Order Code RL33813
Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal
Legislation in the 110th Congress
Updated April 26, 2007
Eugene H. Buck
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division

---

Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal
Legislation in the 110th Congress
Summary
Fish and marine mammals are important resources in open ocean and nearshore
coastal areas; many federal laws and regulations guide their management. Bills to
reauthorize and amend major legislation — the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) and the Marine Mammal Protection
Act (MMPA) — were acted upon by the 109th Congress; the authorization of
appropriations for both laws had expired at the end of FY1999. P.L. 109-479
reauthorized and extensively amended the MSFCMA; a bill proposing to reauthorize
and amend the MMPA (H.R. 4075) passed the House, but received no further action.
Commercial and sport fishing are jointly managed by the federal government
and individual states. States generally have jurisdiction within 3 miles of the coast.
Beyond state jurisdiction and out to 200 miles, the federal government manages
fisheries under the MSFCMA through eight regional fishery management councils.
Beyond 200 miles, the United States participates in international agreements relating
to specific areas or species. The 110th Congress may oversee implementation of the
MSFCMA as well as address individual habitat and management concerns for U.S.
commercial and sport fisheries to achieve a sustainable balance between resource use
and protection.
Aquaculture — the farming of fish, shellfish, and other aquatic animals and
plants in a controlled environment — is expanding rapidly abroad, with more modest
advances in the United States. In the United States, important species cultured
include catfish, salmon, shellfish, and trout. The Administration has stated that it
plans to offer new draft legislation to promote the development of aquaculture in
offshore federal waters. In addition, the 110th Congress may consider other measures
to guide federal activities related to aquaculture.
Marine mammals are protected under the MMPA. With few exemptions, the
MMPA prohibits harm or harassment (“take”) of marine mammals, unless restrictive
permits are obtained. It addresses specific situations of concern, such as dolphin
mortality, primarily associated with the eastern tropical Pacific tuna fishery. The
110th Congress may consider bills to reauthorize and amend the MMPA as well as
measures to address specific habitat and management concerns.

---

Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Commercial and Sport Fisheries: Background and Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Magnuson-Stevens Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Implementation of P.L. 109-479 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Pacific Salmon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Miscellaneous Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Invasive Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Habitat Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Coral . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Great Lakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Recreational Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Hydropower and Water Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Hypoxia and Algal Blooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Seafood Safety and Nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Oysters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
National Marine Sanctuaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Health Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
International Fisheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Marketing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Vessel Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Aquaculture: Background and Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Open Ocean Aquaculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
National Marine Sanctuaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
National Aquaculture Act Reauthorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Marketing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Turtles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Food Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Asian Carp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Marine Mammals: Background and Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Marine Mammal Protection Act Reauthorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Congressional Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Miscellaneous Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Canadian Seal Hunt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

---

NMFS Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
List of Tables
Table 1. NMFS Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

---

Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal
Legislation in the 110th Congress
Most Recent Developments
On April 25, 2007, the House agreed to the conference report on H.R. 1591,
providing (1) $60.4 million for Pacific salmon disaster assistance and (2) $110
million for assisting the Gulf of Mexico shrimp and fishing industries to recover from
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, but without the aquaculture operator compensation
provision. On April 24, 2007, a conference report was filed on H.R. 1591. On April
19, 2007, the House passed H.R. 1495 (amended), including provisions that would
(1) require a feasibility study of fish passage improvements in Oregon; (2) increase
the authorization for appropriations for research on Columbia and Snake River
salmon survival, including methods to reduce avian predation on juvenile salmon;
(3) identify more than two dozen aquatic habitat restoration projects to be studied
by the Army Corps of Engineers; (4) allow nonfederal participants in Great Lakes
fisheries restoration to provide as much as 100% of their nonfederal share through
in-kind contributions; (5) modify requirements for mitigating aquatic resource losses
at Army Corps of Engineers projects; (6) direct the Army Corps of Engineers to study
improving the environmental quality of Delaware Bay for oyster restoration; and (7)
authorize the Army Corps of Engineers to participate in assessing hypoxia in the Gulf
of Mexico. On April 17, 2007, the House agreed to H.Res. 217, expressing the sense
of the House of Representatives concerning the 50th anniversary of the flooding of
Celilo Falls on the Columbia River and the changes this action imposed on Native
Americans. On March 29, 2007, the House Committee on Transportation reported
H.R. 1495. On March 29, 2007, the Senate passed H.R. 1591 (amended),
incorporating language from S. 965 appropriating $105.5 million for assisting the
Gulf of Mexico shrimp and fishing industries to recover from Hurricanes Katrina and
Rita, $60.4 million for Pacific salmon emergency disaster assistance, and $50 million
for a Fisheries Disaster Mitigation Fund. (Members and staff may request e-mail
notification of new CRS reports on marine and freshwater fisheries, aquaculture, and
marine mammal issues by contacting Gene Buck at [gbuck@crs.loc.gov] and
requesting to be added to his notification list.)
Introduction
Increasing use of coastal and marine resources is driving proposals to alter
relationships between environmental protection and sustainable resource manage-
ment. Recent reports note declines in marine resources and shortcomings in the
fragmented and limited approaches to resource protection and management in federal
and state waters. A further concern is the increasing pressures and conflicts that arise
from economic activity associated with continued human population growth in
coastal areas. A common concern is habitat loss or alteration, due to both natural
processes, such as climate variation, as well as development, changes in land

---

CRS-2
management practices, competition from invasive species, and other factors, nearly
all related to economic, political, or social interests. Congress faces the issue of how
to balance these diverse interests (which may fall on various sides of any given
controversy) while promoting the sustainable management of fishery and other
marine resources.
In the final hours of the 109th Congress, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) was reauthorized and extensively
amended in P.L. 109-479.1 Reauthorization of the Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA) was not finalized. The 110th Congress may consider measures to
reauthorize the MMPA, address aquatic habitat concerns, modify or extend fishery
disaster assistance, and address fishery-specific concerns, as well as conducting
oversight of MSFCMA implementation.
Commercial and Sport Fisheries:
Background and Issues
Historically, coastal states managed marine sport and commercial fisheries in
nearshore waters, where most seafood was caught. However, as fishing techniques
improved, fishermen ventured farther offshore. Before the 1950s, the federal
government assumed limited responsibility for marine fisheries, responding primarily
to international fishery concerns and treaties (by enacting implementing legislation
for treaties, e.g., the Northern Pacific Halibut Act in 1937) as well as to interstate
fishery conflicts (by consenting to interstate fishery compacts, e.g., the Pacific
Marine Fisheries Compact in 1947). In the late 1940s and early 1950s, several Latin
American nations proclaimed marine jurisdictions extending 200 miles or further
offshore. This action was denounced by those within the United States and other
distant-water fishing nations who sought to preserve access for far-ranging fishing
vessels. Beginning in the 1950s (Atlantic) and 1960s (Pacific), increasing numbers
of foreign fishing vessels steamed into U.S. offshore waters to catch the substantially
unexploited seafood resources. Since the United States then claimed only a 3-mile
jurisdiction (in 1964, P.L. 88-308 prohibited fishing by foreign-flag vessels within
3 miles of the coast; in 1966, P.L. 89-658 proclaimed an expanded 12-mile exclusive
U.S. fishery jurisdiction), foreign vessels could fish many of the same stocks caught
by U.S. fishermen. U.S. fishermen deplored this “foreign encroachment” and alleged
that overfishing was causing stress on, or outright depletion of, fish stocks.
Protracted Law of the Sea Treaty negotiations in the early and mid-1970s provided
impetus for unilateral U.S. action.
The enactment of the Fishery Conservation and Management Act (FCMA) in
1976 (later renamed the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act and
more recently the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
(MSFCMA; 16 U.S.C. §§1801, et seq.) ushered in a new era of federal marine fishery
management. The FCMA was signed into law on April 13, 1976, after several years
of debate. On March 1, 1977, marine fishery resources within 200 miles of all U.S.
1 For a comprehensive summary of legislation in the 109th Congress on fisheries,
aquaculture, and marine mammals, see CRS Report RL33459, Fishery, Aquaculture, and
Marine Mammal Legislation in the 109th Congress, by Eugene H. Buck.

---

CRS-3
coasts, but outside state jurisdiction, came under federal jurisdiction, and an entirely
new multifaceted regional management system began allocating fishing rights, with
priority given to domestic enterprise.
Primary federal management authority was vested in the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS, also popularly referred to as NOAA Fisheries) within the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the U.S. Department
of Commerce.2 The 200-mile fishery conservation zone was superseded by an
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), proclaimed by President Reagan on March 10,
1983 (Presidential Proclamation 5030).
Eight Regional Fishery Management Councils were created by the FCMA.3
Council members are appointed by the Secretary of Commerce from lists of
candidates knowledgeable of fishery resources, provided by coastal state governors.4
The councils prepare fishery management plans (FMPs) for those fisheries that they
determine require active federal management. After public hearings, revised FMPs
are submitted to the Secretary of Commerce for approval. Approved plans are
implemented through regulations published in the Federal Register. Together these
councils and NMFS have developed and implemented 40 FMPs for various fish and
shellfish resources, with 9 additional plans in various stages of development. Some
plans are created for an individual species or a few related ones (e.g., FMPs for red
drum by the South Atlantic Council and for shrimp by the Gulf of Mexico Council).
Others are developed for larger species assemblages inhabiting similar habitats (e.g.,
FMPs for Gulf of Alaska groundfish by the North Pacific Council and for reef fish
by the Gulf of Mexico Council). Many of the implemented plans have been amended
(one over 30 times), and three have been developed and implemented jointly by two
or more councils. The MSFCMA was reauthorized in the final hours of the 109th
Congress by P.L. 109-479, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Reauthorization Act of 2006.5 The authorization of appropriations in
§7 of this act expires at the end of FY2013.
Today, individual states manage marine fisheries in inshore and coastal waters,
generally within 3 miles of the coast. Interstate coordination occurs through three
regional (Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific) interstate marine fishery commissions, created
by congressionally approved compacts. Beyond state waters, out to 200 miles, the
federal government manages fish and shellfish resources for which FMPs have been
developed under the MSFCMA. Individual states manage fishermen operating state-
registered vessels under state regulations consistent with any existing federal FMP
when fishing in inshore state waters and, in the absence of a federal FMP, wherever
they fish.
2 NMFS programs are described in detail at [http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/].
3 Links to individual Council websites are available at [http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/
councils/].
4 For the 2005 Report to Congress on Council membership, see [http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/
sfa/reg_svcs/Council_Reportocongress/05ReporttoCongress.pdf].
5 A detailed summary of the Sustainable Fisheries Act, including an explanation of issues
and legislative history, can be found at [http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/sfaguide/].

---

CRS-4
Under initial FCMA authority, a substantial portion of the fish catch from
federal offshore waters was allocated to foreign fishing fleets. However, the 1980
American Fisheries Promotion Act (Title II of P.L. 96-561) and other FCMA
amendments orchestrated a decrease in foreign catch allocations as domestic fishing
and processing industries expanded. Foreign catch from the U.S. EEZ declined from
about 3.8 billion pounds in 1977 to zero since 1992. Commensurate with the decline
of foreign catch, domestic offshore catch in federal waters increased dramatically,
from about 1.6 billion pounds (1977) to more than 6.3 billion pounds. Total (U.S.
and foreign) offshore fishery landings from the U.S. EEZ (i.e., federal waters)
increased about 24% between 1977 and 1986-1988 to a peak of 6.65 billion pounds.6
Since this peak, annual landings have declined slightly and stabilized at around 6
billion pounds.
In 2005, U.S. commercial fishermen landed almost 8.0 billion pounds of edible,
unprocessed fish and shellfish from combined state, federal, and international waters,
worth more than $3.8 billion at the dock.7 Imports of mostly processed products
supplied more than 5.1 billion pounds, worth almost $12.1 billion. U.S. consumers
spent an estimated $65.1 billion on edible seafood in 2005, with almost $44.5 billion
of that amount spent in restaurants and other food service establishments. In
addition, marine recreational anglers caught an estimated 423 million fish in 2005,
of which the retained catch was about 254 million pounds.8 In 2001, a nationwide
survey estimated that recreational anglers spent almost $36 billion each year pursuing
their sport.9
NMFS reports annually on the status of fish stocks managed under the
MSFCMA.10 For 2005, NMFS made determinations for 237 fish stocks and
complexes,11 finding that 45 (19%) of them were subject to overfishing12 and 192
(81%) were not. In addition, NMFS made determinations for 206 stocks and
complexes, finding that 54 (26%) were overfished13 and 152 (74%) were not. These
6 This total includes both landings for human food and landings for industrial purposes, e.g.,
bait and animal food, reduction to meal and oil, etc.
7 For additional domestic commercial fishery harvest statistics, see [http://www.st.nmfs.
noaa.gov/st1/commercial/index.html]. Statistics for 2005 are available at [http://www.st.
nmfs.gov/st1/fus/fus05/fus_2005.pdf].
8 Recreational fishing programs at NMFS are discussed at [http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/
recreational/index.html].
9 Details of the 2001 survey can be found at [http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/
fishing.html].
10 See [http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/domes_fish/ReportsToCongress/finalSOS/Report_
text_FINAL3.pdf].
11 NMFS reviewed 530 individual stocks and stock complexes but had insufficient
information to make determinations on all of them.
12 A stock that is subject to overfishing has a fishing mortality (harvest) rate above the level
that provides for the maximum sustainable yield.
13 A stock that is overfished has a biomass level below a biological threshold specified in
(continued...)

---

CRS-5
numbers reflect no change in the overfishing percentages compared to 2004 (when
19% were subject to overfishing) and a slight improvement in the overfished
numbers compared to that year (when 28% were overfished).
In addition, NMFS developed a Fish Stock Sustainability Index (FSSI) in 2005
to evaluate progress nationwide in addressing overfishing.14 Out of a possible
maximum FSSI of 920, this index has increased from 481.5 (third quarter of calendar
year 2005) to 506.5 (fourth quarter of calendar year 2006).
Magnuson-Stevens Act
The MSFCMA was reauthorized in the final hours of the 109th Congress in 2006
by P.L. 109-479, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Reauthorization Act of 2006.15 Some of the major issues addressed by this
comprehensive measure included:
! modifying requirements for the appointment and training of
members of regional councils as well as the conduct of business by
regional council committees and panels to enhance transparency of
the regional council process;
! setting a firm deadline to end overfishing by 2011 and modifying
how depleted fisheries are to be rebuilt;
! increasing the consideration of economic and social impacts in
fishery management;
! modifying research programs and improving data collection and
management;
! increasing protection for deep sea corals and bottom habitat;
! implementing a pilot program of ecosystem-based management;
! promoting new gear technologies to further reduce bycatch;
! establishing national guidelines for individual fishing quota (limited
access privilege) programs;
! modifying regional council fishery management plan procedures,
including better coordinating environmental review under the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. §§4321, et
seq.); and
13 (...continued)
its fishery management plan.
14 FSSI is a performance measure for the sustainability of 230 fish stocks selected for their
importance to commercial and recreational fisheries. The FSSI will increase as overfishing
ends and stocks rebuild to the level that provides maximum sustainable yield. FSSI is
calculated by assigning a score for each fish stock based on rules available at [http://www.
nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/domes_fish/StatusoFisheries/2006/4thQuarter/Q4-2006-FSSI
Description.pdf].
15 For the White House press release, see [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007
/01/print/20070112-3.html]; also see the White House fact sheet at [http://www.whitehouse.
gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070112-1.html].

---

CRS-6
! strengthening the role of science in fishery management
decision-making.16
Implementation of P.L. 109-479. NMFS has prepared a draft of tasks
associated with implementing P.L. 109-479.17 On January 19, 2007, NMFS
published an emergency rule increasing summer flounder total allowable landings for
the 2007 fishing year as provided in §120(a).18 On February 5, 2007, NMFS
published a proposal to amend a Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands crab plan to authorize
conversion of catcher vessel owner quota shares and processor quota shares to newly
created catcher/processor owner quota shares, as directed in §122(a).19 On February
7, 2007, NMFS published a proposed rule that would increase total allocations of
Pacific cod under Alaska’s Community Development Quota program, as required by
§305(i)(1)(B)(ii)(I).20 On February 14, 2007, NMFS published its intent to prepare
an environmental impact statement to analyze alternatives regarding annual catch
limit and accountability measures and other overfishing provisions as required by
§§103(b)(1) and (c)(3) and §§104(a)(10), (b), and (c).21 NMFS has also begun
soliciting public comment on environmental review provisions, as directed in §107.22
On April 12, 2007, NMFS published a definition of illegal, unreported, or
unregulated (IUU) fishing, as directed in §403.23 Additional information on NMFS’s
implementation of P.L. 109-479 can be found at [http://www.nmfs.noaa.
gov/msa2007/].
Congressional Action. In the 110th Congress, H.R. 21 would reorient U.S.
ocean policy (including fisheries), emphasizing ecosystem management, creating a
Council of Advisors on Ocean Policy to advise the President, organizing Regional
Ocean Partnerships, and developing Ocean Ecosystem Resource Information
Systems. H.R. 27 would designate the U.S. EEZ as the “Ronald Wilson Reagan
Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States.” S. 741 would amend the MSFCMA
to establish a grant program to ensure waterfront access for commercial fishermen
and aquaculture operators.
Pacific Salmon
Background. Five species of salmon spawn in Pacific coastal rivers and
lakes, after which juveniles migrate to North Pacific ocean waters where they mature
before returning to freshwater to spawn. Management is complicated because these
16 For additional highlights and commentary on this enactment, see [http://cbbulletin.com/
Free/199763.aspx]; a detailed summary of enacted provisions is available at [http://www.
olemiss.edu/orgs/SGLC/National/Magnuson.pdf].
17 Available at [http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/msa2007/Reauthorization_tasks.pdf].
18 72 Fed. Reg. 2458-2462 (January 19, 2007).
19 72 Fed. Reg. 5255-5257 (February 5, 2007).
20 72 Fed. Reg. 5654-5674 (February 7, 2007).
21 72 Fed. Reg. 7016-7019 (February 14, 2007).
22 See [http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/msa2007/docs/notice_to_public_5.pdf].
23 72 Fed. Reg. 18404-18405 (April 12, 2007).

---

CRS-7
fish may cross several state and national boundaries during their life spans. In
addition to natural environmental fluctuations, threats to salmon include hydropower
dams blocking rivers and creating reservoirs, sport and commercial harvests, habitat
modification by competing resource industries and human development, and
hatcheries seeking to supplement natural production but sometimes unintentionally
causing genetic or developmental concerns. In response to declining salmon
populations in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California, discrete population units
have been listed as endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species
Act.24 On September 13, 2006, a San Joaquin Restoration Settlement Agreement was
announced, ending an 18-year legal dispute over the operation of Friant Dam, CA.
This Agreement provides for river channel improvements and water flow to sustain
Chinook salmon upstream from the confluence of the Merced River tributary while
providing water supply certainty to Friant Division water contractors.
To address some of their concerns about Pacific salmon management, the
United States and Canada negotiated a bilateral agreement on Pacific salmon in 1985.
However, by the mid-1990s, controversy stalled renegotiations to adjust cooperative
management of these fish. This deadlock was resolved in June 1999 when a new
accord was concluded. Annex IV of this bilateral agreement outlines, in detail, the
fishery regimes to be followed by Canada and the United States in cooperatively
managing the six species of anadromous Pacific salmon and trout. Annex IV expires
at the end of 2008 and is to be renegotiated.25
Congressional Action. In the 110th Congress, numerous bills were
introduced to address salmon issues:
! H.R. 24 and S. 27 would authorize the implementation of the San
Joaquin River Restoration Settlement providing for the
reintroduction of chinook salmon; the House Committee on Natural
Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power held a hearing on
H.R. 24 on March 1, 2007.
! H.R. 234, S. 145, Title V of H.R. 925, Title IV, Chapter 2, of H.R.
1591, and Title II, Chapter 2, of S. 965 would appropriate $60.4
million for Pacific salmon emergency disaster assistance; H.R. 1591
was reported by the House Committee on Appropriations on March
20, 2007 (H.Rept. 110-60) and passed by the House on March 23,
2007. The Senate passed H.R. 1591 (amended) on March 29, 2007.
On April 24, 2007, a conference report was filed on H.R. 1591,
providing $60.4 million for Pacific salmon disaster assistance in
24 For additional background on this issue, see CRS Report 98-666, Pacific Salmon and
Anadromous Trout: Management Under the Endangered Species Act, by Eugene H. Buck;
and out-of-print CRS Report RL31546, The Endangered Species Act and Science: The Case
of Pacific Salmon, by Eugene H. Buck, M. Lynne Corn, and Pamela Baldwin, available from
the author at [gbuck@crs.loc.gov].
25 For additional information on the Pacific Salmon Treaty and renegotiation of its Annex
IV, see CRS Report RL30234, The Pacific Salmon Treaty: The 1999 Agreement and
Renegotiation of Annex IV, by Eugene H. Buck.

---

CRS-8
Title III, Chapter 1 (H.Rept. 110-107); this conference report was
agreed to by the House on April 25, 2007.
! S. 264 would authorize federal participation in funding fish passage
improvements at Wallowa Lake Dam, OR; this bill was reported
(amended) on February 16, 2007, by the Senate Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources (S.Rept. 110-23).
! Section 103 of H.R. 860 and S. 493 would designate salmon
restoration areas in California.
! H.Res. 217 would express the sense of the House of Representatives
concerning the 50th anniversary of the flooding of Celilo Falls on the
Columbia River and the changes this action imposed on Native
Americans; the House agreed to this measure on April 17, 2007.
! H.R. 1507 would direct the Secretary of Commerce to seek scientific
analysis of federal efforts to restore salmon and steelhead
populations listed under the Endangered Species Act.
! H.R. 1495 would require a feasibility study of fish passage
improvements in Oregon (§4060) and would increase the
authorization for appropriations for research on Columbia and Snake
River salmon survival, including methods to reduce avian predation
on juvenile salmon (§5022); this bill was reported (amended, new
§4062 and §5023) by the House Committee on Transportation on
March 29, 2007 (H.Rept. 110-80). The House passed this bill
(amended) on April 19, 2007.
! H.R. 1769 would amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act to
authorize taking of California sea lions to reduce their predation on
endangered Columbia River salmon.
Miscellaneous Issues
Invasive Species. Several bills introduced in the 110th Congress focus
primarily on invasive species concerns related to ballast water management:26
! H.R. 801 would amend the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance
Prevention and Control Act of 1990 to require all vessels to
exchange ballast water or use alternative ballast water management
methods before entering any Great Lakes port.
! Title I of H.R. 889 would amend the Nonindigenous Aquatic
Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 to establish vessel
ballast water management requirements; the remainder of the bill
focuses on improving coordination among various national and
international efforts at invasive species control.
! While §101 of H.R. 1350, Title I of S. 725, and §111 of S. 791 focus
primarily on ballast water management, the remainder of each bill
would authorize various research, development, and demonstration
programs to address invasive species concerns, with H.R. 1350 and
S. 791 focusing on the Great Lakes region.
26 For additional information on ballast water management, see CRS Report RL32344,
Ballast Water Management to Combat Invasive Species, by Eugene H. Buck.

---

CRS-9
Additional bills address are more comprehensive and address other invasive species
concerns:
! H.R. 83 and S. 726 would amend the Lacey Act to add four species
of carp to the list of injurious species that are prohibited from being
imported or shipped.
! H.R. 260 would authorize various marine and freshwater research,
development, and demonstration programs to address invasive
species concerns.
! H.R. 553 and S. 336 would direct the Army Corps of Engineers to
operate and maintain a system of dispersal barriers in the Chicago
Sanitary and Ship Canal.
! H.R. 767 would authorize grants to control harmful nonnative
species at national wildlife refuges to protect and restore native fish
and their habitat.
Climate Change. Section 202(b)(5) of H.R. 620 and S. 280 would fund
efforts to strengthen and restore habitat to improve the ability of fish to adapt
successfully to climate change; Section 301 of H.R. 620 would also amend the
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. §§1451, et seq.) to require the
Secretary of Commerce to prepare a report on the observed and projected effects of
climate change on marine life, habitat, and commercial and recreational fisheries. S.
317 and S. 1177 would amend the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. §§7401, et seq.) to
create a Climate Action Trust Fund, funding (among many programs) efforts to
identify coastal and marine resources (such as coral reefs, submerged aquatic
vegetation, shellfish beds, and other coastal or marine ecosystems) at greatest risk of
damage by climate change; to monitor for impacts; and to restore damaged resources.
S. 485 would amend the Clean Air Act to direct the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency to study ocean acidification and the ways that
process affects ocean ecosystems and U.S. fisheries.
Habitat Restoration. H.R. 17, S. 380, and S. 779 would amend the Secure
Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-393) to
reauthorize federal funding for projects to protect, restore, and enhance fish habitat.
S. 424 would direct the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to implement the Penobscot
River Restoration Project, benefitting endangered Atlantic salmon and shortnose
sturgeon. Section 1006 of H.R. 1495 identifies more than two dozen aquatic habitat
restoration projects to be studied by the Army Corps of Engineers; this bill was
reported (amended) by the House Committee on Transportation on March 29, 2007
(H.Rept. 110-80), and passed by the House (amended) on April 19, 2007. Section
106(d) of H.R. 1551 and S. 919 would amend the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program
to direct more attention to fish habitat. S. 1029 would amend the Food Security Act
of 1985 to provide incentives to landowners to protect and improve stream habitat.
Assistance. Title II, Chapter 2, of H.R. 1591 would appropriate $120 million
for assisting the Gulf of Mexico menhaden and shrimp fishing industries to recover
from Hurricane Katrina; this bill was reported by the House Committee on
Appropriations on March 20, 2007 (H.Rept. 110-60). The House passed H.R. 1591
on March 23, 2007. Title II, Chapter 2, of S. 965 would appropriate $105.5 million

---

CRS-10
for assisting the Gulf of Mexico shrimp and fishing industries to recover from
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita as well as $50 million for a Fisheries Disaster Mitigation
Fund; this bill was reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations on March
22, 2007 (S.Rept. 110-37). On March 29, 2007, the Senate passed H.R. 1591
(amended), incorporating the provisions of S. 965. On April 24, 2007, a conference
report was filed on H.R. 1591, providing $110 million for assisting the Gulf of
Mexico shrimp and fishing industries to recover from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita
(H.Rept. 110-107); this conference report was agreed to by the House on April 25,
2007.
Coral. S. 485 and H.R. 1590 would direct the National Academy of Sciences
to assess the probability of a loss of more than 40% of world coral reefs because of
increased ocean temperature or acidity. H.R. 1205 would reauthorize the Coral Reef
Conservation Act of 2000; on March 6, 2007, the House Natural Resources
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans held a hearing on this bill. H.R.
1679 would seek to protect Florida coral reefs and other coastal marine resources
from Cuban petroleum exploration and development.
Great Lakes. H.R. 469 would authorize the Great Lakes Fishery Commission
to investigate the effects of migratory birds on fish stock productivity. Section 5012
of H.R. 1495 would allow nonfederal participants in Great Lakes fisheries restoration
to provide as much as 100% of their nonfederal share through in-kind contributions;
this bill was reported (amended) by the House Committee on Transportation on
March 29, 2007 (H.Rept. 110-80), and passed by the House (amended) on April 19,
2007.
Recreational Fishing. Section 1(c) of S. 307 would amend §9 of the Flood
Control Act of 1944 to include maintenance of a healthy fishery on the Bighorn
River, MT, downstream from the Yellowtail Dam as one of the authorized purposes
of the Yellowtail Unit of the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin Program. H.R. 611
would amend the Social Security Act to eliminate the requirement that states collect
Social Security numbers from applicants for recreational licenses.
Hydropower and Water Projects. Section 6 of S. 564 and §2014 of H.R.
1495 would amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662; 33
U.S.C. §§2201 et seq.) to modify requirements for mitigating aquatic resource losses
at Army Corps of Engineers projects. H.R. 1495 was reported (amended) by the
House Committee on Transportation on March 29, 2007 (H.Rept. 110-80), and
passed by the House (amended) on April 19, 2007.
Hypoxia and Algal Blooms. H.R. 1091 would reauthorize the Harmful
Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998 through FY2010. As
reported by the House Committee on Transportation on March 29, 2007 (H.Rept.
110-80), §5019 of H.R. 1495 would authorize the Army Corps of Engineers to
participate in assessing hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. The House passed H.R. 1495
(amended) on April 19, 2007.
Seafood Safety and Nutrition. Section 102 of H.R. 1148 and S. 654 would
consolidate food safety and inspection programs, including seafood inspection.
Section 3 of H.R. 1533 and §4 of S. 843 would establish a interagency national

---

CRS-11
mercury monitoring program, with provisions in subsection (d) focusing on aquatic
plants and animals. H.Con.Res. 125 would express the sense of Congress in
recognizing the health benefits of eating seafood as part of a balanced diet, and
supporting the goals and ideals of National Seafood Month.
Oysters. Section 1005(6) of H.R. 1495 directs the Army Corps of Engineers
to study improving the environmental quality of Delaware Bay for oyster restoration;
this bill was reported (amended) by the House Committee on Transportation on
March 29, 2007 (H.Rept. 110-80), and passed by the House (amended) on April 19,
2007.
National Marine Sanctuaries. Section 7(d)(8) of H.R. 1187 would promote
cooperative research and education efforts with commercial fishermen operating
within the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary, the Cordell Bank
National Marine Sanctuary, and the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary.
Health Care. Section 2 of H.R. 241, §202 of H.R. 324, and §101 of H.R. 1012
would amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA; P.L.
93-406; 29 U.S.C. §§1001, et seq.) to authorize fishing industry associations to
provide health care plans for association members.
International Fisheries. H.Con.Res. 94 would express the sense of
Congress encouraging the elimination of subsidies that contribute to commercial
fishing fleet overcapacity worldwide and lead to the overfishing.
Marketing. H.R. 167 and H.R. 293 would provide assistance for the
construction, improvement, and rehabilitation of farmers markets, including those
selling local aquaculture and commercial fishing products.
Trade. Section 321(b) of S. 122 and §501(b) of H.R. 910 would amend the
Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2271, et seq.) to clarify that commercial fishermen are
eligible for trade adjustment assistance.
Vessel Safety. S. 687 would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
provide a business credit against income for purchasing fishing safety equipment.
Aquaculture: Background and Issues
Aquaculture is broadly defined as the farming or husbandry of fish, shellfish,
and other aquatic animals and plants, usually in a controlled or selected
environment.27 The diversity of aquaculture is typified by such activities as: fish
farming, usually applied to freshwater commercial aquaculture operations (e.g.,
27 For more background information, see CRS Report RL32694, Open Ocean Aquaculture,
by Rachel Borgatti and Eugene H. Buck, and out-of-print CRS Report 97-436, Aquaculture
and the Federal Role, by Geoffrey S. Becker and Eugene H. Buck, available from the author
at [gbuck@crs.loc.gov].

---

CRS-12
catfish and trout farms);28 shellfish and seaweed culture; net-pen culture, used by the
salmon industry, wherein fish remain captive throughout their lives in marine pens
built from nets; and ocean ranching, used by the Pacific Coast salmon industry,
whereby juvenile salmon are cultured, released to mature in the open ocean, and
caught when they return as adults to spawn. Fish hatcheries can be either publicly
or privately operated to raise fish for recreational and commercial stocking as well
as to mitigate aquatic resource and habitat damage.
The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has characterized
aquaculture as one of the world’s fastest growing food production activities. World
aquaculture production more than doubled in 10 years, from about 10 million metric
tons in 1984 to 25.5 million metric tons in 1994; by 2002, global aquaculture
production had reached almost 40 million metric tons. By mid-2006, FAO estimated
that 43% of all fish consumed by humans came from aquaculture.29 The FAO
predicts that world aquaculture production could exceed 130 million metric tons by
2030.30
U.S. aquaculture, until recently and with a few exceptions, has been considered
a minor industry. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 2005 Census of Aquaculture
reported that U.S. sales of aquaculture products had reached nearly $1.1 billion, with
more than half this value produced in Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, and
Mississippi.31 Despite considerable growth, the domestic aquaculture industry faces
strong competition from imports of foreign aquacultural products, from the domestic
poultry and livestock industries, and from wild harvests.32 With growth, however,
aquaculture operations face increasing scrutiny for habitat destruction, pollution, and
other concerns. The major statute affecting U.S. aquaculture is the National
Aquaculture Act of 1980, as amended (16 U.S.C. §§2801 et seq.).
In November 2006, NOAA released a draft 10-year plan for its marine
aquaculture program.33 The 110th Congress may consider legislation the
Administration has drafted to modify the regulatory environment to promote the
development of U.S. offshore, open-ocean aquaculture.
Congressional Action
Assistance. S. 741 would amend the MSFCMA to establish a grant program
to ensure waterfront access for aquaculture operators. Section 3109 of H.R. 1591
28 For statistics on freshwater production, see [http://www.usda.gov/nass/pubs/stathigh/
2002/livestock02.pdf].
29 For more details, see [http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000383/index.html].
30 For more discussion of FAO projections for 2030, see Part 3 of [http://www.fao.org/
docrep/007/y5600e/y5600e00.htm].
31 See [http://www.nass.usda.gov/aquaculture/index.asp].
32 For the latest information on domestic production and statistics, see [http://usda.mannlib.
cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1375].
33 Available at [http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/mediacenter/aquaculture/plan.htm].

---

CRS-13
would appropriate $5 million for the Department of Agriculture to compensate
aquaculture operators for losses due to limitations on fish transport in the Great
Lakes region to combat outbreaks of viral hemorrhagic septicemia; this bill was
reported by the House Committee on Appropriations on March 20, 2007 (H.Rept.
110-60). The House passed H.R. 1591 on March 23, 2007. On March 29, 2007, the
Senate passed H.R. 1591 (amended), without the aquaculture operator compensation
provision. On April 24, 2007, a conference report was filed on H.R. 1591, without
the aquaculture operator compensation provision (H.Rept. 110-107); this conference
report was agreed to by the House on April 25, 2007.
Open Ocean Aquaculture. S. 533 would amend the National Aquaculture
Act of 1980 to prohibit issuing marine aquaculture facility permits until permit
requirements are enacted. H.R. 2010 would authorize the Secretary of Commerce to
establish and implement a regulatory system for offshore aquaculture.
National Marine Sanctuaries. Section 6(b) of H.R. 1187 would prohibit
most aquaculture in the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary, the
Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary, and the Monterey Bay National Marine
Sanctuary.
National Aquaculture Act Reauthorization. S. 1094 would reauthorize
the National Aquaculture Act through FY2014 (§379) and reauthorize various
regional aquaculture research centers through FY2014 (§318).
Marketing. H.R. 167 and H.R. 293 would provide assistance for the
construction, improvement, and rehabilitation of farmers markets, including those
selling local aquaculture and commercial fishing products.
Turtles. H.R. 924 and S. 540 would require the Food and Drug Administration
to permit the sale of baby turtles as pets so long as the seller uses proven methods to
effectively treat Salmonella.
Food Safety. H.R. 1148 and S. 654 would establish a Food Safety
Administration, with food production facilities defined as including aquaculture
facilities in §3(14).
Asian Carp. H.R. 83 would amend the Lacey Act to add four species of carp
to the list of injurious species that are prohibited from being imported or shipped.
Marine Mammals: Background and Issues
In 1972, Congress enacted the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA; 16
U.S.C. 1361, et seq.), due in part to the high level of dolphin mortality (estimated at
more than 400,000 animals per year) in the eastern tropical Pacific tuna purse-seine
fishery. While some critics assert that the MMPA is scientifically irrational because
it identifies one group of organisms for special protection unrelated to their
abundance or ecological role, supporters note that the MMPA has accomplished
much by way of promoting research and increased understanding of marine life as

---

CRS-14
well as encouraging attention to incidental bycatch mortalities of marine life by the
commercial fishing and other maritime industries.
The MMPA established a moratorium on the “taking” of marine mammals in
U.S. waters and by U.S. nationals on the high seas. It also established a moratorium
on importing marine mammals and marine mammal products into the United States.
The MMPA protected marine mammals from “clubbing, mutilation, poisoning,
capture in nets, and other human actions that lead to extinction.” It also expressly
authorized the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of the Interior to issue
permits for the “taking” of marine mammals for certain purposes, such as scientific
research and public display.
Under the MMPA, the Secretary of Commerce, acting through NMFS, is
responsible for the conservation and management of whales, dolphins, porpoises,
seals, and sea lions. The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS), is responsible for walruses, sea and marine otters, polar
bears, manatees, and dugongs. This division of authority derives from agency
responsibilities as they existed when the MMPA was enacted. Title II of the MMPA
established an independent Marine Mammal Commission (MMC) and its Committee
of Scientific Advisors on Marine Mammals to oversee and recommend actions
necessary to meet the requirements of the act.
Prior to passage of the MMPA, states were responsible for marine mammal
management on lands and in waters under their jurisdiction. The MMPA shifted
marine mammal management authority to the federal government. It provides,
however, that management authority, on a species-by-species basis, could be returned
to states that adopt conservation and management programs consistent with the
purposes and policies of the MMPA. It also provides that the moratorium on taking
can be waived for specific purposes, if the taking will not disadvantage the affected
species or population. Permits may be issued to take or import any marine mammal
species, including depleted species, for scientific research or to enhance the survival
or recovery of the species or stock. The MMPA allows U.S. citizens to apply for and
obtain authorization for taking small numbers of mammals incidental to activities
other than commercial fishing (e.g., offshore oil and gas exploration and
development) if the taking would have only a negligible impact on any marine
mammal species or stock, provided that monitoring requirements and other
conditions are met.
The MMPA’s moratorium on taking does not apply to any Native American
(Indian, Aleut, or Eskimo) who resides in Alaska near the coast of the North Pacific
(including the Bering Sea) or Arctic Ocean (including the Chukchi and Beaufort
Seas), if such taking is for subsistence purposes or for creating and selling authentic
Native articles of handicrafts and clothing, and is not done wastefully.
The MMPA also authorizes the taking of marine mammals incidental to
commercial fishing operations. In 1988, most U.S. commercial fish harvesters were
exempted from otherwise applicable rulemaking and permit requirements for a five-
year period, pending development of an improved system to govern the incidental
taking of marine mammals in the course of commercial fishing operations. This
exemption expired at the end of FY1993, and was extended several times until new
provisions were enacted in 1994 by P.L. 103-238, which reauthorized the MMPA

---

CRS-15
through FY1999. The eastern tropical Pacific tuna fishery was excluded from the
incidental take regimes enacted in 1988 and 1994. Instead, the taking of marine
mammals incidental to that fishery is governed by separate provisions of the MMPA,
and was substantially amended in 1997 by P.L. 105-42, the International Dolphin
Conservation Program Act.
Section 319 of P.L. 108-136 amended the MMPA to provide a broad exemption
for “national defense.” This section also amended the definition of “harassment” of
marine mammals, as it applies to military readiness activities, to require greater
scientific evidence of harm, and the consideration of impacts on military readiness
in the issuance of permits for incidental takings. On January 23, 2007, the
Department of Defense announced the authorization of a two-year exemption under
these provisions for mid-frequency active sonar use.34
Marine Mammal Protection Act Reauthorization
Background. The MMPA was reauthorized by P.L. 103-238, the Marine
Mammal Protection Act Amendments of 1994; the authorization for appropriations
expired on September 30, 1999. The 1994 amendments indefinitely authorized the
taking of marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing operations and provided
for assessing marine mammal stocks in U.S. waters, for developing and
implementing take-reduction plans for stocks that may be reduced or are being
maintained below their optimum sustainable population levels due to interactions
with commercial fisheries, and for studying pinniped-fishery interactions.35
Congressional Action. In the 109th Congress, several bills were introduced,
proposing to extensively amend the MMPA and authorize appropriations for several
marine mammal programs. Although the House passed H.R. 4075 (amended), no
further action was taken before 109th Congress adjourned. The 110th Congress may
again consider measures to amend and reauthorize the MMPA as well as bills to
address specific marine mammal regulatory and management issues.36
In the 110th Congress, H.R. 1006 would amend the MMPA to modify provisions
relating to the John H. Prescott Marine Mammal Rescue Assistance Grant Program,
including reauthorizing funding for the Marine Mammal Unusual Mortality Event
Fund; the House passed this bill on March 19, 2007. H.R. 1007 would amend the
MMPA to repeal the long-term goal for reducing the incidental mortality and serious
injury of marine mammals to zero in commercial fishing operations, and to modify
the goal of take reduction plans for reducing such takings. H.R. 1769 would amend
the MMPA to authorize taking of California sea lions to reduce their predation on
endangered Columbia River salmon.
34 See [http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=27415].
35 For more background and information on the 1994 amendments, see out-of-print CRS
Report 94-751 ENR, Marine Mammal Protection Act Amendments of 1994, by Eugene H.
Buck, available from the author at [gbuck@crs.loc.gov].
36 For additional background on potential reauthorization issues, see CRS Report RL30120,
The Marine Mammal Protection Act: Reauthorization Issues, by Eugene H. Buck.

---

CRS-16
Miscellaneous Issues
Climate Change. Section 202(b)(5) of H.R. 620 and S. 280 would fund
efforts to strengthen and restore habitat to improve the ability of wildlife to adapt
successfully to climate change; Section 301 of H.R. 620 would also amend the
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. §§1451, et seq.) to require the
Secretary of Commerce to prepare a report on the observed and projected effects of
climate change on marine life and habitat. Section 101 of S. 317 would amend the
Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. §§7401, et seq.) to create a Climate Action Trust Fund,
funding (among many programs) efforts to identify coastal and marine resources
(such as coral reefs, submerged aquatic vegetation, shellfish beds, and other coastal
or marine ecosystems) at greatest risk of damage by climate change; to monitor for
impacts; and to restore damaged resources.
Canadian Seal Hunt. S.Res. 115 and S.Res. 118 would express the sense of
the Senate that Canada halt its commercial seal hunt.
Table 1. NMFS Appropriations
(in thousands of dollars)
FY2006
FY2007
FY2007
FY2007
FY2008
Enacted
Request
Hse Pas’d
Sen Rptd
Request
Fisheries
352,585
347,023
317,600
436,261
402,096
Protected Resources
145,039
144,924
108,000
180,991
165,095
Habitat Conservation
46,629
39,896
40,000
56,927
50,415
Enforcement Surveillance
72,675
80,697
73,500
84,500
86,973
SUBTOTAL
667,226a
648,988a
539,100
813,679a
704,579
Procurement, Acquisition,
30,444
0
0
0
0
and Construction
Pacific Coastal Salmon
66,571
66,825
20,000
90,000
66,825
Recovery
Other Accounts
39,579
21,088
287
0
24,550
TOTAL
803,820
736,901
559,387
903,679
795,954
Sources: Budget Justifications, House and Senate Committee Reports, and floor debate.
a. Includes funds for “Alaska Composite Research and Development Program” — $50.3 million for
FY2006; the Administration’s FY2007 request was $36.45 million; the FY2007 Senate-reported
amount was $55 million.
NMFS Appropriations
On February 6, 2006, the Bush Administration requested FY2007 funds for
federal agencies and programs, including $736.9 million for NMFS. (See Table 1.)
In the 109th Congress, H.R. 5672, proposing NMFS FY2007 funding at $559.4
million, was reported by the House Committee on Appropriations on June 22, 2006
(H.Rept. 109-520), and passed (amended) the House on June 29, 2006. According
to NOAA calculations, FY2007 funding for NMFS would decline by approximately
28%, or $156 million below the current funding level, if the House-passed approach

---

CRS-17
were enacted. Such a reduction would “force NOAA to close critical fisheries,
terminate protected species programs and terminate the Seafood Quality and Safety
Program, costing billions in economic losses and increasing the cost of seafood to US
consumers,” according to NOAA’s impact statement. Large reductions in funding
for NOAA are inconsistent with the recommendations of the U.S. Commission on
Ocean Policy and the Pew Oceans Commission.37 The chairs of these commissions,
Admiral James D. Watkins and Leon E. Panetta, issued a joint letter expressing their
concern that the proposed funding cuts are being imposed at a time when there is
clear recognition of the growing number and severity of problems compromising the
health and associated economic benefits generated by our oceans, coasts, and Great
Lakes. On July 13, 2006, the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported H.R.
5672 (amended), proposing NMFS FY2007 funding at $903.7 million (S.Rept. 109-
280). No further action was taken by the 109th Congress.
Since the 109th Congress did not enact FY2007 appropriations for NMFS/
NOAA, funding for these programs has been provided under a continuing resolution
(P.L. 110-5) for all of FY2007. This continuing resolution funds NMFS programs
for FY2007 at enacted FY2006 levels, with certain exclusions, minus an agency-wide
1.28% funding rescission.
On February 5, 2007, the Bush Administration released its FY2008 budget
request, including almost $796 million for NMFS. The FY2008 request for funding
for NMFS under the Operations, Research, and Facilities (OR&F) Account is $37.4
million (5.6%) above the funding enacted for FY2006. However, total NMFS
funding would decrease by $7.9 million (1.0%) from that enacted for FY2006,
primarily due to decreases in Procurement, Acquisitions, and Construction. Major
increases requested in excess of enacted FY2006 funding in NMFS’s portion of the
OR&F Account include:
! Fisheries Research and Management Programs:
+ $27.7 million
! Pacific Salmon Management Activities:
+ $11.4 million
! Survey and Monitoring Projects:
+ $10.7 million
! Observers/Training:
+ $9.1 million
! Protected Species Research and Management:
+ $8.5 million
! Improve Stock Assessments & Data Collection:
+ $7.9 million
! Economics & Social Science Research:
+ $6.5 million
Major decreases requested from enacted FY2006 funding include:
! Alaska Composite Research & Development:
- $50.3 million
! Hurricane supplemental:
- $17.1 million
! Cooperative Research:
- $8.9 million
! Other Projects:
- $6.1 million
! Marine Turtles:
- $3.6 million
37 The final report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy is available at [http://www.
oceancommission.gov/documents/full_color_rpt/welcome.html]; the final report of the Pew
Oceans Commission is available at [http://www.pewtrusts.org/pdf/env_pew_oceans_final_
report.pdf].

---

CRS-18
Some of these apparent changes in FY2008 funding may represent a reallocation of
the “Alaska Composite Research & Development” funding back into more generic
programs/activities.
crsphpgw

---