Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA): Reauthorization Issues for the 115th Congress

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA): Reauthorization Issues for the 115th Congress

Updated July 27, 2018
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
(MSA): Reauthorization Issues for the 115th Congress
In the 115th Congress, both chambers have continued efforts
H.R. 1826, would have made fewer changes to the existing
to reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
statute than H.R. 1335 and focused on data collection,
and Management Act (MSA; 16 U.S.C. §§1801 et seq.).
aquaculture, and fishing industry grants. Another bill
The MSA governs management and conservation of
introduced in the 115th Congress that would amend the
commercial and recreational fisheries in the U.S. exclusive
MSA is the Modernizing Recreational Fisheries
economic zone (EEZ; between 3 nautical miles [nm] and
Management Act of 2017 (H.R. 2023). H.R. 2023 and a
200 nm from shore). The MSA established eight Regional
similar bill in the Senate, S. 1520, are less comprehensive
Fishery Management Councils (councils), which develop
bills that generally focus on recreational fishing. Although
fishery management plans and amendments. The Secretary
not identical, most sections in H.R. 2023 have been
of Commerce approves and implements those plans.
included in the House-passed version of H.R. 200.
The MSA was last reauthorized and extensively amended in
Management Flexibility
2006 (P.L. 109-479). Although the authorization of
appropriations expired at the end of FY2013, the act’s
Currently, the MSA includes requirements to stop
overfishing, rebuild overfished stocks, and establish annual
requirements remain in effect and Congress has continued
catch limits (ACLs). According to H.Rept. 115-758, H.R.
to appropriate funds to administer the act. There have been
200 would increase management flexibility by amending
efforts to reauthorize the MSA in both chambers during the
related sections of the act. National Oceanic and
last several Congresses. Strengthening Fishing
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries has
Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries
attempted to address some of these issues in the revisions to
Management Act (H.R. 200) is the only comprehensive
the guidelines for National Standard 1. National Standard 1
reauthorization bill that has been introduced in the 115th
states that conservation and management measures shall
Congress. On July 11, 2018, the House of Representatives
prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis,
passed H.R. 200.
the optimum yield from each fishery. Actual changes to
Policy Challenges
fisheries management would depend on related sections of
the act and how these changes are interpreted and
During the first decade following the MSA’s passage in
implemented by NOAA Fisheries.
1976, fishery policy focused on controlling and replacing
foreign fishing and on developing U.S. fisheries in the
When specifying a time period for rebuilding stocks, H.R.
newly declared 200-mile Fishery Conservation Zone. Over
200 would amend the current section from “as short as
the next two decades, management priorities shifted to
possible” to “as short as practicable.” H.R. 200 would
include greater recognition of the need to sustain fish
replace the 10-year rebuilding requirement with a time
populations and respond to overfishing.
frame that “may not exceed the time the stock would be
An ongoing policy challenge is to balance conservation and
rebuilt without fishing occurring plus one mean
utilization of fish populations. Despite general agreement
generation.” This exception is allowed already for long-
that fish stocks should not be overfished and that overfished
lived species that cannot be rebuilt within 10 years in the
stocks should be rebuilt, questions remain with regard to the
complete absence of fishing mortality. H.R. 200 would add
timing of management actions, the choice of management
exceptions to stock rebuilding requirements such as
objectives, how stock management objectives should be
achieved, and the amount and types of information needed
 the cause of stock depletion is outside the jurisdiction of
to make these decisions. Achieving balance among different
the council or the rebuilding program cannot be
management objectives is closely related to allocating
effective only by limiting fishing activities;
fishery resources among users, developing and supporting
 one or more components of a mixed-stock fishery is
management institutions, and investing in management and
depleted but cannot be rebuilt within the specified time
research. Fisheries bills introduced during the last several
without significant economic harm to the fishery or
Congresses have focused on these general issues.
without causing another component to approach a
House Action
depleted status;

Many of the provisions in H.R. 200 are similar to those in
management activities by another country under
bills introduced during previous Congresses. H.R. 1335 was
informal trans-boundary agreements hinder conservation
passed by the House in the 114th Congress. H.R. 1335
and management efforts by U.S. fishermen; and
included many of the provisions that were introduced in
 the stock is affected by unusual events that make
H.R. 4742, a bill reported in the 113th Congress. Another
rebuilding within the specified time improbable without
reauthorization bill introduced during the 114th Congress,
significant economic harm to fishing communities.
https://crsreports.congress.gov

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA): Reauthorization Issues for the 115th Congress
The bill also would replace the term overfished with
 subsistence fishing (definition); and
depleted and would define depleted as a decline in stock
 exempted fishing permits.
biomass, regardless of its cause.
H.R. 200 would modify ACL requirements for certain
Stakeholder Responses
stocks and under specific circumstances. The bill would not
Stakeholder responses to H.R. 200 have been diverse and
require ACLs for ecosystem component species or
vary by user group and management region. Some
generally for species with short life histories. It also would
stakeholders, especially segments of the commercial fishing
allow councils to develop ACLs for stock complexes and
industry, have supported greater management flexibility
for multiyear catch limits. When establishing ACLs,
that would be provided by H.R. 200. They claim flexibility
councils could consider or take into account changes in
can provide for both stock conservation and economic and
ecosystems, the economic needs of fishing communities,
social needs of coastal communities. However, other
management measures under international agreements, and
segments of the commercial fishing industry support
fishing outside the EEZ. H.R. 200 would allow managers to
relatively small changes to ACL and stock rebuilding
use alternatives to ACLs in recreational fisheries such as
requirements. They assert that commercial fishing depends
fishing mortality rates or harvest control rules.
on healthy stocks and that sufficient flexibility is already
built into the law. Similar concerns have been expressed by
Catch Shares
some environmental interests. They assert that ACL and
Catch share programs are designed to eliminate the race to
rebuilding requirements are working well as indicated by
fish by allocating the total quota among individuals or
the decreasing number of overfished stocks. They believe
groups. This allows fishermen to choose when to harvest
that passage of H.R. 200 would threaten this success by
their portion of the quota. H.R. 200 would add requirements
weakening the law’s conservation provisions and
for new catch share programs and provide a statutory
decreasing accountability.
definition of the term catch share. These programs are
currently defined more narrowly as limited access privilege
Recreational groups are generally supportive of provisions
programs (LAPPs). H.R. 200 would require a referendum
that would provide greater flexibility in setting ACLs and
of eligible fishermen before any new catch share program is
allow for management alternatives to ACLs. They believe
implemented in New England, Mid-Atlantic, South
management approaches need to be adapted to the nature of
Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico regions. H.R. 200 also would
recreational fishing. Allocation among fisheries sectors
require a study of catch share programs used in mixed-use
such as private, charter, and commercial fisheries has been
fisheries and a temporary moratorium on new programs
a concern of many recreational groups. They support
until the study is completed.
provisions in H.R. 200 that would require study and regular
review of allocation among fisheries sectors in the
Recent House Actions
Southeast and Gulf regions. They also support cooperative
On July 11, 2018, the House passed H.R. 200 with 9 of the
data collection efforts and greater integration of non-
11 amendments that were reported by the Committee on
governmental sources of information.
Rules. The manager’s amendment, which modified or
replaced six sections, was the most extensive. It also
Senate Action
removed Sections 302(c) and 307, which would have
In contrast to efforts in the House, no comprehensive MSA
changed the relationship between the MSA and other
reauthorization bills have been introduced in the Senate
environmental laws, such as the National Environmental
during the 115th Congress. The last Senate reauthorization
Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. §§4321 et seq.), National
bill, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA; 16 U.S.C. §§1431 et seq.),
Management Reauthorization Act of 2014 (S. 2991), was
Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. §§431 et seq.), and
introduced late in the 113th Congress. The Senate-
Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 U.S.C. §§1531-1543).
introduced version of the Modernizing Recreational
These two sections were among the most controversial in
Fisheries Management Act of 2017 (S. 1520) and the
the House-reported bill.
Florida Fisheries Improvement Act (S. 1748) generally
focus on topics related to recreational fishing. Both bills
Additional Provisions
include sections that are specific to the South Atlantic and
H.R. 200 also includes the following selected provisions
Gulf of Mexico regions and some provisions that would
that address
apply to more general national issues.
 review of South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico allocation
During the last three congresses the Senate Committee on
in mixed-use fisheries;
Commerce, Science, and Transportation has held hearings
 transparency and public process;
related to MSA reauthorization. Four hearings were held

during 2017 that covered topics pertaining to oversight of
cooperative data collection;
MSA successes and challenges, fisheries science, and
 recreational data collection;
perspectives of councils and the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration.
stock assessment definition and plans;

Harold F. Upton, Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
cooperative research and management;

IF10267
estimation of cost and deadlines for fishery resource
disasters;
https://crsreports.congress.gov

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA): Reauthorization Issues for the 115th Congress

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF10267 · VERSION 7 · UPDATED