Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress
Congressional research reportJan 22, 2013
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal
Issues in the 112th Congress
-name redactedAnalyst in Natural Resources Policy
January 22, 2013
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
R41613
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared 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 numerous international agreements.
Some of the fishery measures enacted by the 112th Congress included bills with provisions to
(1) authorize the Corps of Engineers to take emergency measures to exclude Asian carp from the
Great Lakes (P.L. 112-74); (2) create a Gulf Coast Restoration Trust Fund to promote 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 (P.L. 112-141); (3) extend the
authority to make expenditures from the Highway Trust Fund under the Sport Fish Restoration
and Boating Trust Fund, through FY2014 (also P.L. 112-141); (4) extend the authorization to
engage foreign citizens in the U.S. distant water tuna fleet and give distant water tuna vessels the
option of using Guam as their required port of call (P.L. 112-213); and (5) amend the Marine
Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act, to define a severe marine debris event and direct
that a determination for such an event be made for the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami and for
Hurricane Sandy (also P.L. 112-213).
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. Some of the
aquaculture measures enacted by the 112th Congress included bills with provisions to (1) direct
the National Aquatic Animal Health Task Force to establish an infectious salmon anemia research
program (P.L. 112-55); (2) authorize the Corps of Engineers to transfer funds to the Fish and
Wildlife Service for National Fish Hatcheries in FY2012 to mitigate for fisheries lost due to
Corps of Engineers projects (P.L. 112-74); and (3) direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey
the McKinney Lake National Fish Hatchery to the state of North Carolina (P.L. 112-237).
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. Other than annual appropriations, no marine
mammal legislation was enacted by the 112th Congress.
The level of appropriations for fisheries, aquaculture/hatchery, and marine mammal programs
administered by NMFS and the Fish and Wildlife Service was a recurring issue during the 112th
Congress due to 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 ................................................................................................................... 12
Invasive Species ................................................................................................................ 14
International Fisheries ....................................................................................................... 15
Tuna and Billfish ............................................................................................................... 16
Disasters and Recovery ..................................................................................................... 16
Marine Debris.................................................................................................................... 17
Colorado River .................................................................................................................. 17
Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia ................................................................................. 17
Marketing and Trade ......................................................................................................... 18
Jobs.................................................................................................................................... 18
Seafood Safety .................................................................................................................. 18
Tax Provisions ................................................................................................................... 19
Fishing and Research Vessels ............................................................................................ 19
Health ................................................................................................................................ 19
Striped Bass ....................................................................................................................... 19
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation ............................................................................. 20
Miscellaneous Fisheries Reauthorizations ........................................................................ 20
Legal Fees ......................................................................................................................... 20
Fishing Permits and Licenses ............................................................................................ 20
Accidents and Injury ......................................................................................................... 20
Coral .................................................................................................................................. 20
Insurance ........................................................................................................................... 21
Saltonstall-Kennedy Act.................................................................................................... 21
Government Reorganization.............................................................................................. 21
Aquaculture.................................................................................................................................... 21
Background.............................................................................................................................. 21
Aquaculture Issues in the 112th Congress ................................................................................ 22
Marine Mammals ........................................................................................................................... 26
Background.............................................................................................................................. 26
Marine Mammal Protection Act Reauthorization .................................................................... 27
Additional Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress ....................................................... 29
Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 29
Whaling ............................................................................................................................. 29
Sea Otters .......................................................................................................................... 29
Polar Bears ........................................................................................................................ 30
Miscellaneous Marine Mammal Issues ............................................................................. 30
Congressional Research Service
Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress
Appropriations ............................................................................................................................... 30
National Marine Fisheries Service .......................................................................................... 30
Fish and Wildlife Service ........................................................................................................ 32
Marine Mammal Commission ................................................................................................. 32
Figures
Figure 1. U.S. Commercial Fish and Shellfish Harvest, 1976-2010 ................................................ 4
Tables
Table 1. NMFS Appropriations, FY2011-FY2013 ........................................................................ 31
Table 2. FWS Appropriations, FY2010-FY2013 ........................................................................... 32
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 33
Congressional Research Service
Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress
Most Recent Developments
On January 14, 2013, President Obama signed P.L. 112-270 (H.R. 6060), amending P.L. 106-392
to maintain annual base funding for the Upper Colorado and San Juan River fish recovery
programs. On January 2, 2013, President Obama signed (1) P.L. 112-240 (H.R. 8), including
language amending the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to include algae-based biofuel in the
cellulosic biofuel producer credit, and (2) P.L. 112-239 (H.R. 4310), including language creating
a maritime environmental and technical assistance program, with one focus being research,
development, assessment, and deployment of emerging marine technologies and practices related
to controlling aquatic invasive species. On January 1, 2013, the Senate passed H.R. 6060. On
December 28, 2012, President Obama signed P.L. 112-237 (S. 3687), including language (1)
directing the Secretary of the Interior to convey the McKinney Lake National Fish Hatchery to
the state of North Carolina and (2) exempting from the Lacey Act certain water transfers by the
North Texas Municipal Water District and the Greater Texoma Utility Authority for zebra mussel
control. On December 28, 2012, the Senate passed H.R. 1 (amended), including $150 million for
fishery disasters declared during 2012. On December 18, the House passed S. 3687. On
December 17, 2012, the Senate passed S. 3687. On December 20, 2012, President Obama signed
P.L. 112-213 (H.R. 2838), including provisions (1) clarifying restrictions on American Fisheries
Act vessels; (2) creating a maritime environmental and technical assistance program, with one
focus being research, development, assessment, and deployment of emerging marine technologies
and practices related to controlling aquatic invasive species; (3) amending the Marine Debris
Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act, including adding language defining a severe marine
debris event and directing that a determination for such an event be made for the Tohoku
earthquake and tsunami and for Hurricane Sandy; and (4) extending the authorization to engage
foreign citizens in the U.S. distant water tuna fleet and give distant water tuna vessels in the
western Pacific Ocean the option of using Guam as their required port of call. On December 12,
2012, the Senate concurred with the House-amended H.R. 2838. On December 5, 2012, the
House amended and passed H.R. 2838. On December 4, 2012, the Senate passed S. 3254,
amended, and substituted this measure in H.R. 4310 as an amendment.
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
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
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 MSFCMA (16
U.S.C. §§1801 et seq.), the National Aquaculture Act of 1980 (16 U.S.C. §§2801 et seq.), and the
Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. §§1361 et seq.). Congress last reauthorized
and extensively amended 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.
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 to coastal waters 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
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
resources within 200 miles of all U.S. coasts, but outside state waters, came under federal
jurisdiction. This 200-mile fishery conservation zone was superseded by a 200-mile exclusive
economic zone (EEZ), proclaimed by President Reagan on March 10, 1983 (Presidential
Proclamation 5030).
With the enactment of the FCMA, an entirely new, multifaceted regional management system
began allocating fishing rights, with priority given to domestic enterprise. Primary federal
management authority was vested in the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS, also
popularly referred to as NOAA Fisheries) within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce.5 In addition, the FCMA
established eight Regional Fishery Management Councils,6 with members appointed by the
Secretary of Commerce from lists provided by coastal state governors of candidates
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 in response to domestic fishing and processing industries expansion. Foreign
catch from the U.S. EEZ declined from about 3.8 billion pounds in 1977 to zero since 1992.
Accompanying 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. Beginning in 2010, recovery of overfished stocks began
to support larger harvests (Figure 1).
5
NMFS programs are described in detail at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/.
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.).
6
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
billion pounds
5
4
3
2
1
0
10
20
08
20
06
20
04
20
02
20
00
20
98
19
ata
96
19
oD
-N
94
19
92
19
90
19
88
19
86
19
84
19
82
19
80
19
78
19
76
19
Inshore State Waters
Offshore EEZ Waters
International Waters
Source: NMFS, Fisheries of the United States (various years), Current Fishery Statistics series.
Note: Total includes both industrial and edible fish and shellfish harvest.
Current Performance Measures
The economic status of U.S. commercial fisheries is updated and reported annually.9 In 2011 (the
most recent data available), U.S. commercial fishermen landed 7.9 billion pounds of edible,
unprocessed fish and shellfish from combined state, federal, and international waters, worth more
than $5.1 billion at the dock. U.S. imports of mostly processed edible seafood products supplied
5.3 billion pounds, worth $16.6 billion. U.S. consumers spent an estimated $85.9 billion on edible
seafood in 2011, with $57.7 billion of that amount spent in restaurants and other food service
establishments. In addition, marine recreational anglers caught an estimated 345 million fish in
2011, of which the retained catch was about 201 million pounds.10 In 2011 (the most recent data
available), a nationwide survey, conducted every five years, estimated that recreational anglers
spent more than $41.8 billion pursuing their sport.11
9
For additional information on domestic commercial fisheries, see http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/commercial/
index.html. Additional data for 2011 are available at http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/fus/fus11/FUS_2011.pdf.
10
Recreational fishing programs at NMFS are discussed at http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/recreational/index.html.
11
Preliminary results of the 2011 survey can be found at http://library.fws.gov/Pubs/nat_survey2011-nationaloverview-prelim-findings.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
4
Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress
NMFS reports annually on the status of fish stocks managed under MSFCMA through two
determinations.12 For 2011, NMFS made determinations for 258 fish stocks and complexes,13
finding that 36 (14%) of them were subject to overfishing14 and 222 (86%) were not. In addition,
NMFS made separate determinations for 219 stocks and complexes, finding that 45 (21%) were
overfished15 and 174 (79%) were not. These numbers reflect an improvement in the overfishing
percentage compared to 2010 (when 16% were subject to overfishing) as well as an improvement
in the overfished percentage compared to that year (when 23% were overfished).16 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).17 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 600 (second quarter of calendar
year 2012).
Magnuson-Stevens Act
MSFCMA was reauthorized more recently in the 109th Congress by P.L. 109-479, the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006.18 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;
12
See http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/statusoffisheries/2011/RTC/2011_RTC_Report.pdf.
NMFS reviewed 537 individual stocks and stock complexes but had insufficient information to make determinations
on all of them.
14
A stock that is subject to overfishing has a fishing mortality (harvest) rate greater than the level that provides for the
maximum sustainable yield from this stock.
15
A stock that is overfished has a biomass level less than a biological threshold specified in that stock’s FMP.
16
For more background on overfishing, see CRS Report R42563, Ending Overfishing and Rebuilding Fish Stocks in
U.S. Federal Waters, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
17
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/2012/second/Q2%202012%20FSSI%20Summary%20Changes.pdf.
18
For additional summary information on this measure, see http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/msa2005/
MSA%202006%20Implementation%20Overview.pdf.
13
Congressional Research Service
5
Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress
•
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 FY2013.19
NMFS has summarized various tasks associated with implementing P.L. 109-479.20 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;21 and (2) final guidance amending National Standard 1, designed to end overfishing
through new requirements for annual catch limits and other accountability measures.22 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.23
The 112th Congress considered a number of measures relating to MSFCMA and held numerous
hearings. P.L. 112-10 included language at Section 1349, Division B, prohibiting FY2011
expenditures to approve new limited-access privilege programs under MSFCMA for any fishery
under the jurisdiction of the South Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, New England, or Gulf of Mexico
Fishery Management Council. In addition, Section 307 of P.L. 112-213 ( H.R. 2838) clarified
restrictions on American Fisheries Act vessels. On March 8, 2011, the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation held an oversight hearing on evaluating the success of
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. On August
25, 2012, the House Committee on Natural Resources held an oversight field hearing in Panama
City, FL, on how strengthening fisheries might strengthen the economy. In addition, bills
introduced in the 112th Congress addressed a number of issues.
•
H.R. 1013 would have amended 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
19
For additional highlights and commentary on this enactment, see http://cbbulletin.com/Free/199763.aspx; a detailed
summary of enacted provisions is available at http://www.olemiss.edu/orgs/SGLC/National/Magnuson.pdf.
20
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/.
21
Available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/msa2007/docs/biennial_report011309.pdf.
22
74 Federal Register 3178-3213, January 16, 2009.
23
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 have made funds available to reimburse certain
fishermen for legal fees and costs incurred in connection with improper fines. S.
1312 would have established 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 have amended 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 have amended 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 limitedaccess 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 have
amended 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.
•
S. 632 and H.R. 3061 would have amended 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.
6350 would have amended MSFCMA to provide additional flexibility for fishery
managers, additional transparency for fishermen, a referendum for catch shares,
and additional funding for fishery surveys.
•
Section 308 of H.R. 2838 would have required 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. On September 22, 2102, the Senate passed H.R. 2838 (amended),
deleting the House provision.
•
Section 4 of H.R. 594 would have amended 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.
•
H.R. 2304 and S. 1916 would have amended 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.
•
H.R. 2753 would have amended 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.
Congressional Research Service
7
Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress
•
H.R. 6362 would have directed the Secretary of Commerce to issue a fishing
capacity reduction loan to refinance the existing loan funding the Pacific Coast
Groundfish Fishery Fishing Capacity Reduction Program.
•
S. 1371 and H.R. 4129 would have amended MSFCMA to add Rhode Island to
the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. H.R. 5885 would have added
New York to the New England Fishery Management Council.
•
S. 238 would have amended MSFCMA to require that annual fishery impact
statements evaluate the effects of management actions on fishing communities.
Pacific Salmon
Steelhead trout and five species of salmon spawn in U.S. 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.24 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.
The 112th Congress considered a number of measures related to Pacific salmon. 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. 11224
For additional background on this issue, see CRS Report 98-666, Pacific Salmon and Steelhead Trout: Managing
Under the Endangered Species Act, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
8
Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress
55 (H.R. 2112) into law, including language directing the National Aquatic Animal Health Task
Force to establish an infectious salmon anemia research program. Several bills introduced in the
112th Congress would have affected Pacific salmon.
•
H.R. 1251, Section 108 of H.R. 1837, and Title V, Subtitle A, of S. 2365 would
have provided 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, Section 203 of H.R. 1837 and Title
V, Subtitle B, of S. 2365 would have repealed the San Joaquin Restoration
Settlement. Furthermore, Section 207 of H.R. 1837 and Section 519 of S. 2365
would have ordered 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. On June 2 and 13, 2011, the House Natural Resources
Subcommittee on Water and Power held hearings on H.R. 1837. H.R. 1837 was
reported (amended) by the House Committee on Natural Resources on February
27, 2012 (H.Rept. 112-403), and passed by the House (amended) on February
29, 2012. Section 308 of H.R. 1287 and S. 706 would have prohibited 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) included language that would have limited funding for the Pacific
Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund to $50 million (Section 1307, Division B, Title
III) and prohibited 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 have reauthorized and amended the Northwest
Straits Marine Conservation Initiative Act, including authorizing county Marine
Resources Committees; one duty of these committee would have been to assist in
identifying local implications, needs, and strategies associated with the recovery
of Puget Sound salmon. On February 27, 2012, the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation reported S. 962 (S.Rept. 112-151).
•
H.R. 946 and H.R. 3069 would have amended 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 June 19, 2012, the House passed H.R. 2578 after
amending this measure to include the language of H.R. 3069 as Title VII.
•
On July 15, 2011, the House passed H.R. 2354 (amended), after adopting a floor
amendment (appearing in Section 614) that would have prohibited 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).
Congressional Research Service
9
Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress
•
Section 5 of H.R. 6247 would have required power administrations to report the
customer’s share of the direct and indirect costs related to compliance with any
federal environmental laws related to conservation of fish and wildlife; Section 8
of this bill would have prohibited bypassing water around turbines at federal
dams when such action would be harmful to endangered fish. On August 15,
2012, the House Committee on Natural Resources held a hearing on this bill.
•
S. 1401 would have established a Salmon Stronghold Partnership to promote
international and interagency cooperation to improve salmon management; on
January 30, 2012, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation reported (amended) the bill (S.Rept. 112-140).
•
H.R. 2111 would have (1) required a study by the National Academy of Sciences
of federal salmon recovery actions on the Columbia and Snake Rivers and (2)
declared that the Secretary of the Army may remove the four Lower Snake River
dams.
•
Section 305(b) of S. 52 would have reauthorized 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. 4275 would have amended the Civil Rights Act of 1991 with respect to the
application of this act to an employment discrimination lawsuit involving the
Wards Cove, AK, salmon cannery.
•
H.R. 3398/S. 1851 would have authorized 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
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 was
introduced in the 112th Congress to address numerous issues related to fisheries.
Habitat Protection and Restoration
Division A, Title I, Subtitle F, of P.L. 112-141 created a Gulf Coast Restoration Trust Fund to
promote 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. Division A,
Section 312 of P.L. 112-81 amended the Sikes Act to modify how this act applies to state-owned
facilities used for national defense. P.L. 112-270 (H.R. 6060) amended P.L. 106-392 to maintain
annual base funding for the Upper Colorado and San Juan River fish recovery programs.
S. 1266 (S.Rept. 112-183), H.R. 872, Section 108 of H.R. 3323, Section 3999E of S. 1720,
Title VI of S. 2365, and S. 3605 would have amended 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
Congressional Research Service
10
Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress
H.R. 872. H.R. 4318 would have prohibited the use of any pesticide containing atrazine. Section
10016 of H.R. 6083 would have restricted the modification, cancellation, or suspension of the
registration of a pesticide on the basis of the implementation of a biological opinion under the
Endangered Species Act; on September 13, 2012, the House Committee on Agriculture reported,
amended, H.R. 6083 (H.Rept. 112-669), with the pesticide provision now in Section 10017.
Section 11 of S. 203 would have amended 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 have established 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 have expressed 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 have extended 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 have amended 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 have
created a National Endowment for the Oceans, with funding (Section 6) for habitat restoration,
protection, and maintenance, including analyses of ocean acidification and minimization of
ecosystem harm. S. 1201, S.Amdt. 2232 to S. 3240, and Title II, Subtitle A of S. 3525 would
have authorized a national program to conserve fish and aquatic communities through
partnerships to foster habitat conservation; the Senate declined to consider S.Amdt. 2232 when
action was taken on S. 3240; on July 17, 2012, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public
Works reported S. 1201 (S.Rept. 112-187). S. 1266 and H.R. 2325 would have established a
Delaware River Basin Restoration Program, including grants for restoration or protection of fish
and their habitat; on July 16, 2012, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
reported (amended) H.R. 2993 would have directed 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 have exempted 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
designated September 24, 2011, as “National Estuaries Day” and reaffirmed support for the
scientific study, preservation, protection, and restoration of estuaries; the Senate agreed to this
measure on September 23, 2011. Similarly, S.Res. 566 designated September 29, 2012, as
“National Estuaries Day”; on September 19, 2012, the Senate agreed to S.Res. 566. Section 402
of S. 1971 would have amended the Clean Water Act to elaborate on standards and adverse
impact determinations for cooling water intake structures. Section 4 of S. 2147 would have
established an Arctic Ocean Research, Monitoring, and Observation Program to offer grants for
research and monitoring of Arctic fisheries, including the distributions and ecology of Arctic cod
and other forage fishes. Section 2 of H.R. 4314 would have authorized coastal adaptation project
grants, with one priority addressing ocean acidification. H.R. 4408 would have amended the
Sikes Act to promote the use of cooperative agreements for land management related to
Department of Defense installations and to facilitate interagency cooperation in conservation
programs. S. 1991 would have established a National Endowment for the Oceans. Section 4 of
Congressional Research Service
11
Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress
H.R. 6303 would have authorized global science program grants, with one priority addressing
ocean acidification. Section 5 of H.R. 6247 would have required power administrations to report
the customer’s share of the direct and indirect costs related to compliance with any federal
environmental laws related to conservation of fish and wildlife; Section 8 of this bill would have
prohibited bypassing turbines at federal dams when such action would be harmful to endangered
fish. On August 15, 2012, the House Committee on Natural Resources held a hearing on H.R.
6247.
In addition, a number of bills in the 112th Congress proposed 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 (name redacted), and CRS Report RL34329, Crosscut Budgets in
Ecosystem Restoration Initiatives: Examples and Issues for Congress, by (name redacted) and
(name redacted).
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 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. P.L. 112-102 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 June 30,
2012. P.L. 112-140 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 July 6, 2012. Division C, Title IV, and Division D, Section 40101(b), of P.L.
112-141 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 FY2014.
Section 9(b)(2)(D) of S. 351 and Section 13(2)(D) of S. 352 would have designated a portion of
revenues from certain oil and gas leasing in Alaska for the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish
Restoration Fund. H.R. 4650 and S. 3195 would have suspended temporarily the duty on certain
fishing reels.
Section 311 of H.R. 1287, S. 706, and Section 4140 of S. 1720 would have prohibited 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 have required 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 have funded projects to
secure recreational public access to federal public land that has significantly restricted access for
fishing. Section 2(b)(2) of S. 1265, Section 3 of H.R. 6086, and Section 1701(e) of H.R. 14/S.
1813, as passed (amended) by the Senate on March 14, 2012, would have amended the Land and
Water Conservation Fund Act to specify that at least 1.5% of the annual authorized funding
Congressional Research Service
12
Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress
amount be made available for projects that secure recreational public access to existing federal
public land for hunting, fishing, and other recreational purposes. On April 24, 2012, the Senate
passed H.R. 4348 after amending this measure to substitute the language of S. 1813, as
amended; in conference, this provision was deleted (H.Rept. 112-557). H.R. 2834, Title I of
H.R. 4089, and S. 2066 would have directed federal public land management officials to
facilitate use of and access to 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 July 19, 2012, the House Committee on Natural Resources reported
(amended) H.R. 2834 (H.Rept. 112-609, Part I). On April 13, 2012, the House Committee on
Natural Resources reported (amended) H.R. 4089 (H.Rept. 112-426, Part I); the House passed
this measure on April 17, 2012. H.R. 6086 would have directed federal public land management
agencies to report on public access to federal public lands for fishing and other recreational
purposes.
S. 1555 and H.R. 3429 would have authorized the use of certain offshore oil and gas platforms
in the Gulf of Mexico for artificial reefs. S.Amdt. 2232 to S. 3541 (Section 13303) and Section
123 of S. 3525 would have directed the Secretary of the Interior to develop a plan to assess how
removal of decommissioned offshore oil and gas platforms might relate to creation of artificial
habitats that enhance fishing; the Senate declined to consider S.Amdt. 2232 when action was
taken on S. 3240. H.R. 6208 would have temporarily limited the authority of the Secretary of
the Interior to require or authorize the removal or movement of offshore oil and gas facilities.
H.R. 1443 sought 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 have prohibited the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating, based on material composition, any
type of fishing tackle, while H.R. 1558, Title IV of H.R. 4089, S. 838, S.Amdt. 2232 to S.
3240 (Section 13301), and Section 121 of S. 3525 would have amended the Toxic Substances
Control Act to modify the jurisdiction of the EPA with respect to certain sport fishing articles
(e.g., lead sinkers); the Senate declined to consider S.Amdt. 2232 when action was taken on S.
3240. On April 13, 2012, the House Committee on Natural Resources reported (amended) H.R.
4089 (H.Rept. 112-426, Part I); the House passed this measure on April 17, 2012.
H.R. 3074 would have amended the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to delegate to states the
authorities of the Secretary of the Interior under that act with respect to cormorants. S. 3674 and
H.R. 6665 would have amended the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to provide exemptions relating to
the taking of migratory game birds to protect aquatic crops.
Several bills would have modified (Section 4(b) of S. 108 and Section 5(b) of S. 1069) or
temporarily suspended (S. 2879 and S. 2880) the tariff on vulcanized rubber felt or lug boot
bottoms for use in fishing waders. H.R. 2351 would have directed 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. Section 4 of H.R. 594
would have amended 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
Congressional Research Service
13
Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress
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. H.R. 5797 and S.
3251 would have exempted vessel owners and operators on Mille Lacs Lake, MN, from federal
laws applicable to navigable waters; on July 31, 2012, the House Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure reported (amended) H.R. 5797 (H.Rept. 112-634), and the House passed this
measure (amended) on August 1, 2012. H.Res. 801 would have recognized anglers and fishery
management agencies for their role in restoring fish populations.
Invasive Species
Section 403 of P.L. 112-213 (H.R. 2838) and Section 3511 of P.L. 112-239 (H.R. 4310) created a
maritime environmental and technical assistance program, with one focus being research,
development, assessment, and deployment of emerging marine technologies and practices related
to controlling aquatic invasive species. Section 5 of P.L. 112-237 (H.R. 3687) exempted from the
Lacey Act certain water transfers by the North Texas Municipal Water District and the Greater
Texoma Utility Authority for zebra mussel control. 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 have authorized 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
have amended 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; on September 22, 2012, the Senate passed H.R. 2838 (amended), deleting the House title
amending the Clean Water Act. Section 459 of H.R. 2584, as reported by the House Committee
on Appropriations on July 19, 2011 (H.Rept. 112-151), would have prohibited 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. S. 3332 and S. 3570 would have
established nationally uniform standards governing ballast water discharges.
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 have directed
the Corps of Engineers, U.S. Geological Survey, and FWS to take measures to control the spread
of Asian carp, including studying the feasibility of the hydrological separation of the Great Lakes
and Mississippi River Basins. H.R. 2432 would have required the Corps of Engineers to prepare
an economic impact statement before carrying out any federal action relating to the Chicago Area
Water System. H.R. 4146 and S. 2164 would have authorized the Army Corps of Engineers to
take actions to manage Asian carp traveling up the Mississippi River in the state of Minnesota.
H.R. 4406 and S. 2317 would have directed the Army Corps of Engineers to complete the Great
Lakes Mississippi River Interbasin Study within 18 months, focusing on the permanent
Congressional Research Service
14
Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress
prevention of the spread of aquatic nuisance species between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi
River Basins. H.R. 6348 would have designated the Army Corps of Engineers as the lead federal
agency for Asian carp control and expands authorization of Corps activities to control Asian carp.
H.R. 6385 and S. 3645 would have directed a multiagency effort to slow the spread of Asian
carp in the Upper Mississippi and Ohio River basins and tributaries.
H.Res. 132 would have expressed the need to raise awareness and promote capacity building to
address the lionfish invasion in the Atlantic Ocean. Section 3 of S. 432 would have amended 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 February 7, 2012, the Senate Committee
on Environment and Public Works reported (amended) S. 432 (S.Rept. 112-148), with the
invasive species provisions in Section 7. Section 2 of H.R. 4314 would have authorized coastal
adaptation project grants, with one priority addressing invasive species. On April 26, 2012, the
Senate Committee on Appropriations reported S. 2465 (S.Rept. 112-164), adding language that
sought to encourage the Bureau of Reclamation, in partnership with the Bonneville Power
Administration, to continue its efforts to develop invasive zebra and quagga mussel vulnerability
assessments for federally owned hydropower projects. S. 3606 and H.R. 5864 would have
modified the regulatory process for injurious wildlife to prevent the introduction and
establishment of nonnative species.
International Fisheries
Section 113 of P.L. 112-55 directs certain management measures for U.S. tuna fishing under the
authority of the Commission for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish
Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. On May 23, June 14, and June 28, 2012, the
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations held hearings on the United Nations Convention on Law
of the Sea. 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 have implemented
this agreement, and was reported on November 14, 2012, by the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation (S.Rept. 112-255). S. 52 and H.R. 4100 would have
amended various statutes implementing international fishery agreements to deter and combat
illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing; additional provisions (Title IV in S. 52; Title
II in H.R. 4100) would have amended the Tuna Conventions Act of 1950 to implement the
Antigua Convention; on June 19, 2012, the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries,
Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs held a hearing on H.R. 4100; the Committee on Natural
Resources ordered this bill reported on July 11, 2012. On January 26, 2012, the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation reported S. 52 (S.Rept. 112-132).
H.Res. 47 would have expressed the sense of the House of Representatives urging that the
parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
(CITES) adopt stronger protections for sharks and bluefin tuna. S.Res. 227 would have called 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 would have
expressed 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 have authorized $31.3 million for International Fisheries
Commissions in FY2012. On September 23, 2011, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs
Congressional Research Service
15
Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress
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 have extended the period for
reimbursement of seized commercial fishermen under the Fishermen’s Protective Act from 2008
to 2013. S. 1601 and H.R. 6018 would have authorized $36.3 million for International Fisheries
Commissions in FY2013; on July 17, 2012, the House passed H.R. 6018 (amended). H.R. 6038
and S. 3356 would have required a GAO study of U.S. international conservation policies and
programs, specifically including illegal fishing, and direct the President to develop and implement
a comprehensive International Conservation Strategy. S. 3518 would have made it a principal
negotiating objective of the United States in trade negotiations to eliminate government fisheries
subsidies.
Tuna and Billfish
P.L. 112-183 (H.R. 2706) prohibited the sale of billfish. Section 701 of P.L. 112-213 (H.R.
2838) extended the authorization to engage foreign citizens in the U.S. distant water tuna fleet
and gave 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. Section 113 of P.L. 112-55
directs certain management measures for U.S. tuna fishing under the authority of the Commission
for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and
Central Pacific Ocean.
H.R. 1806 would have amended the Endangered Species Act to provide that bluefin tuna not be
treated as an endangered or threatened species. S. 52 and H.R. 4100 would have amended the
Tuna Conventions Act of 1950 to implement the Antigua Convention; in addition, S. 52 would
have amended 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); on
June 19, 2012, the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, and
Insular Affairs held a hearing on H.R. 4100; the Committee on Natural Resources ordered this
bill reported on July 11, 2012. Section 2(e) of S. 2062 would have amended the Lacey Act to
remove the exemption from Lacey Act enforcement for taking of highly migratory species in
violation of foreign law where the United States does not recognize foreign jurisdiction over
highly migratory species.
Disasters and Recovery
Division A, Title I, Subtitle F, of P.L. 112-141 (H.R. 4348) created a Gulf Coast Restoration
Trust Fund to promote consumption of Gulf of Mexico seafood as well as efforts to achieve longterm sustainability of the ecosystem, fish stocks, fish habitat, and the recreational, commercial,
and charter fishing industry in the Gulf of Mexico.
S. 653 and H.R. 1336 would have required 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 have required 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
Congressional Research Service
16
Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress
Works Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife held a hearing on S. 662. Section 204 of H.R. 3757
would have amended the Clean Water Act to elaborate on how closing and reopening of fishing
grounds following an oil spill is to be managed. S.Amdt. 2187 to S. 3240 would have extended
emergency disaster loans under the Farm Service Agency (FSA) to commercial fishermen;
S.Amdt. 2188 to S. 3240 would have extended the non-insured crop assistance program under
FSA to commercial fishermen; and S.Amdt. 2206 to S. 3240 would have extended FSA
operating loans to commercial fishermen. On June 21, 2012, the Senate passed S. 3240 with the
provision relating to emergency disaster loans included (Section 5001).25 On December 28, 2012,
the Senate passed H.R. 1 (amended), including $150 million for fishery disasters declared during
2012.
Marine Debris
Title VI of P.L. 112-213 (H.R. 2838)
amended the Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and
Reduction Act, and included language in Section 608 defining a severe marine debris event, with
a determination for such an event directed in Section 609 for the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami
and for Hurricane Sandy.
Colorado River
P.L. 112-270 (H.R. 6060) amended P.L. 106-392 to maintain annual base funding for the Upper
Colorado and San Juan River fish recovery programs.
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 have amended and reauthorized the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia
Research and 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 13, 2011,
the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation reported (amended) S. 1701
(S.Rept. 112-237). Section 7 of S. 1582 and Section 13 of H.R. 3690 would have directed 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
have amended the Oceans and Human Health Act to require coordination with programs under
the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act.
25
The Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry filed a written report on S. 3240 on August 28, 2012
(S.Rept. 112-203).
Congressional Research Service
17
Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress
Marketing and Trade
Section 7 of H.R. 480 would have established a Gulf of Mexico seafood marketing program.
Several bills would have modified (Section 4(b) of S. 108 and Section 5(b) of S. 1069) or
temporarily suspended (S. 2879 and S. 2880) the tariff on vulcanized rubber felt or lug boot
bottoms for use in fishing waders. Section 7004 of S. 1773/H.R. 3286 would have amended 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. H.R. 4650 and S.
3195 would have suspended temporarily the duty on certain fishing reels. H.R. 5071 and S.
2556 would have extended the temporary suspension of duty on oysters (other than smoked),
prepared or preserved. H.R. 6200 would have sought to address seafood fraud by requiring
labels to identify species, origin, and fishing gear used for both domestic and imported fish and
would require a plan to coordinate FDA and NMFS seafood inspection. S. 3518 would have
made it a principal negotiating objective of the United States in trade negotiations to eliminate
government fisheries subsidies. S. 3615 would have promoted national seafood marketing efforts
through the creation of a National Seafood Marketing and Development Fund and Regional
Seafood Marketing Boards.
Jobs
Section 7(b)(2)(H) of H.R. 192/S. 179 would have promoted 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 February 27, 2012, the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation reported S. 179 (S.Rept. 112-149). H.R.
594 would have established 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 have amended 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 have directed the Federal Emergency Management Agency to study the impacts of
the National Flood Insurance Program on harbor areas that are working waterfronts.
Seafood Safety
S. 50 would have directed the Departments of Commerce and of Health and Human Services, the
Federal Trade Commission, and other federal agencies to combat seafood fraud26 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 have required research on
the safety of Gulf of Mexico seafood, including levels of elevated hazardous substances. S. 1183
and H.R. 3391 would have established a program to monitor long-term changes in mercury and
methyl mercury in fish and other aquatic organisms. Section 4 of S. 1582 would have directed
26
See CRS Report RL34124, Seafood Marketing: Combating Fraud and Deception, by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
18
Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress
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 have repealed Section 7873 of the Internal Revenue Code
relating to federal tax treatment of income derived by Indians from exercise of fishing rights
secured by treaty. H.R. 278 would have amended the Internal Revenue Code to provide for taxexempt qualified small issue bonds to finance fish processing property. Section 5 of H.R. 390
would have amended the Internal Revenue Code 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. H.R. 6276 would have amended the
Internal Revenue Code to provide for Commercial Fishing, Farm, and Ranch Risk Management
Accounts.
Fishing and Research Vessels
H.R. 2241 and S. 1208 would have provided an election to terminate certain capital construction
funds without penalties. H.R. 3472 and S. 1890 would have established standards and
procedures for disposal of forfeited fishing vessels; on June 19, 2012, the House Natural
Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, and Insular Affairs held a hearing on
H.R. 3472. Section 610 of S. 1665, as reported (amended) by the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation on January 26, 2012 (S.Rept. 112-135), would have directed the
NOAA Administrator to give special consideration to stated factors related to designating a
homeport for the FSV Henry E. Bigelow. Section 302 of H.R. 5887 would have delayed certain
safety requirements for fishing vessels.
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/H.R. 6299, Section 2(a) of H.R. 1050, and Section 621(a) of H.R. 3682 would have
amended 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 have amended and reauthorized the Oceans and Human
Health Act through FY2015.
Striped Bass
H.R. 3906 would have amended the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act to allow recreational
fishing for Atlantic striped bass in the Block Island Sound transit zone. Section 3 of H.R. 6096
would have reauthorized the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act through FY2017. On July
19, 2012, the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, and Insular
Affairs held a hearing on both these bills.
Congressional Research Service
19
Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
S. 1494, Section 243 of S. 3525, and H.R. 6441 would have reauthorized and amended the
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Establishment Act. On April 24, 2012, the Senate
Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife held a hearing on S. 1494,
and on September 19, 2012, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works reported
(amended) S. 1494 (S.Rept. 112-215).
Miscellaneous Fisheries Reauthorizations
H.R. 6096 would have reauthorized the Anadromous Fish Conservation Act, Atlantic Striped
Bass Conservation Act, Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act, and Northwest Atlantic Fisheries
Convention Act through FY2017. On July 19, 2012, the House Natural Resources Subcommittee
on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, and Insular Affairs held a hearing on this bill.
Legal Fees
Section 311 of H.R. 1287, S. 706, and Section 4140 of S. 1720 would have prohibited the
Claims and Judgment Fund of the U.S. 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.
Fishing Permits and Licenses
H.R. 1210, S. 608, and Section 406 of H.R. 2838 would have limited 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. 112229). On November 15, 2011, the House passed H.R. 2838 (amended); on September 22, 2012,
the Senate passed H.R. 2838 (amended), deleting the House provision limiting maritime liens.
Accidents and Injury
Section 2(2) of S. 475 would have prohibited 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.
Coral
S. 46 and H.R. 738 would have amended and reauthorized the Coral Reef Conservation Act of
2000 through FY2015 (H.R. 738) or FY2016 (S. 46). On September 12, 2012, the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation reported S. 46 (S.Rept. 112-210).
Section 3(a)(2)(A)(iii)(I) of S. 692 would have promoted research on the mitigation of hurricane
impacts on coral reefs; on November 14, 2012, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation reported this bill (amended). Section 6101(b) of H.R. 6644 would have stated
U.S. policy as cooperating with partner countries and nongovernmental organizations to protect
and sustainably manage coral reefs, including through debt-for-nature exchanges.
Congressional Research Service
20
Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress
Insurance
Section 39 of H.R. 1026 would have required the Federal Emergency Management Agency to
study the impacts of the National Flood Insurance Program on harbor areas including commercial
and recreational fishing.
Saltonstall-Kennedy Act
S. 2184 and H.R. 4208 would have amended the Saltonstall-Kennedy Act to establish a
Regional Fisheries Investment Grant Program.
Government Reorganization
Section 202(b) of S. 1116 would have transferred 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.27 The diversity of aquaculture
is typified by such activities as freshwater fish farming (e.g., catfish and trout farms);28 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 78.9 million metric tons in 2010 (the
most recent FAO data available).29 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.30
27
For more background information, see CRS Report RL32694, Open Ocean Aquaculture, by (name redacted) and
(name redacted), and out-of-print CRS Report 97-436, Aquaculture and the Federal Role, by (name redacted) and
(name redacted), available from Eugene Buck at #redacted#@crs.loc.gov.
28
For statistics on freshwater production, see http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2002/Aquaculture/index.asp.
29
For more details, see http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1820e/i1820e00.htm.
30
For a discussion of FAO projections for 2030, see http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5648e/y5648e07.htm#bm07.1.
Congressional Research Service
21
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.31 The U.S. Department of Commerce’s Fisheries of the United States—2011 reported
that in 2011 U.S. aquaculture production reached 753 million pounds with sales of $1,282
million.32 Catfish accounted for 478 million pounds and sales of $375 million while crawfish
contributed 116 million pounds and sales of $177 million.33 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.34 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.35 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 or 112th 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.
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.
Aquaculture Issues in the 112th Congress
The 112th Congress considered a number of measures related to aquaculture. On March 30, 2012,
the House Committee on Agriculture held a field hearing in State University, Arkansas, including
concerns about constraints on transport of aquaculture products under the Lacey Act.
P.L. 112-55 included a provision directing the National Aquatic Animal Health Task Force to
establish an infectious salmon anemia research program. P.L. 112-74 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 in FY2012 to mitigate for fisheries lost due to Corps of
31
NMFS has produced a short video on U.S. aquaculture, available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/aquaculture/
homepage_stories/aquaculture_video.html.
32
National Marine Fisheries Service Office of Science and Technology, Fisheries of the United States 2011, Current
Fishery Statistics No. 2011, Silver Spring, MD, August 2012, p. 20, http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/Assets/commercial/
fus/fus11/01_front2011.pdf.
33
Sales for the miscellaneous category including baitfish, ornamental/tropical fish, alligators, algae, aquatic plants and
others totaled approximately $282 million. Sales were defined as the final sales of products to processors and dealers.
34
Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA 10-Year Plan for Marine
Aquaculture, NOAA Aquaculture Program Office, Silver Spring, MD, October 2007.
35
The NOAA and Department of Commerce aquaculture policies are available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/
aquaculture/policy/2011_policies_homepage.html.
Congressional Research Service
22
Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress
Engineers projects. Section 6 of P.L. 112-237 (S. 3687) directed the Secretary of the Interior to
convey the McKinney Lake National Fish Hatchery to the State of North Carolina. Section 404(b)
of P.L. 112-240 (H.R. 8) amended the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to include algae-based
biofuel in the cellulosic biofuel producer credit. In the 112th Congress, several additional
measures were introduced that could have affected aquaculture:
•
S. 229, H.R. 520, and H.R. 3553 would have amended the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act to require labeling of genetically engineered fish. S. 230 and
H.R. 521 would have amended 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 have
prohibited 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. On May 24, 2012, S.Amdt.
2108 to S. 3187 was defeated, proposing to prohibit approval by FDA of
genetically engineered fish unless NOAA concurred with such approval.
•
H.R. 1149, H.R. 2009, S. 1085, and S. 1564 would have amended the Clean
Air Act to include algae-based biofuel in the renewable fuel program. Section 5
of S. 937/H.R. 2036 and Section 222 of H.R. 2133 would have provided
additional incentives for algae-based fuel production. Section 9010 of S. 3240
would have excluded algae from eligibility for a biomass assistance program; the
Senate passed S. 3240 on June 21, 2012.36 Section 10 of H.R. 5955 would have
declared algae eligible for the agriculture biomass assistance program. H.R.
5967 would have amended the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 to
include algae as renewable biomass.
•
H.R. 4296, S. 496, and S.Amdt. 2199 to S. 3240 would have amended the
Food, Conservation, and Energy Act to repeal a program relating to inspection
and grading of catfish. Section 11018 of S. 3240 would have required research
and development regarding a policy to insure producers against reduction in the
margin between the market value of catfish and selected costs incurred in the
production of catfish. On June 21, 2012, the Senate passed S. 3240, amended to
repeal the catfish inspection program (Section 12208) and require a policy on
margin coverage for catfish (Section 11019).37 Section 11021 of H.R. 6083 also
addressed margin coverage for catfish; on September 13, 2012, the House
Committee on Agriculture reported (amended) H.R. 6083 (H.Rept. 112-669).
36
The Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry filed a written report on S. 3240 on August 28, 2012
(S.Rept. 112-203).
37
Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
23
Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress
•
Section 7117 of S. 3240 and Section 7123 of H.R. 6083 would have authorized
appropriations for Department of Agriculture aquaculture assistance programs
through FY2017; in addition, Section 7407 of S. 3240/H.R. 6083 would have
reauthorized the National Aquaculture Act through FY2017. Title I, Subtitle E of
S. 3240/H.R. 6083 and Section 2 of H.R. 6192/H.R. 6228/H.R. 6233 would
have expanded and extended disaster assistance programs for farm-raised fish.
On June 21, 2012, the Senate passed S. 3240 with these provisions,38 and on
August 2, 2012, the House passed H.R. 6233. On September 13, 2012, the
House Committee on Agriculture reported (amended) H.R. 6083 (H.Rept. 112669). H.R. 4948 and Section 9(e) of S. 2261 would have amended the Federal
Crop Insurance Act to modify and extend emergency assistance for farm-raised
fish.
•
Section 207 of H.R. 1837 and Section 519 of S. 2365 would have ordered 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. 1837 was
reported (amended) by the House Committee on Natural Resources on February
27, 2012 (H.Rept. 112-403), and passed by the House (amended) on February
29, 2012.
•
Section 105 of S. 2465 and Section 106 of H.R. 5325 would have authorized
the Army Corps of Engineers to transfer to the Fish and Wildlife Service as much
as $4,300,000 for National Fish Hatcheries in FY2013 to mitigate for fisheries
lost due to Army Corps of Engineers projects. On June 6, 2012, the House passed
H.R. 5325 (amended). H.R. 5931 would have authorized and required the Fish
and Wildlife Service to charge federal agencies for mitigation services provided
by National Fish Hatcheries and other related facilities.
•
S. 50 would have directed 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 fraud39 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).
38
39
•
H.R. 2905 would have temporarily waived 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 have prohibited the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary
of Commerce from authorizing commercial finfish aquaculture operations in the
EEZ unless specifically authorized by Congress. H.R. 2373 would have
Ibid.
See CRS Report RL34124, Seafood Marketing: Combating Fraud and Deception, by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
24
Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress
established a regulatory system and research program for offshore aquaculture in
the U.S. EEZ.
•
H.R. 1176 would have amended the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act of
2004 to include farmed shellfish as specialty crops. S. 1607 would have added
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. 3074 would have amended the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to delegate to
states the authorities of the Secretary of the Interior under that act with respect to
cormorants. On March 29, 2012, the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on
Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, and Insular Affairs held a hearing on this bill.
•
H.R. 1650 would have amended 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 have amended 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.
•
H.R. 6200 would have sought to address seafood fraud by requiring labels to
identify species and origin for both domestic and imported fish and would require
a plan to coordinate FDA and NMFS seafood inspection.
•
Section 39 of H.R. 1026 would have required 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 have directed 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 have authorized 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 have amended the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 to allow a credit against income tax for equity investments in
aquaculture small businesses.
•
H.R. 5864 would have modified the regulatory process for injurious wildlife to
prevent the introduction of harmful nonnative wildlife and wild animal pathogens
and parasites.
•
As part of the Klamath Settlement, Section 206(f) of H.R. 3398/S. 1851 would
have transferred the PacifiCorps Iron Gate Hatchery facilities to the state of
California.
•
H.R. 278 would have amended the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
for tax-exempt qualified small issue bonds to finance fish processing property.
Congressional Research Service
25
Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress
•
Section 306 of H.R. 4351 would have authorized a grant program for promoting
urban aquaculture.
Marine Mammals
Background
In 1972, Congress enacted the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. §§1361 et
seq.), due in part to high dolphin mortality (estimated at more than 400,000 animals per year) in
the eastern tropical Pacific tuna purse-seine fishery. While some critics assert that the MMPA is
scientifically irrational because it identifies one group of organisms for special protection
unrelated to their abundance or ecological role, supporters note that the MMPA has accomplished
much by way of promoting research and increased understanding of marine life as well as
encouraging attention to incidental bycatch mortalities of marine life by commercial fishing and
other maritime industries.
The MMPA established a moratorium on the “taking” of marine mammals in U.S. waters and by
U.S. nationals on the high seas. It also established a moratorium on importing marine mammals
and marine mammal products into the United States. The MMPA protected marine mammals
from “clubbing, mutilation, poisoning, capture in nets, and other human actions that lead to
extinction.” It also expressly authorized the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of the
Interior to issue permits for the “taking” of marine mammals for certain purposes, such as
scientific research and public display.
Under the MMPA, the Secretary of Commerce, acting through NMFS, is responsible for the
conservation and management of whales, dolphins, and porpoises (cetaceans), and seals and sea
lions (pinnipeds). The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS), is responsible for walruses, sea and marine otters, polar bears, manatees, and dugongs.
This division of authority derives from agency responsibilities as they existed when the MMPA
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-byspecies 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
Congressional Research Service
26
Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress
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.
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.40 The Navy’s use of mid-frequency sonar and its possible effects on marine
mammals has been the focus of much controversy and litigation.41
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 takereduction 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.42
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.43 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.
40
For more background, see CRS Report RS22149, Exemptions from Environmental Law for the Department of
Defense (DOD), by (name redacted).
41
For more background, see CRS Report RL34403, Whales and Sonar: Environmental Exemptions for the Navy’s MidFrequency Active Sonar Training, by (name redacted), and CRS Report RL33133, Active Military Sonar and Marine
Mammals: Events and References, by (name redacted) and Kori Calvert.
42
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 (name redacted), available from the author at #redacted#@crs.loc.gov.
43
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
27
Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress
Legislation introduced in the 112th Congress addressed several issues related to the MMPA. 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.
•
H.R. 990 would have amended MMPA to allow the importation of polar bear
trophies taken in sport hunts in Canada. H.R. 991, Title III of H.R. 4089, S.
1066, and Section 102 of S. 3525 would have amended 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). On April 13, 2012, the House Committee on Natural
Resources reported (amended) H.R. 4089 (H.Rept. 112-426, Part I); the House
passed this measure on April 17, 2012. Section 2(d)(2)(B) of S. 2062 would have
amended the MMPA to delete enforcement authority under the Lacey Act for
polar bear management.
•
H.R. 946 and H.R. 3069 would have amended 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). On
June 19, 2012, the House passed H.R. 2578 after amending this measure to
include the language of H.R. 3069 as Title VII.
•
Section 3(a) of H.R. 840 and Section 195(a)(2) of H.R. 4301 would have
allowed certain offshore drilling operations to proceed without further review
under the MMPA. Section 101 of H.R. 909/H.R. 3302 would have declared 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 have amended 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 have amended 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.
Congressional Research Service
28
Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress
•
Section 142(6) of H.R. 4301 would have directed NOAA and FWS to assign
employees to regional offices to coordinate review of federal permits for oil and
gas projects on federal lands onshore and on the OCS, with expertise in MMPA
authorizations.
•
H.R. 594 would have established 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.
•
Section 3 of H.R. 332 would have required compliance by all federal defense
agencies with certain environmental laws, including MMPA.
•
S. 1402 would have amended MMPA to increase the maximum penalty for
violating that act.
Additional Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress
Legislation was 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 have directed 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 have amended 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. Section
4 of S. 2147/S. 2154 would have established an Arctic Ocean Research, Monitoring, and
Observation Program to offer grants for research and monitoring of Arctic marine mammals,
including their responses to loss of sea ice habitats and reactions to disturbance. S. 1991 would
have established a National Endowment for the Oceans.
Whaling
S. 3262 and H.R. 5898 would have amended the Whaling Convention Act to require the
Secretary of Commerce to authorize aboriginal subsistence whaling as permitted by the
regulations of the International Whaling Commission and to set aboriginal subsistence catch
limits for bowhead whales in the event the Commission fails to adopt such limits. H.Res. 714
would have stressed the importance of continued U.S. leadership in whale conservation and
restate U.S. opposition to commercial whaling. H.R. 6145 would have authorized the Secretary
of the Interior to provide preservation and interpretation assistance for the New Bedford Whaling
National Historical Park in Massachusetts.
Sea Otters
H.R. 4043 would have established special management areas for southern sea otters to
accommodate military readiness activities, and declare that incidental take restrictions under
Congressional Research Service
29
Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress
MMPA and ESA are not applicable in these areas during military readiness activities; on April 19,
2012, the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, and Insular
Affairs held a hearing on this bill; on July 17, 2012, the House Committee on Natural Resources
reported (amended) this bill (H.Rept. 112-606, Part I). On May 18, 2012, the House passed
H.R. 4310 after amending this measure to include the language of H.R. 4043 in Section 316. On
December 4, 2012, the Senate passed (amended) H.R. 4310, without the House language on sea
otters, and this language was not included in the conference report (H.Rept. 112-705), filed
December 18, 2012.
Polar Bears
H.R. 39 would have delisted 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 have repealed 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 have expressed 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
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. Appropriations issues in
the 112th Congress included not only what level of funding might be adequate to implement the
programs required by law, but also what levels of funding might be provided for alleviating the
effects of disasters on fisheries and how much funding should be provided to restore salmon
habitat and promote the recovery of endangered and threatened salmon stocks.
Congressional Research Service
30
Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress
Table 1. NMFS Appropriations, FY2011-FY2013
(in thousands of dollars)
FY2011
Enacted
FY2012
Request
FY2012
Enacted
FY2013
Request
FY2013
Sen Rpt
FY2013
Hse Psd
Fisheries
506,684
550,295
490,673
491,491
495,764
481,516
Protected Species
199,447
216,581
176,451
170,041
184,347
154,234
Habitat Conservation
49,812
53,600
43,187
35,987
43,678
29,388
Enforcement
Surveillance
105,619
106,207
107,899
110,289
110,289
110,289
Admin. Efficiency
Initiative
(16,271)
Undistributed
Reduction
(24,000)
Cong.-Directed
Projects
33,418
SUBTOTAL
(OR&F)
894,980
910,412
794,210
807,808
834,078
775,427
Procurement,
Acquisition,
Construction
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pacific Coastal
Salmon Recovery
80,000
65,000
65,000
50,000
65,000
65,000
Other Accounts
42,420
25,142
16,025
17,284
350
350
1,017,400
1,001,104
875,235
875,092
899,428
840,777
TOTAL
Sources: Budget Justifications, House and Senate Committee Reports, and floor debate.
The Administration’s FY2013 budget request was released on February 13, 2012.44 The
Administration is proposing that FY2013 funding for NMFS in NOAA’s OR&F account increase
about $13.6 million (+1.7%) above the FY2012 enacted funding. This is offset by a proposed
reduction of $15 million for the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund. On April 19, 2012, the
Senate Committee on Appropriations reported S. 2323, proposing to increase NMFS funding in
NOAA’s OR&F account by $26.3 million (3.3%) more than the Administration request and $39.9
million (5.0%) more than was enacted for FY2012 (S.Rept. 112-158). On May 2, 2012, the
House Committee on Appropriations reported H.R. 5326, proposing to decrease NMFS funding
in NOAA’s OR&F account by $32.4 million (-4.0%) below the Administration request and $18.8
million (-2.4%) below the amount enacted for FY2012 (H.Rept. 112-463). On May 10, 2012,
the House passed H.R. 5326 (amended); it proposes NMFS funding for FY2013, but would
prohibit FY2013 funding for (1) a new limited access privilege program for any fishery under the
jurisdiction of Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico fishery management councils; (2) a National Ocean
Policy; (3) implementation of a proposed rule for turtle excluder devices; (4) the salary of any
officer or employee who uses the Fisheries Enforcement Asset Forfeiture Fund for any purpose
other than specifically authorized; and (5) reintroduction of California Central Valley Spring Run
44
The Department of Commerce “Budget in Brief” is available at http://www.osec.doc.gov/bmi/budget/FY13BIB/
fy2013bib_final.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
31
Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress
Chinook salmon. In the absence of final action on either bill, a continuing resolution, P.L. 112175, provided FY2013 funding through March 27, 2013, for projects and activities at the FY2012
level.
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.
The Administration’s FY2013 budget request was released on February 13, 2012.45 The
Administration is proposing that FY2013 funding for FWS’s Fisheries and Aquatic Resource
Conservation line item decrease by about $3.7 million (-2.7%) below the FY2012 enacted
funding. Most of this reduction would occur for National Fish Hatchery operations. On July 10,
2012, the House Committee on Appropriations reported H.R. 6091, proposing to decrease FWS
funding in their “Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Conservation” account for FY2013 by $4.4
million (-3.4%) below the Administration request and $8.1 million (-6.0%) below the amount
enacted for FY2012 (H.Rept. 112-589). In the absence of final action on either bill, a continuing
resolution, P.L. 112-175, provided FY2013 funding through March 27, 2013, for projects and
activities at the FY2012 level.
Table 2. FWS Appropriations, FY2010-FY2013
(in thousands of dollars)
Fisheries and Aquatic
Resource Conservation
FY2011
Request
FY2011
Enacted
FY2012
Request
FY2012
Enacted
FY2013
Request
FY2013
Hse Rpt
142,477
138,939
136,012
135,317
131,607
127,170
Sources: Budget justifications, House and Senate Committee Reports, and floor debate.
Marine Mammal Commission
The Marine Mammal Commission (MMC) is an independent agency of the executive branch,
established under Title II of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA; P.L. 92-522). The
MMC and its Committee of Scientific Advisors on Marine Mammals provide oversight and
recommend actions on domestic and international topics to advance policies and provisions of the
Marine Mammal Protection Act. As funding permits, the Marine Mammal Commission supports
research to further the purposes of the MMPA.
The Administration’s FY2013 request for the MMC is $3.1 million, which would represent a
1.9% increase compared to FY2012-enacted funding of $3.0 million. In S. 2323, the Senate
Committee on Appropriations recommends $3.1 million, a 1.9% increase over FY2012-enacted
45
The Department of Commerce “Budget in Brief” is available at http://www.osec.doc.gov/bmi/budget/FY13BIB/
fy2013bib_final.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
32
Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Issues in the 112th Congress
funding and the same as the Administration’s FY2013 request. On May 2, 2012, the House
Committee on Appropriations reported H.R. 5326, recommending $3.0 million, the same as the
FY2012-enacted funding and 1.8% less than the Administration’s FY2013 request (H.Rept. 112463). On May 10, 2012, the House passed H.R. 5326 (amended). In the absence of final action
on either bill, a continuing resolution, P.L. 112-175, provided FY2013 funding through March
27, 2013, for projects and activities at the FY2012 level.
Author Contact Information
(name redacted)
Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
#redacted#@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
Acknowledgments
Retired CRS specialist (name redacted) made important contributions to this report.
Congressional Research Service
33
EveryCRSReport.com
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the
Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on
issues that may come before Congress.
EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The
reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to
the public.
Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts
who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made
any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.
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 permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or
otherwise use copyrighted material.
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' institutional role.
EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim
copyright on any CRS report we have republished.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.