HR-3340-119
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 438.
Sponsored by Russell Fry (R-SC)
What it does
This bill would require the Secretary of Commerce to develop standards for and publish geospatial data about fishing restrictions, recreational vessel access, and navigation conditions in federal ocean waters. It would create a public website with this information, updated at least twice a year, while excluding sensitive cultural, archaeological, and proprietary commercial fishing data, and explicitly excluding tribal waters and traditional fishing areas from its authority.
Who benefits
Recreational boaters, divers, and anglers who would gain easier access to information about where they can legally fish or boat; commercial and recreational marine tourism businesses; state and local governments and researchers who use standardized federal geospatial data; technology and geospatial data companies that may partner with the Secretary; Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations whose waters and traditional fishing areas are protected from new federal data-collection authority.
Who is hurt
No group appears to bear a significant direct cost; commercial fishing operations could see minor administrative involvement in data-sharing consultations, though the bill explicitly shields proprietary commercial fishing information from disclosure. Federal agencies, particularly NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service, would bear implementation and staffing costs to build and maintain the website and interagency coordination process.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that fragmented, hard-to-find data on fishing closures and marine protected areas creates confusion and safety risks for millions of recreational boaters and anglers, and that a single standardized public website would reduce accidental violations and improve safety around hazards like harmful algal blooms. They contend the bill accomplishes this at modest cost by directing an existing agency to consolidate and modernize data it largely already collects.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that new data standardization and website-maintenance mandates impose additional administrative burdens and costs on NOAA without a clearly identified funding source, potentially straining an agency already managing numerous fisheries responsibilities. They contend that the multi-year phase-in timelines and reliance on interagency coordination across seven federal agencies risk delays or incomplete implementation that could limit the practical benefit supporters anticipate.