Overview
Title
To establish the Great Lakes Mass Marking Program, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
H.R. 7166 is about a program to put special tags on fish that are born in fish hatcheries near the Great Lakes, so scientists can understand and take better care of the fish in those big lakes using the data from the tags. The program will spend money each year, like up to $5 million, to do this until 2029.
Summary AI
H.R. 7166 seeks to establish the Great Lakes Mass Marking Program within the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. This program aims to tag hatchery-produced fish to help manage fish populations in the Great Lakes. By collaborating with Federal, State, and Tribal fish management agencies, the program will provide data to support fisheries management and habitat restoration efforts. It authorizes $5 million per year from 2025 to 2029 for this purpose.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The proposed legislation, known as the "Great Lakes Mass Marking Program Act," seeks to establish a program within the United States Fish and Wildlife Service dedicated to the mass marking of hatchery-produced fish in the Great Lakes basin. The intention of this program is to enhance the management of fish populations and support the ecological and economic value of the Great Lakes region. The bill establishes a collaborative effort involving Federal, State, Tribal agencies, and other stakeholders, facilitating data collection and sharing to aid in resource management. It earmarks $5 million annually from 2025 to 2029 to fund these efforts.
Summary of Significant Issues
The bill presents several issues that merit consideration. Firstly, there is a lack of detailed financial planning and accountability mechanisms. This is evidenced by the broad spending authority given to the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, which lacks budgetary constraints or oversight measures that might ensure fiscal responsibility. Secondly, the absence of explicit collaboration protocols among the diverse stakeholders involved could result in jurisdictional conflicts or inefficiencies. Additionally, the bill does not provide clear evidence to support claims of efficiency related to the use of automated technology in the mass marking process, nor does it address potential environmental impacts.
Broad Impact on the Public
For the general public, the implementation of the Great Lakes Mass Marking Program could have significant implications. On a positive note, improved management of fish populations could enhance both the ecological health of the Great Lakes and the associated economic activities such as commercial and recreational fishing. This, in turn, may bolster local economies dependent on these industries. However, without transparent and effective management, there is a risk that public funds could be misallocated, leading to inefficient use of resources and potential ecological harm.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Specific stakeholders, such as State and Tribal agencies, as well as communities engaged in fishing industries, stand to benefit from better fish population management and the economic stability it promises. Clear data about fish populations could lead to improved decision-making and more sustainable fishing practices.
However, the bill's lack of clear collaboration guidelines could lead to conflicts among these stakeholders, particularly if roles and responsibilities are not clearly defined. Additionally, the potential for unchecked spending authority could pose financial risks to these stakeholders if the program's funding is not properly managed.
In conclusion, while the Great Lakes Mass Marking Program Act aims to address significant ecological and economic concerns, it requires careful consideration of financial and operational oversight to realize its intended benefits fully. By addressing these issues, the legislation could better serve its purpose and provide sustainable advantages to the Great Lakes region and its stakeholders.
Financial Assessment
The Great Lakes Mass Marking Program Act, as outlined in H.R. 7166, proposes a financial commitment to support the establishment and operation of the Great Lakes Mass Marking Program. This program is designed to enhance the management of fish populations in the Great Lakes through tagging hatchery-produced fish, aiming to improve decision-making for fisheries management and habitat restoration.
Appropriation and Financial Allocations
The bill authorizes an appropriation of $5,000,000 annually for each fiscal year from 2025 through 2029. This financial allocation is intended to support the tagging activities, collaborative work with various agencies, and any other necessary actions to implement the program effectively. The program's funding provides a consistent financial foundation over a period of five years, suggesting a long-term commitment to addressing the issues facing the Great Lakes fisheries.
Issues Related to Financial Management
Several financial issues arise from the bill’s provisions:
Lack of Detailed Budget Planning: The bill specifies an annual funding amount but does not provide detailed guidance on how these funds are to be allocated. This absence of detailed financial planning could lead to potential overspending or resource mismanagement. Without clear expenditure guidelines, there is a risk of funds not being used efficiently to meet the program’s objectives.
Discretionary Spending Authority: Section 4(b) allows the Director to purchase equipment and hire personnel as needed. This could lead to unchecked expenditures unless there are explicit checks and balances in place. While discretion is needed for operational flexibility, the lack of oversight could lead to inefficient spending patterns.
Collaboration and Coordination Costs: The bill involves multiple stakeholders, including Federal, State, and Tribal agencies. The complexity of coordinating among these bodies could result in additional administrative costs that are not accounted for within the provided annual funding. Coordination efforts may necessitate additional funding streams or more detailed financial planning.
Absence of Accountability Mechanisms: The bill does not include provisions for financial audits or regular reviews of spending practices, which are crucial for ensuring that the program complies with its financial objectives. Without such oversight, it becomes challenging to ascertain whether funds are being appropriately and effectively utilized.
Long-Term Commitment Without Periodic Review: The funding is set to end after fiscal year 2029, without an indicated process for periodic review or adjustment. This fixed long-term financial commitment may restrict the Program’s agility in adapting to new data or changing ecological conditions, potentially affecting financial efficacy.
Conclusion
In summary, while H.R. 7166 establishes a significant financial commitment towards improving fishery management in the Great Lakes through the Mass Marking Program, it raises questions about the specificity and management of financial resources. The bill could benefit from more detailed planning regarding the allocation and oversight of the specified funds to ensure that they contribute effectively to the Program’s goals. Additionally, establishing a framework for financial audits and an adaptive review process could enhance the Program’s ability to respond to unforeseen challenges and ensure sustainable financial practices.
Issues
The bill lacks a specific budget or spending limitations for the Great Lakes Mass Marking Program (Section 4), which may lead to potential overspending or financial mismanagement.
The authorization of $5,000,000 per fiscal year from 2025 through 2029, as stated in Section 5, is presented without detailed allocation plans, raising concerns about potential wasteful spending and the lack of clear expenditure guidelines.
The absence of oversight or accountability mechanisms in Sections 4 and 5 could lead to inefficiencies or unmonitored expenditures, as there is no framework to ensure the Director's decisions align with the Program's objectives or financial audits are conducted.
Section 2 highlights the complex involvement of multiple stakeholders, including Federal, State, Tribal agencies, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, without addressing potential jurisdictional or coordination challenges.
Section 4(b) grants discretionary power to the Director to hire personnel and purchase equipment without explicit checks, potentially leading to unchecked spending or hiring practices.
The provision in Section 4(c) for 'collaboration' is vaguely defined, which may lead to varying interpretations and inconsistencies in how the stakeholders engage with the Program.
The effectiveness of using automated technology for mass marking in Section 2(6) is stated without supporting evidence, questioning the claimed efficiency of this approach.
The text fails to explicitly state the environmental impact of mass marking and stocking hatchery-produced fish as compared to wild fish populations (Section 2), which could have significant ecological consequences.
The long-term financial commitment ending in fiscal year 2029 indicated in Section 5 suggests a lack of periodic review, limiting the Program's ability to adapt to changing circumstances or new information.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section states that the official name for this law is the “Great Lakes Mass Marking Program Act.”
2. Findings Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Congress has determined that the Great Lakes face significant challenges because of changes in the ecosystem caused by invasive species and other factors. They emphasize the need for scientific cooperation to manage fish populations, highlighting the importance of mass marking programs for tracking hatchery-produced fish, which helps in managing fishery resources effectively and sustaining the economic value the Great Lakes provide.
Money References
- Congress finds that— (1) the Great Lakes have experienced rapid changes in recent years due to— (A) the introduction of multiple aquatic invasive species; (B) alterations in the food web; and (C) decreases in the abundance of prey species; (2) due to rapid biological change in the Great Lakes, the Great Lakes need a collaborative, science-based program to assist in making management actions regarding fish stocking rates, the rehabilitation of important fish species, and habitat restoration; (3) the States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, and Wisconsin and Indian Tribes in those States, working through the Council of Lake Committees of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, have identified that mass marking is— (A) a precise tool to keep hatchery-produced fish in balance with wild fish; and (B) essential to achieving fishery management and research objectives through producing a better understanding of— (i) the quantity of hatchery produced fish compared to wild fish in the Great Lakes; (ii) the effectiveness of hatchery operations; and (iii) the effectiveness of fishery management actions; (4) the mass marking program of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service in the Great Lakes— (A) was initiated in 2010 on a limited scale; (B) annually tags approximately 9,000,000 to 11,000,000 of the hatchery-produced fish stocked in the Great Lakes; (C) is a basinwide cooperative effort among the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Indian Tribes, and State management agencies; and (D) produces data used by State and Tribal fish management agencies to make management decisions regarding Great Lakes fisheries; (5) annually, Federal, State, and Tribal agencies stock approximately 21,000,000 hatchery-produced fish in the Great Lakes to support— (A) native species recovery; and (B) recreational and commercial fishing; (6) mass marking of hatchery-produced fish, using automated technology, is an efficient method of implementing a collaborative, science-based fishery program; and (7) the Great Lakes are an important and valued resource that— (A) supports a robust regional economy valued at more than $7,000,000,000; and (B) provides stability to the economy of the United States.
3. Definitions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section provides definitions for terms used in the Act, specifying that “Director” refers to the head of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and “Program” refers to the Great Lakes Mass Marking Program mentioned later in the document.
4. Great Lakes mass marking program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section establishes the Great Lakes Mass Marking Program within the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to tag hatchery fish in the Great Lakes for better fisheries management. It requires collaboration with various agencies and makes data available to help manage fish populations, restore the Great Lakes, and improve economic benefits for different types of fisheries.
5. Authorization of appropriations Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section authorizes the allocation of $5,000,000 each year from 2025 through 2029 to fund the Program.
Money References
- There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out the Program $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2025 through 2029. ---