Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Legislation in the 110th Congress

Congressional research reportJan 12, 2009

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

¢ǰȱǰȱȱȱȱ

ȱȱȱŗŗŖȱȱ

ȱ ǯȱȱ

ȱȱȱȱ¢ȱ

¢ȱŗŘǰȱŘŖŖşȱ

ȱȱȱ

ŝȬśŝŖŖȱ

ǯǯȱ

řřŞŗřȱ

ȱȱȱ

Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

¢ǰȱǰȱȱȱȱȱȱȱŗŗŖȱȱ

¢ȱ

Fish and marine mammals are important resources in open ocean and nearshore coastal areas;

many federal laws and regulations guide their management.

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, the federal government manages fisheries under the MSFCMA through eight

regional fishery management councils. Beyond 200 miles, the United States participates in

international agreements relating to specific areas or species. Some of the fishery measures

enacted by the 110th Congress included P.L. 110-28, providing $60.4 million for Pacific salmon

disaster assistance as well as $110 million for hurricane recovery assistance to the Gulf of Mexico

shrimp and fishing industries, P.L. 110-161 provided $13.395 million for alleviating economic

impacts on the Massachusetts groundfish fishery, and provisions in P.L. 110-246 transferred $170

million to NMFS for distribution to commercial and recreational members of the fishing

communities affected by the salmon fishery failure in California, Oregon, and Washington.

Provisions in P.L. 110-114 increased the authorization for research on Columbia and Snake River

salmon survival, including methods to reduce avian predation on juvenile salmon; coordinated

management of two aquatic nuisance species dispersal barriers on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship

Canal and authorized an Upper Mississippi River dispersal barrier project; authorized a feasibility

study of a dispersal barrier on the Lake Champlain Canal; modified oyster restoration programs in

Long Island Sound, Chesapeake Bay, and Delaware Bay; and modified Great Lakes fisheries

restoration, allowing nonfederal participants to provide as much as 100% of their nonfederal

share through in-kind contributions. P.L. 110-181 directed the Secretary of Transportation to

review ship disposal practices, including use of disposed vessels as artificial reefs. P.L. 110-243

directed the United States to initiate international discussions to negotiate an agreement for

managing fish stocks in the Arctic Ocean.

Aquaculture—the farming of fish, shellfish, and other aquatic animals and plants in a controlled

environment—is expanding rapidly abroad, with more modest advances in the United States. In

the United States, important species cultured include catfish, salmon, shellfish, and trout. The

110th Congress enacted P.L. 110-85, authorizing the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to

enhance inspection of aquaculture and seafood products and requiring FDA to report on

environmental risks associated with genetically engineered seafood products, and P.L. 110-246,

reauthorizing the National Aquaculture Act and enhancing various programs within the

Department of Agriculture that support aquaculture.

Marine mammals are protected under the MMPA. With few exemptions, the MMPA prohibits

harm or harassment (“take”) of marine mammals, unless restrictive permits are obtained. It

addresses specific situations of concern, such as dolphin mortality, primarily associated with the

eastern tropical Pacific tuna fishery.

ȱȱȱ

¢ǰȱǰȱȱȱȱȱȱȱŗŗŖȱȱ

Most Recent Developments............................................................................................................. 1

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

Commercial and Sport Fisheries: Background and Issues ............................................................. 1

Magnuson-Stevens Act.............................................................................................................. 4

Implementation of P.L. 109-479 ......................................................................................... 5

Congressional Action.......................................................................................................... 5

Pacific Salmon .......................................................................................................................... 7

Background......................................................................................................................... 7

Congressional Action.......................................................................................................... 7

Miscellaneous Issues................................................................................................................. 9

Assistance ........................................................................................................................... 9

Seafood Safety and Nutrition.............................................................................................. 9

Invasive Species.................................................................................................................. 9

Habitat Protection and Restoration ....................................................................................11

Hypoxia and Algal Blooms............................................................................................... 12

Oysters .............................................................................................................................. 12

Energy and Water Projects ................................................................................................ 12

Great Lakes ....................................................................................................................... 13

Recreational Fishing ......................................................................................................... 13

International Fisheries....................................................................................................... 14

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation............................................................................. 14

Fishing Vessels.................................................................................................................. 14

Tax Provisions................................................................................................................... 14

Climate Change................................................................................................................. 15

Coral.................................................................................................................................. 16

National Marine Sanctuaries............................................................................................. 17

Tuna .................................................................................................................................. 17

Marketing.......................................................................................................................... 17

Health Care ....................................................................................................................... 18

Trade ................................................................................................................................. 18

Sharks................................................................................................................................ 18

Sea Turtles......................................................................................................................... 18

Maritime Liens.................................................................................................................. 18

Aquaculture: Background and Issues ............................................................................................ 19

Congressional Action .............................................................................................................. 20

Food Safety ....................................................................................................................... 20

Genetic Modification ........................................................................................................ 20

Algal Biomass................................................................................................................... 20

Assistance ......................................................................................................................... 20

Research............................................................................................................................ 21

National Aquaculture Act Reauthorization ....................................................................... 21

Animal Health................................................................................................................... 21

Marketing.......................................................................................................................... 21

Crop Insurance.................................................................................................................. 21

National Marine Sanctuaries............................................................................................. 21

Turtles ............................................................................................................................... 22

ȱȱȱ

¢ǰȱǰȱȱȱȱȱȱȱŗŗŖ ȱ

Open Ocean Aquaculture .................................................................................................. 22

Trade ................................................................................................................................. 22

Asian Carp ........................................................................................................................ 22

National Fish Hatcheries................................................................................................... 22

Tax Provisions................................................................................................................... 23

Marine Mammals: Background and Issues ................................................................................... 23

Marine Mammal Protection Act Reauthorization ................................................................... 24

Background....................................................................................................................... 24

Congressional Action........................................................................................................ 24

Miscellaneous Issues............................................................................................................... 25

Canadian Seal Hunt........................................................................................................... 25

Polar Bear ......................................................................................................................... 25

Climate Change................................................................................................................. 26

Whales .............................................................................................................................. 26

Military Sonar ................................................................................................................... 27

Fur Seals ........................................................................................................................... 27

Southern Sea Otter ............................................................................................................ 27

NMFS Appropriations ................................................................................................................... 27

Figure 1. U.S. Commercial Fish and Shellfish Harvest, 1976-2007 ............................................... 4

Table 1. NMFS Appropriations ..................................................................................................... 28

Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 29

ȱȱȱ

¢ǰȱǰȱȱȱȱȱȱȱŗŗŖȱȱ

ȱȱȱ

On December 10, 2008, the House Committee on Appropriations reported H.R. 7322, containing

FY2009 NMFS appropriations totaling almost $810 million.. (Members and staff may request email notification of new CRS reports on marine and freshwater fisheries, aquaculture, and marine

mammal issues by contacting Gene Buck at gbuck@crs.loc.gov and requesting to be added to his

notification list.)

Increasing use of coastal and marine resources is driving proposals to alter relationships between

environmental protection and sustainable resource management. Recent reports note declines in

marine resources and shortcomings in the fragmented and limited approaches to resource

protection and management in federal and state waters. A further concern is the increasing

pressures and conflicts that arise from economic activity associated with continued human

population growth in coastal areas. A common concern is habitat loss or alteration, due to both

natural processes, such as climate variation, as well as development, changes in land management

practices, competition from invasive species, and other factors, nearly all related to economic,

political, or social interests. Congress faces the issue of how to balance these diverse interests

(which may fall on various sides of any given controversy) while promoting the sustainable

management of fishery and other marine resources.

In the final hours of the 109th Congress, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and

Management Act (MSFCMA) was reauthorized and extensively amended in P.L. 109-479.1

Reauthorization of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) was not finalized. The 110th

Congress considered measures to reauthorize the MMPA, address aquatic habitat concerns,

modify or extend fishery disaster assistance, and address fishery-specific concerns, as well as

conducting oversight of MSFCMA implementation.

ȱȱȱǱȱȱ

ȱȱ ȱ

Historically, coastal states managed marine sport and commercial fisheries in nearshore waters,

where most seafood was caught. However, as fishing techniques improved, fishermen ventured

farther offshore. Before the 1950s, the federal government assumed limited responsibility for

marine fisheries, responding primarily to international fishery concerns and treaties (by enacting

implementing legislation for treaties, e.g., the Northern Pacific Halibut Act in 1937) as well as to

interstate fishery conflicts (by consenting to interstate fishery compacts, e.g., 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

For a comprehensive summary of legislation in the 109th Congress on fisheries, aquaculture, and marine mammals,

see CRS Report RL33459, Fishery, Aquaculture, and Marine Mammal Legislation in the 109th Congress, by Eugene H.

Buck.

ȱȱȱ

ŗȱ

¢ǰȱǰȱȱȱȱȱȱȱŗŗŖȱȱ

to preserve access for far-ranging fishing vessels. Beginning in the 1950s (Atlantic) and 1960s

(Pacific), increasing numbers of foreign fishing vessels steamed into U.S. offshore waters to catch

the substantially unexploited seafood resources. Since the United States then claimed only a 3mile jurisdiction (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), 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 Treaty2 negotiations in the

early and mid-1970s provided impetus for unilateral U.S. action.

The enactment of the Fishery Conservation and Management Act (FCMA) in 1976 (later renamed

the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act and more recently the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA; 16 U.S.C. §§ 1801, et seq.)

ushered in a new era of federal marine fishery management. The FCMA was signed into law on

April 13, 1976, after several years of debate. On March 1, 1977, marine fishery resources within

200 miles of all U.S. coasts, but outside state jurisdiction, came under federal jurisdiction, and 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.3 The 200-mile

fishery conservation zone was superseded by an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), proclaimed by

President Reagan on March 10, 1983 (Presidential Proclamation 5030).

Eight Regional Fishery Management Councils were created by the FCMA.4 Council members are

appointed by the Secretary of Commerce from lists of candidates knowledgeable of fishery

resources, provided by coastal state governors.5 The councils prepare 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 40 FMPs for various fish and shellfish

resources, with 9 additional plans 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 over 30 times), and three have been developed and implemented jointly

by two or more councils. The MSFCMA was reauthorized in the final hours of the 109th Congress

by P.L. 109-479, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization

Act of 2006.6 The authorization of appropriations in § 7 of this act expires at the end of FY2013.

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea was reported in the 110th Congress by the Senate Committee

on Foreign Relations (S.Exec.Rept.110-9) on December 19, 2007.

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/.

For the 2005 Report to Congress on Council membership, see http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/reg_svcs/

Council_Reportocongress/05ReporttoCongress.pdf.

A detailed summary of the Sustainable Fisheries Act, including an explanation of issues and legislative history, can be

(continued...)

ȱȱȱ

Řȱ

¢ǰȱǰȱȱȱȱȱȱȱŗŗŖȱȱ

Today, individual states manage marine fisheries in inshore and coastal waters, generally within 3

miles of the coast. Interstate coordination occurs through three regional (Atlantic, Gulf, and

Pacific) interstate marine fishery commissions, created by congressionally approved compacts.

Beyond state waters, out to 200 miles, the federal government manages fish and shellfish

resources for which FMPs have been developed under the MSFCMA. Individual states manage

fishermen operating state-registered vessels under state regulations consistent with any existing

federal FMP when fishing in inshore state waters and, in the absence of a federal FMP, wherever

they fish.

Under initial FCMA authority, a substantial portion of the fish catch from federal offshore waters

was allocated to foreign fishing fleets. However, the 1980 American Fisheries Promotion Act

(Title II of P.L. 96-561) and other FCMA amendments orchestrated a decrease in foreign catch

allocations as domestic fishing and processing industries expanded. Foreign catch from the U.S.

EEZ declined from about 3.8 billion pounds in 1977 to zero since 1992. Commensurate with the

decline of foreign catch, domestic offshore catch in federal EEZ waters increased dramatically,

from about 1.6 billion pounds (1977) to more than 6.3 billion pounds in 1986-1988.7 Since this

peak, annual landings have hovered around 6 billion pounds (Figure 1).

In 2007, U.S. commercial fishermen landed almost 7.5 billion pounds of edible, unprocessed fish

and shellfish from combined state, federal, and international waters, worth almost $3.9 billion at

the dock.8 Imports of mostly processed products supplied 5.3 billion pounds, worth $13.7 billion.

U.S. consumers spent an estimated $68.4 billion on edible seafood in 2007, with almost $45.8

billion of that amount spent in restaurants and other food service establishments. In addition,

marine recreational anglers caught an estimated 468 million fish in 2007, of which the retained

catch was about 255 million pounds.9 In 2006, a nationwide survey estimated that recreational

anglers spent more than $40 billion each year pursuing their sport.10

NMFS reports annually on the status of fish stocks managed under the MSFCMA.11 For 2007,

NMFS made determinations for 244 fish stocks and complexes,12 finding that 41 (17%) of them

were subject to overfishing13 and 203 (83%) were not. In addition, NMFS made determinations

for 190 stocks and complexes, finding that 45 (24%) were overfished14 and 145 (76%) were not.

These numbers reflect an improvement in the overfishing percentages compared to 2006 (when

(...continued)

found at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/sfaguide/.

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.

For additional domestic commercial fishery harvest statistics, see http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/commercial/

index.html. Statistics for 2007 are available at http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/fus/fus07/.

Recreational fishing programs at NMFS are discussed at http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/recreational/index.html.

Results of the 2006 survey can be found at http://library.fws.gov/nat_survey2006_final.pdf.

See http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/domes_fish/StatusoFisheries/2007/

2007StatusofUSFisheries_Report_to_Congress.pdf.

NMFS reviewed 528 individual stocks and stock complexes but had insufficient information to make determinations

on all of them.

A stock that is subject to overfishing has a fishing mortality (harvest) rate above the level that provides for the

maximum sustainable yield.

A stock that is overfished has a biomass level below a biological threshold specified in its fishery management plan.

ȱȱȱ

řȱ

¢ǰȱǰȱȱȱȱȱȱȱŗŗŖȱȱ

20% were subject to overfishing) as well as a slight improvement in the overfished numbers

compared to that year (when 25% were overfished).

Figure 1. U.S. Commercial Fish and Shellfish Harvest, 1976-2007

billion pounds

19 19 19

76 78 80 9 82 9 84 9 86 9 88 9 90 9 92 9 94 9 96 9 98 0 00 0 02 0 04 0 06

-N

Inshore State Waters

Offshore EEZ Waters

International Waters

In addition, NMFS developed a Fish Stock Sustainability Index (FSSI) in 2005 to evaluate

progress nationwide in addressing overfishing.15 Out of a possible maximum FSSI of 920, this

index has increased from 481.5 (third quarter of calendar year 2005) to 535 (third quarter of

calendar year 2008).

Ȭȱȱ

The MSFCMA was reauthorized in the final hours of the 109th Congress in 2006 by P.L. 109-479,

the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006.16

Some of the major issues addressed by this comprehensive measure included:

•

modifying requirements for the appointment and training of members of regional

councils as well as the conduct of business by regional council committees and

panels to enhance transparency of the regional council process;

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/domes_fish/StatusoFisheries/2008/3rdQuarter/Q32008FSSISummaryChanges.pdf.

For the White House press release, see http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/print/20070112-3.html;

also see the White House fact sheet at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070112-1.html.

ȱȱȱ

Śȱ

¢ǰȱǰȱȱȱȱȱȱȱŗŗŖȱȱ

•

setting a firm deadline to end overfishing by 2011 and modifying how depleted

fisheries are to be rebuilt;

•

increasing the consideration of economic and social impacts in fishery

management;

•

modifying research programs and improving data collection and management;

•

increasing protection for deep sea corals and bottom habitat;

•

implementing a pilot program of ecosystem-based management;

•

promoting new gear technologies to further reduce bycatch;

•

establishing national guidelines for individual fishing quota (limited access

privilege) programs;

•

modifying regional council fishery management plan procedures, including better

coordinating environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321, et seq.); and

•

strengthening the role of science in fishery management decision-making.17

ȱȱǯǯȱŗŖşȬŚŝşȱ

NMFS has prepared a summary of tasks associated with implementing P.L. 109-479.18 Additional

information on NMFS’s implementation of P.L. 109-479 can be found at

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/msa2007/.

ȱȱ

On December 4, 2007, the Senate agreed to S.Res. 376, expressing the sense of the Senate that

the Secretary of Commerce should declare a commercial fishery failure for the groundfish fishery

for Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island and immediately propose

regulations to implement Section 312(a) of the MSFCMA. Title IV, Chapter 2, of P.L. 110-28

provided $110 million for recovery assistance to the Gulf of Mexico shrimp and fishing

industries. Division B, Title I, of P.L. 110-161 provided $13.395 million for alleviation of

economic impacts on the Massachusetts groundfish fishery. Title I, Chapter 2, of P.L. 110-329

provided $75 million for fishery disaster assistance in FY2009. In the 110th Congress, several

bills proposed to either amend the MSFCMA or modify how it would be implemented:

•

H.R. 21 would have reoriented U.S. ocean policy (including fisheries),

emphasizing ecosystem management, creating a Council of Advisors on Ocean

Policy to advise the President, organizing Regional Ocean Partnerships, and

developing Ocean Ecosystem Resource Information Systems; on April 26, 2007,

the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans

held a hearing on this bill.

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.

Available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/msa2007/Reauthorization_tasks.pdf.

ȱȱȱ

śȱ

¢ǰȱǰȱȱȱȱȱȱȱŗŗŖȱȱ

•

H.R. 27 would have designated the U.S. EEZ as the “Ronald Wilson Reagan

Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States.”

•

Several bills would have amended either the MSFCMA (S. 741 and H.R. 2565)

or the Coastal Zone Management Act (H.R. 3223) to establish a grant program to

ensure waterfront access for commercial fishermen and aquaculture operators.

On February 28, 2008, the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries,

Wildlife, and Oceans held a hearing on H.R. 3223.

•

H.R. 2625 would have prohibited the commercial harvesting of Atlantic striped

bass in coastal waters and the EEZ; H.R. 2939 would have prohibited the

commercial harvesting of Atlantic blackfish (tautog) in coastal waters and the

EEZ; H.R. 3840 and H.R. 3841 would have prohibited the commercial harvesting

of Atlantic menhaden in coastal waters and the EEZ; the House Natural

Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans held a hearing on

these bills on May 8, 2008.

•

Section 301(b) of H.R. 2830 would have amended the American Fisheries Act to

modify fishing vessel rebuilding and replacement provisions in Section 208(g);

modify vessel exemption provisions in Section 203(g); and modify the fishery

cooperative exit provisions in Section 210(b); on September 20, 2007, the House

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure reported, amended, this bill

(H.Rept. 110-338, Part I). On October 1, 2007, the House Committee on

Homeland Security reported, amended, H.R. 2830 (H.Rept. 110-338, Part II). On

October 30, 2007, the House Committee on the Judiciary reported (amended)

H.R. 2830 (H.Rept. 110-338, Part III). On April 24, 2008, the House passed this

measure (amended)

•

On June 29, 2007, the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported S. 1745

(S.Rept. 110-124), containing language that would have authorized the Secretary

of Commerce to conduct a voluntary capacity reduction program to remove all

commercial fishing in the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument prior

to June 15, 2011.

•

As amended on the Senate floor on October 16, 2007, H.R. 3093 would have

amended the MSFCMA to authorize the Secretary of Commerce to maintain a list

of vessels and vessel owners engaged in illegal, unreported, or unregulated

fishing.

•

H.R. 4087 and H.R. 5425 would have amended the MSFCMA to extend the

authorized time period for rebuilding certain overfished fisheries. On December

5, 2007, the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and

Oceans held an oversight hearing on rebuilding overfished fisheries under the

MSFCMA.

•

H.R. 5741 would have amended the MSFCMA to modify language related to the

prohibition of shark finning. The House Committee on Natural Resources

reported this bill (amended) on July 8, 2008 (H.Rept. 110-740), and the House

passed this measure (amended) on this date.

•

H.R. 6683 would have clarified provisions of the Western Alaska Community

Development Quota Program.

ȱȱȱ

Ŝȱ

¢ǰȱǰȱȱȱȱȱȱȱŗŗŖȱȱ

ȱȱ

Five species of salmon spawn in Pacific coastal rivers and lakes, after which juveniles migrate to

North Pacific ocean waters where they mature before returning to freshwater to spawn.

Management is complicated because these fish may cross several state and national boundaries

during their life spans. In addition to natural environmental fluctuations, threats to salmon include

hydropower dams blocking rivers and creating reservoirs, sport and commercial harvests, habitat

modification by competing resource industries and human development, and hatcheries seeking to

supplement natural production but sometimes unintentionally causing genetic or developmental

concerns. In response to declining salmon populations in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and

California, discrete population units have been listed as endangered or threatened species under

the Endangered Species Act.19 On September 13, 2006, a San Joaquin Restoration Settlement

Agreement was announced, ending an 18-year legal dispute over the operation of Friant Dam,

CA. This Agreement provides for river channel improvements and water flow to sustain Chinook

salmon upstream from the confluence of the Merced River tributary while providing water supply

certainty to Friant Division water contractors.

To address some of their concerns about Pacific salmon management, the United States and

Canada negotiated a bilateral agreement on Pacific salmon in 1985. However, by the mid-1990s,

controversy stalled renegotiations to adjust cooperative management of these fish. This deadlock

was resolved in June 1999 when a new accord was concluded. Annex IV of this bilateral

agreement outlines, in detail, the fishery regimes to be followed by Canada and the United States

in cooperatively managing the six species of anadromous Pacific salmon and trout. Annex IV

expires at the end of 2008 and is to be renegotiated.20

ȱȱ

Title V, Chapter 2, of P.L. 110-28 provided $60.4 million for Pacific salmon emergency disaster

assistance. Provisions in P.L. 110-114 required a feasibility study of fish passage improvements in

Oregon (Section 4073), increased the authorization for appropriations for research on Columbia

and Snake River salmon survival, including methods to reduce avian predation on juvenile

salmon (Section 5025), and retained Army Corps of Engineers authority over avian predator

management at McNary Dam, while transferring administrative jurisdiction to the Secretary of

the Interior (Section 3164). Section 113, Division F, Title I, of P.L. 110-161 (the Consolidated

Appropriations Act, 2008) required FWS to implement a system of mass marking of salmonid

stocks that are released from federally operated or federally financed hatcheries.21 Section 12034

of P.L. 110-246 transferred $170 million from the Commodity Credit Corporation to NMFS for

distribution to commercial and recreational members of the fishing communities affected by the

For additional background on this issue, see CRS Report 98-666, Pacific Salmon and Steelhead Trout: Managing

Under the Endangered Species Act, by Eugene H. Buck; and out-of-print CRS Report RL31546, The Endangered

Species Act and Science: The Case of Pacific Salmon, by Eugene H. Buck, M. Lynne Corn, and Pamela Baldwin,

available from the author at [gbuck@crs.loc.gov].

For additional information on the Pacific Salmon Treaty and renegotiation of its Annex IV, see CRS Report

RL30234, The Pacific Salmon Treaty: The 1999 Agreement and Renegotiation of Annex IV, by Eugene H. Buck.

Controversy related to mass-marking programs is discussed in CRS Report RL30234, The Pacific Salmon Treaty:

The 1999 Agreement and Renegotiation of Annex IV, by Eugene H. Buck.

ȱȱȱ

ŝȱ

¢ǰȱǰȱȱȱȱȱȱȱŗŗŖȱȱ

salmon fishery failure in California, Oregon, and Washington. H.Res. 217 expressed the sense of

the House of Representatives concerning the 50th anniversary of the flooding of Celilo Falls on

the Columbia River and the changes this action imposed on Native Americans. In the 110th

Congress, numerous other bills were introduced to address salmon issues:

•

H.R. 24, H.R. 4074, S. 27 and Title X of S. 3213 would have authorized the

implementation of the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement providing for

the reintroduction of Chinook salmon; the House Natural Resources

Subcommittee on Water and Power held a hearing on H.R. 24 on March 1, 2007,

and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power

held a hearing on S. 27 on May 3, 2007. On May 13, 2008, the House Committee

on Natural Resources reported H.R. 4074 (H.Rept. 110-633). On June 25, 2008,

the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources reported (amended) S.

27 (S.Rept. 110-400).

•

S. 264 would have authorized federal participation in funding fish passage

improvements at Wallowa Lake Dam, OR; this bill was reported (amended) on

February 16, 2007, by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

(S.Rept. 110-23), deleting language related to fish passage improvements.

•

Section 103 of H.R. 860 and S. 493 would have designated salmon restoration

areas in California.

•

H.R. 1507 would have directed the Secretary of Commerce to seek scientific

analysis of federal efforts to restore salmon and steelhead populations listed

under the Endangered Species Act.

•

H.R. 1769 would have amended the Marine Mammal Protection Act to authorize

taking of California sea lions to reduce their predation on endangered Columbia

River salmon.

•

S. 1522 and H.R. 3830 would have reauthorized (through FY2014) and amended

the Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation Act of 2000; the Senate

Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power held a hearing

on S. 1522 on July 26, 2007. On April 10, 2008, the Senate Committee on Energy

and Natural Resources reported (amended) S. 1522 (S.Rept. 110-297).

•

H.R. 2733 would have established a Trinity River Restoration Fund; the House

Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power held a hearing on this bill

on September 18, 2007.

•

H.Con.Res. 184 would have expressed the sense of the Congress opposing the

removal of dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers for fishery restoration

purposes.

•

S. 1766 would have provided funds from a Climate Change Wildlife

Conservation sub-account in the Treasury for the Secretary of the Interior to

improve fish passage and dam removal and for the National Fish Habitat Plan (§

402(e)(3)(C)).

•

On July 31, 2007, the House Committee on Natural Resources held an oversight

hearing on allegations of political intervention influencing scientific and policy

decisions at the Department of the Interior, with respect to Klamath River

salmon.

ȱȱȱ

Şȱ

¢ǰȱǰȱȱȱȱȱȱȱŗŗŖȱȱ

•

Section 912 of S. 1892 and Section 10 of S. 2997, as reported by the Senate

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on September 11, 2008

(S.Rept. 110-457), would have amended Title 46, U.S. Code, to exclude small

Alaska salmon fishing vessels from the definition of fish processing vessel; the

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation reported S. 1892

(amended) on February 5, 2008 (S.Rept. 110-261).

•

S. 3608 would have established a Salmon Stronghold Partnership program to

protect wild Pacific salmon.

ȱ ȱ

Title IV, Chapter 2 of P.L. 110-28 provided $110 million for recovery assistance to the Gulf of

Mexico shrimp and fishing industries. Division B, Title I, of P.L. 110-161 provided $13.395

million for alleviation of economic impacts on the Massachusetts groundfish fishery. Title I,

Chapter 2, of P.L. 110-329 provided $75 million for fishery disaster assistance in FY2009. S.Res.

376 expressed the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of Commerce should declare a

commercial fishery failure for the groundfish fishery for Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire,

and Rhode Island and immediately propose regulations to implement Section 312(a) of the

MSFCMA. Section 734 of S. 3289 would have amended the Consolidated Farm and Rural

Development Act to expand the availability of Farm Credit Programs to commercial fishing.

ȱ¢ȱȱȱ

Section 1006 of P.L. 110-85 (H.R. 3580) authorized the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to

enhance inspection of seafood products. Section 102 of H.R. 1148, S. 654, and H.R. 7143 would

have consolidated food safety and inspection programs, including seafood inspection. Section 3

of H.R. 1533 and Section 4 of S. 843 would have established an interagency national mercury

monitoring program, with provisions in subsection (d) focusing on aquatic plants and animals.

H.Con.Res. 125 would have expressed the sense of Congress in recognizing the health benefits of

eating seafood as part of a balanced diet, and supporting the goals and ideals of National Seafood

Month. H.R. 3077 would have amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to address

safety concerns with imported seafood and seafood products by requiring seafood importing

countries to be certified as having equivalent safety systems to the United States; S. 1776 would

have imposed this certification requirement on all imported food products. H.R. 4525 would have

modified the definition of “in airtight containers” to promote public health and safety. H.R. 5219

would have authorized appropriations for FDA’s seafood inspection regime. S. 2688, H.R. 5738,

and H.R. 5956 would have directed the Secretary of Commerce to establish a program to better

ensure that seafood in interstate commerce is fit for human consumption; on July 15, 2008, the

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation reported (amended) S. 2688

(S.Rept. 110-420). S. 2914 would have directed the Secretary of Health and Human Service to

refuse entry of certain seafood imports and specify actions to be taken on rejected shipments.

ȱȱ

Provisions in P.L. 110-114 coordinated management of two dispersal barriers on the Chicago

Sanitary and Ship Canal (Section 3061), authorized an Upper Mississippi River dispersal barrier

ȱȱȱ

şȱ

¢ǰȱǰȱȱȱȱȱȱȱŗŗŖȱȱ

project (Section 5016), and authorized a feasibility study for a Lake Champlain Canal dispersal

barrier project (Section 5146). Several bills introduced in the 110th Congress focused primarily on

invasive species concerns related to ballast water management but were not enacted:22

•

H.R. 801 would have amended the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention

and Control Act of 1990 to require all vessels to exchange ballast water or use

alternative ballast water management methods before entering any Great Lakes

port.

•

Title I of H.R. 889 and S. 1578 would have amended the Nonindigenous Aquatic

Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 to establish vessel ballast water

management requirements; the remainder of the bill focuses on improving

coordination among various national and international efforts at invasive species

control. On March 3, 2008, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and

Transportation reported (amended) S. 1578 (S.Rept. 110-269).

•

While Section 101 of H.R. 1350, Title I of S. 725, and Section 111 of S. 791

focused primarily on ballast water management, other sections of each bill would

have authorized various research, development, and demonstration programs to

address invasive species concerns, with H.R. 1350 and S. 791 focusing on the

Great Lakes region.

•

H.R. 2423 and Title V of H.R. 2830 would have established a national ballast

water management program and national ballast water discharge standards. On

September 20, 2007, the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

reported, amended, H.R. 2830 (H.Rept. 110-338, Part I). On October 1, 2007, the

House Committee on Homeland Security reported, amended, H.R. 2830 (H.Rept.

110-338, Part II). On October 30, 2007, the House Committee on the Judiciary

reported (amended) H.R. 2830 (H.Rept. 110-338, Part III). On April 24, 2008, the

House passed H.R. 2830 (amended).

•

S. 2645 would have directed the Coast Guard to establish enforceable uniform

national vessel discharge standards, and restrict state regulation of vessel

discharges.

•

Section 12 of S. 2881/H.R. 6434 would have expressed the sense of Congress

that strong, mandatory standards for ballast water management should be

enacted.

•

On June 24, 2008, the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and

Power held an oversight hearing on minimizing the impacts of quagga mussels.

Additional bills would have addressed other invasive species concerns:

•

H.R. 83, S. 726, and Section 171 of S. 791 would have amended the Lacey Act to

add four species of carp to the list of injurious species that are prohibited from

being imported or shipped. H.R. 6031 would have directed the U. S. Fish and

Wildlife Service to study various approaches to eradicating Asian carp from the

Great Lakes and their tributaries.

For additional information on ballast water management, see CRS Report RL32344, Ballast Water Management to

Combat Invasive Species, by Eugene H. Buck.

ȱȱȱ

ŗŖȱ

¢ǰȱǰȱȱȱȱȱȱȱŗŗŖȱȱ

•

H.R. 260 would have authorized various marine and freshwater research,

development, and demonstration programs to address invasive species concerns.

•

H.R. 553, S. 336, and Section 172 of S. 791 would have directed the Army Corps

of Engineers to operate and maintain a system of dispersal barriers in the

Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. In addition, Section 172 of S. 791 would have

authorized a National Dispersal Barrier Program.

•

H.R. 767 and S. 3366 would have authorized grants to control harmful nonnative

species at national wildlife refuges to protect and restore native fish and their

habitat. The House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and

Oceans held a hearing on H.R. 767 on June 21, 2007. The Committee on Natural

Resources reported H.R. 767 (amended) on October 22, 2007 (H.Rept. 110-397);

and the House subsequently passed this measure (amended).

•

S. 1949 would have established a 100th Meridian Invasive Species State

Revolving Fund to fund projects to prevent and control invasive species moving

west of the 100th Meridian.

•

H.R. 6311 would have directed the Secretary of the Interior to promulgate

regulations that establish a process for assessing the risk of nonnative species

proposed for importation into the United States.

ȱȱȱȱ

Section 1006 of P.L. 110-114 identified 43 small aquatic ecosystem restoration projects to be

studied by the Army Corps of Engineers. Section 601 of P.L. 110-343 amended the Secure Rural

Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 to reauthorize federal funding for

projects to protect, restore, and enhance fish habitat. H.Res. 853 expressed the sense of the House

honoring crabbers and fishermen who volunteered to assist in cleanup of an oil spill in San

Francisco Bay, CA. In the 110th Congress, numerous other bills were introduced to address

various habitat restoration concerns, but were not enacted:

•

S. 424 would have directed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to implement the

Penobscot River Restoration Project, benefitting endangered Atlantic salmon and

shortnose sturgeon.

•

Section 106(d) of H.R. 1551 and S. 919, and Section 506(d) of H.R. 2401 would

have amended the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program to direct more attention to

fish habitat.

•

S. 1029 would have amended the Food Security Act of 1985 to create a Stream

Habitat Improvement Program to provide incentives to landowners to protect and

improve stream habitat.

•

Title III of H.R. 2262 would have modified environmental standards for mining

and reclamation to address concerns for fish and wildlife.

•

S. 1766 would have provided funds from a Climate Adaptation Fund for the

Sport Fish Restoration Act (Section 402(a)(2)(D)(ii)) and from a Climate Change

Wildlife Conservation sub-account in the Treasury for the Secretary of the

Interior to improve fish passage and dam removal and for the National Fish

Habitat Plan as well as for the Secretary of Commerce to sustain fisheries, protect

marine species, and conserve marine habitat (Section 402(e)(3)(C)).

ȱȱȱ

ŗŗȱ

¢ǰȱǰȱȱȱȱȱȱȱŗŗŖȱȱ

•

Section 501 of S. 2231 would have authorized the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

to implement a Coastal Program to assess, conserve, and restore important

coastal habitats.

•

H.R. 5594 and S. 2645 would have required the U.S. Coast Guard to evaluate and

review vessel discharges, other than ballast water, and initiate a program for

establishing enforceable uniform national discharge standards.

•

S. 3189 and H.R. 7169 would have amended P.L. 106-392 to require the

Administrator of the Western Area Power Administration and the Commissioner

of Reclamation to maintain sufficient revenues in the Upper Colorado and San

Juan River Basin Fund for endangered fish restoration; S. 3189 was reported

(amended) by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on

September 16, 2008.

•

H.R. 7051, S. 3576, and Section 106 of H.R. 6899 would have prohibited federal

oil or natural gas leases in any marine national monument or national marine

sanctuary or Georges Bank.

•

S. 3552 and H.R. 7150 would have established a National Fish Habitat Board and

seek to conserve U.S. fish and aquatic communities through partnerships that

foster habitat conservation.

¢¡ȱȱȱȱ

Section 5022 of P.L. 110-114 authorized the Army Corps of Engineers to participate in assessing

hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. Section 528, Division B, Title V, of P.L. 110-161 (the

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008) reauthorized the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia

Research and Control Act of 1998 through FY2010. H.R. 6017 would have reduced phosphorus

inputs in the Great Lakes to ameliorate the effects of harmful algal blooms. S. 3191 would have

authorized a comprehensive plan for a national strategy to address harmful algal blooms and

hypoxia.

¢ȱ

Provisions in P.L. 110-114 authorized restoring Long Island Sound oyster habitat at $25 million

(Section 3120), modified the authorization for oyster restoration in Chesapeake Bay and

increased authorized funding for this restoration to $50 million (Section 5021), and authorized a

study of how to improve the environmental quality of Delaware Bay for oyster restoration

(Section 1005(6)). H.R. 5014 would have extended the temporary suspension of duty on oysters

(other than smoked), prepared or preserved.

¢ȱȱȱȱ

Section 2036 of P.L. 110-114 amended the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99662; 33 U.S.C. §§ 2201 et seq.) to modify requirements for mitigating aquatic resource losses at

Army Corps of Engineers projects. Sections 633 and 634 of P.L. 110-140 require a research

program and report on the effects of marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy development on

fisheries and other marine resources. S. 1522, H.R. 3830, and Section 1202 of S. 3213 would

have reauthorized (through FY2015) and amended the Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation

Mitigation Act of 2000; the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and

ȱȱȱ

ŗŘȱ

¢ǰȱǰȱȱȱȱȱȱȱŗŗŖȱȱ

Power held a hearing on S. 1522 on July 26, 2007. On April 10, 2008, the Senate Committee on

Energy and Natural Resources reported (amended) S. 1522 (S.Rept. 110-297).

ȱȱ

Section 5011 of P.L. 110-114 modified Great Lakes fisheries restoration, including allowing

nonfederal participants to provide as much as 100% of their nonfederal share through in-kind

contributions. H.R. 469 would have authorized the Great Lakes Fishery Commission to

investigate the effects of migratory birds on fish stock productivity. H.R. 6017 would have

reduced phosphorus inputs in the Great Lakes to ameliorate the effects of harmful algal blooms.

ȱȱ

Section 3503 of P.L. 110-181 directed the Secretary of Transportation to convene an interagency

study group to review ship disposal practices, including use of disposed vessels as artificial reefs.

Section 2606 of P.L. 110-246 established a grant program to encourage private landowners to

provide public access for fishing and other outdoor recreation. H.Res. 634 expressed the sense of

the House encouraging participation in fishing and supporting the goals of National Hunting and

Fishing Day. In the 110th Congress, numerous other bills were introduced to address sport fishing

concerns, but were not enacted:

•

Section 1(c) of S. 307 would have amended Section 9 of the Flood Control Act of

1944 to include maintenance of a healthy fishery on the Bighorn River, MT,

downstream from the Yellowtail Dam as one of the authorized purposes of the

Yellowtail Unit of the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin Program.

•

H.R. 611 would have amended the Social Security Act to eliminate the

requirement that states collect Social Security numbers from applicants for

recreational licenses.

•

H.Res. 458 would have expressed the sense of the House supporting the goals

and ideals of National Fishing and Boating Week.

•

Section 402(a)(2)(D)(ii) of S. 1766 would have provided funds from a Climate

Adaptation Fund for the Sport Fish Restoration Act.

•

H.R. 3227 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; the House Natural

Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands held a

hearing on this measure on April 24, 2008. On July 14, 2008, the House

Committee on Natural Resources reported (H.Rept. 110-756) and the House

passed (amended) H.R. 3227.

•

S. 2803 and H.R. 5850 would have authorized charter boat or recreational

fishermen to form associations to catch and market aquatic products, implement

vessel capacity reduction programs, and undertake research.

•

Section 158 of H.R. 6001, Section 21 of H.R. 6108, Section 347 of H.R. 6165,

Section 121 of H.R. 6384, Section 217 of H.R. 6421, Section 22 of H.R. 6428,

Section 224 of H.R. 6779, and Section 220 of S. 3280 would have amended the

OCS Lands Act to direct the Secretary of the Interior to issue regulations

ȱȱȱ

ŗřȱ

¢ǰȱǰȱȱȱȱȱȱȱŗŗŖȱȱ

permitting the use of decommissioned offshore oil and gas platforms as artificial

reefs, and required a study of how the removal of offshore oil and gas platforms

and other OCS facilities might affect existing fish stocks and coral populations.

•

S. 3377 would have amended Title 46, United States Code, to waive the

biometric transportation security card requirement for certain small business

merchant mariners, including fishing guides.

•

H.R. 6310 would have amended the Internal Revenue Code to require that the

manufacturers’ excise tax on sport fishing equipment be paid quarterly.

ȱȱ

P.L. 110-243 directed the United States to initiate international discussions and take steps to

negotiate an agreement for managing migratory and transboundary fish stocks in the Arctic

Ocean. S.Res. 208 expressed the sense of the Senate encouraging the elimination of subsidies that

contribute to commercial fishing fleet overcapacity worldwide and lead to the overfishing. S.

2907 would have established uniform administrative procedures and penalties for the

enforcement of the High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act and directed the

Secretary to establish an International Fisheries Enforcement Program in NMFS; the Senate

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation reported this bill, amended, on September

17, 2008 (S.Rept. 110-469). Section 5(b)(3) of H.R. 7014 would have required that the President

consult with Congress before initiating any trade negotiations under the North American Free

Trade Agreement relating directly to fish or shellfish.

ȱȱȱȱȱ

P.L. 110-281 (H.R. 3891) amended the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Establishment Act

to increase the number of directors on the foundation’s board of directors.

ȱȱ

P.L. 110-299 clarified circumstances during which the Environmental Protection Agency and

states could require discharge permits for fishing vessels. S. 687 would have amended the Internal

Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a business credit against income for purchasing fishing safety

equipment. Section 307 of H.R. 2830 would have modified certain safety standards for

commercial fishing vessels and establish a fishing safety research grant program; on September

20, 2007, the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure reported, amended, this bill

(H.Rept. 110-338, Part I). On October 1, 2007, the House Committee on Homeland Security

reported, amended, H.R. 2830 (H.Rept. 110-338- Part II). On October 30, 2007, the House

Committee on the Judiciary reported (amended) H.R. 2830 (H.Rept. 110-338, Part III). On April

24, 2009, the House passed H.R. 2830 (amended). S. 2865 would have permitted qualified

withdrawals from a Capital Construction Fund account for gear or equipment required for fishery

conservation or safety of life at sea without regard to the minimum cost requirement established

by regulation.

¡ȱȱ

Section 504 of P.L. 110-343 provided income averaging of funds received from the Exxon Valdez

oil spill litigation. H.R. 2133, S. 3234, and Section 3 of H.R. 6804 would have amended the

ȱȱȱ

ŗŚȱ

¢ǰȱǰȱȱȱȱȱȱȱŗŗŖȱȱ

Internal Revenue Code to provide commercial fishermen a temporary income tax credit to offset

high fuel costs. H.R. 2110 would have amended the Internal Revenue Code to provide for taxexempt qualified small issue bonds to finance fish processing property.

ȱȱ

A number of bills were introduced dealing with aquatic and marine aspects of climate change, but

none were enacted:

•

Section 202(b)(5) of H.R. 620, S. 280, H.R. 2338, and H.R. 4226; Section 7456

of H.R. 3220/H.R. 3221; Subtitle B, Part 2, of H.R. 6316; Section 114 of S. 2204;

Subtitle G of S. 2191, S. 3036, and H.R. 6186; and Title IV, Subtitle D, of H.R.

2337 would have authorized funding of efforts to strengthen and restore habitat

to improve the ability of fish and wildlife to adapt successfully to climate change.

The House passed H.R. 3221 (amended) on August 4, 2007; the Senate passed

this measure (amended) on April 10, 2008, without the House-passed provisions

related to habitat and climate change. On May 20, 2008, the Senate Committee

on Environment and Public Works reported (amended) S. 2191 (S.Rept. 110337).

•

Section 301 of H.R. 620 and H.R. 4226, and Section 465 of H.R. 2337 would

have amended the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. §§ 1451, et

seq.) to require the Secretary of Commerce to prepare a report on the observed

and projected effects of climate change on marine life, habitat, and commercial

and recreational fisheries; on August 3, 2007, the House Committee on Natural

Resources reported (amended) H.R. 2337 (H.Rept. 110-296, Part I).

•

S. 317, S. 1177, and S. 1554 would have amended the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.

§§ 7401, et seq.) to fund (among many programs) efforts to identify coastal and

marine resources (such as coral reefs, submerged aquatic vegetation, shellfish

beds, and other coastal or marine ecosystems) at greatest risk of damage by

climate change; to monitor for impacts; and to restore damaged resources.

•

S. 1766 would have provided funds from a Climate Adaptation Fund for the

Sport Fish Restoration Act (Section 402(a)(2)(D)(ii)) and from a Climate Change

Wildlife Conservation sub-account in the Treasury for the Secretary of the

Interior to improve fish passage and dam removal and for the National Fish

Habitat Plan as well as for the Secretary of Commerce to sustain fisheries, protect

marine species, and conserve marine habitat (Section 402(e)(3)(C)).

Several measures would have addressed ocean acidification:

•

Section 7471 of H.R. 3220/H.R. 3221, Section 10 of S. 2355, and Section 201 of

S. 2211 would have directed the Secretary of Commerce to develop a national

strategy to predict, plan for, and mitigate climate change effects, including ocean

acidification, on ocean and coastal ecosystems to ensure the recovery, resiliency,

and health these ecosystems. The House passed H.R. 3221 (amended) on August

4, 2007; the Senate passed this measure (amended) on April 10, 2008, without the

House-passed provision related to ocean acidification. On June 5, 2008, the

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation reported

(amended) S. 2355 (S.Rept. 110-347).

ȱȱȱ

ŗśȱ

¢ǰȱǰȱȱȱȱȱȱȱŗŗŖȱȱ

•

S. 485 would have amended the Clean Air Act to direct the Administrator of the

Environmental Protection Agency to study ocean acidification and the ways that

process affects ocean ecosystems and U.S. fisheries.

•

On May 10, 2007, the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation

Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard held a

hearing on the effects of climate change and ocean acidification on living marine

resources.

•

S. 1581, H.R. 4174, and Part VI of S. 3297 would have established an

interagency committee to develop an ocean acidification research and monitoring

plan as well as an ocean acidification program within NOAA; on May 22, 2008,

the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation reported

(amended) S. 1581 (S.Rept. 110-339). On June 5, 2008, the House Science and

Technology Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held a hearing on H.R.

4174; the House Committee on Science and Technology reported this bill

(amended) on July 9, 2008 (H.Rept. 110-749), and the House passed this bill,

amended, on this date.

•

Section 7001 of S. 2191 and S. 3036 would have required the National Academy

of Sciences to analyze predicted changes in ocean acidity; on May 20, 2008, the

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works reported (amended) S.

2191 (S.Rept. 110-337).

H.Res. 1112 expressed the sense of the House, recognizing 2008 as the International Year of the

Reef. In the 110th Congress, numerous other measures were introduced to address concerns

related to coral and coral reefs, but none were enacted:

•

S. 485 and H.R. 1590 would have directed the National Academy of Sciences to

assess the probability of a loss of more than 40% of world coral reefs because of

increased ocean temperature or acidity.

•

H.R. 1205, S. 1580, and S. 1583 would have reauthorized and amended the Coral

Reef Conservation Act of 2000. On March 6, 2007, the House Natural Resources

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans held a hearing on H.R. 1205;

on June 28, 2007, the House Committee on Natural Resources reported this bill

(amended) on October 22, 2007 (H.Rept. 110-394, Part I), and the House

subsequently passed this measure (amended). On March 13, 2008, the Senate

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation reported (amended) S.

1580 (S.Rept. 110-276).

•

H.R. 1679 sought to protect Florida coral reefs and other coastal marine

resources from Cuban petroleum exploration and development.

•

H.R. 2185, S. 2020, and Title IV, Subtitle D, of S. 3297 would have amended the

Tropical Forest Conservation Act of 1998 to provide debt relief to developing

countries that protect coral reefs and associated coastal marine ecosystems; on

October, 15, 2007, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations reported S. 2020

(S.Rept. 110-196). The House passed H.R. 2185 (amended) on October 9, 2007.

ȱȱȱ

ŗŜȱ

¢ǰȱǰȱȱȱȱȱȱȱŗŗŖȱȱ

•

H.Con.Res. 300 would have expressed the sense of Congress that the United

States maintains its leadership role in improving the health and promoting the

resiliency of coral reef ecosystems; the House agreed to this measure on May 21,

2008.

•

Section 158 of H.R. 6001, Section 21 of H.R. 6108, Section 347 of H.R. 6165,

Section 121 of H.R. 6384, Section 217 of H.R. 6421, Section 22 of H.R. 6428,

Section 224 of H.R. 6779, and Section 220 of S. 3280 would have required a

study of how the removal of offshore oil and gas platforms and other OCS

facilities might affect existing coral populations.

ȱȱȱ

Section 7(d)(8) of H.R. 1187 and S. 2635 would have promoted cooperative research and

education efforts with commercial fishermen operating within the Gulf of the Farallones National

Marine Sanctuary, the Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary, and the Monterey Bay National

Marine Sanctuary. The House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and

Oceans held a hearing on H.R. 1187 on October 24, 2007. On March 31, 2008, the House

Committee on Natural Resources reported (amended) H.R. 1187 (H.Rept. 110-557), and the

House subsequently passed this bill, amended. On May 6, 2008, the Senate Committee on

Commerce, Science, and Transportation’s Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and

Coast Guard held a hearing on H.R. 1187; the full committee reported this bill (amended) on

October 1, 2008 (S.Rept. 110-516). H.R. 6537 would have clarified the authority for fishery

management in National Marine Sanctuaries; on July 24, 2008, the House Natural Resources

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans held a hearing on this measure.

S.Res. 368 expressed the sense of the Senate that the United States should seek a review of

compliance with the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT)

conservation and management recommendations for Atlantic bluefin tuna and other species, and

that the United States should pursue a moratorium on the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean

bluefin tuna fishery in ICCAT. S.Res. 709 expressed the sense of the Senate that the United States

should pursue the adoption of bluefin tuna conservation and management measures at the 16th

Special Meeting of ICCAT; the Senate agreed to this measure on November 20, 2008. H.R. 3669

and Section 421 of H.R. 2830, as passed by the House on April 24, 2008, would have amended 46

U.S.C. relating to fishery endorsements to promote the U.S. distant water tuna fleet. H.R. 3165

would have amended the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to specifically provide

for duty-free treatment of certain tuna imported directly from U.S. insular possessions. H.R. 4525

would have modified the definition of “in airtight containers” to promote public health and safety.

H.R. 167 and H.R. 293 would have provided assistance for the construction, improvement, and

rehabilitation of farmers markets, including those selling local aquaculture and commercial

fishing products. Section 518 of S. 1082, as passed by the Senate (amended) on May 9, 2007,

would have required the Food and Drug Administration to prepare a report on the taxonomic and

consumer perception differences between lobster and langostino. H.R. 3115 and Section 14 of

H.R. 3610 would have amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to restrict the use of

ȱȱȱ

ŗŝȱ

¢ǰȱǰȱȱȱȱȱȱȱŗŗŖȱȱ

carbon monoxide in meat, poultry, and seafood; the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee

on Health held a hearing on H.R. 3610 on September 26, 2007. H.Res. 582 would have expressed

the sense of the House supportive of local fishermen and fishing communities, education of

seafood consumers, and consumption of healthy seafood, especially locally caught products.

ȱȱ

Section 2 of H.R. 241, Section 202 of H.R. 324, Section 101 of H.R. 1012, Section 402 of H.R.

5923, Section 201 of H.R. 5955 and S. 3072, and Section 112 of H.R. 6110 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. S. 2630 and H.R. 5404 would have amended the Public Health Service Act to establish

a grant program to increase health care coverage and access for workers and families in the

commercial fishing industry.

Section 321(b) of S. 122, Section 501(b) of H.R. 910, and Section 202 of H.R. 3801/S. 1848

would have amended the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. §§ 2271, et seq.) to clarify that

commercial fishermen are eligible for trade adjustment assistance. On July 18, 2007, the Senate

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation held a listening session on the safety of

Chinese seafood imports, including oversight and analysis of the federal response. H.R. 5014

would have extended the temporary suspension of duty on oysters (other than smoked), prepared

or preserved.

H.R. 5741 and S. 3231 would have amended the High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium

Protection Act to increase sanctions on nations that permit shark finning; the House Natural

Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans held a hearing on this bill on April

16, 2008. The House Committee on Natural Resources reported this bill (amended) on July 8,

2008 (H.Rept. 110-740); the House passed this measure (amended) on this date.

ȱȱ

Section 901 of S. 1892 would have required a Coast Guard report on efforts taken from FY2000

through FY2007 to protect sea turtles; the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and

Transportation reported this bill (amended) on February 5, 2008 (S.Rept. 110-261). H.R. 6862

would have reauthorized the Marine Turtle Conservation Act of 2004 through FY2014.

ȱȱ

Section 505 of S. 1892 would have prohibits the attachment of maritime liens to fishing permits;

the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation reported this bill (amended) on

February 5, 2008 (S.Rept. 110-261).

ȱȱȱ

ŗŞȱ

¢ǰȱǰȱȱȱȱȱȱȱŗŗŖȱȱ

Ǳȱȱȱ ȱ

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.23 The diversity of aquaculture

is typified by such activities as: fish farming, usually applied to freshwater commercial

aquaculture operations (e.g., catfish and trout farms);24 shellfish and seaweed culture; net-pen

culture, used by the salmon industry, wherein fish remain captive throughout their lives in marine

pens built from nets; 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 more than

doubled in 10 years, from about 10 million metric tons in 1984 to 25.5 million metric tons in

1994; by 2002, global aquaculture production had reached almost 40 million metric tons. By mid2006, FAO estimated that 43% of all fish consumed by humans came from aquaculture.25 FAO

has projected that aquaculture will surpass wild-harvested seafood as the source of more than

50% of global seafood consumption in 2008. In addition, FAO predicts that world aquaculture

production could exceed 130 million metric tons by 2030.26

U.S. aquaculture, until recently and with a few exceptions, has been considered a minor industry.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 2005 Census of Aquaculture reported that U.S. sales of

aquaculture products had reached nearly $1.1 billion, with more than half this value produced in

Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.27 Despite considerable growth, the domestic

aquaculture industry faces strong competition from imports of foreign aquacultural products,

from the domestic poultry and livestock industries, and from wild harvests.28 With growth,

however, aquaculture operations face increasing scrutiny for habitat destruction, pollution, and

other concerns. The major statute affecting U.S. aquaculture is the National Aquaculture Act of

1980, as amended (16 U.S.C. §§ 2801 et seq.).

In October 2007, NOAA released a 10-year plan for its marine aquaculture program.29 The 110th

Congress did not consider legislation the Administration drafted to modify the regulatory

environment and promote the development of U.S. offshore, open-ocean aquaculture.

For more background information, see CRS Report RL32694, Open Ocean Aquaculture, by Harold F. Upton and

Eugene H. Buck, and out-of-print CRS Report 97-436, Aquaculture and the Federal Role, by Geoffrey S. Becker and

Eugene H. Buck, available from the author at [gbuck@crs.loc.gov].

For statistics on freshwater production, see http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2002/Aquaculture/index.asp.

For more details, see http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000383/index.html.

For more discussion of FAO projections for 2030, see Part 3 of http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5600e/

y5600e00.htm.

See http://www.nass.usda.gov/aquaculture/index.asp.

For the latest information on domestic production and statistics, see http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/

viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1375.

Available at http://aquaculture.noaa.gov/about/tenyear.html.

ȱȱȱ

ŗşȱ

¢ǰȱǰȱȱȱȱȱȱȱŗŗŖȱȱ

ȱȱ

ȱ¢ȱ

Section 1006 of P.L. 110-85 (H.R. 3580) authorized the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to

enhance inspection of aquaculture products. H.R. 1148, S. 654, and H.R. 7143 would have

established a Food Safety Administration, with food production facilities defined as including

aquaculture facilities in Section 3(14). H.R. 3077 would have amended the Federal Food, Drug,

and Cosmetic Act to address safety concerns with imported seafood and seafood products by

requiring seafood importing countries to be certified as having equivalent safety systems to the

United States; S. 1776 would have imposed this certification requirement on all imported food

products. H.R. 5219 would have authorized appropriations for FDA’s seafood inspection regime.

S. 2688, H.R. 5738, and H.R. 5956 would have directed the Secretary of Commerce to establish a

program to better ensure that seafood in interstate commerce is fit for human consumption; on

July 15, 2008, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation reported

(amended) S. 2688 (S.Rept. 110-420).

ȱȱ

Section 1007 of P.L. 110-85 (H.R. 3580) required the Food and Drug Administration to prepare a

report on environmental risks associated with genetically engineered seafood products, including

their impact on wild fish stocks.

ȱȱ

Section 228 of P.L. 110-140 required a report by the Secretary of Energy on the progress of

research and development on the use of algae as a feedstock for the production of biofuels. H.R.

6943 would have amended the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for a credit for algaederived fuels.

P.L. 110-246, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, included several provisions (1)

providing drought coverage for aquaculture under the non-insured crop assistance program

(Section 12027); (2) authorizing a pilot program under the Conservation Reserve Program for

enrolling wetland areas, with eligible acreage including shallow water areas that were devoted to

a commercial pond-raised aquaculture operation any year from 2002 through 2007 (Section

2106); and (3) creating a new emergency disaster assistance program for farm-raised fish (Section

15101). Several bills proposed to amend either the MSFCMA (S. 741 and H.R. 2565) or the

Coastal Zone Management Act (H.R. 3223) to establish a grant program to ensure waterfront

access for aquaculture operators and commercial fishermen; on February 28, 2008, the House

Natural Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans held a hearing on H.R. 3223.

Section 3109 of H.R. 1591 would have appropriated $5 million for the Department of Agriculture

to compensate aquaculture operators for losses due to limitations on fish transport in the Great

Lakes region to combat outbreaks of viral hemorrhagic septicemia; this bill was reported by the

House Committee on Appropriations on March 20, 2007 (H.Rept. 110-60). The House passed

H.R. 1591 on March 23, 2007. On March 29, 2007, the Senate passed H.R. 1591 (amended),

without the aquaculture operator compensation provision. On April 24, 2007, a conference report

ȱȱȱ

ŘŖȱ

¢ǰȱǰȱȱȱȱȱȱȱŗŗŖȱȱ

was filed on H.R. 1591, without ethe aquaculture operator compensation provision (H.Rept. 110107); this conference report was agreed to by the House (April 25, 2007) and Senate (April 26,

2007). President Bush vetoed H.R. 1591 on May 1, 2007. Section 3 of H.R. 7196/S. 3644 and

Section 1102 of S. 3689 would have directed the Secretary of Agriculture to provide $50 million

in grants to states for assistance to aquaculture operators to offset feed costs or economic losses

caused by natural disasters.

The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, P.L. 110-246, included provisions that (1)

reauthorized various regional aquaculture research centers through FY2012 (Section 7140) and

(2) identified marine shrimp farming and viral hemorrhagic septicemia as high priorities for

research and extension grants (Section 7204).

ȱȱȱ£ȱ

Section 7414 of P.L. 110-246, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, reauthorized the

National Aquaculture Act through FY2012.

ȱ ȱ

Section 11013 of P.L. 110-246 directed the Secretary of Agriculture to establish an advisory

committee to develop recommendations regarding the National Aquatic Animal Health Plan

developed by the National Aquatic Animal Health Task Force.

Section 11016 of P.L. 110-246 authorized a voluntary grading program for farm-raised domestic

catfish and other aquaculture species administered through the Agricultural Marketing Service,

and mandated safety inspection of such products by the Food Safety and Inspection Service. H.R.

167 and H.R. 293 would have provided assistance for the construction, improvement, and

rehabilitation of farmers markets, including those selling local aquaculture and commercial

fishing products. H.R. 3115 would have amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to

restrict the use of carbon monoxide in meat, poultry, and seafood. Section 3001 of S. 2228 would

have included aquacultural products in a grant program to enhance the competitiveness of

specialty crops.

ȱ ȱ

Section 12023 of P.L. 110-246 amended the Federal Crop Insurance Act to expand aquaculture

and research coverage. Section 9016 of S. 1424 and Section 702 of H.R. 2144 would have

expanded the Adjusted Gross Revenue Insurance Pilot Program to include coverage for shellfish.

ȱȱȱ

Section 6(b) of H.R. 1187 and S. 2635 would have prohibited most aquaculture in the Gulf of the

Farallones National Marine Sanctuary, the Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary, and the

Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. The House Natural Resources Subcommittee on

ȱȱȱ

Řŗȱ

¢ǰȱǰȱȱȱȱȱȱȱŗŗŖȱȱ

Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans held a hearing on H.R. 1187 on October 24, 2007. On March 31,

2008, the House Committee on Natural Resources reported (amended) H.R. 1187 (H.Rept. 110557), and the House subsequently passed this bill, amended. On May 6, 2008, the Senate

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation’s Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere,

Fisheries, and Coast Guard held a hearing on H.R. 1187; the full committee reported this bill

(amended) on October 1, 2008 (S.Rept. 110-516).

H.R. 924 and S. 540 would have required the Food and Drug Administration to permit the sale of

baby turtles as pets so long as the seller uses proven methods to effectively treat Salmonella. On

May 1, 2007, this provision was also proposed as an amendment (Title VII) to S. 1082; this

amendment (as revised) was agreed to on May 8, 2007, and S. 1082 (amended) was passed by the

Senate on May 9, 2007. Subtitle C, Title XI, of H.R. 2419, as passed by the Senate (amended) on

December 14, 2007, would have required a study to determine the prevalence of Salmonella in

reptiles and amphibians sold as pets. On May 13, 2008, a conference report was filed on H.R.

2419, with the turtle provisions deleted (H.Rept. 110-627).

ȱȱȱ

S. 533 would have amended the National Aquaculture Act of 1980 to prohibit issuing marine

aquaculture facility permits until permit requirements are enacted. H.R. 2010 and S. 1609 would

have authorized the Secretary of Commerce to establish and implement a regulatory system for

offshore aquaculture; on July 12, 2007, the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries,

Wildlife, and Oceans held a hearing on H.R. 2010. H.R. 7109 would have prohibited the

Secretary of the Interior from authorizing commercial finfish aquaculture operations in the U.S.

EEZ.

Section 402 of S. 1848 would have amended the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. §§ 2271, et seq.)

to clarify that aquaculture producers are eligible for trade adjustment assistance. On July 18,

2007, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation held a listening session

on the safety of Chinese imports, including oversight and analysis of the federal response.

ȱȱ

H.R. 83, S. 726, and Section 171 of S. 791 would have amended the Lacey Act to add four

species of carp to the list of injurious species that are prohibited from being imported or shipped.

H.R. 6031 would have directed the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service to study various approaches to

eradicating Asian carp from the Great Lakes and their tributaries.

ȱȱ ȱ

Section 8(b) of S. 3473 would have directed the Secretary of the Interior, subject to the

availability of appropriations, to operate, maintain, rehabilitate, and upgrade the AlchesayWilliams Creek National Fish Hatchery Complex.

ȱȱȱ

ŘŘȱ

¢ǰȱǰȱȱȱȱȱȱȱŗŗŖȱȱ

¡ȱȱ

H.R. 2110 would have amended the Internal Revenue Code to provide for tax-exempt qualified

small issue bonds to finance aquacultural processing property.

ȱǱȱȱȱ ȱ

In 1972, Congress enacted the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. §§ 1361, et

seq.), due in part to the high level of 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 the 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, porpoises, seals, and sea lions. 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 only a negligible impact on any

marine mammal species or stock, provided that monitoring requirements and other conditions are

met.

The MMPA’s 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

ȱȱȱ

Řřȱ

¢ǰȱǰȱȱȱȱȱȱȱŗŗŖȱȱ

Arctic Ocean (including the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas), if such taking is for subsistence

purposes or for creating and selling authentic Native articles of handicrafts and clothing, and is

not done wastefully.

The MMPA also authorizes the taking of marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing

operations. In 1988, most U.S. commercial fish harvesters were exempted from otherwise

applicable rulemaking and permit requirements for a five-year period, pending development of an

improved system to govern the incidental taking of marine mammals in the course of commercial

fishing operations. This exemption expired at the end of FY1993, and was extended several times

until new provisions were enacted in 1994 by P.L. 103-238, which reauthorized the MMPA

through FY1999. The eastern tropical Pacific tuna fishery was excluded from the incidental take

regimes enacted in 1988 and 1994. 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 P.L. 105-42, the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act.

Section 319 of P.L. 108-136 amended the MMPA to provide a broad exemption for “national

defense.” 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.

On January 23, 2007, the Department of Defense announced the authorization of a two-year

exemption under these provisions for mid-frequency active sonar use.30

ȱȱȱȱ£ȱ

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, for

developing and implementing take-reduction plans for stocks that may be reduced or are being

maintained below their optimum sustainable population levels due to interactions with

commercial fisheries, and for studying pinniped-fishery interactions.31

ȱȱ

In the 109th Congress, several bills were introduced, proposing to extensively amend the MMPA

and authorize appropriations for several marine mammal programs. Although the House passed

H.R. 4075 (amended), no further action was taken before 109th Congress adjourned.32

In the 110th Congress, several bills were introduced to amend the MMPA, but none were enacted:

See http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=27415.

For more background and information on the 1994 amendments, see out-of-print CRS Report 94-751 ENR, Marine

Mammal Protection Act Amendments of 1994, by Eugene H. Buck, available from the author at [gbuck@crs.loc.gov].

For additional background on reauthorization issues, see CRS Report RL30120, The Marine Mammal Protection

Act: Reauthorization Issues, by Eugene H. Buck.

ȱȱȱ

ŘŚȱ

¢ǰȱǰȱȱȱȱȱȱȱŗŗŖȱȱ

•

H.R. 1006 would have modified provisions of the John H. Prescott Marine

Mammal Rescue Assistance Grant Program, including reauthorizing funding for

the Marine Mammal Unusual Mortality Event Fund; the House passed this bill on

March 19, 2007. On July 15, 2008, the Senate Committee on Commerce,

Science, and Transportation reported (amended) this bill (S.Rept. 110-421).

•

H.R. 1007 would have repealed the long-term goal for reducing the incidental

mortality and serious injury of marine mammals to zero in commercial fishing

operations, and to modify the goal of take reduction plans for reducing such

takings.

•

H.R. 1769 would have authorized taking of California sea lions to reduce their

predation on endangered Columbia River salmon; the House Natural Resources

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans held a hearing on this bill on

August 2, 2007.

•

H.R. 2327 and S. 1406 would have deleted the authorization for importing polar

bear sport hunting trophies from Canada. H.R. 6936 would have allowed

importing polar bear trophies taken in Canadian sport hunts before the polar bear

was listed as a threatened species. H.R. 7171 would have amended the MMPA to

allow the importation of polar bear trophies taken in sport hunts in Canada.

•

Section 901 of S. 1892 would have required a Coast Guard report on efforts taken

from FY2000 through FY2007 to enforce the MMPA; the Senate Committee on

Commerce, Science, and Transportation reported this bill (amended) on February

5, 2008 (S.Rept. 110-261).

•

H.R. 3156 and S. 1860 would have modified how certain MMPA offenses might

be prosecuted.

•

H.R. 5106 would have authorized the Marine Mammal Commission to establish

a national program to fund basic and applied research on marine mammals.

•

H.R. 5429 would have amended the MMPA to authorize marine mammal

cooperative management agreements in Alaska.

•

Section 33 of H.R. 6428, Section 238 of H.R. 6779, and Section 610 of H.R.

7239 would have directed the Secretary of the Interior to establish regional OCS

Joint Permitting Offices, with expertise in MMPA consultations and preparation

of documents.

ȱ ȱ

ȱȱ ȱ

H.Res. 427 expressed the sense of the House urging Canada to halt its commercial seal hunt.

ȱȱ

H.R. 2327 and S. 1406 would have deleted the authorization in the MMPA for importing polar

bear sport hunting trophies from Canada. On June 26, 2007, the Senate Committee on

Appropriations reported S. 1696 (S.Rept. 110-91), in which § 120, in Title I would have

ȱȱȱ

Řśȱ

¢ǰȱǰȱȱȱȱȱȱȱŗŗŖȱȱ

prohibited the expenditure of funds for issuing permits to import polar bear sport hunting trophies

during FY2008. This provision was not included in P.L. 110-161 (the Consolidated

Appropriations Act, 2008) signed by President Bush on December 26, 2007. On January 17,

2008, the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming held a hearing

on the delay by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in announcing their decision on whether to list

polar bears as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.33 H.R. 5058 would have prohibited

the Secretary of the Interior from leasing any tract in the Chukchi Sea Lease Sale 193 off Alaska

until the Secretary determines whether to list the polar bear as a threatened or endangered species.

On January 30, 2008, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works held an oversight

hearing to examine threats to and protection for the polar bear. H.R. 6057 would have amended

the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to prohibit oil and gas leasing and related activities in the

Beaufort and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas unless certain conditions are met.

ȱȱ

Section 202(b)(5) of H.R. 620, H.R. 2338, S. 280, and H.R. 4226; Subtitle G of H.R. 6186, S.

2191, and S. 3036; Title IV, Subtitle D, of H.R. 2337; Subtitle B, Part 2, of H.R. 6316; and

Section 7456 of H.R. 3220/H.R. 3221 would have authorized funding for efforts to strengthen and

restore habitat to improve the ability of wildlife to adapt successfully to climate change; Section

301 of H.R. 620 also would have amended the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C.

§§ 1451, et seq.) to require the Secretary of Commerce to prepare a report on the observed and

projected effects of climate change on marine life and habitat. The House passed H.R. 3221

(amended) on August 4, 2007; the Senate passed this measure (amended) on April 10, 2008,

without the House-passed language on habitat and climate change. Section 101 of S. 317 would

have amended the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 7401, et seq.) to create a Climate Action Trust

Fund, funding (among many programs) efforts to identify coastal and marine resources (such as

coral reefs, submerged aquatic vegetation, shellfish beds, and other coastal or marine ecosystems)

at greatest risk of damage by climate change; to monitor for impacts; and to restore damaged

resources.

S.Res. 456 would have expressed the sense of the Senate that the United States should undertake

bilateral discussions with Canada to negotiate an agreement to conserve populations of large

whales that migrate along the Atlantic coast of North America. S. 2657 and H.R. 5536 would

have required the Secretary of Commerce to prescribe regulations limiting vessel speed to reduce

collisions with North Atlantic right whales; the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and

Transportation reported S. 2657 (amended) on July 22, 2008 (S.Rept. 110-429). H.Con.Res. 350

and S.Con.Res. 86 would have expressed the sense of Congress that the United States, through

the International Whaling Commission, should use all appropriate measures to end commercial

whaling and strengthen the conservation and management of whale species. The House agreed to

H.Con.Res. 350 on June 18, 2008. H.R. 6624 and S. 3333 would have amended the Whaling

Convention Act so that it expressly applies to aboriginal subsistence whaling, and authorizes the

Secretary of Commerce to set bowhead whale catch limits in the event that the IWC fails to adopt

such limits.

For additional information, see CRS Report RL33941, Polar Bears: Listing Under the Endangered Species Act, by

Eugene H. Buck, M. Lynne Corn, and Kristina Alexander.

ȱȱȱ

ŘŜȱ

¢ǰȱǰȱȱȱȱȱȱȱŗŗŖȱȱ

¢ȱȱ

On May 11, 2007, the House Committee on Armed Services reported H.R. 1585 expressing

concern in the committee report (H.Rept. 110-146) about the Department of Defense authorizing

a two-year MMPA exemption, in January 2007,34 for the use of mid-frequency sonar in naval

training exercises. In addition, the committee encouraged the Navy to assess the number and

species of marine mammals injured and killed as a result of activities conducted under the twoyear exemption. On May 17, 2007, the House passed H.R. 1585 (amended). The Senate passed

H.R. 1585 (amended) on October 1, 2007. A conference report was filed on H.R. 1585 on

December 6, 2007 (H.Rept. 110-477); the House (December 12, 2007) and Senate (December 14,

2007) agreed to the conference report. H.R. 1585 was pocket vetoed by President Bush on

December 28, 2007.

ȱȱ

Section 918 of S. 1892 would have extended the authorization of the Fur Seal Act of 1966

through FY2009; the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation reported this

bill (amended) on February 5, 2008 (S.Rept. 110-261).

ȱȱȱ

H.R. 3639 would have established a research program for the recovery of the southern sea otter;

the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans held a hearing on

this measure on April 24, 2008.

ȱȱ

Signed by President Bush on December 26, 2007, P.L. 110-161 (the Consolidated Appropriations

Act, 2008) provided more than $829 million for NMFS for FY2008.

On February 4, 2008, the Bush Administration released its FY2009 budget request, including

about $782 million for NMFS (see Table 1). The FY2009 request for funding for NMFS under

the Operations, Research, and Facilities (OR&F) Account is $15.87 million (2.24%) more than

funding enacted for FY2008. However, total NMFS funding would decrease by $46.76 million

(5.64%) from that enacted for FY2008, primarily due to decreases for Pacific Coastal Salmon

Recovery and Other Accounts.

For additional background, see CRS Report RL33133, Active Military Sonar and Marine Mammals: Events and

References, by Eugene H. Buck and Kori Calvert.

ȱȱȱ

Řŝȱ

¢ǰȱǰȱȱȱȱȱȱȱŗŗŖȱȱ

Table 1. NMFS Appropriations

(in thousands of dollars)

Fisheries

Protected Resources

Habitat Conservation

Enforcement

Surveillance

SUBTOTAL

Procurement,

Acquisition,

Construction

Pacific Coastal Salmon

Recovery

Other Accounts

TOTAL

FY2007

FY2008

FY2009

Enacted

Request

Enacted

Request

House Rpt

Senate Rpt

515,301

141,015

43,544

402,096

165,095

50,415

409,209

163,992

50,245

424,480

167,241

43,405

429,184

176,241

49,905

460,672

178,105

48,405

78,126

86,973

84,894

89,085

90,085

704,579

708,340

724,211

744,415

777,267

11,190

2,021

4,600

66,638

66,825

67,000

35,000

65,000

90,000

27,385

24,550

51,722

23,112

54,000

828,716

933,929

795,954

829,083

782,323

809,415

925,867

Budget Justifications, House and Senate Committee Reports, and floor debate.

Includes $ 50.73 million for “Alaska Composite Research and Development Program.”

Sources:

Major increases requested in excess of enacted FY2008 funding in NMFS’s portion of the OR&F

Account include:

•

Fisheries Research and Management Programs:

Expand Annual Stock Assessments:

Survey and monitoring projects:

Economics and social science research:

Atlantic salmon habitat restoration

Pacific Salmon Recovery and Research:

Recreational fisheries statistics:

Enforcement of IUU fishing:

Sustainable habitat management:

Marine Mammal Conservation and Recovery:

+ $21.5 million

+ $8.5 million

+ $8.2 million

+ $4.7 million

+ $4.17 million

+ $3.17 million

+ $3 million

+ $2.4 million

+ $1.96 million

+ $1.5 million

Major decreases requested from enacted FY2008 funding in NMFS’s portion of the OR&F

Account include:

•

Massachusetts groundfish support:

Penobscot River habitat restoration:

Magnuson implementation off Alaska:

NW Hawaii Monument fishery assistance:

SE area monitoring and assessment:

Marine turtles:

ȱȱȱ

-$13.4 million

-$10 million

-$7.3 million

-$6.7 million

-$4.4 million

-$3.7 million

ŘŞȱ

•

¢ǰȱǰȱȱȱȱȱȱȱŗŗŖȱȱ

Alaska Sea Life Center:

Community-based restoration and open rivers:

-$3.5 million

-$3.1 million

On December 10, 2008, the House Committee on Appropriations reported H.R. 7322 (H.Rept.

110-919), containing FY2009 NMFS appropriations. The committee recommended almost $810

million for NMFS for FY2009, $19.7 million (-2.4%) less than the FY2008 enacted level and

$27.1 million (3.5%) more than the FY2009 request. Included in the House measure was an

additional $30 million for Pacific Coastal Salmon Restoration, in addition to what the

Administration had requested.

On June 23, 2008, the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported S. 3182 (S.Rept. 110-397),

recommending almost $926 million for NMFS for FY2009, $97.8 million (11.8%) more than the

FY2008 enacted level and $143.5 million (18.3%) more than the FY2009 request. In addition to

what the Administration had requested, the Senate bill included an additional $55 million for

Pacific Coastal Salmon Restoration, $50 million for fishery disaster mitigation, and $30 million

for various fishery management activities.

Division A of P.L. 110-329 provided continuing appropriations for NMFS, until March 6, 2009, at

the level of FY2008 appropriations.

ȱȱ ȱ

Eugene H. Buck

Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

gbuck@crs.loc.gov, 7-7262

ȱȱȱ

Řşȱ

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.