations should be charged and what sort of environmental safeguards should be   included.<\/p>\n<p>Last fall, the House passed legislation from Natural Resources Chairman Nick   Rahall (D-WV), which would impose an eight percent royalty on the gross returns   on minerals from new claims and a four percent royalty on existing claims filed   under the law. Part of the proceeds that would go toward the cleanup of   thousands of abandoned mines across the country.\u00c2  The House bill would also   grant authorities significantly more control over where hardrock mining can take   place, especially in environmentally sensitive lands including national parks,   something opponents argue is unnecessarily burdensome.<\/p>\n<p>The Senate panel\u2019s leaders have pledged to develop their own bill, but   movement has slowed since the last hearing on the issue in March.<\/p>\n<p>Jane Danowitz, director of the Pew Campaign for Responsible Mining,   speculated that the Senate may also be feeling pressure from the mining industry   to drag its feet on producing a bill that could hurt its industry when prices   for metals like gold and uranium are at an all-time high.<\/p>\n<p>Cantwell plans to introduce her own legislation soon that would deal with the   other pieces of the puzzle, including increasing the amount of lands that would   be off-limits to mining and increase local governments\u2019 ability to protect   certain lands from hardrock mining.<\/p>\n<p>Another factor is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), who has adamantly   opposed the House version because of its possible effects on the mining   industry.<\/p>\n<p><strong>OCEANS: Senate panel to vote on sanctuary expansions and   double hulls for oil ships<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Two proposals that would greatly expand existing marine sanctuaries will come   up for a vote in the Senate Commerce Committee the week of May 12.\u00c2  The panel is   also scheduled to vote on a bill that would require double hulls for oil ships.<\/p>\n<p>The proposed sanctuary legislation would more than double the size of   existing marine sanctuaries off the coast of Northern California and in the   Great Lakes.<\/p>\n<p>A national marine sanctuary is roughly akin to a national park in federal   waters more than three miles off state shores. A sanctuary designation does not   prohibit commercial fishing, but it does bar oil drilling and other   development.<\/p>\n<p>One proposal would add more than 1,000 square nautical miles to Northern   California\u2019s extensive network of marine sanctuaries. California Democratic   Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein introduced the measure, which is   similar to a bill the House passed earlier this year.<\/p>\n<p>The other sanctuary bill, from Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), would give an   eightfold expansion to a sanctuary in Lake Huron\u2019s Thunder Bay National Marine   Sanctuary.<\/p>\n<p>The committee will also take up legislation that would require more oil ships   to have double hulls, in an attempt to further guard against oil spills. Boxer   introduced the bill in response to last November\u2019s spill in San Francisco   Bay.<\/p>\n<p>The bill would also beef up the Coast Guard\u2019s vessel tracking system and   medical review process for pilots and phase out federal liability limits for oil   spills from single-hull tankers.<\/p>\n<p>Eight of the 12 worst oil spills to occur since the beginning of 2001   worldwide have involved single-hull vessels \u2014 an older ship design that uses a   single layer of steel plates. The more-protective double layer has become the   new industry standard.<\/p>\n<p><strong>PUBLIC LANDS: Washington forest becomes wilderness area as   Bush signs land bill<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Approximately 106,000 acres of low-elevation, old-growth forest in Washington   state are protected wilderness under a bill signed by President Bush on May 8   that includes more than 60 other public lands proposals.<\/p>\n<p>The measure includes dozens of proposals cleared by the Senate Energy and   Natural Resources Committee over the last several months.<\/p>\n<p>The designation of the Wild Sky Wilderness area in Mount Baker-Snoqualmie   National Forest follows eight years of efforts to grant it protection as   wilderness, the highest level of protection given public lands.<\/p>\n<p>The Senate approved the measure in three previous sessions of Congress, but   former House Resources Chairman Richard Pombo (R-CA) prevented its progress.   Pombo argued that about 13,000 acres did not meet the requirements of the 1964   Wilderness Act and should be removed from the final bill. The Bush   Administration has been a longtime supporter of Wild Sky.<\/p>\n<p>Wild Sky is the only wilderness designation in the measure, but the   bipartisan package also includes numerous heritage area, water project, and   other public land bills.<\/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 href=\"mailto:Nadine@esa.org\">Nadine@esa.org<\/a> or Colleen Fahey, Science Policy Analyst, <a href=\"mailto:Colleen@esa.org\">Colleen@esa.org<\/a><\/p>\n<p>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 href=\"mailto:listserv@listserv.umd.edu\">listserv@listserv.umd.edu<\/a><\/p>\n<p>Visit ESA\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s website at <a href=\"https:\/\/esa.org\">www.esa.org<\/a><\/p>\n<p>See past editions of ESA\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Policy News at <a href=\"https:\/\/esa.org\/pao\/policyNews\/\">www.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":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[10,91],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-126","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\/126","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=126"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/126\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=126"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=126"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=126"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}