.
Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal
Issues in the 112th Congress
Eugene H. Buck
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Harold F. Upton
Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
April 8, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41613
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
c11173008
.
Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th 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. Aquaculture or fish farming enterprises seek to supplement food traditionally provided by
wild harvests.
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 in the federal exclusive economic zone (EEZ), 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 112th Congress
may oversee implementation of the MSFCMA as well as address individual habitat and
management concerns for U.S. commercial and sport fisheries in an attempt to modify the
balance between resource use and protection. Additional concerns might include providing
additional flexibility in managing harvests to eliminate overfishing; determining the appropriate
level of funding for fishery disaster assistance; determining whether to modify fishing vessel
capacity reduction and limited access privilege (catch-share) programs; modifying programs to
better control bycatch of non-target species; amending various fishery laws to strengthen
enforcement to stop illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing; amending and reauthorizing the
Oceans and Human Health Act; amending and reauthorizing the Coral Reef Conservation Act;
enhancing efforts to monitor, restore, and protect marine ecosystems in the Gulf of Mexico;
implementing the Antigua Convention for eastern tropical Pacific tuna; authorizing a national
strategy to address harmful algal blooms and hypoxia; and providing additional support to
maintain the character of traditional fishing communities.
Aquaculture—the farming of fish, shellfish, and other aquatic animals and plants in a controlled
environment—is expanding rapidly abroad, yet with little growth in the United States. In the
United States, important species cultured include catfish, salmon, shellfish, and trout. The 112th
Congress may consider whether National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration policies and
regulations can balance development and regulation of the aquaculture industry in the U.S. EEZ,
and whether to prohibit regional fishery management councils from authorizing aquaculture in
federal offshore waters through fishery management plans and their amendments under the
MSFCMA.
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 permits
are obtained. It also addresses specific situations of concern, such as dolphin mortality associated
with the eastern tropical Pacific tuna fishery. The 112th Congress may consider bills to amend the
MMPA, including the John H. Prescott Marine Mammal Rescue Assistance Grant Program, 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 and an expanded research program
for the recovery of the southern sea otter.
The level of appropriations for fisheries, aquaculture/hatchery, and marine mammal programs
administered by the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service may be
an issue during the 112th Congress amid pressures to reduce federal spending.
Congressional Research Service
.
Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress
Contents
Most Recent Developments......................................................................................................... 1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
Commercial and Sport Fisheries.................................................................................................. 2
Background .......................................................................................................................... 2
Current Performance Measures ............................................................................................. 3
Magnuson-Stevens Act.......................................................................................................... 5
Pacific Salmon...................................................................................................................... 6
Additional Fishery Issues in the 112th Congress ..................................................................... 8
Habitat............................................................................................................................ 8
Sport Fisheries ................................................................................................................ 8
Disasters and Recovery ................................................................................................... 8
Tax Provisions ................................................................................................................ 9
Invasive Species.............................................................................................................. 9
International Fisheries ..................................................................................................... 9
Jobs ................................................................................................................................ 9
Seafood Safety................................................................................................................ 9
Health ........................................................................................................................... 10
Legal Fees .................................................................................................................... 10
Accidents and Injury ..................................................................................................... 10
Insurance ...................................................................................................................... 10
Marketing and Trade ..................................................................................................... 10
Coral............................................................................................................................. 10
Marine Debris ............................................................................................................... 10
Fishing Permits and Licenses ........................................................................................ 11
Aquaculture .............................................................................................................................. 11
Background ........................................................................................................................ 11
Aquaculture Issues in the 112th Congress............................................................................. 12
Marine Mammals ...................................................................................................................... 13
Background ........................................................................................................................ 13
Marine Mammal Protection Act Reauthorization ................................................................. 14
Additional Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress..................................................... 16
Habitat.......................................................................................................................... 16
Polar Bears ................................................................................................................... 16
Miscellaneous Marine Mammal Issues .......................................................................... 16
Appropriations .......................................................................................................................... 16
National Marine Fisheries Service....................................................................................... 16
Fish and Wildlife Service .................................................................................................... 18
Figures
Figure 1. U.S. Commercial Fish and Shellfish Harvest, 1976-2009.............................................. 4
Congressional Research Service
.
Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress
Tables
Table 1. NMFS Appropriations, FY2010-FY2011...................................................................... 17
Table 2. FWS Appropriations, FY2010-FY2011 ........................................................................ 18
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 18
Congressional Research Service
.
Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress
Most Recent Developments
On March 8, 2011, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation held an
oversight hearing on evaluating the success of the MSFCMA in preventing overfishing and
rebuilding depleted fish populations. On March 4, 2011, President Obama signed P.L. 112-5 (H.R.
662) into law, including provisions extending the authority to make expenditures from the
Highway Trust Fund and other trust funds, including various programs under the Sport Fish
Restoration and Boating Trust Fund, through the end of FY2011.
Introduction
Increasing use of marine resources is driving proposals for Congress and the Administration to
alter current relationships between environmental protection and sustainable resource
management. In response to reports by the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the Pew
Oceans Commission noting 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 the Obama Administration released the final recommendations of its Ocean Policy Task
Force on July 19, 2010.2 A further concern is the increasing pressures and conflicts that arise from
economic activity associated with continued human population growth. A common concern is
habitat loss or alteration, due both to natural processes, such as climate variation and ocean
acidification, and to development, competition from invasive species, and other factors, primarily
related to economic and social interests. Congress faces the issues of how to balance these diverse
interests (which may fall on various sides of any given controversy), and whether to alter current
laws that promote the sustainable management of fishery and other marine resources and protect
the marine environment.
The primary laws governing fisheries, aquaculture, and marine mammals are the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA; 16 U.S.C. §§ 1801 et seq.), the
National Aquaculture Act of 1980 (16 U.S.C. §§ 2801 et seq.), and the Marine Mammal
Protection Act (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. §§ 1361 et seq.). Congress last reauthorized and extensively
amended the MSFCMA in the 109th Congress (P.L. 109-479); the current funding 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 112th
Congress may consider measures to reauthorize the MMPA, address aquatic habitat concerns,
provide funding for disaster assistance, consider whether to provide greater flexibility in
rebuilding fish populations, and address fishery-specific concerns, as well as conducting
oversight of MSFCMA implementation.
1 See An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century, http://www.oceancommission.gov/documents/full_color_rpt/
000_ocean_full_report.pdf, and America’s Living Oceans: Charting a Course for Sea Change,
http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Protecting_ocean_life/
env_pew_oceans_final_report.pdf.
2 See http://www.whitehouse.gov/files/documents/OPTF_FinalRecs.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
1
.
Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress
Commercial and Sport Fisheries
Background
Historically, coastal states managed marine sport and commercial fisheries in nearshore waters,
where almost all 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 (e.g., by
enacting laws implementing treaties, such as was done by the Northern Pacific Halibut Act in
1937) as well as to interstate fishery conflicts (e.g., by consenting to interstate fishery compacts,
such as was accomplished by enactment of 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,3 foreign vessels could
fish many of the same stocks caught by U.S. fishermen. U.S. fishermen deplored this “foreign
encroachment” and alleged that overfishing was causing stress on, or outright depletion of, fish
stocks. Protracted Law of the Sea Treaty negotiations in the early and mid-1970s as well as
actions by other coastal nations provided impetus for unilateral U.S. action.4
Such unilateral action occurred when the United States enacted 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), ushering 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. This 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).
With the enactment of the FCMA, 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.5 In addition, the FCMA
established eight Regional Fishery Management Councils,6 with members appointed by the
Secretary of Commerce from lists provided by coastal state governors of candidates
3 Subsequently 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.
4 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.
5 NMFS programs are described in detail at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/.
6 Links to individual council websites are available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/councils/.
Congressional Research Service
2
.
Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress
knowledgeable about fishery resources.7 Each regional council prepares 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 more than 40 FMPs for various fish
and shellfish resources, with additional FMPs 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 more than 30 times), and three have been developed and
implemented jointly by two or more councils.
Under initial FCMA authority, a substantial portion of the fish caught 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 1986-1988.8
After this peak, annual landings hovered around 6 billion pounds until about 2006, when Bering
Sea pollock stocks began a decline and increased efforts to reduce overfishing in federal EEZ
waters began to take effect (Figure 1).
Current Performance Measures
The economic status of U.S. commercial fisheries is updated and reported annually.9 In 2009 (the
most recent data available), U.S. commercial fishermen landed slightly more than 6.0 billion
pounds of edible, unprocessed fish and shellfish from combined state, federal, and international
waters, worth more than $3.7 billion at the dock. U.S. imports of mostly processed products
supplied 5.2 billion pounds, worth $13.1 billion. U.S. consumers spent an estimated $75.5 billion
on edible seafood in 2009, with $50.3 billion of that amount spent in restaurants and other food
service establishments. In addition, marine recreational anglers caught an estimated 391 million
fish in 2009, of which the retained catch was about 212 million pounds.10 In 2006 (the most
recent data available), a nationwide survey, conducted every five years, estimated that
recreational anglers spent more than $40 billion annually pursuing their sport.11
7 For the 2009 report to Congress on council membership, see http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/reg_svcs/
Council_Reportocongress/2009ApportionmentReportToCongress.pdf.
8 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.).
9 For additional information on domestic commercial fisheries, see http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/commercial/
index.html. Additional data for 2009 are available at http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/fus/fus09/fus_2009.pdf.
10 Recreational fishing programs at NMFS are discussed at http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/recreational/index.html.
11 Results of the 2006 survey can be found at http://library.fws.gov/pubs/nat_survey2006_final.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
3
.
Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress
Figure 1. U.S. Commercial Fish and Shellfish Harvest, 1976-2009
7
6
s 5
und 4
n po 3
io
ll
bi 2
1
0
19
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
7
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
0
0
0
0
0
6
78
80
82
84
86
88
90
92
94
9
9
0
0
0
0
0
6
8
0
2
4
6
8
- 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 through two
determinations.12 For 2009, NMFS made determinations for 250 fish stocks and complexes,13
finding that 38 (15%) of them were subject to overfishing14 and 212 (85%) were not. In addition,
NMFS made separate determinations for 203 stocks and complexes, finding that 46 (23%) were
overfished15 and 157 (77%) were not. These numbers reflect a slight decline in the overfishing
percentage compared to 2008 (when 16% were subject to overfishing) as well as a stable
overfished percentage compared to that year (when 23% were overfished). In 2005, NMFS began
using these same fish stock status data to portray nationwide progress in addressing overfishing
through a numerical Fish Stock Sustainability Index (FSSI).16 Out of a possible maximum FSSI
score of 920, this index of success in curbing overfishing has increased (i.e., improved) from
481.5 (third quarter of calendar year 2005) to 583 (fourth quarter of calendar year 2010).
12 See http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/statusoffisheries/sos_full28_press.pdf.
13 NMFS reviewed 522 individual stocks and stock complexes but had insufficient information to make determinations
on all of them.
14 A stock that is subject to overfishing has a fishing mortality (harvest) rate greater than the level that provides for the
maximum sustainable yield from this stock.
15 A stock that is overfished has a biomass level less than a biological threshold specified in that stock’s FMP.
16 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/statusoffisheries/2010/fourth/Q4%202010%20FSSI%20Summary%20Changes.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
4
.
Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress
Magnuson-Stevens Act
The MSFCMA was reauthorized in the 109th Congress by P.L. 109-479, the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006.17 Some of the major issues
addressed by this comprehensive measure included
• modifying requirements for appointing and training members of regional
councils as well as for conducting 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
coordination of environmental review under the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321, et seq.);
• strengthening the role of science in fishery management decision-making; and
• authorizing appropriations for federal fishery management through FY2013.18
NMFS has summarized various tasks associated with implementing P.L. 109-479.19 Examples of
implementation activities include (1) a report by NMFS to Congress on implementing new
provisions relating to better control of illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing
activities;20 and (2) final guidance amending National Standard 1, designed to end overfishing
through new requirements for annual catch limits and other accountability measures.21 In
addition, NMFS released a new national policy encouraging the consideration and use of catch
shares as an alternative to managing fisheries through open access harvesting.22
17 For additional summary information on this measure, see http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/msa2005/
MSA%202006%20Implementation%20Overview.pdf.
18 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.
19 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/.
20 Available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/msa2007/docs/biennial_report011309.pdf.
21 74 Federal Register 3178-3213, January 16, 2009.
22 See http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/domes_fish/catchshare/docs/noaa_cs_policy.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
5
.
Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress
The 112th Congress may continue oversight of implementation of the 2006 amendments to the
MSFCMA, including progress on addressing overfishing and restoring overfished stocks and
controlling bycatch of non-target species. Legislation may be considered to address regional
marine habitat and fishery management concerns to balance interests in promoting both
sustainable resource use and habitat protection. Particular legislative attention may be focused on
providing additional flexibility in managing harvests to eliminate overfishing while providing
additional support to maintain the character of traditional coastal fishing communities. As the
112th Congress faces daunting fiscal concern, attention might be given to determining the
appropriate level of fishery disaster assistance that might be authorized and appropriated. To
address economic concerns of the commercial fishing industry, the 112th Congress might consider
legislation determining whether to encourage additional or modify existing fishing vessel
capacity reduction and limited access privilege (catch share) programs.
In the 112th Congress, introduced bills address a number of issues.
• S. 238 would amend MSFCMA to require that annual fishery impact statements
evaluate the effects of management actions on fishing communities.
• Section 4040, Division D, of H.R. 1 would prohibit expenditures to develop or
approve a new limited access privilege program under the MSFCMA for any
fishery under the jurisdiction of the South Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, New England,
or Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. The House passed H.R. 1,
amended, on February 19, 2011.
• H.R. 1013 would amend MSFCMA to provide the New England Fishery
Management Council additional resources from the Asset Forfeiture Fund to
address research and monitoring priorities established by the council.
• On March 8, 2011, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation held an oversight hearing on evaluating the success of the
MSFCMA in preventing overfishing and rebuilding depleted fish populations.
• S. 632 would amend MSFCMA to extend the authorized period for rebuilding of
certain overfished fisheries.
Pacific Salmon
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 or
stocks intermingle on fishing grounds. In addition to natural environmental fluctuations, factors
influencing the abundance of 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.
The Northwest Power and Conservation Council took the lead in the Columbia River Basin under
the 1980 Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act, by attempting to
protect salmon and their habitat while also providing inexpensive electric power to the region.
Under this effort, federal agencies and public utilities have spent hundreds of millions of dollars
on technical improvements for dams, habitat enhancement, and water purchases to improve
Congressional Research Service
6
.
Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress
salmon survival. Recent years have seen an increased interest by state governments and tribal
councils in developing comprehensive salmon management efforts.
In response to declining salmon populations in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California,
discrete population units were listed as endangered or threatened species under the Endangered
Species Act.23 In 2006, a San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Agreement ended an 18-year
legal dispute over the operation of Friant Dam in California that had eliminated salmon from
much of this river. 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 water supply losses to Friant Division long-term water contractors
that may result from restoration flows provided in the agreement. Congress authorized the
implementation of this agreement through P.L. 111-11. In 2010, two agreements were concluded
for the Klamath River Basin to address fishery and water supply issues.
Issues in the 112th Congress may include measures to better protect freshwater and coastal habitat
from a multitude of threats and improve habitat quality so as to benefit Pacific salmon. Under the
authority of the Pacific Salmon Treaty with Canada, additional efforts might be made to improve
coordination of salmon management with Canada. In addition, expanded survey and research
initiatives might be authorized to obtain additional environmental data to improve understanding
of oceanic factors affecting salmon abundance. The 112th Congress might act to authorize targeted
salmon restoration programs, such as implementation of the Klamath River agreements.
Oversight of the San Joaquin Restoration Settlement, operation of the federal Central Valley
Project, and pumping of water from the Sacramento River Delta may also be topics of interest for
the 112th Congress.
Several bills introduced in the 112th Congress may affect Pacific salmon:
• Section 305(b) of S. 52 would reauthorize the Pacific Salmon Treaty Act through
FY2013.
• H.R. 1 (seeking to provide continuing appropriations for the remainder of
FY2011) includes language that would limit funding for the Pacific Coastal
Salmon Recovery Fund to $50 million (Section 1307, Division B, Title III) and
prohibit funds from being used by NMFS and FWS for implementing certain
actions described in a biological opinion for the operations of the Central Valley
Project and the California State Water Project (Section 1475, Division B,
Title IV).
• H.R. 946 would amend MMPA to permit activities aimed at reducing marine
mammal predation on endangered Columbia River salmon.
• H.R. 1251 would provide congressional direction for Endangered Species Act
(ESA) implementation as it relates to operation of the Central Valley Project and
the California State Water Project. Section 308 of H.R. 1287 and S. 706 would
prohibit the Bureau of Reclamation and California state agencies from restricting
operations for the Central Valley Project pursuant to any ESA biological opinion
under certain conditions.
23 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 and Harold F. Upton.
Congressional Research Service
7
.
Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress
Additional Fishery Issues in the 112th Congress
Additional fishery concerns that could be addressed in the 112th Congress include several
measures that were introduced and acted upon favorably by the 111th Congress, but were not
enacted before that Congress adjourned. In response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010,
efforts might be made in the 112th Congress to enhance efforts to monitor, restore, and protect
marine ecosystems in the Gulf of Mexico. Several additional issues that were unresolved in the
111th Congress might receive consideration in the 112th Congress, including amending and
reauthorizing the Oceans and Human Health Act and authorizing a national strategy to address
harmful algal blooms and hypoxia in coastal waters.
Legislation has been introduced in the 112th Congress to address several issues related to
fisheries.
Habitat
Section 11 of S. 203 would amend the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 to provide specific funding for
rescue, rehabilitation, and recovery of marine species, including marine birds and sea turtles.
Section 505 of H.R. 501 would establish an Ocean Resources Conservation and Assistance Fund
to provide specific support for rescue, rehabilitation, and recovery of marine species;
conservation of marine ecosystems; improvement of marine ecosystem resiliency; and protection
of marine biodiversity. H.Res. 80 would express the sense of the House in support of the goals
and ideals of National Marine Awareness Day, celebrating the diversity of marine fisheries and
wildlife and the richness of marine ecosystems.
In addition, a number of bills in the 112th Congress propose to address various water quality and
aquatic/marine ecosystem restoration issues more generally; for more information on these issues,
see CRS Report R41594, Water Quality Issues in the 112th Congress: Oversight and
Implementation, by Claudia Copeland, and CRS Report RL34329, Crosscut Budgets in
Ecosystem Restoration Initiatives: Examples and Issues for Congress, by Pervaze A. Sheikh and
Clinton T. Brass.
Sport Fisheries
Sections 203(b) and 401(b) of P.L. 112-5 (H.R. 662) extended the authority to make expenditures
from the Highway Trust Fund and other trust funds, including various programs under the Sport
Fish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund, through the end of FY2011. Section 4(b) of S. 108
would modify the tariff on vulcanized rubber lug boot bottoms for use in fishing waders. Section
9(b)(2)(D) of S. 351 and Section 13(2)(D) of H.R. 352 would designate a portion of revenues
from certain oil and gas leasing in Alaska for the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Fund.
Section 311 of H.R. 1285 and S. 706 would prohibit the Claims and Judgment Fund of the United
States Treasury from paying legal fees of an environmental nongovernmental organization related
to any action that prevents, terminates, or reduces access to or the production of a resource by
commercial or recreational fishermen.
Disasters and Recovery
H.R. 56 and Section 402 of H.R. 501 would establish a Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Fund,
with use of funds to include mitigation of damage to fisheries. S. 653 and H.R. 1336 would
Congressional Research Service
8
.
Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress
require the Administrator of the Small Business Administration to establish a Southeast
Hurricanes Small Business Disaster Relief Program for losses caused by Hurricane Katrina of
2005, Hurricane Rita of 2005, Hurricane Gustav of 2008, or Hurricane Ike of 2008. H.R. 1228
and S. 662 would require EPA to enter into an arrangement with the National Academies to
preliminarily evaluate the natural resource damages from the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill.
Tax Provisions
Section 202(a)(74) of S. 13 would repeal Section 7873 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
relating to federal tax treatment of income derived by Indians from exercise of fishing rights
secured by treaty. H.R. 278 would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for tax-
exempt qualified small issue bonds to finance fish processing property. Section 5 of H.R. 390
would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for an exclusion from the gross estate
for certain farmlands and lands subject to qualified conservation easements managed to provide
habitat in support of fish and wildlife-dependent recreation.
Invasive Species
H.Res. 132 would express the need to raise awareness and promote capacity building to address
the lionfish invasion in the Atlantic Ocean. Section 3 of S. 432 would amend the Lake Tahoe
Restoration Act to require FWS to deploy strategies to prevent the introduction of aquatic
invasive species into the Lake Tahoe Basin. H.R. 892 and S. 471 would direct the Corps of
Engineers, U.S. Geological Survey, and FWS to take measures to control the spread of Asian
carp, including studying the feasibility of the hydrological separation of the Great Lakes and
Mississippi River Basins.
International Fisheries
S. 52 would amend various statutes implementing international fishery agreements to deter and
combat illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing; in addition, Title IV would amend the
Tuna Conventions Act of 1950 to implement the Antigua Convention. H.Res. 47 would express
the sense of the House of Representatives urging that the Parties to the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) adopt stronger
protections for sharks and bluefin tuna.
Jobs
Section 7(b)(2)(H) of H.R. 192/S. 179 would promote 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. 594 would establish a jobs
creation grant program to support cooperative research and monitoring, recreational fishing
registry programs, marine debris removal, and restoration of coastal resources.
Seafood Safety
S. 50 would direct the Departments of Commerce and of Health and Human Services, the Federal
Trade Commission, and other federal agencies to coordinate and strengthen programs to better
ensure that seafood in interstate and foreign commerce is fit for human consumption. H.R. 832
Congressional Research Service
9
.
Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress
would require research on the safety of Gulf of Mexico seafood, including levels of elevated
hazardous substances.
Health
Section 232(a) of H.R. 105, Section 501(a) of H.R. 299, Section 201(a) of H.R. 397, and Section
2(a) of H.R. 1050 would amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA;
P.L. 93-406; 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001, et seq.) to authorize fishing industry associations to provide
health care plans for association members.
Legal Fees
Section 311 of H.R. 1285 and S. 706 would prohibit the Claims and Judgment Fund of the United
States Treasury from paying legal fees of an environmental nongovernmental organization related
to any action that prevents, terminates, or reduces access to or the production of a resource by
commercial or recreational fishermen.
Accidents and Injury
Section 2(2) of S. 475 would prohibit funding of National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health’s Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Program, which seeks to eliminate occupational
diseases and injuries among workers in these industries through research and prevention.
Insurance
Section 39 of H.R. 1026 would require the Federal Emergency Management Agency to study the
impacts of the National Flood Insurance Program on harbor areas including commercial and
recreational fishing.
Marketing and Trade
Section 7 of H.R. 480 would establish a Gulf of Mexico seafood marketing program. Section 4(b)
of S. 108 would modify the tariff on vulcanized rubber lug boot bottoms for use in fishing
waders.
Coral
S. 46 and H.R. 738 would amend and reauthorize the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000
through FY2015 (H.R. 738) or FY2016 (S. 46).
Marine Debris
H.R. 1171 would reauthorize (through FY2016) and amend the Marine Debris Research,
Prevention, and Reduction Act.
Congressional Research Service
10
.
Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress
Fishing Permits and Licenses
H.R. 1210 and S. 608 would limit maritime liens on fishing permits and licenses.
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.24 The diversity of aquaculture
is typified by such activities as freshwater fish farming (e.g., catfish and trout farms);25 shellfish
and seaweed culture; net-pen culture, used by the salmon industry, wherein fish remain captive
throughout their lives in marine pens; 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 grew from
approximately 1 million metric tons in the early 1950s to 51.7 million metric tons in 2006 (the
most recent FAO data available).26 Meanwhile, the harvest from wild populations has been static
for the last two decades, and further growth of fish production for human consumption is
expected to rely on aquaculture. In 2006, FAO estimated that 47% of all fish consumed by
humans came from aquaculture. FAO predicts that world aquaculture production could exceed
130 million metric tons by 2030, more than double the current wild fish harvest for human
consumption.27
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.28 The domestic aquaculture industry faces strong
competition from imports of foreign aquacultural products, from the domestic poultry and
livestock industries, and from wild harvests. In addition, aquaculture operations face increasing
scrutiny for habitat destruction, pollution, and other concerns. The major federal 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
24 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 Eugene Buck at gbuck@crs.loc.gov.
25 For statistics on freshwater production, see http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2002/Aquaculture/index.asp.
26 For more details, see ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/011/i0250e/i0250e01.pdf.
27 For a discussion of FAO projections for 2030, see http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5648e/y5648e07.htm#bm07.1.
28 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.
Congressional Research Service
11
.
Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress
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.29 On
February 9, 2011, the Department of Commerce and NOAA released complementary draft
national aquaculture policies to address concerns related to aquaculture development in the
EEZ.30 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, and was not reintroduced in the 111th Congress.
In 2009, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council voted to approve a plan to issue
aquaculture permits and regulate aquaculture in federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico. NOAA is
also developing a national aquaculture policy to complement this action. Environmentalists and
some fishing industry representatives have opposed the plan because of concerns related to
environmental protection and potential harm to wild fish populations. Many who oppose the plan
support a precautionary approach and development of national aquaculture standards. In response
to these concerns, legislation to establish a regulatory system for offshore aquaculture in the U.S.
EEZ was introduced during the 111th Congress, but was not considered on the floor in either
chamber.
Aquaculture Issues in the 112th Congress
The 112th Congress may consider whether NOAA policies and regulations can balance
development and regulation of the aquaculture industry in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone,
and whether to constrain regional fishery management council authority to permit aquaculture in
federal offshore waters through fishery management plans and their amendment.
In the 112th Congress, several bills have been introduced that might affect aquaculture:
• S. 50 would direct the Departments of Commerce and of Health and Human
Services, the Federal Trade Commission, and other federal agencies to coordinate
and strengthen programs to better ensure that seafood in interstate and foreign
commerce is fit for human consumption.
• H.R. 278 would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for tax-
exempt qualified small issue bonds to finance fish processing property.
• S. 229 and H.R. 520 would amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to
require labeling of genetically engineered fish. S. 230 and H.R. 521 would amend
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to prevent the approval of genetically
engineered fish for human consumption.
• S. 256 would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a credit against
income tax for equity investments in aquaculture small businesses.
29 Available at http://aquaculture.noaa.gov/about/tenyear.html.
30 The draft NOAA policy is available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/aquaculture/docs/noaadraftaqpolicy.pdf; the draft
Department of Commerce policy is available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/aquaculture/docs/docdraftaqpolicy.pdf;
these documents are open for public comment through April 11, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
12
.
Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress
• H.R. 574 would prohibit the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of
Commerce from authorizing commercial finfish aquaculture operations in the
EEZ unless specifically authorized by Congress.
• Section 39 of H.R. 1026 would require the Federal Emergency Management
Agency to study the impacts of the National Flood Insurance Program on harbor
areas including aquaculture.
• S. 496 would amend the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act to repeal a program
relating to inspection and grading of catfish.
• H.R. 1149 would amend the Clean Air Act to include algae-based biofuel in the
renewable fuel program; H.R. 1149 and S. 748 would amend the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 to include algae-based biofuel in the cellulosic biofuel
producer credit.
• H.R. 1176 would amend the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act of 2004 to
include farmed shellfish as specialty crops.
• H.R. 1160 and S. 651 would require the Secretary of the Interior to convey the
McKinney Lake National Fish Hatchery to the State of North Carolina.
• Section 2(C)(1) of H.R. 1251 would direct the Secretary of Commerce and
Secretary of the Interior to establish a fish hatchery program or refuge to preserve
and restore the delta smelt.
Marine Mammals
Background
In 1972, Congress enacted the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. §§ 1361 et
seq.), due in part to high 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 commercial fishing and
other maritime industries.
The MMPA established a moratorium on the “taking” of marine mammals in U.S. waters and by
U.S. nationals on the high seas. It also established a moratorium on importing marine mammals
and marine mammal products into the United States. The MMPA protected marine mammals
from “clubbing, mutilation, poisoning, capture in nets, and other human actions that lead to
extinction.” It also expressly authorized the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of the
Interior to issue permits for the “taking” of marine mammals for certain purposes, such as
scientific research and public display.
Under the MMPA, the Secretary of Commerce, acting through NMFS, is responsible for the
conservation and management of whales, dolphins, 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
Congressional Research Service
13
.
Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress
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 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. The eastern tropical Pacific tuna fishery initially was excluded from the incidental
take regimes. 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 the International
Dolphin Conservation Program Act.
More recently, Section 319 of P.L. 108-136 amended the MMPA in 2003 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.31 The Navy’s use of mid-frequency sonar and its possible effects
on marine mammals has been the focus of much controversy and litigation.32
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. This
reauthorization also included amendments providing for developing and implementing take-
31 For more background, see CRS Report RS22149, Exemptions from Environmental Law for the Department of
Defense (DOD), by David M. Bearden.
32 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.
Congressional Research Service
14
.
Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress
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.33
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.34 GAO
found that NMFS did not have a human-caused mortality estimate or a maximum removal level
for 39 of 113 (35%) 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 their accuracy into question. 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.
The 112th Congress may consider bills to reauthorize and amend the MMPA, either
comprehensively or through specific programs, such as the John H. Prescott Marine Mammal
Rescue Assistance Grant Program (16 U.S.C. § 1421f-1). Other measures may address specific
marine mammal habitat and management concerns, such as how to better understand and deal
with the effects of increasing noise in the ocean. In some cases, legislation might address
individual species issues, such as proposals to expand the research program seeking the recovery
of the southern sea otter.
Legislation has been introduced in the 112th Congress to address several issues related to the
MMPA.
• Section 3 of H.R. 332 would require compliance by all federal defense agencies
with certain environmental laws including MMPA.
• Section 305(a) of S. 52 would amend the MMPA to authorize appropriations
thorough FY2013 to study of the effect of intentional encirclement (including
chase) on dolphins incidentally taken in purse seine fishing for yellowfin tuna in
the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean.
• H.R. 594 would establish a jobs creation grant program to support cooperative
research to collect data to improve marine mammal stock assessments.
• Section 3(a) of H.R. 840 would allow certain offshore drilling operations to
proceed without further review under the MMPA. Section 101 of H.R. 909 would
declare the Draft Proposed Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Leasing
Program 2010-2015 to be fully compliant with MMPA.
• H.R. 946 would amend MMPA to permit activities aimed at reducing marine
mammal predation on endangered Columbia River salmon.
33 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.
34 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
15
.
Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress
• H.R. 990 would amend MMPA to allow the importation of polar bear trophies
taken in sport hunts in Canada. H.R. 991 would amend MMPA to allow imports
of polar bear trophies taken in sport hunts in Canada before the date the polar
bear was determined to be a threatened species under the Endangered Species
Act.
Additional Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress
Legislation has been introduced in the 112th Congress to address several other issues related to
marine mammals generally.
Habitat
S. 203 would direct NOAA to research oil spill prevention and response in the Arctic waters,
including assessment of impacts on Arctic marine mammals, and amend the Oil Pollution Act of
1990 to provide specific funding for rescue, rehabilitation, and recovery of marine species,
including marine mammals. Section 224 of H.R. 501 would amend Section 20 of the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act relating to determining the cumulative impacts on marine mammal
species and stocks and their subsistence use.
Polar Bears
H.R. 39 would delist the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of
1973.
Miscellaneous Marine Mammal Issues
Section 34 of H.R. 235, Section 506(b)(21) of H.R. 408/S. 178, and Section 3 of S. 475 would
repeal exchange programs for Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and their historical whaling and
trading partners in Massachusetts in Subpart 12 of Part D of Title V of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965. H.Res. 80 would express the sense of the House in support of
the goals and ideals of National Marine Awareness Day, celebrating the diversity of marine
wildlife and the richness of marine ecosystems.
Appropriations
Appropriations also play an important role in federal fisheries management, providing funds for
various programs and initiatives. In addition, appropriations bills have served as vehicles for
some changes in MSFCMA provisions.
National Marine Fisheries Service
For NMFS, funding for fisheries and marine mammal programs including management under the
MSFCMA is provided within NOAA’s Operations, Research, and Facilities (OR&F) Account.
(See Table 1.) NMFS employs more than 2,800 scientists, policy analysts, engineers, boat
captains, computer modelers, statisticians, enforcement officers, secretaries, fisheries managers,
Congressional Research Service
16
.
Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress
economists, and various other skilled workers to implement its programs. NMFS currently is
operating with continued funding at FY2010 levels through April 8, 2011, under a continuing
resolution (P.L. 112-6). In the 112th Congress, H.R. 1 (seeking to provide continuing
appropriations for the remainder of FY2011) includes language that would (1) limit funding for
the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery to $50 million (Section 1307, Division B, Title III); (2)
prohibit funds from being used by NMFS for implementing certain actions described in a
biological opinion for the operations of the Central Valley Project and the California State Water
Project (Section 1475, Division B, Title IV); and (3) prohibit expenditures to develop or approve
new limited access privilege programs under the MSFCMA for any fishery under the jurisdiction
of the South Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, New England, or Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management
Council (Section 4040, Division D). The House passed H.R. 1, amended, on February 19, 2011.
Table 1. NMFS Appropriations, FY2010-FY2011
(in thousands of dollars)
FY2010
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
Request
Enacted
Request
Request
Fisheries
499,949
512,097
537,263 550,295
Protected Species
243,538
201,577
210,251 216,581
Habitat Conservation
44,023
50,343
54,918 53,600
Enforcement Surveillance
103,132
106,747
105,345 106,207
Admin. Efficiency Initiative
(16,271)
Cong.-Directed Projects
33,775
SUBTOTAL (OR&F)
890,642
904,539
907,777 910,412
Procurement, Acquisition,
0
0
0 0
Construction
Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery
0a
80,000
65,000 65,000
Other Accounts
21,110
23,600
350 25,142
TOTAL
911,752
1,008,139
973,127 1,000,554
Sources: Budget Justifications, House and Senate Committee Reports, and floor debate.
a. The Administration’s budget request proposed to transfer $50 million from species recovery grants within
NMFS to fund activities within the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery account.
The Administration’s FY2012 budget request was released on February 14, 2011.35
Appropriations issues in the 112th Congress might include not only what level of funding is
adequate to implement the programs required by law, but also what levels of funding might be
provided for alleviating the effects of disasters on fisheries and how much funding should be
provided to restore salmon habitat and promote the recovery of endangered and threatened
salmon stocks.
35 For more information on NMFS FY2010 appropriations, see CRS Report R40840, The National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Budget for FY2010, by Harold F. Upton.
Congressional Research Service
17
.
Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress
Fish and Wildlife Service
Within the FWS budget, an account for “fisheries and aquatic resource conservation” includes
funding for the National Fish Hatchery operations, aquatic invasive species programs, and marine
mammal programs. (See Table 2.) These programs employ about 800 individuals, located at 70
National Fish Hatcheries, 65 Fish and Wildlife Conservation Offices, 1 historic National Fish
Hatchery, 9 Fish Health Centers, and 7 Fish Technology Centers.
Table 2. FWS Appropriations, FY2010-FY2011
(in thousands of dollars)
FY2010
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
Request
Enacted
Request
Request
Fisheries and Aquatic
140,695
148,214
142,477 136,012
Resource Conservation
Sources: Budget justifications, House and Senate Committee Reports, and floor debate.
FWS currently is operating with continued funding at FY2010 levels through April 8, 2011, under
a continuing resolution (P.L. 112-6). In the 112th Congress, H.R. 1 (seeking to provide continuing
appropriations for the remainder of FY2011) includes language that would prohibit funds from
being used by FWS for implementing certain actions described in a biological opinion for the
operations of the Central Valley Project and the California State Water Project (Section 1475,
Division B, Title IV). The House passed H.R. 1, amended, on February 19, 2011.
The Administration’s FY2012 budget request was released on February 14, 2011.36 The decrease
in the FY2012 request was primarily from a decrease of $11,609,000 proposed for the National
Fish Hatchery System. The central issue in the 112th Congress with these appropriations might be
expected to focus on what level of funding is adequate to implement the programs required by
law.
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
36 For more comprehensive information on all FWS FY2010 and FY2011 appropriations accounts, see CRS Report
R41258, Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2011 Appropriations, coordinated by Carol Hardy Vincent.
Congressional Research Service
18