Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal
Issues in the 111th Congress
Eugene H. Buck
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Harold F. Upton
Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
April 10, 2009
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R40172
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress

---

Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 111th Congress

Summary
Fish and marine mammals are important resources in open ocean and nearshore coastal areas;
many federal laws and regulations guide their management as well as the management of their
habitat.
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 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) through eight regional fishery management
councils. Beyond 200 miles, the United States participates in international agreements relating to
specific areas or species. The 111th 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. Current concerns
include whether additional effort should be taken to eliminate overfishing, how fishery disaster
assistance should be funded, and whether to more aggressively encourage fishing vessel capacity
reduction and limited access privilege programs. The 111th Congress has enacted P.L. 111-5,
including language to broaden the basis for determining import increases for trade adjustment
assistance for fishing and aquaculture so as to include wild-caught fish and seafood in addition to
farm-raised fish and seafood. In addition, P.L. 111-11 authorized implementation of the San
Joaquin River Restoration Settlement providing for the reintroduction of Chinook salmon;
extended the authorizations for the Upper Colorado and San Juan River Basin endangered fish
recovery programs through FY2023; directed the Secretary of Commerce to establish an ocean
acidification program within NOAA, and to establish an interagency committee to develop an
ocean acidification research and monitoring plan; and reauthorized (through FY2015) and amend
the Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation Act of 2000.
Aquaculture—the farming of fish, shellfish, and other aquatic animals and plants in a controlled
environment—is expanding rapidly abroad, with more modest growth in the United States. In the
United States, important species cultured include catfish, salmon, shellfish, and trout. The 111th
Congress has enacted P.L. 111-5, including language (1) providing as much as $50 million in total
assistance to aquaculture producers for losses associated with high feed input costs during the
2008 calendar year and (2) including National Fish Hatcheries as eligible for $165 million in
resource management funding as well as $115 million in construction funding for the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service.
Marine mammals are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). With few
exceptions, the MMPA prohibits harm or harassment (“take”) of marine mammals, unless
restrictive permits are obtained. It also addresses specific situations of concern, such as dolphin
mortality, primarily associated with the eastern tropical Pacific tuna fishery. The 111th Congress
may consider bills to reauthorize and amend the MMPA as well as measures to address specific
marine mammal habitat and management concerns, such as how to deal with the effects of
increasing noise in the ocean.

Congressional Research Service

---

Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 111th Congress

Contents
Most Recent Developments......................................................................................................... 1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
Commercial and Sport Fisheries.................................................................................................. 2
Background .......................................................................................................................... 2
Magnuson-Stevens Act.......................................................................................................... 5
Implementation of P.L. 109-479 ...................................................................................... 5
Action in the 111th Congress............................................................................................ 6
Pacific Salmon...................................................................................................................... 6
Background .................................................................................................................... 6
Action in the 111th Congress............................................................................................ 7
Additional Fishery Issues in the 111th Congress ..................................................................... 7
Assistance....................................................................................................................... 7
Habitat Protection and Restoration .................................................................................. 7
Climate Change .............................................................................................................. 8
Energy and Water Projects............................................................................................... 8
Sport Fisheries ................................................................................................................ 8
Invasive Species.............................................................................................................. 8
Coral............................................................................................................................... 8
Chesapeake Bay.............................................................................................................. 9
Seafood Safety and Nutrition .......................................................................................... 9
National Marine Sanctuaries ........................................................................................... 9
Tuna ............................................................................................................................... 9
Enforcement ................................................................................................................... 9
Tax Provisions ................................................................................................................ 9
Marketing ..................................................................................................................... 10
Sharks........................................................................................................................... 10
Fishing Vessels.............................................................................................................. 10
Trade ............................................................................................................................ 10
Aquaculture .............................................................................................................................. 10
Background ........................................................................................................................ 10
Aquaculture Issues in the 111th Congress ............................................................................. 11
Assistance..................................................................................................................... 11
National Fish Hatchery System ..................................................................................... 11
Chesapeake Bay............................................................................................................ 12
Asian Carp.................................................................................................................... 12
Delta Smelt ................................................................................................................... 12
Food Safety................................................................................................................... 12
Marketing ..................................................................................................................... 12
Marine Mammals ...................................................................................................................... 12
Background ........................................................................................................................ 12
Marine Mammal Protection Act Reauthorization ................................................................. 14
Additional Marine Mammal Issues in the 111th Congress..................................................... 15
Dolphin Protection ........................................................................................................ 15
Seals ............................................................................................................................. 15
Military Sonar............................................................................................................... 15
Southern Sea Otter ........................................................................................................ 15
Congressional Research Service

---

Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 111th Congress

NMFS Appropriations ............................................................................................................... 15

Figures
Figure 1. U.S. Commercial Fish and Shellfish Harvest, 1976-2007.............................................. 4

Tables
Table 1. NMFS Appropriations, FY2008-FY2009 ..................................................................... 16

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 16

Congressional Research Service

---

Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 111th Congress

Most Recent Developments
On April 2, 2009, the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, and the Global
Environment held a hearing on the South Pacific Tuna Treaty. On March 31, 2009, the House
Committee on Natural Resources held an oversight hearing on the California drought and actions
by federal and state agencies to address impacts on lands, fisheries, and water users. On March
30, 2009, President Obama signed P.L. 111-11 (H.R. 146), including language to (1) authorize the
implementation of the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement providing for the reintroduction
of Chinook salmon; (2) extend the authorizations for the Upper Colorado and San Juan River
Basin endangered fish recovery programs through FY2023; (3) direct the Secretary of Commerce
to establish an ocean acidification program within NOAA, and establish an interagency
committee to develop an ocean acidification research and monitoring plan; and (4) reauthorize
(through FY2015) and amend the Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation Act of 2000. On
March 25, 2009, the House agreed to the Senate amendments to H.R. 146. On March 19, 2009,
the Senate passed H.R. 146. On March 19, 2009, the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on
Insular Affairs, Oceans, and Wildlife held a hearing on H.R. 1080, amending various fishery and
marine mammal statutes to strengthen enforcement mechanisms so as to stop illegal, unreported,
and unregulated fishing. On March 11, 2009, President Obama signed P.L. 111-8 (H.R. 1105,
omnibus appropriations for FY2009), including provisions (1) appropriating almost $834 million
for the National Marine Fisheries Service and associated programs, and (2) permanently
rescinding all unobligated balances under the authority of the Anadromous Fish Conservation
Act. (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 the notification list.)
Introduction
Increasing use of coastal and marine resources is driving proposals for Congress and the
Administration to alter current relationships between environmental protection and sustainable
resource management. Recent reports note declines in marine resources and shortcomings in what
are perceived as fragmented and limited approaches to resource protection and management in
federal and state waters.1 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 both to natural processes, such as climate
variation, and to development, changes in land 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 and protection of the marine environment.
Congress last reauthorized and extensively amended the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act (MSFCMA) in the 109th Congress (P.L. 109-479); the current funding

1 For example, see America’s Living Oceans: Charting a Course for Sea Change, available at
http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Protecting_ocean_life/
env_pew_oceans_final_report.pdf, and An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century, available at
http://www.oceancommission.gov/documents/full_color_rpt/000_ocean_full_report.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
1

---

Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 111th Congress

authorization expires on September 30, 2013. The Marine Mammal Protection Act was last
reauthorized in 1994 by P.L. 103-238, and funding authorization expired on September 30, 1999.
The 111th Congress may consider measures to reauthorize the MMPA, address aquatic habitat
concerns, provide funding for disaster assistance, and address fishery-specific concerns, as well
as conducting oversight of MSFCMA implementation.
Commercial and Sport Fisheries
Background
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 1950, 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 Treaty2 negotiations in the
early and mid-1970s as well as actions by other coastal nations provided impetus for unilateral
U.S. action.
The enactment of the Fishery Conservation and Management Act (FCMA); 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. 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.3 The 200-mile
fishery conservation zone was superseded by a 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ),
proclaimed by President Reagan on March 10, 1983 (Presidential Proclamation 5030).

2 The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea was reported favorably in the 110th Congress by the Senate
Committee on Foreign Relations (S.Exec.Rept. 110-9) on December 19, 2007.
3 NMFS programs are described in detail at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/.
Congressional Research Service
2

---

Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 111th Congress

Eight Regional Fishery Management Councils were created by the FCMA.4 Council members are
appointed by the Secretary of Commerce from lists of candidates knowledgeable about fishery
resources, provided by coastal state governors.5 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 2006.6 The authorization of appropriations in § 7 of the 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.
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 EEZ waters increased dramatically,
from about 1.6 billion pounds (1977) to more than 6.3 billion pounds in 1986-1988.7 Since this
peak, annual landings have hovered around 6 billion pounds (Figure 1).
In 2007, U.S. commercial fishermen landed almost 7.5 billion pounds of edible, unprocessed fish
and shellfish from combined state, federal, and international waters, worth almost $3.9 billion at
the dock.8 Imports of mostly processed products supplied 5.3 billion pounds, worth $13.7 billion.
U.S. consumers spent an estimated $68.4 billion on edible seafood in 2007, with almost $45.8

4 Links to individual Council websites are available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/councils/.
5 For the 2007 Report to Congress on Council membership, see http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/reg_svcs/
Council_Reportocongress/07_RptCongress.pdf.
6 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/.
7 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.
8 For additional domestic commercial fishery harvest statistics, see http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/commercial/
index.html. Statistics for 2007 are available at http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/fus/fus07/.
Congressional Research Service
3

---

Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 111th Congress

billion of that amount spent in restaurants and other food service establishments. In addition,
marine recreational anglers caught an estimated 468 million fish in 2007, of which the retained
catch was about 255 million pounds.9 In 2006, a nationwide survey estimated that recreational
anglers spent more than $40 billion each year pursuing their sport.10
Figure 1. U.S. Commercial Fish and Shellfish Harvest, 1976-2007
7
6
5
4
3
llion pounds
bi 2
1
0
19
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
7
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
0
0
0
0
6
78
80
82
84
86
88
90
92
94
9
9
0
0
0
0

6
8
0
2
4
6
- No Data
Inshore State Waters
Offshore EEZ Waters
International Waters

Source: NMFS, Fisheries of the United States (various years), Current Fishery Statistics series.
NMFS reports annually on the status of fish stocks managed under the MSFCMA.11 For 2007,
NMFS made determinations for 244 fish stocks and complexes,12 finding that 41 (17%) of them
were subject to overfishing13 and 203 (83%) were not. In addition, NMFS made determinations
for 190 stocks and complexes, finding that 45 (24%) were overfished14 and 145 (76%) were not.
These numbers reflect a decline in the overfishing percentage compared to 2006 (when 20% were
subject to overfishing) as well as a slight decline in the overfished percentage compared to that
year (when 25% were overfished).

9 Recreational fishing programs at NMFS are discussed at http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/recreational/index.html.
10 Results of the 2006 survey can be found at http://library.fws.gov/nat_survey2006_final.pdf.
11 See http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/domes_fish/StatusoFisheries/2007/
2007StatusofUSFisheries_Report_to_Congress.pdf.
12 NMFS reviewed 528 individual stocks and stock complexes but had insufficient information to make determinations
on all of them.
13 A stock that is subject to overfishing has a fishing mortality (harvest) rate above the level that provides for the
maximum sustainable yield.
14 A stock that is overfished has a biomass level below a biological threshold specified in its fishery management plan.
Congressional Research Service
4

---

Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 111th Congress

In addition, NMFS developed a Fish Stock Sustainability Index (FSSI) in 2005 as a performance
measure to evaluate progress nationwide in addressing overfishing.15 Out of a possible maximum
FSSI of 920, this index of success in curbing overfishing has increased from 481.5 (third quarter
of calendar year 2005) to 535 (third quarter of calendar year 2008).
Magnuson-Stevens Act
The MSFCMA was reauthorized in the 109th Congress in 2006 by P.L. 109-479, the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006.16 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
• strengthening the role of science in fishery management decision-making.17
Implementation of P.L. 109-479
NMFS has summarized various tasks associated with implementing P.L. 109-479.18 On January
13, 2009, NMFS released its first report to Congress on implementing Title IV of P.L. 109-479,

15 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/2008/3rdQuarter/Q32008FSSISummaryChanges.pdf.
16 For additional summary information on this measure, see http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/msa2005/
MSA%202006%20Implementation%20Overview.pdf.
17 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.
18 Available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/msa2007/Reauthorization_tasks.pdf. Additional information on NMFS’s
implementation of P.L. 109-479 can be found at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/msa2007/.
Congressional Research Service
5

---

Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 111th Congress

relating to better control of illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing activities.19 On
January 15, 2009, NMFS issued final guidance amending the guidelines for National Standard 1,
designed to end overfishing in response to provisions in P.L. 109-479 providing new requirements
for annual catch limits and other accountability measures.20
Action in the 111th Congress
In the 111th Congress, H.R. 81 amends the MSFCMA to modify language related to the
prohibition of shark finning; the House passed this measure on March 2, 2009. H.R. 1379
prohibits the commercial harvesting of Atlantic striped bass in coastal waters and the EEZ. H.R.
1584 amends the MSFCMA to extend the authorized time period for rebuilding certain overfished
fisheries.
Pacific Salmon
Background
Steelhead trout and 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 the same
freshwater rivers and lakes to spawn. Management is complicated because these fish may cross
several state and national boundaries during their life spans, and their different subpopulations/
stocks intermingle on fishing grounds. In addition to natural environmental fluctuations, threats to
salmon include hydropower dams that block rivers and create reservoirs, sport and commercial
harvests, habitat modification by competing resource industries and other 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.21 On September 13, 2006, a San Joaquin
River Restoration Settlement Agreement was announced, ending an 18-year legal dispute over the
operation of Friant Dam in California. This agreement provides for river channel improvements
and water flow to sustain Chinook salmon upstream (south) from the confluence of the Merced
River tributary while reducing or avoiding adverse water supply impacts to Friant Division long-
term water contractors that may result from restoration flows provided in the agreement.
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 steelhead trout.
Annex IV was recently renegotiated and took effect on January 1, 2009.22

19 Available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/msa2007/docs/biennial_report011309.pdf.
20 74 Federal Register 3178-3213, January 16, 2009.
21 For additional background on this issue, see CRS Report 98-666, Pacific Salmon and Steelhead Trout: Managing
Under the Endangered Species Act, by Eugene H. Buck.
22 For background information on the Pacific Salmon Treaty, see CRS Report RL30234, The Pacific Salmon Treaty:
The 1999 Agreement and Renegotiation of Annex IV, by Eugene H. Buck. For additional information on the
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
6

---

Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 111th Congress

Action in the 111th Congress
Language in the “construction” account for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in P.L. 111-8
(H.R. 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations Act for 2009) permanently rescinded all unobligated
balances under the authority of the Anadromous Fish Conservation Act. Title X, Subtitle A, of
P.L. 111-11 (H.R. 146) authorized the implementation of the San Joaquin River Restoration
Settlement23 providing for the reintroduction of Chinook salmon.24 H.R. 1080 amends the Pacific
Salmon Treaty Act to strengthen enforcement mechanisms so as to stop illegal, unreported, and
unregulated fishing; on March 19, 2009, the House Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Insular
Affairs, Oceans, and Wildlife held a hearing on this bill. On March 31, 2009, the House
Committee on Natural Resources held an oversight hearing on the California drought and actions
by federal and state agencies to address impacts on lands, fisheries, and water users. H.R. 1672
and S. 668 would direct county marine resources committees to assist in identifying local
implications, needs, and strategies associated with the recovery of Puget Sound salmon. S. 817
establishes a Salmon Stronghold Partnership program to protect wild Pacific salmon.
Additional Fishery Issues in the 111th Congress
Assistance
P.L. 111-5 contains language in Section 1886 broadening the basis for determining import
increases relating to trade adjustment assistance for fishing and aquaculture so as to include wild-
caught fish and seafood in addition to farm-raised fish and seafood. S. 533 amends the Coastal
Zone Management Act to establish a grant program to ensure waterfront access for aquaculture
operators and commercial fishermen.
Habitat Protection and Restoration
Section 9107 of P.L. 111-11 (H.R. 146) amended P.L. 106-392 to extend the authorizations for the
Upper Colorado and San Juan River Basin endangered fish recovery programs through FY2023.
H.R. 790 prohibits federal oil or natural gas leases in any marine national monument or national
marine sanctuary or Georges Bank. H.R. 204 permanently prohibits oil and gas leasing off the
coast of Mendocino, Humboldt, and Del Norte Counties in the state of California. Section 106 of
S. 684 authorizes the Coast Guard and NOAA to identify U.S. areas where special navigational
measures are warranted to reduce the risk of oil spills and potential damage to natural resources,
including commercial fisheries.

(...continued)
renegotiated Annex IV, see http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/back-fiche/2009/pr01-eng.htm.
23 For additional information on this settlement, see CRS Report RL34237, San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement,
coordinated by Betsy A. Cody and Pervaze A. Sheikh.
24 For more background, see CRS Report R40125, Title X of H.R. 146: San Joaquin River Restoration, by Betsy A.
Cody and Pervaze A. Sheikh.
Congressional Research Service
7

---

Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 111th Congress

Climate Change
Title XII, Subtitle D, of P.L. 111-11 (H.R. 146) directed the Secretary of Commerce to establish
an ocean acidification program within NOAA, and to establish an interagency committee to
develop an ocean acidification research and monitoring plan.25 S. 810 directs NOAA and EPA to
establish 4 regional Institutes for Ocean and Coastal Adaptation to Climate Change and Ocean
Acidification, to conduct research, planning, and related efforts to assess, prepare for, and adapt
to the ongoing and expected impacts of climate change and ocean acidification.
Energy and Water Projects
Section 13002 of P.L. 111-11 (H.R. 146) reauthorized (through FY2015) and amended the
Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation Act of 2000.
Sport Fisheries
S. 297/S. 477 authorize charter boat operators and recreational fishermen to form associations to
catch and market aquatic products, implement vessel capacity reduction programs, and undertake
research. Section 19 of H.R. 1108 amends the OCS Lands Act to direct the Secretary of the
Interior to issue regulations permitting the use of decommissioned offshore oil and gas platforms
as artificial reefs, and requires a study of how the removal of offshore oil and gas platforms and
other outer continental shelf facilities might affect existing fish stocks and coral populations.
Section 9(b)(2)(B) of S. 503 makes a portion of adjusted bonus, rental, and royalty revenues from
federal oil and gas leasing and operations in the western Arctic coastal plain of Alaska available
for federal sport fish restoration grants. H.R. 1379 prohibits the commercial harvesting of Atlantic
striped bass in coastal waters and the EEZ. Section 4(b)(1) of S. 730 eliminates the duty on lug-
bottom boots for use in fishing waders.
Invasive Species
Title I of H.R. 500/S. 237 amends the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control
Act of 1990 to establish vessel ballast water management standards; the remainder of this title
focuses on improving coordination among various national and international efforts to control
invasive species and authorizes various research programs to address invasive species concerns.
H.R. 48 amends the Lacey Act to add four species of carp to the list of injurious species that are
prohibited from being imported or shipped interstate. H.R. 51 directs the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service to study the feasibility of various approaches to eradicating Asian carp from the Great
Lakes watershed. H.R. 669 directs the Secretary of the Interior to promulgate regulations that
establish a process for assessing the risk of non-native species proposed for importation into the
United States, including lists of approved and unapproved species.
Coral
H.R. 52/S. 345 amend the Tropical Forest Conservation Act of 1998 to provide debt relief to
developing countries that protect coral reefs and associated coastal marine ecosystems. H.R. 860
amends and reauthorizes the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000 through FY2014; the House

25 For background information, see CRS Report R40143, Ocean Acidification, by Eugene H. Buck and Peter Folger.
Congressional Research Service
8

---

Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 111th Congress

Natural Resources Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans, and Wildlife held a hearing on this
bill on February 25, 2009. Section 19 of H.R. 1108 requires a study of how the removal of
offshore oil and gas platforms and other outer continental shelf facilities might affect existing
coral populations.
Chesapeake Bay
Section 2 of H.R. 1771 requires the Director of NOAA’s Chesapeake Bay Office to establish a
Chesapeake Bay coastal living resources management and habitat program to support coordinated
management, protection, characterization, and restoration of priority habitats and living resources,
including oysters, blue crabs, and submerged aquatic vegetation, with activities to support native
oyster restoration, fish and shellfish aquaculture, and submerged aquatic vegetation propagation.
Seafood Safety and Nutrition
S. 92 directs the Secretary of Health and Human Service to refuse entry of certain seafood
imports and to specify actions to be taken on rejected shipments. Section 102 of H.R. 875
consolidates food safety and inspection programs, including seafood inspection. H.R. 1370
directs the Secretaries of Commerce and of Health and Human Services to strengthen programs to
better ensure that seafood in interstate commerce is fit for human consumption.
National Marine Sanctuaries
Section 7(b)(2)(h) of H.R. 223/S. 212 promotes cooperative research and education efforts with
commercial fishermen operating within the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary and
the Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary. H.R. 790 prohibits federal oil or natural gas leases
in any marine national monument or national marine sanctuary or Georges Bank.
Tuna
H.R. 1309 redefines terms used in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States relating
to tuna products so as to lower duties on imported tuna loins used in U.S. tuna canneries. On
April 2, 2009, the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, and the Global
Environment held a hearing on the South Pacific Tuna Treaty.
Enforcement
H.R. 1080 amends various fishery statutes to strengthen enforcement mechanisms so as to stop
illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing; on March 19, 2009, the House Natural Resources,
Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans, and Wildlife held a hearing on this bill.
Tax Provisions
H.R. 115 amends the Internal Revenue Code to provide for tax-exempt qualified small issue
bonds to finance fish processing facilities. S. 532 amends the Internal Revenue Code to provide a
business credit against income for the purchase of fishing safety equipment.
Congressional Research Service
9

---

Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 111th Congress

Marketing
Section 131 of H.R. 759 amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require labeling as
a color additive whenever carbon monoxide is used to treat meat, poultry, and seafood.
Sharks
H.R. 81 amends the High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act to increase sanctions
on nations that permit shark finning; the House passed this measure on March 2, 2009.
Fishing Vessels
S. 532 amends the Internal Revenue Code to provide a business credit against income for the
purchase of fishing safety equipment.
Trade
Section 4(b)(1) of S. 730 eliminates the duty on lug-bottom boots for use in fishing waders.
Aquaculture
Background
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.26 The diversity of aquaculture
is typified by such activities as fish farming, usually applied to freshwater commercial
aquaculture operations (e.g., catfish and trout farms);27 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.28 FAO
has projected that aquaculture will surpass wild-harvested seafood as the source of more than half

26 For more background information, see CRS Report RL32694, Open Ocean Aquaculture, by Harold F. Upton 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.
27 For statistics on freshwater production, see http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2002/Aquaculture/index.asp.
28 For more details, see http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000383/index.html.
Congressional Research Service
10

---

Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 111th Congress

of global seafood consumption in 2008. In addition, FAO predicts that world aquaculture
production could exceed 130 million metric tons by 2030.29
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.30 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. 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.). The purpose of this act is to ensure coordination of
various federal programs and policies affecting the aquaculture industry, and to promote and
support aquaculture research and development.
In October 2007, NOAA released a 10-year plan for its marine aquaculture program.31 Legislation
to modify the regulatory environment and promote the development of U.S. offshore, open-ocean
aquaculture was introduced in the 110th Congress, but was not considered by either chamber.
Aquaculture Issues in the 111th Congress
Assistance
P.L. 111-5 contains language in (1) Section 103(d) providing as much as $50 million in total
assistance to aquaculture producers for losses associated with high feed input costs during the
2008 calendar year; and (2) Section 1886 broadening the basis for determining import increases
relating to trade adjustment assistance for fishing and aquaculture so as to include wild-caught
fish and seafood in addition to farm-raised fish and seafood. S. 533 amends the Coastal Zone
Management Act to establish a grant program to ensure waterfront access for aquaculture
operators and commercial fishermen. Section 106 of S. 684 authorizes the Coast Guard and
NOAA to identify U.S. areas where special navigational measures are warranted to reduce the
risk of oil spills and potential damage to natural resources, including aquaculture facilities.
National Fish Hatchery System
P.L. 111-5 contains language including National Fish Hatcheries as eligible for $165 million in
resource management funding as well as $115 million in construction funding for the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. Section 8 of S. 313/H.R. 1065 addresses the relationship between the
Department of the Interior and the White Mountain Apache Tribe (WMAT) for the operation and
maintenance of the Alchesay-Williams Creek National Fish Hatchery Complex and the WMAT
Fishery Center.

29 For more discussion of FAO projections for 2030, see Part 3 of http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5600e/
y5600e00.htm.
30 See http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2002/Aquaculture/AQUACEN.pdf. For the latest information on
domestic production and statistics, see http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?
documentID=1375.
31 Available at http://aquaculture.noaa.gov/about/tenyear.html.
Congressional Research Service
11

---

Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 111th Congress

Chesapeake Bay
Section 2 of H.R. 1771 requires the Director of NOAA’s Chesapeake Bay Office to establish a
Chesapeake Bay coastal living resources management and habitat program to support various
activities, including fish and shellfish aquaculture and submerged aquatic vegetation propagation.
Asian Carp
H.R. 48 amends the Lacey Act to add four species of carp to the list of injurious species that are
prohibited from being imported or shipped. Section 171 of S. 237 amends the Lacey Act to add
bighead carp to the list of injurious species that are prohibited from being imported or shipped.
Delta Smelt
Section 4 of H.R. 856 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to enter into a cooperative
agreement with the State of California to establish a fish hatchery program for Delta smelt in the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
Food Safety
H.R. 1370 directs the Secretaries of Commerce and of Health and Human Services to strengthen
programs to better ensure that fish in interstate commerce is fit for human consumption.
Marketing
Section 131 of H.R. 759 amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require labeling as
a color additive whenever carbon monoxide is used to treat meat, poultry, and seafood.
Marine Mammals
Background
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
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
Congressional Research Service
12

---

Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 111th Congress

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, and porpoises (cetaceans), and seals and sea
lions (pinnipeds). 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 MMPA.
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 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 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
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” activities. 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.32

32 For more background, see CRS Report RS22149, Exemptions from Environmental Law for the Department of
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
13

---

Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 111th Congress

The Navy’s use of mid-frequency sonar and its possible effects on marine mammals has been the
focus of much controversy and litigation.33
Marine Mammal Protection Act Reauthorization
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 have been reduced or are being
maintained below their optimum sustainable population levels due to interactions with
commercial fisheries, and for studying pinniped-fishery interactions.34
A December 2008 study by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that limitations
in information available make it difficult for NMFS to accurately determine which marine
mammal stocks meet the statutory requirements for establishing take reduction teams.35 GAO
found that NMFS did not have a human-caused mortality estimate or a maximum removal level
for 39 of 113 marine mammal stocks, making it impossible to determine their strategic status in
accordance with MMPA requirements. For the remaining 74 stocks, NMFS data have significant
limitations that call into questions their accuracy. NMFS contends that funding constraints limit
their ability to gather sufficient data. In addition, NMFS has not established take reduction teams
for 14 marine mammal stocks for which NMFS data show them to be strategic and interacting
significantly with commercial fisheries.
In the 111th Congress, H.R. 843 amends 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. 844
reauthorizes and amends the MMPA provisions relating to the John H. Prescott Marine Mammal
Rescue Assistance Grant Program; the House passed this measure on March 2, 2009. H.R. 1054
amends the MMPA to allow imports of polar bear trophies taken in sport hunts in Canada before
the date the polar bear was listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. H.R.
1055 amends the MMPA to allow imports of polar bear trophies taken in sport hunts in Canada.
Section 30 of H.R. 1108 directs the Secretary of the Interior to establish regional OCS Joint
Permitting Offices, with expertise in MMPA consultations and preparation of documents.

(...continued)
Defense (DOD), by David M. Bearden.
33 For more background, see CRS Report RL34403, Whales and Sonar: Environmental Exemptions for the Navy’s Mid-
Frequency Active Sonar Training, by Kristina Alexander, and CRS Report RL33133, Active Military Sonar and Marine
Mammals: Events and References, by Eugene H. Buck and Kori Calvert.
34 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.
35 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Improvements Are Needed in the Federal Process Used to Protect Marine
Mammals from Commercial Fishing, GAO-09-78 (December 8, 2008). Available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/
d0978.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
14

---

Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 111th Congress

Additional Marine Mammal Issues in the 111th Congress
Dolphin Protection
H.R. 1080 amends the Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act to strengthen enforcement
mechanisms so as to stop illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing; on March 19, 2009, the
House Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans, and Wildlife held a hearing
on this bill.
Seals
S.Res. 84 expresses the sense of the Senate urging (1) Canada to halt its commercial seal hunt and
(2) the European Union to prohibit trade in seal products.
Military Sonar
H.R. 672 restricts the use of military and national security exemptions to MMPA restrictions on
marine mammal taking.
Southern Sea Otter
H.R. 556 establishes a research program for the recovery of the southern sea otter.
NMFS Appropriations
On February 4, 2008, the Bush Administration released its FY2009 budget request, including
about $782 million for NMFS. (See Table 1.) The FY2009 request for funding for NMFS within
NOAA’s Operations, Research, and Facilities (OR&F) Account was $15.87 million (2.24%) more
than funding enacted for FY2008. However, total NMFS funding was to decrease by $46.76
million (5.64%) from that enacted for FY2008, primarily due to significant decreases for Pacific
Coastal Salmon Recovery and for Other Accounts.
In the 110th Congress, on June 23, 2008, the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported S.
3182 (S.Rept. 110-397), recommending almost $926 million for NMFS for FY2009, $97.8
million (11.8%) more than the FY2008 enacted level and $143.5 million (18.3%) more than the
FY2009 request. In addition to what the Administration had requested, the Senate bill included an
additional $55 million for Pacific Coastal Salmon Restoration, $50 million for fishery disaster
mitigation, and $30 million for various fishery management activities.
On December 10, 2008, the House Committee on Appropriations reported H.R. 7322 (H.Rept.
110-919) containing FY2009 NMFS appropriations. The committee recommended almost $810
million for NMFS for FY2009, $19.7 million (2.4%) less than the FY2008 enacted level and
$27.1 million (3.5%) more than the FY2009 request. Included by the House measure for Pacific
Coastal Salmon Restoration was $30 million more than what the Administration had requested.

Congressional Research Service
15

---

Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 111th Congress

Table 1. NMFS Appropriations, FY2008-FY2009
(in thousands of dollars)
FY2008
FY2008
FY2009
FY2009

Request
Enacted
Request
Enacted
Fisheries
402,096
409,209
424,480
408,065
Protected Resources
165,095
163,992
167,241
160,400
Habitat Conservation
50,415
50,245
43,405
43,905
Enforcement Surveillance
86,973
84,894
89,085
89,085
Congressionally Directed Projects
—
—
—
52,055
SUBTOTAL (OR&F)
704,579
708,340
724,211
753,510
Procurement, Acquisition, Construction
0
2,021
0
0
Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery
66,825
67,000
35,000
80,000
Other Accounts
24,550
51,722
23,112
0
TOTAL
795,954
829,083
782,323
833,510
Sources: Budget Justifications, House and Senate Committee Reports, and floor debate.
Division A of P.L. 110-329 provided continuing appropriations for NMFS, through March 6,
2009, at the level of FY2008 appropriations; P.L. 111-6 extended continuing appropriations for
NMFS through March 11, 2009. In the 111th Congress, P.L. 111-8 (H.R. 1105, omnibus
appropriations for FY2009) provides more than $833 million for NMFS and related programs.

Author Contact Information

Eugene H. Buck
Harold F. Upton
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
gbuck@crs.loc.gov, 7-7262
hupton@crs.loc.gov, 7-2264




Congressional Research Service
16

---