Order Code RL34209
Commercial Fishery Disaster Assistance
Updated May 2, 2008
Harold F. Upton
Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division

---

Commercial Fishery Disaster Assistance
Summary
Disaster relief may be provided by the federal government to assist the fishing
industry when it is affected by a commercial fishery failure. A commercial fishery
failure occurs when fishermen endure hardships resulting from fish population
declines or other disruptions to the fishery. The Department of Commerce can
provide disaster assistance under either § 308 of the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act
(16 U.S.C. § 4107), as amended, or § 312(a) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C § 1861(a)). The National Marine
Fisheries Service plays a central role in determining whether a disaster has occurred
and in allocating federal funding to states and affected fishing communities.
Congress plays a pivotal role by appropriating funds and providing oversight of the
process.
Fisheries are subject to environmental variability that may affect the fishery
resource and/or commercial infrastructure such as boats, shoreside processing, and
market infrastructure. Since 1994, federal fishery failures have been declared on 22
occasions and nearly $560 million in federal funding has been appropriated for
fishery disaster relief. Funds have been allocated to fisheries of the North Pacific,
Pacific Northwest, Gulf of Mexico, and the East Coast. Recent cases include Gulf
of Mexico fisheries in the wake of hurricanes Katrina and Rita and the West Coast
salmon troll fishery, where strict harvest limits were imposed in response to declines
of Klamath River Chinook salmon. On May 1, 2008, another commercial fishery
failure was declared for the West Coast salmon troll fishery because of the recent
collapse of the Sacramento River fall Chinook salmon population.
Direct federal financial assistance has been provided to fishermen and fishing
communities in the form of grants, job retraining, employment, and low interest
loans. Assistance has also included fishery data collection, research, and fishing
capacity reduction programs to prevent or lessen the effects of future disruptions to
fisheries. However, critics contend that disaster assistance programs often fall short
of expectations because sometimes funds are not disbursed in a timely manner,
ambiguities complicate the definition of a fishery failure, relief may not be integrated
with long-term fishery management objectives, and funds may not reach the people
who are in the greatest need of assistance.

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Program Requirements and Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
MSFCMA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
IFA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
MSFCMA Regional Coastal Disaster Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Small Business Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Fishery Disaster Declarations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
State Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Fishing Capacity Reduction Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Recent Actions by NOAA and Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Gulf of Mexico Fisheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
West Coast Salmon Ocean Troll Fishery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Recent Actions by NMFS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
New England Multispecies Fishery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Timing of Relief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Long-Term Management Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Defining Fishery Failures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Who Benefits? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
List of Tables
Table 1. Fishery Failure Causes, Types of Assistance, and Use of Funds . . . . . . . 2
Table 2. Fishery Failure Declarations Since 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Table 3. Assistance Provided for Commercial Fishery Resource Disasters
by Fishery Disaster and Year of Appropriation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

---

Commercial Fishery Disaster Assistance
Introduction
Disaster relief may be provided by the federal government to assist the fishing
industry when it is affected by a commercial fishery failure. A commercial fishery
failure occurs when fishermen endure hardships resulting from fish population
declines or other disruptions to the fishery. The Department of Commerce can
provide disaster assistance under either § 308 of the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act
(IFA; 16 U.S.C. § 4107), as amended, or § 312(a) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA; 16 U.S.C § 1861(a)). The National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) plays a central role in determining whether a
disaster has occurred and in allocating federal funding to states and affected fishing
communities. Congress plays a pivotal role by appropriating funds and providing
oversight of the process.
Fisheries are subject to environmental variability that may affect the fishery
resource and/or commercial infrastructure such as boats, shoreside processing, and
market infrastructure. Since 1994, federal fishery failures have been declared on 22
occasions and nearly $560 million in federal funding has been appropriated for
fishery disaster relief. Funds have been allocated to fisheries of the North Pacific,
Pacific Northwest, Gulf of Mexico, and the East Coast. Direct financial assistance
has been provided to fishermen and fishing communities in the form of grants, job
retraining, employment, and low interest loans. Assistance has also included fishery
data collection, research and fishing capacity reduction programs to prevent or lessen
the effects of future disruptions to fisheries. The most recent cases involved Gulf of
Mexico fisheries in the wake of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and the West Coast
salmon troll fishery where strict limits were imposed in response to declines of
Klamath River Chinook salmon. Several issues related to fishery disaster relief
include timing relief disbursements to meet critical needs, integrating relief with
long-term management objectives, defining and declaring a fishery failure, and
reaching people who may be in the greatest need of relief.
Program Requirements and Procedures

The Department of Commerce can provide disaster assistance under either the
MSFCMA or the IFA.1 Differences exist under each law with regard to the causes
of a fishery failure, and the use of funds (see Table 1). Several recent fishery failures
1 See the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Fishery Disaster Assistance
website at [http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/mb/financial_services/disaster.htm].

---

CRS-2
have been declared under both laws, providing program managers greater latitude in
matching relief with the needs of recipients.
Table 1. Fishery Failure Causes, Types of Assistance,
and Use of Funds

Section
Fishery Failure Causes
Types of Assistance and Use
§ 312(a)
Fishery resource disaster as a result
(1) assessment of the social and
of
of —
economic effects of the failure
MSFCMA
(1) natural causes
(2) assistance to the community
(2) man-made causes beyond the
(3) projects to restore the fishery
control of fishery managers to
or prevent reoccurrence of a
mitigate through conservation and
similar failure
management measures, including
(4) federal share of assistance
regulatory restrictions imposed to
cannot be greater than 75%
protect human health or the marine
environment
(3) undetermined causes
§ 308(b)
Fishery resource disaster arising
(1) restore a fishery affected by
of IFA
from —
a fishery failure;
(1) natural causes
(2) prevent a future fishery
(2) undetermined causes
failure
(3) federal share of funding is
limited to 75% of costs
§ 308(d)
Fishery resource disaster arising
(1) direct assistance to
of IFA
from —
fishermen;
(1) natural disasters such as a
(2) indirect assistance through
hurricane
state agencies, local
government, and nonprofit
organizations
(3) no limit on the federal share
of costs
§ 315 of
Regional fishery disaster —
(1) activities authorized under
MSFCMA
(1) results in economic losses to the
either MSFCMA or IFA
coastal or fishing communities
(2) the Secretary may waive
(2) affects more than one state or a
matching requirements if no
major fishery managed by a Council
reasonable means are available
or interstate fishery commission
for meeting the match and the
(3) is determined by the Secretary to
probable benefit of federal
be a commercial fishery failure
financing outweighs the public
under § 312(a) of MSFCMA or
interest in imposing the match
fishery resource disaster under §
308(d) of IFA
MSFCMA. In 1996, MSFCMA was amended to include a new section focusing
on a transition to sustainable fisheries. This section includes subsection 312(a) to
provide fishery disaster relief when fishery failures occur, especially for those
fisheries in need of stock rebuilding. Under § 312(a), the process is started at the

---

CRS-3
discretion of the Secretary of Commerce, at the request of the Governor of an
affected state, or at the request of a fishing community. The Secretary then
determines whether a commercial fishery failure has occurred due to a fishery
resource disaster resulting from:
! natural causes;
! man-made causes beyond the control of fishery managers to mitigate
through conservation and management measures, including
regulatory restrictions imposed to protect human health or the
marine environment; or
! undetermined causes.
Requests usually contain information describing the alleged fishery failure.
Although guidelines for handling requests are not codified in rule, the Secretary
typically directs the appropriate Regional Administrator for NMFS to collect and
analyze required information such as the historical context, the biological and
economic magnitude of the disaster, and the relationship between underlying causes
and the alleged fishery failure.2 Depending on the circumstances, states may provide
most of these data and the related analysis. The Secretary uses the information to
determine whether or not the situation constitutes a fishery failure. Once the
Secretary declares that a fishery failure has occurred, Congress may use the
MSFCMA as a means to provide funds for financial assistance to harvesters and
other affected parties.
After funds are appropriated, the Secretary would make relief available to the
affected state or fishing community, often through state agencies. Funding under the
MSFCMA may be used to address a broad variety of needs including assessment of
the social and economic effects of the failure, assistance to the community, and
projects to restore the fishery or prevent reoccurrence of a similar failure. Before
releasing funds the Secretary must also determine that relief activities would not
expand the size and scope of the failure in that fishery, other fisheries, or affect
fisheries in other geographic regions. The federal share of assistance carried out
under the MSFCMA cannot be greater than 75% of the cost of relief activities.

IFA. IFA was enacted in 1986 to distribute federal funds to states for
developing interstate fishery research programs. Under IFA, funds are authorized to
provide assistance for a commercial fishery failure in § 308(b) and § 308(d). Under
§ 308(b), the causes of a commercial fishery failure or serious disruption to future
production due to a fishery resource disaster include natural and undetermined
causes. In § 308(d), fishery resource disasters are referred to as natural disasters.
The definition of a fishery resource disaster appears to be broader under the
MSFCMA because human-related causes are also included. Otherwise, the process
of collecting information and determining whether a failure has occurred is similar
under both laws.
2 NMFS Procedures and Guidance for Disaster Assistance Under Magnuson-Stevens Act
312(a) and Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act 308(b) and 308(d) can be found at
[http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/directives/].

---

CRS-4
IFA funding under § 308(b) may be used by states alone or by the Secretary in
cooperation with the states. Funding may be provided for any purpose the Secretary
determines as appropriate to restore a fishery affected by a fishery failure or to
prevent a future fishery failure. Under § 308(b), funds may not be used for grants to
charter fishing vessels, and the federal share of activity funding is limited to 75% of
costs. Funding under § 308(d) of IFA may be used to provide direct assistance to
fishermen or to provide assistance indirectly through state agencies, local
government, and nonprofit organizations. In contrast to the MSFCMA and § 308(b)
of IFA, there is no limit on the federal share of costs under § 308(d). Section 308(d)
also outlines the conditions under which funding may be used for other activities
such as fishing capacity reduction programs. These programs include fishing vessel
buybacks, gear reduction, or fishing permit retirement. Funding under both
MSFCMA and IFA is usually appropriated by Congress as needs arise, rather than
in anticipation of future needs.
MSFCMA Regional Coastal Disaster Assistance. In 2006, MSFCMA
was amended to include the Regional Coastal Disaster Assistance, Transition, and
Recovery Program. When a catastrophic regional fishery disaster occurs, the
Secretary may establish a regional program to provide immediate disaster relief
assistance to fishermen, charter fishing operators, U.S. fish processors, and owners
of related fishery infrastructure. A catastrophic regional fishery disaster is defined
as a natural disaster, such as a hurricane or tsunami, or a regulatory closure to protect
human health or the marine environment. A catastrophic regional fishery disaster is
an event that:
! results in economic losses to the coastal or fishing communities;
! affects more than one state or a major fishery managed by a Council3
or interstate fishery commission; and
! is determined by the Secretary to be a commercial fishery failure
under § 312(a) of MSFCMA or as a fishery resource disaster under
§ 308(d) of IFA of 1986.
Within two months after a catastrophic regional fishery disaster, the Secretary
is required to provide the Governor of each participating state with a comprehensive
economic and socioeconomic evaluation of the region’s fisheries. The evaluation
would assess the current and future economic viability of affected fisheries including
the economic impact of foreign fish imports and direct, indirect, or environmental
impacts of the disaster on the fishery and coastal communities. Subject to the
availability of appropriations, the program would provide funds for infrastructure
needs, job training assistance, fishing capacity reduction, and for other activities
authorized under either MSFCMA or IFA. Under the Regional Coastal Disaster
3 Eight regional Fishery Management Councils were created by the Fishery Conservation
and Management Act, later renamed the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management
Act and more recently the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
Council members are appointed by the Secretary of Commerce from lists of candidates
knowledgeable of fishery resources, provided by state governors. The councils prepare
fishery management plans (FMPs) for those fisheries that occur primarily within the federal
waters of the Exclusive Economic Zone (3-200 nautical miles from shore). Links to
individual Council websites are available at [http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/].

---

CRS-5
Assistance, Transition, and Recovery Program, the Secretary may waive the matching
requirements if no reasonable means are available for meeting the match, and the
probable benefit of 100% federal financing outweighs the public interest in imposing
the match.
Small Business Administration. When businesses suffer economic
injuries from a disaster, the Small Business Administration (SBA) may also
determine whether a disaster declaration is warranted.4 For example, when red tide
required closure of the Maine shellfish fishery in 2005, SBA evaluated the impact on
small businesses and determined a disaster declaration was justified. The declaration
makes affected businesses eligible for Economic Injury Disaster Loans.5 The purpose
of the loan program is to provide working capital at low interest rates to assist in the
recovery of businesses harmed by a disaster.
Fishery Disaster Declarations

Since 1994, the Secretary of Commerce has declared 22 fishery resource
disasters. During this period Congress has appropriated nearly $560 million for
fishery disaster relief. Table 2 provides a list of fishery disasters and funds
appropriated by Congress for each.
Fishery resource disasters are diverse both with respect to their causes and
scope. Most declarations have resulted from natural events such as hurricanes,
floods, changes in ocean conditions, or algal blooms such as red tide. Hurricanes
may damage fishing industry infrastructure in coastal areas such as vessels, docks,
fish houses, and related services. Even if the resource remains abundant, harvesting,
processing, and transport to markets may not be possible until repairs are undertaken
and basic services are restored. In addition to the costs of repairs and the replacement
of equipment and gear, lost fishing time can also be costly. The fishery resource may
also be directly affected if, in addition to damaged infrastructure, hurricanes cause
damage to oyster beds from silt and debris. Algal blooms such as red tide are another
type of natural event that can render seafood toxic and result in fishery closures.
Under these conditions, fishermen may be completely shutdown for months until
toxin levels in shellfish decline to acceptable levels.
Declines in fishery resource abundance may result from several factors, such as
natural environmental variations, human effects on the environment, and overfishing.
Salmon fisheries are sensitive to natural changes in oceanic conditions. Salmon
abundance has also been affected where dams, irrigation, grazing, mining, and
forestry practices have degraded salmon habitat, especially for salmon populations
in the Pacific Northwest. Overfishing has also contributed to fish population declines
in several resource disaster cases such as the New England multispecies fishery and
4 For SBA purposes disasters may also be declared by the president, Governor’s
certification, Secretary of Agriculture, or Secretary of Commerce.
5 For information concerning SBA Economic Injury Disaster Loans, see [http://www.sba.
gov/services/disasterassistance/index.html]. Also see CRS Report RL33243, Small Business
Administration: A Primer on Programs, by N. Eric Weiss.

---

CRS-6
the Pacific groundfish fishery. In these cases, fish abundance decreased significantly
and stock rebuilding has required substantial decreases in harvest.
Table 2. Fishery Failure Declarations Since 1994
Fishery or Region
Authority
Declared Appropriation
New England Multispecies I
IFA 308(b)
3/18/94
$86.8 milliona
Northwest Salmon Fisheries I
IFA 308(d)
5/26/94
$12 million
Gulf of Mexico Hurricanes
IFA 308(d)
8/2/95
$15 million
New England Multispecies II
IFA 308(d)
8/12/95
$26 million
Northwest Salmon Fisheries II
IFA 308(d)
8/2/95
$13 million
Bristol Bay/Kuskokwim River (AK)
MSA 312(a)
11/5/97
$7 million
Gulf of Mexico Flooding Events
MSA 312(a)
8/7/98
$3.5 million
Northwest Salmon Fisheries III
MSA 312(a)
8/7/98
$3.5 million
Bristol Bay/Kuskokwim River (AK)
MSA 312(a)
9/9/98
$50 million
Florida Trap Fisheries
MSA 312(a)
9/20/99
$4.8 million
North Carolina Fisheries
MSA 312(a)
9/22/99
$6 million
Long Island Sound Lobster
MSA 312(a)
2/4/00
$13.9 million
West Coast Groundfish Fisheries
MSA 312(a)
2/4/00
$5 million
Bering Sea Alaska Snow Crab
MSA 312(a)
5/11/00
$10 million
Alaska Salmon (Norton Sound)
IFA 308(b)
8/4/00
$15 million
MSA 312(a)
$7.5 million
Fraser River/Lummi Indian Salmon
MSA 312(a)
11/13/02
None to date
Georgia Blue Crab
MSA 312(a)
5/8/03
None to date
Red Tide (Massachusetts)
MSA 312(a)
6/16/05
$2.5 million
Red Tide (Maine)
MSA 312(a)
6/23/05
$2 million
Gulf of Mexico Fisheries (Katrina
MSA 312(a)
9/9/05
$128 million
and Rita)b
IFA 308(d)
10/4/05
$110 million
Klamath river Basin (Salmon)
IFA 308(b)
8/10/06
$60.4 million
MSA 312(a)
Source: Adapted from the NOAA, Office of Management and Budget, Fishery Disaster Assistance
Web page, [http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/mb/financial_services/disaster.htm].
a. Funding was appropriated on several different occasions from 1994 to 1999.
b. Fishery failures for both hurricanes were declared under § 312(a) of the MSFCMA and § 308(d)
of the IFA.

---

CRS-7
Funds for disaster assistance have been used for a wide variety of purposes, and
may include direct assistance to fishermen such as:
! compensation;
! community grants;
! training;
! loans and debt refinancing; and
! employment on fishery related projects.
Other forms of indirect fishery-related assistance have included fishing capacity
reduction (vessel, permit, and gear buybacks), formation of a fisheries research trust,
economic planning grants, and research grants. Table 3 summarizes funding and
activities by fishery or disaster event for fishing disaster declarations.
State Roles. States are frequently an active partner throughout the process,
from requesting the Secretary of Commerce to declare a fishery failure and providing
related data to disbursing relief to fishermen and related businesses. Relief funding
is often provided directly to states, or in cases of regional disasters through regional
commissions such as the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. For example,
distribution of Oregon salmon troll fishery relief was planned and coordinated by the
state Department of Agriculture in cooperation with related agencies and nonprofit
organizations such as the Oregon Salmon Commission. In addition to matching
funds, state government may also provide funding when federal funds are not
available, although historically such funding has been limited.
Table 3. Assistance Provided for Commercial Fishery Resource
Disasters by Fishery Disaster and Year of Appropriation
New England Multispecies
1994 — $30 million, Assistance: fishing industry grants that included employment for
fishermen (training, new business opportunities, aquaculture, marketing, and by catch
reduction), demonstration buyback program, loan program, and family assistance centers.
1995 — $25 million, Assistance: vessel buyback, administration, and fisherman health
program.
1999 — $6.8 million, Continuation from 1994 failure with assistance that included
compensation for lost fishing time and cooperative research.
2000 — $25 million, Continuation from 1994 failure with assistance that included permit
buyback and cooperative research.
2001 — $1 million, Continuation from 1995 of the fisherman health program.
Pacific Northwest Salmon
1994 — $12 million, Assistance: fishing permit buyback, habitat restoration jobs, and data
collection jobs.
1995 — $13 million, Assistance: fishing permit buyback, habitat restoration jobs, and data
collection jobs.
1998 — $3.5 million, Assistance: fishing buyback program.
2007 — $60.4 million, (Klamath River related) information regarding the types of assistance
that will be provided are not available at this time.

---

CRS-8
Gulf of Mexico Hurricanes
1995 — $15 million, (Hurricanes and tropical storms from 1992-1995) Assistance:
compensation to fishermen, Gulf states for research and habitat restoration (inshore license
buyback TX and cooperative research LA)
2006 — $128 million, Assistance: rehabilitating oyster beds and shrimp grounds, reseeding,
rehabilitating, and storing oyster reefs, and cooperative research and monitoring.
2007 — $110 million, Assistance similar to 2006 funding.
Alaska Salmon
1998 — $7 million (Bristol Bay/Kuskokwim River), Assistance: community grants, loan
program, economic planning grants, and fisheries research, education, and training grants.
1999 — $50 million (Bristol Bay/Kuskokwim River/Yukon River), Assistance: emergency
assistance to affected families, direct loans, community development activities.
2000 — $15 million (Norton Sound/Kuskokwim/Yukon River), Assistance: economic
development and loans.
2001 — $7.5 million (Norton Sound/Kuskokwim/Yukon River), Assistance: economic
development and loans.
Gulf of Mexico Flooding
1997 — $3.5 million, Assistance: research and data collection.
Florida Trap Fishery
2000 — $ 4.8 million, Assistance: direct assistance to fishermen, buyback trap certificates,
retrieve lost traps and debris, and research ongoing trap reduction program.
North Carolina Fisheries
2000 — $6 million, Assistance: direct economic relief to seafood dealers, charter and head
boats and commercial fishing piers, research and resource assessment, and mitigation of oyster
losses by enhancing habitat.
Long Island Sound Lobster Fishery
2000 — $13.9 million, Assistance: economic compensation, trap tag buyback, job training,
small business development, interest subsidy loans, and research on causes of the disaster.
West Coast Groundfish Fisheries
2000 — $5 million, Assistance: compensation to individuals, provided direct sustaining aid to
fishermen, and assistance to resource dependent communities.
Bering Sea Alaska Snow Crab
2000 — $10 million, Assistance: community and economic development, Bering Sea
ecosystem research, and cooperative research.
Red Tide (Massachusetts and Maine)
2006 — $5 million, Assistance: pay compensation to individuals and management (research
and monitoring).
Georgia Blue Crab
Declaration made in 2003 but no funding has been provided.
Fraser River/Lummi Indian Fishery (Sockeye salmon)
Declaration made in 2002 but no funding has been provided.
Source: Adapted from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Management
and Budget, Fishery Disaster Assistance Web page, [http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/mb/financial_services/
disaster.htm].

---

CRS-9
Fishing Capacity Reduction Programs
Many U.S. fisheries are overcapitalized — investments in fishing capacity are
greater than that needed to harvest the fishery resource on a sustainable basis. When
fishery resources decline precipitously, as in the case of a fishery failure, effects on
the fishing industry are likely to be greater when there is excess fishing capacity
operating in the fishery. First, when excess fishing capacity exists, overfishing often
occurs and management goals are likely to involve rebuilding of fish populations.
During rebuilding, the fishery is likely to be highly regulated with relatively low
allowable harvests. Second, since many fisheries are already overcapitalized and
fully exploited, there are few alternative fishing opportunities. Finally, the financial
effects of any fishery failure are likely to be greater when there is overcapacity
because of the larger number and/or size of vessels and associated crew participating
in the fishery.
Fishing capacity reduction, often referred to as buyback programs, has been a
prominent feature of several disaster relief programs. Capacity reduction is usually
accomplished through the direct purchase of fishing vessels, gear, and/or fishing
permits.6 The use and funding of capacity reduction are discussed in § 312(b) of the
MSFCMA and § 308(d) of the IFA.
The general objectives of buyback programs are to provide immediate relief to
fishermen, decrease the level of fishing effort to improve the profitability of the
remaining fishing fleet, and conserve the resource. The effectiveness of buyback
programs in reducing fishing capacity depends on whether the remaining fishermen
have the incentive to continue investing in boats and gear. Often there is also
“latent” fishing effort — boats and gear with permits to fish that are inactive or only
marginally utilized in the fishery. The exit of some vessels may encourage this
latent fishing effort (vessels) to re-enter the fishery, resulting in little or no net
reduction in fishing capacity. Furthermore, the first to accept buybacks may be the
least efficient vessels in the fleet. This results in fleet reductions that are relatively
modest yet expensive because only the oldest and least efficient units are taken out
of production.

Although capacity reduction programs attempt to provide long-term benefits to
those who decide to remain in the fishery, poorly crafted programs may result in little
or no benefit at the expense of taxpayers. Although a means to ease financial
hardship caused by a fishing disaster, lasting benefits may depend on better
recognition of the motivations of vessel owners and fishermen.

Recent Actions by NOAA and Congress
Gulf of Mexico Fisheries. In the wake of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, Gulf
of Mexico harvesting and shoreside fishery infrastructure were damaged or in some
cases completely destroyed. On September 9, 2005, Commerce Secretary Gutierrez
announced a formal determination of a fishery failure in the Gulf of Mexico resulting
6 See CRS Report 97-441 ENR, Commercial Fishing: Economic Aid and Capacity
Reduction, by Andrew Read and Eugene H. Buck.

---

CRS-10
from the effects of Hurricane Katrina. On October 4, 2005, Secretary Gutierrez
announced a formal determination of an additional fishery failure in Louisiana and
Texas due to the effects of Hurricane Rita.

The immediate effects of the fishery failure were difficult to discern because of
the broad geographic area affected by the hurricanes and the substantial damage to
infrastructure such as ports, processing, and general access to markets. In 2004, Gulf
of Mexico annual landings of major fisheries including shrimp, finfish, and oysters
totaled 1.476 billion pounds with a dockside value of $669 million.7 In the areas
initially affected by Katrina there were 15 major fishing ports, 177 seafood
processing facilities, 1,816 federally permitted fishing vessels, and more than 13,000
state-permitted fishing vessels.8 Private recreational fishing boats, charter boats, and
related infrastructure were also extensively damaged.
The Fisheries and Oceans Subcommittee of the House Committee on Resources
held a hearing on December 15, 2005, to assess the impacts of hurricanes Katrina and
Rita on Gulf of Mexico fishery resources, industry, and communities.9 In response
to questions concerning the magnitude of damages, the Assistant Administrator of
NMFS stated that $1.2 billion might be needed to assist the recovery of the fishing
industry.10 Further refinement of estimates from Gulf states and the Administration
were requested by several subcommittee members. Another general concern voiced
at the hearing was the need for timely funding focused on the fishing industry.

Several federal reports regarding hurricane impacts on Gulf of Mexico fisheries
have been released since the December 2005 hearing. NMFS released, “Report to
Congress on the Impacts of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma on Alabama,
Louisiana, Florida, Mississippi, and Texas Fisheries,” in July of 2007.11 This report
describes fishery conditions before and after the 2005 hurricane season and also
describes other trends affecting the fishing industry such as rising costs and seafood
imports. A second report, “Economic Damages to Infrastructure Incurred by
Louisiana Fishing Industries Due to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005” was also
released in July 2007. This report estimated fisheries losses of $582 million in
Louisiana and $988 million for the entire Gulf of Mexico.12 Both reports stressed
7 U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries of the United
States, 2005, Current Fishery Statistics No. 2005 (Washington, DC: February 2007), p. 6.
8 For more background information on initial damages and recovery, see CRS Report
RS22241, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita: Fishing and Aquaculture Industries — Damage and
Recovery, by Eugene H. Buck.
9 The name of the House Committee on Resources was changed at the beginning of the 110th
Congress to the House Committee on Natural Resources and the Subcommittee on Fisheries
and Oceans was changed to the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans.
10 The Assistant Administrator also referred to potential buyouts and other needs to
restructure the industry because of Gulf of Mexico fishing fleet overcapacity.
11 The report is available at [http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/msa2007/docs/Fisheries_Report_
Final.pdf].
12 R. H. Caffey et al., “Economic Damages to Infrastructure Incurred by Louisiana Fishing
(continued...)

---

CRS-11
that estimates should be conditioned on data and methods used in each state, factors
influencing fisheries, and uncertainties related to the rate of recovery from storm
damage.
On June 15, 2006, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for
Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006, (P.L. 109-234)
was enacted. It allocated $128 million to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) “Operations, Research, and Facilities” account for expenses
related to Hurricane Katrina.13 General areas identified for funding included
scanning, mapping, and coordinating marine debris removal, rehabilitating oyster
beds and shrimp grounds, undertaking cooperative research to monitor the recovery
of Gulf fisheries, and assisting fishermen to recover from economic impacts. On
May 25, 2007, The U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and
Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007, (P.L. 110-28) was enacted. Funding
allocated to the NOAA “Operations, Research, and Facilities” account totaled $110
million for impacts of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on the shrimp and fishing
industries.
West Coast Salmon Ocean Troll Fishery. On July 6, 2006, a fishery
failure was declared for the West Coast ocean troll salmon fishery. Chinook salmon
stocks that spawn in California and Oregon rivers intermingle in the ocean and are
harvested together off the coasts of these states. Klamath River fall Chinook salmon
is a key stock with respect to both landings and regulation of the fishery.14
The ocean troll salmon fishing season between Cape Falcon, Oregon and Point
Sur, California, was strictly limited during the 2006 season.15 From 2001 to 2005,
drought conditions in the upper Klamath Basin resulted in very low flow conditions
in the mainstem of the Klamath River and its tributaries. Low flows likely
contributed to substantial mortality of juvenile and adult Chinook salmon by creating
an environment in which Chinook salmon become more susceptible to endemic
diseases. Returns of Klamath River fall Chinook fell below 35,000, the floor set for
any one year, in 2004 and 2005, and the 2006 run size was projected to be
approximately 25,000. As a result of the anticipated low spawning return, the Pacific
12 (...continued)
Industries Due to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005,” Report to the U.S. Department of
Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (July 2007), pp. 86-88.
13 The measure included $90 million plus a $38 million transfer from the United States
Department of Agriculture that was to be used for improving oyster grounds.
14 The conservation objectives under the Pacific Fishery Management Council’s (PFMC)
Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery Management Plan require returns of 33-34% of potential adult
natural spawners and no fewer than 35,000 naturally spawning adults to the Klamath River.
When the stock is projected to fall below this level, PFMC is required to recommend a
closure of the salmon fisheries within its jurisdiction that harvest Klamath River fall
Chinook salmon.
15 From 2001 to 2005, the dressed weight of Oregon and California troll salmon landings
averaged 8,025 thousand pounds, but in 2006 landings dropped to 1,529 thousand pounds.
For West coast troll salmon fishery statistics, see [http://www.pcouncil.org/salmon/salblue
book/salbluebook.html].

---

CRS-12
Fishery Management Council (PFMC) recommended and NOAA issued a Temporary
Rule for Emergency Action to strictly curtail the troll salmon fishery off Oregon and
California from May 1, 2006 to August 31, 2006. Although a complete closure of
the fishery was avoided, landings and associated revenues decreased in 2006 by 80%
to 90% when compared to the average of the preceding five years.
The Governors of Oregon and California requested action based on the 2006
forecast of Klamath River fall Chinook salmon returns and the actions taken in the
spring of 2006 by the PFMC and NMFS. Since the PFMC developed the 2006
season regulations in the spring of 2006, the likely effects of the curtailed fishery
were anticipated before the actual losses were realized. Fishermen and others
associated with the fishing industry were concerned with delays in getting aid to
fishing communities. On July 6, 2006, the Secretary of Commerce declared a fishery
resource disaster under § 308(b) of the IFA, and on August 10, 2006, under § 312(a)
of the MSFCMA. Fishing industry concerns increased during the fall of 2006 and
spring of 2007 when no federal funding was provided. In May 2007, the U.S. Troop
Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability
Appropriations Act, 2007, (P.L. 110-28) allocated $60.4 million to the NOAA
“Operations, Research, and Facilities” account to be distributed among eligible
recipients affected by the commercial fishery failure. Assistance is being distributed
by the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission to Oregon and California
fishermen and Indian tribes that rely on salmon. Oregon salmon troll fishery landings
and revenue improved only slightly during the 2007 season.
On April 10, 2008, the Pacific Fishery Management Council adopted a complete
closure of commercial and sport fisheries off California and most of Oregon in
response to the collapse of the Sacramento River fall Chinook salmon run. The
minimum conservation goal for Sacramento fall Chinook is 122,000 to 180,000
spawning salmon,16 while as recently as 2002, 775,000 adults returned to spawn.17
Even with ocean fishery closures, the returns of Sacramento fall Chinook are
projected to be 54,000. The cause of the decline is uncertain, although the National
Marine Fisheries Service has suggested that changes in ocean conditions such as
unfavorable shifts in ocean temperature and related lack of food for juvenile salmon
is a likely cause. On May 1, 2008, the Secretary of Commerce declared a commercial
fishery failure for the West coast salmon fishery in response to a request by the
governors of California, Oregon, and Washington.
Recent Actions by NMFS. In 2007, NMFS began developing regulations
related to definitions, procedures, and provisions of § 312(a) and § 315 of the
MSFCMA and § 308(b) and § 308(d) of the IFA.18 As an initial step NMFS
solicited information regarding all aspects of fisheries disaster assistance from the
general public, fishing industry, scientific community, coastal communities, and
16 The number of salmon needed to return to the river to sustain this salmon population.
17 For Pacific salmon fishery management information, see [http://www.pcouncil.org/].
18 NMFS Procedures and Guidance for Disaster Assistance Under Magnuson-Stevens Act
312(a) and Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act 308(b) and 308(d) can be found at
[http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/directives/].

---

CRS-13
federal and state resource agencies. A partial list of topics identified by NMFS
includes:
! defining terms such as commercial fisheries failure, fishery resource,
and fishery resource disaster;
! determining the degree to which those engaged in a fishery suffer
economic hardship;
! defining the characteristics or parameters of a fishery resource
disaster, the end date of a disaster, and the information required to
request a fishery failure or disaster determination; and
! delineating the scope of biological and economic data to be
reviewed.
NMFS plans to use public input to determine which issues need to be addressed
in developing a proposed rule and ultimately a final rule.
New England Multispecies Fishery. In 2007, the governors of Maine,
Massachusetts, and Rhode Island requested the Secretary of Commerce to declare a
fishery failure for the Northeast Multispecies (groundfish) fishery. They cited
economic hardships endured by New England fishermen because of restrictive
fishery regulations for groundfish species such as cod. In October 2007, NMFS
responded that revenue declines in Maine and Massachusetts were not sufficient to
warrant a commercial fishery failure. NMFS cited increases in 14 of 18 groundfish
stocks in the most recent stock assessment and total fishery revenue increases for
some ports during the last year. Others responded that a disaster was declared 13
years ago when fish landings were more than twice as high as in 2007. The actual
biological and economic impacts cited by NMFS and industry sources differed
depending on the time period used, species considered, and fishing port.
On December 4, 2007, the Senate agreed to S.Res. 376, expressing the sense
of the Senate that the Secretary of Commerce should declare a commercial fishery
failure for the groundfish fishery for Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, and
Rhode Island and immediately propose regulations to implement § 312(a) of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The Secretary has
not changed his decision. However, the omnibus spending bill passed on December
17, 2007, included $13.4 million in the NOAA budget for the Massachusetts
multispecies fishery. The funding was provided to lessen the economic impacts
associated with New England Fishery Management Council’s Framework 42 of
Amendment 13 to the Multispecies Fishery Management Plan.19
19 The primary purpose of Framework 42 of Amendment 13 to the Multispecies Fishery
Management Plan is to establish a biennial adjustment process to review the fishery
periodically and recommend changes to management measures necessary to end overfishing
and rebuild stocks.

---

CRS-14
Issues for Congress
Commercial fisheries are strongly influenced by environmental conditions that
may affect industry infrastructure or the abundance and distribution of the fishery
resource. These changes often take place suddenly; in the case of hurricanes and
harmful algal blooms within a fishing season with little or no warning. Disaster
relief programs may help save businesses that have been devastated and can address
severe economic fluctuations by providing assistance until conditions return to
“normal.” Several concerns have emerged that relate to the nature of commercial
fisheries and disaster relief programs, including (1) timing relief to meet crucial
needs, (2) relating disaster relief to long-term fisheries management, (3) defining a
fishery failure, and (4) determining the beneficiaries of relief.

Timing of Relief. The timeliness of disaster relief is a concern because relief
funds are not appropriated in anticipation of disasters. Thus, fishing disasters harm
fishermen and the related industry before aid can be provided by the federal
government. First, information regarding the scope of the disaster usually needs to
be compiled by the fishing industry, state and local governments, and NMFS.
Difficulties in concluding this task can be compounded by the lack of data and
readily available economic studies. In cases such as Hurricane Katrina, it was
immediately clear that a disaster had occurred, and the Secretary made a
determination within two weeks of the landfall of Hurricane Katrina. Yet the
dimensions of the disaster and the level and scope of resource needs remained
uncertain for months after the disaster.
For the West Coast troll salmon fishery, immediate questions revolved around
whether a resource disaster had occurred. Background information, fishery landings,
and economic data were needed for the Secretary to make a determination. Yet
managers and participants were aware of the impending fishery closure before
regulations were adopted because the poor condition of the Klamath River Chinook
salmon stock was well documented. Even after regulations were adopted, some
questioned whether a fishery failure could be declared before the season started and
the fishing industry had actually been harmed.
After a fishery failure is declared, funding is dependent on appropriations by
Congress. Given the timing of appropriations bills and congressional schedules, it
can be difficult to appropriate funding in a timely manner. Hurricane Katrina and
Hurricane Rita fishery disaster funding was appropriated in June 2006, more than
nine months after the Gulf fishery failure was declared in September 2005. Many in
the industry asserted that the greatest need occurred immediately after the hurricanes,
when infrastructure, vessels, gear, and markets were lost to fishermen and other
industry participants. The West Coast troll salmon fishery was declared a fishery
failure in the summer of 2006, but funding was not appropriated until May 2007.
In the short-term, many fishing industry participants believe that the most
pressing concern should involve getting relief to those individuals and businesses
most directly and immediately affected by the fishery failure. For these needs, some
have advocated establishing a disaster fund with funding appropriated in advance that
could provide funds on short notice.

---

CRS-15
Long-Term Management Approaches. Often direct or indirect assistance
to the fishing industry are part of relief programs. Some have criticized federal
assistance because it delays the inevitable readjustment that may be needed for
fisheries with excess harvesting capacity. They argue that climatic and/or
environmental conditions are blamed for fish population declines caused by
overfishing. Most fish populations vary over time, and frequently it is difficult to
determine the relative importance of the factors that cause these variations.
Features of several programs such as buyback programs, fisherman training, and
cooperative data collection focus on concerns related to the need for readjustments
in fishing fleet size. Yet, when relief is provided, even when it includes a buyback
program, greater numbers of fishermen and effort usually remain in the fishery than
would be sustainable in the long-run. Many fisheries managers agree that relief such
as vessel buybacks needs to be more closely integrated with ongoing fisheries
management objectives.
Defining Fishery Failures. The general causes of fishery resource disasters
that result in commercial fishery failures are defined by the MSFCMA and IFA.
However, specific characteristics of a fishery resource disaster such as scale, timing,
and extent are not defined. Since there is no set definition of a fishery failure or
fishery resource disaster, the Secretary of Commerce has a large degree of discretion
when determining whether a fishery failure has occurred.
For example, in 2007 the governors of Maine, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island
requested the Secretary of Commerce to declare a fishery failure for the Northeast
Multispecies (groundfish) fishery. There appears to be general agreement that
Northeast fishermen have faced continuing hardships during the last several years,
but disagreement centers on whether this disruption rises to the level of a fishery
failure. These ambiguities appear to be one of the reasons that NMFS is soliciting
the public for information to clarify the definitions in rule.
Who Benefits? Who benefits from disaster funding is a reoccurring point of
contention. Participants such as fishermen and fish processors may be widely
dispersed and difficult to locate and track. Although it is often possible to contact
vessel and processing plant owners, industry-related labor such as crew members and
fish processors may be difficult to track. In some fisheries, crew members are
temporary labor that follow fishing opportunities.20 Because of the transient nature
of employment in the fishing industry and seasonal movement of fishing vessels
among regions, labor statistics regarding the employment of fishermen are either
difficult to obtain or may not exist. Similar problems may occur in related fishery
processing and distribution sectors. Some have voiced the need for better labor
statistics that can assist in forecasting and planning for the effects of different
fisheries programs, including disaster relief.
Economic effects of fishery disasters on the local community and region are also
difficult to quantify. Services directly related to fishing such as boat repairs, dock
20 For more information, see CRS Report RS21312, How Many Fishermen?, by Eugene H.
Buck.

---

CRS-16
services, and fishing equipment suppliers, as well as other businesses indirectly
related to fishing are likely to be harmed by losses in the fish harvesting and
processing sectors. Although general regional impacts can be estimated using
economic models, it is often difficult to identify the level of impacts on these
businesses because of their dispersed nature and their indirect relationship to fishing.
Many have claimed that a broader understanding of these community impacts is
needed. Relatedly some also argue for more deliberate and long-term data collection
and planning to link community concerns with marine fisheries management.

---