[May 16, 2012] Gallegly's otter bill to go to House floor with revisions Tweet WASHINGTON, May 16, 2012 (Ventura County Star - McClatchy-Tribune Information Services via COMTEX) -- Rep. Elton Gallegly's legislation to protect naval operations at San Nicolas Island in case of new federal rules on sea otters will go to a vote in the House of Representatives. The House Natural Resources Committee voted 24-13 on Wednesday to approve the bill and send it to the full House. The panel also voted 19-12 to revise the bill. Rep. John Fleming, a Louisiana Republican who offered the amendment on behalf of Gallegly, R-Simi Valley, said the changes are an attempt at compromise after environmental groups and others raised concerns about the original legislation. Opponents, however, said one revision would place sea otters at serious risk of being killed by commercial fishermen. "This is just going to be open season on sea otters," said Massachusetts Rep. Edward Markey, the committee's top Democrat. At issue is a plan by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to formally end a program that sought to establish a colony of sea otters on San Nicolas Island, which is 65 miles off the coast of Ventura County. The Navy uses the island for warfare and communications training. Sea otters are a threatened species under federal law. The otter relocation program was established in 1987, a "no-otter zone" was established south of Point Conception, and otters were moved to San Nicolas in an attempt to build up the population. The government abandoned but did not formally end the program in 1993. Fish and Wildlife is now moving to formally terminate it, and a final decision could come as early as December. If the program is scrapped, the Navy fears it could be held liable for the accidental killing or injuring of sea otters during naval exercises, possibility limiting its testing ability and putting national security at risk. Gallegly's bill would relieve the Navy of such liability. Environmental groups such as The Otter Project, based in Monterey, say they have no objection to granting the Navy liability protection. But they object to a provision in the original bill that required the relocation program to remain in place until Fish and Wildlife develops a plan to ensure the recovery of sea otters, black and white abalone and current levels of commercial shellfish harvests. "The fishermen want to keep the 'no-otter zone' there, and so they are trying to do an end-run around Fish and Wildlife Services," said Steve Shimek, executive director of The Otter Project. Language added to the bill Wednesday sought to address some of those issues. It says that if Fish and Wildlife formally ends the relocation program, the agency must work with the Navy secretary, the Commerce secretary and the state of California when planning and implementing measures to allow for the expansion of the sea otter population and continue viable commercial state fisheries. The revision also includes language opponents find troubling. It says that the killing or injuring of a sea otter by a fishing operation south of Point Conception would not be considered a violation of the federal Endangered Species Act. That "basically means a fisherman can take a sea otter whenever he wants," said California Rep. John Garamendi, D-Fairfield. Fleming argued that state law would provide some protection to the otters and repeated that the goal is to prevent a hindrance to military training, which could pose a threat to national security. ___ (c)2012 Ventura County Star (Camarillo, Calif.) Visit Ventura County Star (Camarillo, Calif.) at www.vcstar.com Distributed by MCT Information Services [ Back To TMCnet.com's Homepage ]