July 29, 2015
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act:
Legislative Actions in the 114th Congress
During the 114th Congress, both chambers have continued
on Natural Resources with amendments and subsequently
efforts to reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
was passed by the House. During the markup hearing and
Conservation and Management Act (MSA; 16 U.S.C.
again during floor debate, a substitute similar to H.R. 1826
§§1801 et seq.). The MSA governs management and
was introduced, but it was rejected on both occasions.
conservation of commercial and recreational fisheries in the
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ; between 3 nautical miles
H.R. 1335
and 200 nautical miles from shore). The act established
eight Regional Fishery Management Councils, which
Currently, the MSA includes requirements to stop
develop fishery management plans and amendments. The
overfishing, rebuild overfished stocks, and establish annual
Secretary of Commerce approves and implements plans.
catch limits (ACLs). H.R. 1335 would increase
management flexibility by amending these sections. H.R.
The MSA was last reauthorized and extensively amended in
1335 would replace the 10-year rebuilding requirement
2006 (P.L. 109-479). On June 1, 2015, the House passed
with a time frame that “may not exceed the time the stock
the Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing
would be rebuilt without fishing occurring plus one mean
Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act (H.R. 1335). On
generation.” It also would add exceptions to stock
June 25, 2015, the Senate Committee on Commerce,
rebuilding requirements for various reasons such as limited
Science, and Transportation approved the Florida Fisheries
council jurisdiction over stocks, mixed stock fisheries,
Improvement Act (S. 1403). Although current House and
informal fishing agreements, and economic harm to fishing
Senate versions include some common provisions, they
communities. It would add the term depleted and define it
differ significantly and the outcome of these efforts remains
as a decline in stock biomass regardless of its cause, and it
an open question.
would replace the term overfished with depleted.
Policy Challenges
H.R. 1335 would modify ACL requirements for certain
stocks and under specific circumstances. H.R. 1335 would
During the first decade following the act’s passage in 1976,
allow councils to consider changes in an ecosystem and
fishery policy focused on controlling and replacing foreign
economic needs of fishing communities and would not
fishing and on developing U.S. fisheries in the newly
require ACLs for certain stocks. It would allow councils to
declared 200-mile Fishery Conservation Zone. Over the
develop ACLs for stock complexes and for multiyear catch
next two decades, management priorities shifted to include
limits.
greater recognition of the need to sustain fish populations
and respond to overfishing.
H.R. 1335 would add requirements for new catch share
programs and provide a statutory definition of the term
An ongoing policy challenge is balancing conservation and
catch share. These programs currently are defined more
utilization of fish populations. Although there is general
narrowly as limited access privilege programs (LAPPs).
agreement that fish stocks should not be overfished and that
H.R. 1335 would require a referendum of eligible fishermen
overfished stocks should be rebuilt, questions remain with
for all new catch share programs. The referendum would
regard to the timing of management actions, the choice of
apply only to New England, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic,
management objectives, how stock management objectives
and Gulf of Mexico fishery management regions. H.R.
should be achieved, and the amount and types of
1335 also would require periodic review of catch share
information needed to make these determinations.
programs.
Achieving balance among different management objectives
is closely related to allocating fishery resources among
In addition, H.R. 1335 would add provisions to change the
users, developing and supporting management institutions,
relationship between the MSA and other environmental
and investing in management and research.
laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. §§4321 et seq.), National Marine
House Action
Sanctuaries Act (NMSA; 16 U.S.C. §§1431 et seq.),
Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. §§431 et seq.), and
In the 114th Congress, two MSA reauthorization bills have
Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 U.S.C. §§1531-1543).
been introduced in the House. H.R. 1335 is similar to a bill
The bill would require councils to develop fishery impact
(H.R. 4742) that was reported by the Committee on Natural
statements for fishery management plans and amendments,
Resources in the 113th Congress. The Fishing Economy
which would satisfy and replace NEPA requirements.
Improvement Act (H.R. 1826) would make fewer changes
Another provision would provide the MSA with control
to the existing statute than H.R. 1335 and focuses on
when conflicts occur with NMSA and the Antiquities Act.
different issues. H.R. 1335 was reported by the Committee
H.R. 1335 also would add a provision to implement ESA
www.crs.gov | 7-5700

---

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act: Legislative Actions in the 114th Congress
recovery plans under the authority of the MSA and in
would change ACL requirements only for species that
accordance with the processes and time schedules of the
spawn and recruit to the population outside of state waters
MSA.
and the EEZ. Both H.R. 1335 and S. 1403 would provide
recreational fisheries the authority to use alternative
The following are selected provisions in H.R. 1335:
management measures such as extraction rates, fishing
•
mortality, and harvest control rules.
transparency and the public process;
• electronic data collection and data confidentiality;
The allocation of fishery resources among different fishing
• cooperative research and management;
sectors—commercial, charter, and recreational—can be
•
extremely controversial. S. 1403 would direct the Gulf of
subsistence fishing (definition);
Mexico and South Atlantic Councils to review the
• Gulf of Mexico reef fish assessments (transfer to Gulf
allocation of fishing privileges in their regions every five
States Marine Fisheries Commission);
years. In addition, S. 1403 would require the Secretary to
• fisheries research (assessment, planning, and data) ;
arrange for the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a
• process for allocation review of South Atlantic and Gulf
study on fisheries allocation. H.R. 1335 also calls for a
of Mexico mixed-use fisheries; and
review of allocation in these regions and for a study.
•
Although these provisions focus on the Gulf and South
authorization of appropriations.
Atlantic regions, some commercial industry representatives
Stakeholder Responses
have reservations about increasing attention to this issue
and believe these inquiries could have national
Some stakeholders, especially some segments of
implications.
commercial and recreational fishing sectors, support H.R.
1335. They assert that H.R. 1335 would provide the
Other selected provisions of S. 1403 include the following:
flexibility needed to continue rebuilding depleted fish
• expanded use of the Capital Construction Fund to
stocks while offering economic relief to coastal
include fish processing facilities and aquaculture;
communities. They point out that H.R. 1335 would increase
•
transparency and ensure that more scientific information
transparency and public involvement in the council
would become available for data-poor stocks.
process;
• fisheries research (assessment planning);
Some stakeholders, especially those representing
• data collection and analysis; and
environmental interests, are opposed to providing greater
•
flexibility to manage fish stocks. They assert that the MSA
use of Saltonstall-Kennedy Act funding.
is working well, as indicated by the decreasing number of
Red Snapper
overfished stocks. They also claim that H.R. 1335 would
weaken other related environmental laws such as the
The Gulf of Mexico red snapper fishery is among the most
NEPA, ESA, NMSA, and Antiquities Act.
controversial in the United States due to allocation issues,
The Administration strongly opposes the bill and asserts
shortened recreational seasons, and uncertainties related to
that H.R. 1335 introduces a series of ambiguous provisions
data and stock assessments. Although overfishing is no
that would extend rebuilding time periods and delay
longer occurring, the stock still is considered to be
significant economic and environmental benefits associated
overfished and annual quotas remain constrained to allow
with stock rebuilding. According to a statement of
for stock rebuilding.
Administration policy, “if the President were presented with
H.R. 1335 would repeal Section 407 of the MSA (red
H.R. 1335, his senior advisors would recommend that he
snapper research and sector quotas), while S. 1403 would
veto the bill.”
repeal only Section 407(d), which requires sector quotas.
Senate Action
H.R. 1335 includes several additional provisions specific to
red snapper such as reporting and collecting data for red
In contrast to H.R. 1335, S. 1403 focuses on Southeastern
snapper management; expanding state jurisdiction over the
and Gulf regional priorities and would not authorize
recreational red snapper fishery to 9 nautical miles from
appropriations levels. Although the bill concentrates on
shore; and providing funds for assessments if oil rigs
regional issues, many of its provisions also would apply to
adversely impact red snapper.
the other U.S. fishery management regions. H.R. 1403 is
similar to S. 2824, which was introduced during the 113th
An amendment to H.R. 1335 was proposed to transfer all
Congress. Some sections of S. 2824 were similar to parts of
management authority for red snapper from the federal
two reauthorization drafts that were circulated by the Senate
government to the Gulf States, but it was withdrawn. There
subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast
are now two stand-alone bills that would transfer authority
Guard. Near the end of the 113th Congress, a more
to manage red snapper (H.R. 3094 and S. 105).
comprehensive reauthorization bill based on the
Harold F. Upton, hupton@crs.loc.gov, 7-2264
subcommittee drafts was introduced (S. 2991).

The committee-approved version of S. 1403 would not
IF10267
amend current stock rebuilding requirements. Further, it
www.crs.gov | 7-5700

---