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
January 27, 2012
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41613
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress

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 (National
Marine Fisheries Service, NMFS) 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 nontarget 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 NMFS 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 ................................................................................................. 4
Magnuson-Stevens Act .............................................................................................................. 5
Pacific Salmon........................................................................................................................... 8
Additional Fishery Issues in the 112th Congress...................................................................... 10
Habitat Protection and Restoration ................................................................................... 10
Sport Fisheries................................................................................................................... 11
Invasive Species ................................................................................................................ 12
Disasters and Recovery ..................................................................................................... 13
International Fisheries ....................................................................................................... 13
Tuna and Billfish............................................................................................................... 14
Jobs.................................................................................................................................... 14
Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia................................................................................. 14
Seafood Safety .................................................................................................................. 15
Tax Provisions ................................................................................................................... 15
Marketing and Trade ......................................................................................................... 15
Legal Fees ......................................................................................................................... 16
Health ................................................................................................................................ 16
Accidents and Injury ......................................................................................................... 16
Fishing Permits and Licenses............................................................................................ 16
Coral.................................................................................................................................. 16
Marine Debris.................................................................................................................... 16
Fishing Vessels .................................................................................................................. 16
Insurance ........................................................................................................................... 17
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation ............................................................................. 17
Government Reorganization.............................................................................................. 17
Aquaculture.................................................................................................................................... 17
Background.............................................................................................................................. 17
Aquaculture Issues in the 112th Congress................................................................................ 18
Marine Mammals........................................................................................................................... 20
Background.............................................................................................................................. 20
Marine Mammal Protection Act Reauthorization.................................................................... 22
Additional Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress....................................................... 24
Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 24
Polar Bears ........................................................................................................................ 24
Miscellaneous Marine Mammal Issues ............................................................................. 24
Appropriations ............................................................................................................................... 24
National Marine Fisheries Service .......................................................................................... 24
Fish and Wildlife Service ........................................................................................................ 26

Congressional Research Service

Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress

Figures
Figure 1. U.S. Commercial Fish and Shellfish Harvest, 1976-2010................................................ 4

Tables
Table 1. NMFS Appropriations, FY2010-FY2012 ........................................................................ 25
Table 2. FWS Appropriations, FY2010-FY2012........................................................................... 26

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 27

Congressional Research Service

Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress

Most Recent Developments
On January 26, 2012, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation reported
(1) S. 50, proposing to direct the Department of Commerce, the Department of Health and Human
Services, the Federal Trade Commission, and other federal agencies to combat seafood fraud and
coordinate and strengthen programs to better ensure that seafood in interstate and foreign
commerce is fit for human consumption, and (2) S. 52, proposing to (a) amend various statutes
implementing international fishery agreements to deter and combat illegal, unreported, and
unregulated (IUU) fishing, (b) amend the Tuna Conventions Act of 1950 to implement the
Antigua Convention, (c) reauthorize the Pacific Salmon Treaty Act through FY2013, and
(d) amend the MMPA to authorize appropriations thorough FY2013 to study of the effect of
intentional encirclement (including chase) on dolphins. On December 31, 2011, President Obama
signed P.L. 112-81 (H.R. 1540), wherein Division A, Section 312, amends the Sikes Act to
modify how this act applies to state-owned facilities used for national defense. On December 23,
2011, President Obama signed P.L. 112-74 (H.R. 2055), providing almost $136 million for FWS
fisheries and aquatic resource conservation, and authorizing the Corps of Engineers to take
emergency measures to exclude Asian carp from the Great Lakes. (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 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 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

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

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.
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).

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.
Congressional Research Service
2

Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress

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
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).

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/.
7 For the 2010 report to Congress on council membership, see http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/reg_svcs/
Council_Reportocongress/2010ApportionmentReportToCongress.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.).
Congressional Research Service
3

Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress

Figure 1. U.S. Commercial Fish and Shellfish Harvest, 1976-2010
7
6
5
4
3
billion pounds 2
1
0
19 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
7
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 9
9
0
0
0
0
0
1

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

Source: NMFS, Fisheries of the United States (various years), Current Fishery Statistics series.
Current Performance Measures
The economic status of U.S. commercial fisheries is updated and reported annually.9 In 2010 (the
most recent data available), U.S. commercial fishermen landed 6.5 billion pounds of edible,
unprocessed fish and shellfish from combined state, federal, and international waters, worth
almost $4.4 billion at the dock. U.S. imports of mostly processed products supplied 5.5 billion
pounds, worth $14.8 billion. U.S. consumers spent an estimated $80.2 billion on edible seafood in
2010, with $54 billion of that amount spent in restaurants and other food service establishments.
In addition, marine recreational anglers caught an estimated 357 million fish in 2010, of which
the retained catch was about 197 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
NMFS reports annually on the status of fish stocks managed under the MSFCMA through two
determinations.12 For 2010, NMFS made determinations for 253 fish stocks and complexes,13
finding that 40 (16%) of them were subject to overfishing14 and 213 (84%) were not. In addition,

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/fus10/fus_2010.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.
12 See http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/statusoffisheries/2010/2010_Report_to_Congress.pdf.
13 NMFS reviewed 528 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
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
4

Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress

NMFS made separate determinations for 207 stocks and complexes, finding that 48 (23%) were
overfished15 and 159 (77%) were not. These numbers reflect a slight increase in the overfishing
percentage compared to 2009 (when 15% 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 587 (third quarter of calendar year 2011).
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

(...continued)
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/2011/third/Q3_2011_FSSI_SummaryChanges.pdf.
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
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
5

Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress

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
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.
P.L. 112-10 included language at Section 1349, Division B, prohibiting FY2011 expenditures to
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. 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 June 20, 2011, the Senate Committee on
Homeland Security and Government Affairs, Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management,
held a hearing on the NMFS’s actions to improve its enforcement program and how NMFS is
managing funds to support the domestic fishing industry. On July 26, 2011, the House Natural
Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, and Insular Affairs held an oversight
hearing on NOAA’s fishery science and its effect on jobs. On October 3, 2011, the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation held a field oversight hearing in Boston,
MA, to review fishery management plans affecting Massachusetts. On October 17, 2011, the
House Committee on Natural Resources held an oversight field hearing in Seattle, WA, on the
scientific basis for NMFS fisheries restrictions to protect Steller sea lions. In addition, bills
introduced in the 112th Congress address a number of issues.
• 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

(...continued)
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
6

Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress

December 1, 2011, the House Committee on Natural Resources held a hearing on
this bill. S. 1304 would make funds available to reimburse certain fishermen for
legal fees and costs incurred in connection with improper fines. S. 1312 would
establish a fisheries investment fund to assist fishermen with the costs of
regulatory compliance and to reimburse the legal fees incurred by certain
fishermen. H.R. 2610 would amend the MSFCMA to reform procedures for the
payment of funds from the Asset Forfeiture Fund; on December 1, 2011, the
House Committee on Natural Resources held a hearing on this bill.
• H.R. 1646 would amend MSFCMA to (1) require peer review of certain scientific
and statistical committee recommendations, (2) modify criteria for extending the
rebuilding period for overfished fisheries, (3) set a deadline for secretarial
decisions on disaster declarations, (4) modify criteria for limited-access privilege
program approval, and (5) establish criteria to be met before a fishery can be
closed; on December 1, 2011, the House Committee on Natural Resources held a
hearing on this bill. H.R. 2772 and S. 1678 would amend MSFCMA to permit
eligible fishermen to approve certain limited access privilege programs (LAPPs)
and provide for the termination of certain LAPPs; on December 1, 2011, the
House Committee on Natural Resources held a hearing on H.R. 2772.
• Section 308 of H.R. 2838 would require a report from the Secretary of Homeland
Security assessing the need for additional Coast Guard capability in the high
latitude regions, including for fisheries enforcement. On October 3, 2011, the
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure reported this bill,
amended (H.Rept. 112-229). On November 15, 2011, the House passed this bill,
amended.
• S. 238 would amend MSFCMA to require that annual fishery impact statements
evaluate the effects of management actions on fishing communities.
• H.R. 2753 would amend MSFCMA to require Internet access to Regional Fishery
Management Council meetings and meeting records; on December 1, 2011, the
House Committee on Natural Resources held a hearing on this bill.
• S. 632 and H.R. 3061 would amend MSFCMA to extend the authorized period
for rebuilding of certain overfished fisheries; on December 1, 2011, the House
Committee on Natural Resources held a hearing on H.R. 3061.
• H.R. 2304 and S. 1916 would amend MSFCMA to modify how scientific
information is to be used in implementing annual catch limits; on December 1,
2011, the House Committee on Natural Resources held a hearing on H.R. 2304.
• S. 1371 would amend MSFCMA to add Rhode Island to the Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council.
• Section 4 of H.R. 594 would amend MSFCMA to direct the Secretary, subject to
the availability of appropriations, to enter into contracts with, or provide grants
to, States for the purpose of establishing and implementing a registry program for
recreational fishermen; on December 1, 2011, the House Committee on Natural
Resources held a hearing on this bill.
Congressional Research Service
7

Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress

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
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.
On May 3, 2011, the House Committee on Agriculture and Committee on Natural Resources held
a joint oversight hearing on pesticide registration consultations under Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) related to ESA-listed salmon. On November 18, 2011, President Obama
signed P.L. 112-55 (H.R. 2112) into law, including language directing the National Aquatic

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
8

Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress

Animal Health Task Force to establish an infectious salmon anemia research program. Several
bills introduced in the 112th Congress may affect Pacific salmon.
• H.R. 1251 and Section 108 of H.R. 1837 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; in addition,
H.R. 1837 would repeal the San Joaquin Restoration Settlement (§203) and order
that no distinction be made under ESA between anadromous fish of wild and
hatchery origin in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries
(§207). On June 2 and 13, 2011, the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on
Water and Power held hearings on H.R. 1837. 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.
• 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).
• S. 962 and H.R. 1858 would reauthorize and amend the Northwest Straits Marine
Conservation Initiative Act, including authorizing county Marine Resources
Committees; one duty of these committee would be to assist in identifying local
implications, needs, and strategies associated with the recovery of Puget Sound
salmon. On June 8, 2011, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation ordered S. 962 reported.
• H.R. 946 and H.R. 3069 would amend MMPA to permit activities aimed at
reducing marine mammal predation on endangered Columbia River salmon; on
June 14, 2011, the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries,
Wildlife, Oceans, and Insular Affairs held a hearing on H.R. 946. On December
8, 2011, the House Committee on Natural Resources reported H.R. 3069 (H.Rept.
112-322).
• On July 15, 2011, the House passed H.R. 2354 (amended), after adopting a floor
amendment (appearing in Section 614) that would prohibit Corps of Engineers
funding for activities related to the removal of Condit Dam on the White Salmon
River in Washington. This provision was not included when the Senate reported
this bill on September 7, 2011 (S.Rept. 112-75).
• S. 1401 would establish a Salmon Stronghold Partnership to promote
international and interagency cooperation to improve salmon management; on
November 2, 2011, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation ordered this bill reported (amended).
• H.R. 2111 would (1) require a study by the National Academy of Sciences of
federal salmon recovery actions on the Columbia and Snake Rivers and (2)
declare that the Secretary of the Army may remove the four Lower Snake River
dams.
Congressional Research Service
9

Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress

• Section 305(b) of S. 52 would reauthorize the Pacific Salmon Treaty Act through
FY2013; On January 26, 2012, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation reported this bill (S.Rept. 112-132).
• H.R. 3398/S. 1851 would authorize restoration of the Klamath Basin and transfer
the PacifiCorps Iron Gate Hatchery facilities to the state of California.
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. On October 4, 2011, the House Committee
on Natural Resources held an oversight hearing on the impact of the Administration’s National
Ocean Policy and Council on jobs, energy, and the economy; a second hearing on this issue was
held on October 26, 2011.
Legislation has been introduced in the 112th Congress to address numerous issues related to
fisheries.
Habitat Protection and Restoration
On December 31, 2011, President Obama signed P.L. 112-81 (H.R. 1540), wherein Division A,
Section 312, amends the Sikes Act to modify how this act applies to state-owned facilities used
for national defense. 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/H.R. 1870 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. Section 2(c)(2)
of H.R. 1505 would extend the authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive certain
responsibilities under the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act to secure the border within 100 miles of any international land and maritime U.S. border.
H.R. 1650 would amend Section 307 of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Authorization Act of 1992 to establish a Chesapeake Bay coastal living resources management
and habitat program. S. 1991 and Section 5 of S. 973 would create a National Endowment for the
Oceans, with funding (§6) for habitat restoration, protection, and maintenance, including analyses
of ocean acidification and minimization of ecosystem harm. S. 1201 would authorize a national
program to conserve fish and aquatic communities through partnerships to foster habitat
conservation. S. 1224 would amend P.L. 106-392 to maintain annual base funding for the Upper
Colorado and San Juan River fish recovery programs through FY2023; on June 23, 2011, the
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power held hearings on this
bill. S. 1266 and H.R. 2325 would establish a Delaware River Basin Restoration Program,
including grants for restoration or protection of fish and their habitat. H.R. 872, Section 108 of
Congressional Research Service
10

Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress

H.R. 3323, and Section 3999E of S. 1720 would amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act regarding the regulation of the use
of pesticides in or near navigable waters; on March 29, 2011, H.R. 872 was reported by the
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure (H.Rept. 112-43, Part I) and the House
Committee on Agriculture (H.Rept. 112-43, Part II). The House passed H.R. 872 on March 31,
2011. On June 21, 2011, the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry reported
H.R. 872. H.R. 2993 would direct the Corps of Engineers to revise the Missouri River Mainstem
Reservoir System Master Water Control Manual and any related regulations to delete fish and
wildlife as an authorized purpose of the Corps. S. 1389 and Section 128(6) of S. 1596 would
exempt from the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act the reconstruction of any road, highway, or
bridge damaged by a natural disaster; on September 21, 2011, the Senate Committee on
Appropriations reported S. 1596 (S.Rept. 112-83). S.Res. 281 would designate September 24,
2011, as “National Estuaries Day” and reaffirm support for the scientific study, preservation,
protection, and restoration of estuaries. Section 402 of S. 1971 would amend the Clean Water Act
to elaborate on standards and adverse impact determinations for cooling water intake structures.
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
P.L. 112-5 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. P.L. 112-30 (H.R. 2887) 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 March 31, 2012. 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. Two bills would amend
provisions relating to sport fish restoration and recreational boating safety, and extend the
authorizations for transfer of these funds through FY2013 (S. 1786) or through FY2017 (S.
1657); on November 2, 2011, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
ordered S. 1657 reported.
Section 311 of H.R. 1287, S. 706, and Section 4140 of S. 1720 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. H.R. 1444 would
require that fishing be a recognized use in management plans for federal lands under the
jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture; on September 9, 2011,
the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands held a
hearing on this bill. S. 901 and H.R. 1997 would fund projects to secure recreational public access
to federal public land that has significantly restricted access for fishing. Section 2(b)(2) of S.
1265 would amend the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act to specify that at least 1.5% of the
annual authorized funding amount be made available for projects that secure recreational public
access to existing federal public land for hunting, fishing, and other recreational purposes. H.R.
2834 would direct federal public land management officials to facilitate use of and access to
Congressional Research Service
11

Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress

federal public lands and waters for fishing; on September 9, 2011, the House Natural Resources
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands held a hearing on this bill. On
November 17, 2011, the House Committee on Natural Resources ordered H.R. 2834 reported
(amended).
Section 4(b) of S. 108 and Section 5(b) of S. 1069 would modify the tariff on vulcanized rubber
lug boot bottoms for use in fishing waders. H.R. 1443 seeks to prevent restrictions on traditional
fishing implements (e.g., lead sinkers), including a provision to makes states and territories
ineligible for federal Sport Fish Restoration funds if traditional fishing implements are restricted.
H.R. 1445 would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating, based on
material composition, any type of fishing tackle, while H.R. 1558 and S. 838 would amend the
Toxic Substances Control Act to modify the jurisdiction of the EPA with respect to certain sport
fishing articles (e.g., lead sinkers). H.R. 2351 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to
continue stocking fish in certain lakes in the North Cascades National Park, Ross Lake National
Recreation Area, and Lake Chelan National Recreation Area; on September 15, 2011, the House
Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands held a hearing on
this bill. This bill was reported by the House Committee on Natural Resources on December 1,
2011 (H.Rept. 112-305), and passed by the House on December 7, 2011. S. 1555 and H.R. 3429
would authorize the use of certain offshore oil and gas platforms in the Gulf of Mexico for
artificial reefs. H.R. 3074 would amend the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to delegate to states the
authorities of the Secretary of the Interior under that act with respect to cormorants. Section 4 of
H.R. 594 would amend MSFCMA to direct the Secretary, subject to the availability of
appropriations, to enter into contracts with, or provide grants to, states for the purpose of
establishing and implementing a registry program for recreational fishermen; on December 1,
2011, the House Committee on Natural Resources held a hearing on this bill.
Invasive Species
On July 13, 2011, the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittees on
Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation and on Water Resources and Environment, held a joint
hearing on ballast water discharge regulation. Section 5 of S. 1430 would authorize a “green
ships” program, with one element focusing on identifying, evaluating, testing, demonstrating, and
improving marine technologies for controlling aquatic invasive species; on December 7, 2011, the
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation reported (amended) this bill
(S.Rept. 112-99). H.R. 2840 would amend the Clean Water Act to add a new Section 321 to
implement ballast water management and standards related to discharges from commercial
vessels; on November 3, 2011, the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
reported (amended) this bill (H.Rept. 112-266). On November 4, 2011, the House, by floor
amendment, added the language of H.R. 2840 as Title VII of H.R. 2838; the House passed H.R.
2838 (amended) on November 15, 2011. Section 459 of H.R. 2584, as reported by the House
Committee on Appropriations on July 19, 2011 (H.Rept. 112-151), would prohibit the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from providing funds to any Great Lakes state that has a
more stringent performance or ballast water exchange standard than either a revised Coast Guard
standard or the International Maritime Organization standard; however, FY2012 appropriations
for EPA, included in P.L. 112-74, contain no similar provision.
Section 105, Division B, of P.L. 112-74 authorized the Corps of Engineers to take emergency
measures to exclude Asian carp from the Great Lakes. 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
Congressional Research Service
12

Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress

and Mississippi River Basins. H.R. 2432 would require the Corps of Engineers to prepare an
economic impact statement before carrying out any federal action relating to the Chicago Area
Water System.
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; on December 8, 2011, the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works ordered this bill reported (amended).
Disasters and Recovery
H.R. 56, S. 1140, and Section 402 of H.R. 501/H.R. 1870 would establish a Gulf Coast
Ecosystem Restoration Fund, with use of funds to include mitigation of damage to fisheries; H.R.
1762 would establish a Gulf Coast Restoration Fund, with use of the funds to include ecosystem
restoration; S. 861 would establish a Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council and create a Gulf
Coast Ecosystem Restoration Science, Monitoring, and Technology Program within NOAA;
Section 5(d) of S. 1400/H.R. 3096 would establish a Fisheries and Ecosystem Endowment that
would fund efforts to achieve long-term sustainability of the ecosystem, fish stocks, fish habitat,
and the recreational, commercial, and charter fishing industry in the Gulf of Mexico; on
December 8, 2011, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works reported (amended)
S. 1400 (S.Rept. 112-100). On December 7, 2011, the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure held a hearing on H.R. 3096. S. 653 and H.R. 1336 would 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; on June 28, 2011, the Senate
Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife held a hearing on S. 662. S.
861 and H.R. 1762 would create a fund for Gulf Coast restoration, with use of funds to include
restoring, protecting, and making sustainable use of the natural resources, ecosystems, fisheries,
marine habitats, coastal wetland, and economy of the Gulf Coast states; on June 28, 2011, the
Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife held a hearing on S.
861. Section 7 of S. 862 would create a Gulf of Mexico Fishery Endowment to fund a variety of
activities supportive of the long-term sustainability of fish stocks and the recreational,
commercial, and charter fishing industry in the Gulf of Mexico. Section 204 of H.R. 3757 would
amend the Clean Water Act to elaborate on how closing and reopening of fishing grounds
following an oil spill is to be managed.
International Fisheries
On November 14, 2011, the Obama Administration transmitted the 2009 Agreement on Port State
Measures to Prevent, Deter, and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing to the
Senate for advice and consent on ratification; S. 1980 would implement this agreement. 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. On January 26, 2012, the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation reported this bill (S.Rept. 112-132).
H.Res. 47 would express the sense of the House of Representatives urging that the parties to the
Congressional Research Service
13

Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)
adopt stronger protections for sharks and bluefin tuna. S.Res. 227 would call for the protection of
the Mekong River Basin and increased U.S. support for delaying the construction of mainstream
dams along the Mekong River. Section 801 of H.R. 2583 expresses the sense of Congress that
timely reporting by fisheries commissions that sufficiently explains commission activities and the
disposition of commission resources is necessary to maintain public support for their continued
funding; Section 104(4) of H.R. 2583 as well as Section 703(e) of S. 1426 would authorize $31.3
million for International Fisheries Commissions in FY2012. On September 23, 2011, the House
Committee on Foreign Affairs reported H.R. 2583, amended, with the provision on fishery
commission reporting at Section 1147 (H.Rept. 112-223). Section 107 of S. 1426 would extend
the period for reimbursement of seized commercial fishermen under the Fishermen’s Protective
Act from 2008 to 2013. S. 1601 would authorize $36.3 million for International Fisheries
Commissions in FY2012.
Tuna and Billfish
H.R. 1806 would amend the Endangered Species Act to provide that bluefin tuna not be treated as
an endangered or threatened species. S. 52 would (1) amend the Tuna Conventions Act of 1950 to
implement the Antigua Convention, and (2) 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.
On January 26, 2012, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation reported
S. 52 (S.Rept. 112-132). H.R. 2706 and S. 1451 would prohibit the sale of billfish. Section 605 of
H.R. 2838, as reported on October 3, 2011 (H.Rept. 112-229), would extend the authorization to
engage foreign citizens in the U.S. distant water tuna fleet. On November 4, 2011, the House, by
floor amendment to H.R. 2838, added language proposing to give distant water tuna vessels in the
western Pacific Ocean the option of using Guam as their required port of call in order to meet
U.S. maritime regulations. On November 15, 2011, the House passed H.R. 2838 (amended).
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; on June 8, 2011, the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation ordered S. 179 reported. 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; on December 1, 2011, the House Committee on Natural Resources held a hearing on
this bill. H.R. 3109 would amend the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 to require
establishment of a Working Waterfront Grant Program to preserve, protect, and expand coastal
access for persons engaged in water-dependent commercial activities. Section 39 of H.R. 1026
would direct the Federal Emergency Management Agency to study the impacts of the National
Flood Insurance Program on harbor areas that are working waterfronts.
Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia
On June 1, 2011, the House Science, Space, and Technology Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment held a legislative hearing on harmful algal bloom and hypoxia research. H.R. 2484
and S. 1701 would amend and reauthorize the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and
Congressional Research Service
14

Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress

Control Act of 1998 (through FY2015) to include a comprehensive strategy to address harmful
algal blooms and hypoxia and to provide for the development and implementation of a
comprehensive research plan and action strategy to reduce harmful algal blooms and hypoxia; on
December 16, 2011, the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology reported
(amended) H.R. 2484 (H.Rept. 112-333, Part I). On November 2, 2011, the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation ordered S. 1701 reported (amended). Section 7 of S.
1582 and Section 13 of H.R. 3690 would direct EPA to complete a study and report to Congress
on available scientific information relating to the impacts of nutrient excesses and algal blooms
on coastal recreation waters. H.R. 3570 would amend the Oceans and Human Health Act to
require coordination with programs under the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and
Control Act.
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 combat seafood fraud24 and coordinate and
strengthen programs to better ensure that seafood in interstate and foreign commerce is fit for
human consumption; on January 26, 2012, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation reported this bill (S.Rept. 112-131). H.R. 832 would require research on the safety
of Gulf of Mexico seafood, including levels of elevated hazardous substances. S. 1183 and H.R.
3391 would establish a program to monitor long-term changes in mercury and methyl mercury in
fish and other aquatic organisms. Section 4 of S. 1582 would direct EPA to develop updated
recommendations on testing for mercury affecting the waters of the Great Lakes, including fish
tissue.
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.
Marketing and Trade
Section 7 of H.R. 480 would establish a Gulf of Mexico seafood marketing program. Section 4(b)
of S. 108/H.R. 2697 would modify the tariff on vulcanized rubber lug boot bottoms for use in
fishing waders. Section 7004 of S. 1773/H.R. 3286 would amend the Farmer-to-Consumer Direct
Marketing Act of 1976 to establish a local marketing promotion program for fishing cooperatives
or other business entities or a producer or fisher network or association, including community-
supported fishery networks or associations.

24 See CRS Report RL34124, Seafood Marketing: Combating Fraud and Deception, by Eugene H. Buck.
Congressional Research Service
15

Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress

Legal Fees
Section 311 of H.R. 1287, S. 706, and Section 4140 of S. 1720 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 production of a resource by commercial or recreational fishermen.
Health
Section 232(a) of H.R. 105/H.R. 3000, Section 501(a) of H.R. 299, Section 201(a) of H.R. 397,
Section 2(a) of H.R. 1050, and Section 621(a) of H.R. 3682 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. H.R.
3570 would amend and reauthorize the Oceans and Human Health Act through FY2015.
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.
Fishing Permits and Licenses
H.R. 1210, S. 608, and Section 406 of H.R. 2838 would limit maritime liens on fishing permits
and licenses. On October 3, 2011, the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
reported H.R. 2838 (amended), with this provision in Section 405 (H.Rept. 112-229). On
November 15, 2011, the House passed H.R. 2838 (amended).
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). On May 5, 2011, the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation ordered S. 46 reported, amended.
Marine Debris
H.R. 1171 and S. 1119 would reauthorize and amend the Marine Debris Research, Prevention,
and Reduction Act; on November 2, 2011, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation ordered S. 1119 reported (amended). On December 15, 2011, the House Natural
Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, and Insular Affairs held a hearing on
H.R. 1171.
Fishing Vessels
H.R. 2241 and S. 1208 would provide an election to terminate certain capital construction funds
without penalties. H.R. 3472 and S. 1890 would establish standards and procedures for disposal
of forfeited fishing vessels.
Congressional Research Service
16

Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress

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.
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
S. 1494 would reauthorize (through FY2015) and amend the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation Establishment Act.
Government Reorganization
Section 202(b) of S. 1116 would transfer all NMFS functions to the Fish and Wildlife Service in
the Department of the Interior.
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.25 The diversity of aquaculture
is typified by such activities as freshwater fish farming (e.g., catfish and trout farms);26 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).27 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.28

25 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.
26 For statistics on freshwater production, see http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2002/Aquaculture/index.asp.
27 For more details, see ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/011/i0250e/i0250e01.pdf.
28 For a discussion of FAO projections for 2030, see http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5648e/y5648e07.htm#bm07.1.
Congressional Research Service
17

Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress

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.29 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
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.30 On June 9,
2011, the Department of Commerce and NOAA released complementary national aquaculture
policies to address concerns related to aquaculture development in the EEZ.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, 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.
P.L. 112-55 (H.R. 2112) included a provision directing the National Aquatic Animal Health Task
Force to establish an infectious salmon anemia research program. P.L. 112-74 (H.R. 2055)
included a provision authorizing the Corps of Engineers to transfer to the Fish and Wildlife
Service as much as $3,800,000 for National Fish Hatcheries to mitigate for fisheries lost due to
Corps of Engineers projects. In the 112th Congress, several additional measures have been
introduced that could affect aquaculture:

29 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.
30 Available at http://aquaculture.noaa.gov/about/tenyear.html.
31 The NOAA policy is available at http://aquaculture.noaa.gov/pdf/noaa_aquaculture_policy_2011.pdf; the
Department of Commerce policy is available at http://aquaculture.noaa.gov/pdf/doc_aquaculture_policy_2011.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
18

Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress

• S. 229, H.R. 520, and H.R. 3553 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. Section 744 of
H.R. 2112, as passed by the House on June 16, 2011, would have prohibited the
Food and Drug Administration from spending FY2012 funds to approve any
application for genetically engineered salmon. On September 7, 2011, the Senate
Committee on Appropriations reported H.R. 2112, without the prohibition on
FDA related to genetically engineered salmon (S.Rept. 112-73), and this
provision was not in the enacted P.L. 112-55. S. 1717 would prohibit the sale of
genetically altered salmon. On December 15, 2011, the Senate Commerce,
Science, and Transportation Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries,
and Coast Guard held an oversight hearing on the environmental risks of
genetically engineered fish.
• H.R. 1149, H.R. 2009, S. 1085, and S. 1564 would amend the Clean Air Act to
include algae-based biofuel in the renewable fuel program; H.R. 1149, S. 748,
Section 6 of S. 1185/H.R. 2231, and Section 503 of S. 1294 would amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to include algae-based biofuel in the cellulosic
biofuel producer credit. Section 5 of S. 937/H.R. 2036 and Section 222 of H.R.
2133 would provide additional incentives for algae-based fuel production.
• H.R. 1160 and S. 651 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey the
McKinney Lake National Fish Hatchery to the state of North Carolina. On May
12, 2011, the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife,
Oceans, and Insular Affairs held a hearing on H.R. 1160, and reported this bill on
July 20, 2011 (H.Rept. 112-168). The House passed H.R. 1160 (amended) on
October 24, 2011.
• 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 combat seafood fraud32 and better ensure that seafood
in interstate and foreign commerce is fit for human consumption; on January 26,
2012, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation reported
this bill (S.Rept. 112-131).
• Section 207 of H.R. 1837 would order that no distinction be made under the
Endangered Species Act between anadromous fish of wild and hatchery origin in
the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries. On June 2 and 13,
2011, the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power held
hearings on H.R. 1837.
• H.R. 2905 would temporarily waive the risk management purchase requirement
for agricultural producers adversely impacted by Hurricane Irene or Tropical
Storm Lee so that such producers would be eligible to receive assistance under
the Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honey Bees, and Farm-Raised Fish
Program.
• H.R. 574 would prohibit the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of
Commerce from authorizing commercial finfish aquaculture operations in the

32 See CRS Report RL34124, Seafood Marketing: Combating Fraud and Deception, by Eugene H. Buck.
Congressional Research Service
19

Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress

EEZ unless specifically authorized by Congress. H.R. 2373 would establish a
regulatory system and research program for offshore aquaculture in the U.S.
EEZ.
• H.R. 1176 would amend the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act of 2004 to
include farmed shellfish as specialty crops. S. 1607 would add shellfish to the list
of crops eligible for the noninsured crop disaster assistance program and the
emergency assistance for livestock program of the Department of Agriculture.
• H.R. 1650 would amend Section 307 of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration Authorization Act of 1992 to establish a Chesapeake Bay coastal
living resources management and habitat program, supporting fish and shellfish
aquaculture including native oyster restoration.
• H.R. 3109 would amend the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 to require
establishment of a Working Waterfront Grant Program to preserve, protect, and
expand coastal access for persons engaged in water-dependent commercial
activities, including aquaculture.
• 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.
• 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.
• Section 3 of H.R. 2110 would authorize a nutrient bio-extraction pilot project for
Long Island Sound, defined so as to include the aquaculture of suspension-
feeding shellfish or algae.
• S. 256 and Section 112 of S. 1960 would amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to allow a credit against income tax for equity investments in aquaculture
small businesses.
• H.R. 3074 would amend the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to delegate to states the
authorities of the Secretary of the Interior under that act with respect to
cormorants.
• As part of the Klamath Settlement, Section 206(f) of H.R. 3398/S. 1851 would
transfer the PacifiCorps Iron Gate Hatchery facilities to the state of California.
• 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. 496 would amend the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act to repeal a program
relating to inspection and grading of catfish.
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
Congressional Research Service
20

Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress

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
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.
Congressional Research Service
21

Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress

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.33 The Navy’s use of mid-frequency sonar and its possible effects
on marine mammals has been the focus of much controversy and litigation.34
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-
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.35
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.36 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. On October 17, 2011, the House Committee on Natural Resources held
an oversight field hearing in Seattle, WA, on the scientific basis for NMFS fisheries restrictions to
protect Steller sea lions.

33 For more background, see CRS Report RS22149, Exemptions from Environmental Law for the Department of
Defense (DOD)
, by David M. Bearden.
34 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.
35 For more background and information on the 1994 amendments, see out-of-print CRS Report 94-751 ENR, Marine
Mammal Protection Act Amendments of 1994
, by Eugene H. Buck, available from the author at gbuck@crs.loc.gov.
36 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
22

Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress

Legislation has been introduced in the 112th Congress to address several issues related to the
MMPA.
• H.R. 990 would amend MMPA to allow the importation of polar bear trophies
taken in sport hunts in Canada. H.R. 991 and S. 1066 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. On May 12, 2011, the House Natural Resources
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, and Insular Affairs held a hearing
on H.R. 991. On December 1, 2011, the House Committee on Natural Resources
reported (amended) H.R. 991 (H.Rept. 112-308).
• H.R. 946 and H.R. 3069 would amend MMPA to authorize NOAA to issue one-
year permits to Washington and Oregon and four Columbia River treaty tribes for
the “lethal taking” of sea lions, seeking to reduce marine mammal predation on
endangered Columbia River salmon; on June 14, 2011, the House Natural
Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, and Insular Affairs held
a hearing on H.R. 946. On December 8, 2011, the House Committee on Natural
Resources reported H.R. 3069 (H.Rept. 112-322).
• 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/H.R.
3302 would declare the Draft Proposed Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and
Gas Leasing Program 2010-2015 to be fully compliant with MMPA; on May 31
and June 3, 2011, the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy
and Power held hearings on H.R. 909.
• 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. On January 26, 2012, the Senate Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation reported this bill (S.Rept. 112-132).
• S. 1453 and H.R. 2714 would amend MMPA to allow the transport, purchase,
and sale of pelts of—and handicrafts, garments, and art produced from—South
Central and Southeast Alaska northern sea otters that are taken for subsistence
purposes. On October 25, 2011, the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on
Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, and Insular Affairs held a hearing on H.R. 2714.
• Section 3 of H.R. 332 would require compliance by all federal defense agencies
with certain environmental laws, including MMPA.
• H.R. 594 would establish a jobs creation grant program to support cooperative
research to collect data to improve marine mammal stock assessments; on
December 1, 2011, the House Committee on Natural Resources held a hearing on
this bill.
• S. 1402 would amend MMPA to increase the maximum penalty for violating that
act.
Congressional Research Service
23

Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress

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 and Section 106 of H.R. 3757 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/H.R. 1870
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, Section 3 of S. 475, and Section
2(a)(31) of H.R. 1891 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; on June 14, 2011, the House
Committee on Education and the Workforce reported H.R. 1891, amended (H.Rept. 112-106).
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,
economists, and various other skilled workers to implement its programs.
Congressional Research Service
24

Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress

Table 1. NMFS Appropriations, FY2010-FY2012
(in thousands of dollars)
FY2011
FY2011
FY2012
FY2012
FY2012
FY2012

Request
Enacted
Request
Hse Rpt
Sen Psd
Conf.
Fisheries
537,263
506,684
550,295 439,162 484,916 490,673
Protected Species
210,251
199,447
216,581 131,672 177,930 176,451
Habitat Conservation
54,918
49,812
53,600 25,073 41,789 43,187
Enforcement
105,345
105,619
106,207 105,747 106,806 107,899
Surveillance
Admin. Efficiency


(16,271) (16,273)


Initiative
Undistributed



(24,000)
reduction
Cong.-Directed

33,418




Projects
SUBTOTAL
907,777
894,980
910,412 685,381 811,441 794,210
(OR&F)
Procurement,
0
0
0 0 0 0
Acquisition,
Construction
Pacific Coastal Salmon
65,000
80,000
65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000
Recovery
Other Accounts
350
42,420
25,142 350 350 350
TOTAL
973,127
1,017,400 1,001,104 750,731 876,791 859,560
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.
P.L. 112-10 enacted continuing appropriations for the remainder of FY2011, reducing National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA, within which NMFS resides) FY2011 funding
for OR&F to $3,185,883,000 (Section 1326, Division B), a reduction of $119,295,000, or -3.61%,
from that enacted for FY2010; NOAA has not yet reported how this funding reduction is to be
allocated across subcategories (e.g., NMFS) within this account. P.L. 112-10 also included
language prohibiting expenditures to 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 1349, Division B).
The Administration’s FY2012 budget request was released on February 14, 2011.37 On March 31,
2011, the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, and Insular
Affairs held an oversight hearing on spending for NMFS and the President’s FY2012 budget
request for this agency. 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

37 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
25

Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress

funding should be provided to restore salmon habitat and promote the recovery of endangered and
threatened salmon stocks.
On July 20, 2011, the House Committee on Appropriations reported its FY2012 Commerce,
Justice, Science appropriations bill, H.R. 2596 (H.Rept. 112-169), proposing significantly lower
funding of many NMFS programs.38 Under the committee’s proposal, funding for NMFS
programs would be reduced by $267 million (-26%) from the FY2011 enacted funding and $250
million (-25%) from the Administration’s FY2012 request. Major changes include a reduction in
funding for catch share programs of $22 million (-50%) below FY2011 funding and $32 million
(59%) below the Administration’s FY2012 request. Funding for fish stock assessments would be
increased by $10.4 million (19%) above FY2011 funding, although it is $3.4 million (-5%) below
the Administration’s FY2012 request. On September 15, 2011, the Senate Committee on
Appropriations reported S. 1572 (S.Rept. 112-78), proposing that FY2012 funding for NMFS
programs be reduced by $124 million (-12%) from that proposed by the Administration, although
the Senate Committee recommendation is $126 million (17%) larger than the House-passed
measure to fund NMFS programs. On November 1, 2011, the Senate passed H.R. 2112, amended
to include the language of S. 1572 as well as direction that the National Aquatic Animal Health
Task Force establish an infectious salmon anemia research program. On November 14, 2011, a
conference committee report was filed on H.R. 2112 (H.Rept. 112-284). On November 18, 2011,
President Obama signed P.L. 112-55 (H.R. 2112) into law.
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.
P.L. 112-10, providing appropriations for FWS for the remainder of FY2011, reduced FWS
FY2011 funding for “Resource Management” to $1,247,356,000 (Section 1704, Division B), a
reduction of $22,050,000 or -1.74% from that enacted for FY2010; FWS has not yet reported how
this funding reduction is to be allocated across subcategories (e.g., Fisheries and Aquatic
Resource Conservation) within this account.
Table 2. FWS Appropriations, FY2010-FY2012
(in thousands of dollars)
FY2010
FY2011
FY2011
FY2012
FY2012
FY2012

Enacted
Request
Enacted
Request
Hse Rpt
Enacted
Fisheries and Aquatic
148,214
142,477
138,939
136,012 128,343 135,534
Resource Conservation
Sources: Budget justifications, House and Senate Committee Reports, and floor debate.

38 See http://appropriations.house.gov/UploadedFiles/CJSFY12_FC_xml.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
26

Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress

The Administration’s FY2012 budget request was released on February 14, 2011.39 The decrease
in the FY2012 request was primarily from a decrease of $11,609,000 proposed for the National
Fish Hatchery System. On March 2, 2011, the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on
Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, and Insular Affairs held an oversight hearing on Department of the
Interior spending for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the President’s FY2012 budget
request for the Fish and Wildlife Service.
On July 19, 2011, the House Committee on Appropriations reported its FY2012 Interior
appropriations bill, H.R. 2584 (H.Rept. 112-151), proposing significantly lower funding for many
FWS programs, including Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Conservation. Under the committee’s
proposal, funding for FWS Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Conservation programs would
reduced by $10.6 million (8%) from funding enacted for FY2011 and by $7.7 million (6%) from
the Administration’s FY2012 request. On December 15, 2011, a conference report was filed on
H.R. 2055, proposing FWS appropriations for FY2012 in Division E, Title I (H.Rept. 112-331).
On December 23, 2011, President Obama signed P.L. 112-74 (H.R. 2055), providing almost $136
million for FWS fisheries and aquatic resource conservation; FY2012 funding is 2.5% less than
the FY2011 enacted amount and 0.4% less than the FY2012 Administration request.


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


39 For more comprehensive information on FWS FY2012 appropriations, see CRS Report R41928, Fish and Wildlife
Service: FY2012 Appropriations and Policy
, by M. Lynne Corn.
Congressional Research Service
27