CRS Report: -

The role of the federal government in marine fisheries began to grow as foreign nations increased fishery catches off U.S. coasts in the 1950s. Enactment of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MFCMA) in 1976 extended federal fishery jurisdiction to 200 miles offshore and established the current federal fishery management regime. Today, individual states manage marine fisheries in inshore and coastal waters with interstate coordination accomplished through three regional (Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific) marine fishery commissions, created through interstate compacts approved by Congress. Beyond state jurisdiction (generally 3 miles) out to 200 miles, the federal government manages fish and shellfish resources for which management plans have been developed under the MFCMA.

Under provisions of the MFCMA, eight Regional Fishery Management Councils were established for the New England, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, Pacific, Western Pacific, and North Pacific regions. The eight Councils prepare fishery management plans (FMPs) for fisheries requiring active federal management.

The MFCMA was most recently reauthorized and extensively amended in 1990 (P.L. 101-627); the current authorization for appropriations expired at the end of FY1993. The issue for the 104th Congress was whether, and if so, under what conditions, to continue the existing regime for fishery conservation and management in offshore federal waters.

Congress reviewed the direction and criteria provided by the MFCMA for allocating seafood catch among domestic interests in an era of mounting demands for these resources. Two primary reauthorization and amendment bills were introduced -- H.R. 39 and S. 39. S. 39 was passed by both the Senate and House in the last days of the 104th Congress, and was signed by President Clinton as P.L. 104-297 on Oct. 11, 1996.

Both House and Senate bills focused on the major challenges facing marine fishery managers, which can be roughly grouped into four areas -- habitat degradation, overfishing, bycatch (discards and other waste), and funding. Provisions on individual transferable quotas (ITQs) are also controversial. (See CRS Report 95-849 for background.)

Major issues addressed during reauthorization included: 1) how to better conserve fish stocks and restore overfished populations, 2) how to assure that membership on regional councils is fair and balanced, 3) whether to specify in more detail the approaches that should be taken to address overcapitalization through access limitation, 4) whether to remove the restriction on fee collection to permit user fees and other charges that could be directed to fund conservation and management activities, 5) whether to provide for more emphasis on social benefits that might better preserve traditional small fishers; and 6) how to strengthen provisions for habitat restoration and protection.

MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

On Sept. 27, 1996, the House voted 384-30 to accept the Senate-passed version of S. 39. On Oct. 11, 1996, President Clinton signed this measure as P.L. 104-297.

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS

Marine Fishery Management

Historically, coastal states managed marine sport and commercial fisheries in nearshore waters, where most marine seafood was caught. However, as fishing techniques improved, more fishers 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).

The role of the federal government grew as foreign nations increased fishery catches off U.S. coasts in the 1950s. In 1964, P.L. 88-308 prohibited fishing by foreign-flag vessels within 3 miles of the coast. In 1966, the United States enacted an expanded, 12-mile fishery jurisdiction (P.L. 89-658). Enactment of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MFCMA) in 1976 extended federal fishery jurisdiction to 200 miles offshore. This law established the current federal fishery management regime. 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 management plans have been developed under the MFCMA. States manage registered vessels wherever they fish in the absence of a federal plan, as well as under state regulations consistent with any existing federal plan.

In 1994, U.S. commercial fishers landed more than 7.9 billion pounds of edible fish and shellfish, worth more than $3.7 billion at the dock. Imports supplied another 3 billion pounds, worth more than $6.6 billion. U.S. consumers spent $39.4 billion on edible seafood in 1994, with $26.4 billion expended in restaurants. After converting processed imports to comparable landed weight, 42.1% of the U.S. supply of fish and shellfish came from imports in 1994. Marine recreational anglers caught an estimated 362 million fish in 1994, of which the retained catch weighed about 199 million pounds. About 11% of the recreational catch came from offshore waters under federal jurisdiction. A nationwide survey estimated that saltwater recreational anglers spent almost $9.8 billion in 1990 pursuing their sport.

Challenges

Major challenges facing both state and federal marine resource managers can be roughly grouped into four areas of concern -- habitat degradation, overfishing, bycatch, and funding. Members and staff will likely encounter all these issues in marine fishery legislation introduced in the 104th Congress.

Habitat Degradation. Most fish and shellfish require high-quality habitat in which to live and reproduce. Habitat quality depends upon physical (e.g., temperature, suspended sediments), chemical (e.g., toxic contaminants, pollutants), and biological (e.g., pests, diseases) factors. Human activities along coastal areas, in upstream drainages, and from offshore activities can degrade oceanic habitat. Even some types of fishing, such as bottom trawling, have the potential to damage habitat. Thus, habitat concerns are really questions of the health of the marine ecosystem. Ecosystem health can also be altered by events (e.g., El Nino) producing changes in temperature, nutrients, and ocean currents which, in turn, modify (increasing or decreasing) biological productivity and abundance of various species. (For more information, see CRS Report 93-679 ENR, Marine Ecosystem Management.)

Overfishing. Although fish and shellfish are renewable resources, each population's productivity (i.e., reproduction and growth) is limited, and at some point excessive catches can depress a population's ability to sustain its historic productivity. Abundant fish and shellfish populations entice fishers with the promise of large and lucrative landings. As increasing numbers of fishers seek to catch any particular population, managers find it increasingly difficult to keep fishing efforts in balance with a fishery's ability to sustain its production. If fishing efforts are not controlled, overfishing often results. If overfishing continues for years, a population's reproductive capacity may be diminished, lowering potential landings, and severe curtailment of fishing efforts may be required to permit the population to recover its ability to produce at higher rates. Overfishing also alters the natural balance among species in an ecosystem, sometimes leading to a dramatic shift in species dominance to yield more abundant lower-valued species. Of 163 species groups of U.S. fish assessed in 1993 and for which stock status could be determined, NMFS reported that 65 (40%) were overutilized.

Bycatch. In the process of catching marketable seafood, non-targeted organisms are also captured; this incidental catch is often termed bycatch. Bycatch varies widely with different fishing techniques and different target species, and in some fisheries can be as much as ten times the volume of the targeted species taken. Bycatch may include juveniles of the targeted population as well as a variety of non-targeted organisms. Bycatch is a problem because many of these organisms taken incidentally are killed. For more information, see CRS Report 90-575 ENR, Waste from Fish Harvesting and Processing: Growing Environmental Concerns.

Funding. Fishery managers find themselves responsible for increasing work related to more species to manage, habitat protection measures, increased friction among fishers using different gear or between sport and commercial fishers, socioeconomic analysis, and many other tasks. At the same time, availability of increased funding is problematic due to deficit and budgetary concerns. The increasing complexity of marine resource and ecosystem management taxes the ability of managers to craft equitable approaches, within the bounds of financial constraints.

The Magnuson Act

The Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MFCMA) of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., P.L. 94-265, as amended) provides authority for federal fishery management in offshore marine waters.

Background

In the late 1940s and early 1950s, several Pacific coast Latin American nations proclaimed marine jurisdictions extending 200 miles offshore. This was denounced by those within the United States and other distant-water fishing nations who sought to preserve access for far-ranging fishing vessels.

Beginning in the 1950s (Atlantic) and 1960s (Pacific), increasing numbers of foreign fishing vessels steamed into waters offshore of the United States to catch the predominantly undeveloped seafood resources. Since the United States then claimed only a 3-mile jurisdiction (a 12-mile U.S. contiguous fishery zone was proclaimed in 1966), foreign vessels could fish many of the same stocks fished by U.S. fishers. U.S. fishers deplored this "foreign encroachment" and alleged that overfishing was causing stress on, or outright depletion of, fish stocks. Discouragement with the unsuccessful Law of the Sea Treaty negotiations in the 1970s provided impetus for unilateral United States action.

The enactment of the Fishery Conservation and Management Act in 1976 (later renamed the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act after the late Senator Warren G. Magnuson) ushered in a new era of federal marine fishery management. The MFCMA 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 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) within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the Department of Commerce. 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).

Under the MFCMA, eight Regional Fishery Management Councils were created. 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 have implemented 34 FMPs for various fish and shellfish resources, with 11 additional plans in various stages of development. Some plans are created for individual or a few closely related species (e.g., FMPs for red drum in the South Atlantic, for northern anchovy by the Pacific Council and for shrimp by the Gulf of Mexico Council). Others are developed for larger species assemblages inhabiting similar habitat (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 undergone subsequent amendment (one more than 30 times), and three plans have been developed and implemented jointly by two or more Councils.

Initially under MFCMA authority, a substantial portion of fishery resources in federal offshore waters was allocated for foreign fishing. However, foreign allocations diminished as domestic fishing and processing industries expanded. Under the MFCMA, foreign catch from the U.S. EEZ declined from about 3.8 billion pounds in 1977, to zero in 1992 and subsequent years. Commensurate with the decline of foreign catch, domestic offshore catch increased dramatically, from about 1.56 billion pounds (1977) to more than 6.32 billion pounds (1993). Thus, the percent of fish caught by foreign nations from the U.S. EEZ declined from 71% in 1977 to 0.0% in 1992 and subsequent years. Total offshore fishery landings from the U.S. EEZ increased about 24% between 1977 and 1986-1988 to a peak of 6.65 billion pounds, but subsequently declined.

Regional Council Concerns

There are few truly national fishery issues; most concerns relate to specific regional interests. Regional Fishery Management Councils, however, address a wide variety of resource management concerns. This section discusses some of the current key issues which affect one region (New England) as an example, but cannot fully reflect the diversity or complexity of management and conservation concerns in that region.

New England. A major concern in New England is the depletion of groundfish and what management measures may be required to allow recovery. Groundfish landings declined from more than 1.6 billion pounds in 1965 to less than 220 million pounds in 1991. Following a 1991 lawsuit by the Conservation Law Foundation and the Massachusetts Audubon Society, a negotiated consent decree August 28, 1991) required a program to rebuild cod and yellowtail flounder populations within 5 years and haddock populations within 10 years. The Council approved modifications (Amendment No. 5) to its FMP for the northeast multi-species (groundfish) fishery to satisfy court deadlines. The Council proposed several alternatives for consideration that would reduce groundfish landings by 50% over a 5- to 7-year period. The approved alternative would have required permits for all vessel operators and dealers, placed a moratorium on issuing new vessel permits, instituted an effort reduction program requiring declared time outs of groundfishing as well as layover days during fishing, increased minimum net mesh size to 6 inches, begun a program for gillnet vessels to reduce effort and bycatch of harbor porpoise, required mandatory reporting, instituted a possession limit for haddock, and begun a variety of area closures and gear prohibitions to reduce catch.

With the exception of haddock trip limits and a winter flounder mesh exemption in state waters, the Commerce Secretary approved the Council's submission and published proposed regulations (58 FR 57774, October 27, 1993). Fishers protested that the stringent regulations would force many to cease fishing and could bankrupt many boat owners. Finally on January 3, 1994, NMFS approved the Council's plan for restoring New England groundfish, which was implemented on March 1, 1994 (59 FR 9872); the Department of Commerce proposed $2.5 million in assistance for affected coastal communities -- $1 million in Economic Development Assistance planning grants and a FY1994 NMFS appropriation of $1.5 million for "North Atlantic fisheries reinvestment." Additionally in response to a request from the New England Fishery Management Council and beginning on January 3, 1994, NMFS imposed strict emergency catch limits on Georges Bank haddock and tripled the size of a no-fishing zone on Georges Bank to about 2,650 sq. miles (59 FR 26, January 3, 1994). On February 28, 1994, New England fishers protested new regulations; use of larger- mesh nets was postponed a month after fishers protested that suppliers had been unable to provide the new nets in sufficient quantity (59 FR 10588, March 7, 1994). On March 7, 1994, New England lawmakers appealed for $60 million in emergency aid for the fishing industry following a Commerce Department ruling that the collapse of fish stocks qualified as a disaster; fishers demanded a ban on imports that did not conform to U.S. size restrictions and a buy-out plan to remove vessels from the fishery. On March 16, 1994, fishers asked for an additional 90-day delay in the requirement for using larger-mesh nets; NMFS officials responded by delaying the requirement that fishers use larger 6-inch mesh nets until May 1, 1994. On March 21, 1994, the Clinton Administration authorized $30 million in assistance -- $18 million to be available through the Economic Development Administration for community assistance and $12 million available through NMFS for low-interest loans; several assistance centers opened in the region and applications for assistance were accepted. On March 31, 1994, two Maine commercial fishing organizations filed suit against federal fishery managers, alleging they did not consider the impact of regulations on coastal communities and that the regulations were not based on the best scientific information. On July 11, 1994, Secretary of Commerce Brown announced recipients of $6 million in funding for six Economic Development Administration grants to assist the diversification and recovery of the New England fishing industry, including $2.5 million to establish a revolving loan fund for fishing-related businesses in New Bedford, MA, and $1.5 million to establish a revolving loan fund for re-equipping fishing vessels in Gloucester, MA. EDA assessed the impact of loans from these funds on overfished stocks, with input from NMFS.

Enforcement

NMFS and the Coast Guard share responsibility for federal fishery enforcement under the MFCMA, with assistance from states through cooperative agreements. NMFS has only a limited number of fishery enforcement agents nationwide. Thus, enforcement of fishery regulations is poor in most areas and, with the current lack of resources, is one of the major impediments to improved fishery management.

In the Northeast, increasing numbers of U.S. vessels have been cited for crossing the Hague Line on Georges Bank and fishing illegally in Canadian waters. In 1992, 24 U.S. vessels were cited for this violation; in mid-January 1993 alone, 12 U.S. scallop vessels were caught in violation. In the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic, the Coast Guard has issued violations and NMFS has seized shrimp catches when turtle excluder devices (TEDs) were lacking or improperly installed. GAO reported that compliance with TED regulations had improved from 68% in 1990 to 96% by mid-1992. Recently, several citations for TED violations have been thrown out of court over questions of constitutional due process for the accused fishers. On January 25, 1994, federal prosecutors announced that fines totalling $2 million would be assessed a Seattle-based fishing corporation for illegally stripping pollock roe in the Bering Sea in 1991. From late January through early February 1994, immigration officials discovered 103 illegal alien workers aboard 15 U.S. fish processing and tender vessels in the Bering Sea.

Federal Appropriations

Although appropriations benefit fishery efforts of many federal agencies (see CRS Report 95-937 ENR, Federal Agency Programs in Living Aquatic Resources and Aquatic Habitat Protection), only funding for several major programs is presented. The Administration's FY1996 budget request, released on February 6, 1995, totals almost $316 million, substantially increased from the $268.6 million appropriated for FY1995. Major proposed increases include almost $10 million to improve assessment of fishery resources, almost $8 million to improve assessment of the status of protected species, $10 million for fishery management to be derived from new legislation creating fees on individual transferrable quotas (ITQs), and $8.5 million for Endangered Species Act recovery plans. Program decreases include $2.8 million for North Atlantic fisheries reinvestment program.

MFCMA Reauthorization

The MFCMA was most recently reauthorized and extensively amended in 1990 (P.L. 101-627), and the current authorization for appropriations expired at the end of FY1993. The issue for the 104th Congress will be whether, and if so, under what conditions, to continue the existing regime for fishery conservation and management in offshore federal waters. Congress will be called upon to review the direction and criteria provided by the MFCMA for allocating seafood catch among domestic interests in an era of mounting private and public demands for these resources. Expiration of the current authorization did not terminate any programs, and Congress has appropriated FY1994 and FY1995 funding without an authorization. In the House, the Subcommittee on Fisheries Management held hearings on March 3, April 21, June 16, and September 29, 1993, and March 23, 1994; with additional field hearings held August 10 and 12, September 10, and November 6, 1993, and February 9, 1994. In the Senate, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation held hearings June 30 and August 4, 1993. (For details on issues and concerns for reauthorization, see CRS Report 93-88 ENR, The Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act: Reauthorization Issues.)

In the 103rd Congress, nine bills were introduced offering substantial amendment of the MFCMA or reauthorizing appropriations. H.R. 780 (Manton et al.) was an early introduction offering a straightforward reauthorization of appropriations, but substantial amendments were included during an August 10, 1994, markup by the Subcommittee on Fisheries Management. H.R. 4404 (Gilchrest et al.), H.R. 4713 (Unsoeld and Cantwell), S. 1756 (Murkowski), S. 2022 (Stevens), S. 2360 (Breaux), and S. 2538 (Kerry, Stevens, and Murkowski) addressed multiple issues. (However, S. 2022 pertained exclusively to North Pacific fisheries.) Finally, the Clinton Administration's proposal was introduced by request as H.R. 4430/S. 2138. Several other bills (e.g., H.R. 3931, H.R. 4930, and H.R. 4932) offer amendments on more circumscribed issues. (For more detailed information on these bills, see CRS memo "Comparison of Magnuson Act Bills," Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division, September 23, 1994.)

In the 104th Congress, two primary reauthorization and amendment bills have been introduced -- H.R. 39 and S. 39 -- including many of the provisions considered during the 103rd Congress. A single House hearing on this reauthorization legislation was held February 23, 1995. The House Committee on Resources held full Committee markup of H.R. 39 on May 10, 1995, and the amended bill was reported June 30, 1995 (H.Rept. 104-171). On September 18, 1995, the House conducted general debate on H.R. 39, and on October 18, 1995, the House amended and passed this measure. In the Senate, an extensive series of field hearings has been held on S. 39. For a detailed comparison of H.R. 39 as passed by the House and S. 39 as introduced, see CRS memo "Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act Reauthorization Bills -- Comparison of H.R. 39 as Passed by the House and S. 39 as Introduced in the Senate," Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division, February 12, 1996.) On March 19, 1996, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation released a staff working draft of substitute language for S. 39; the Senate Commerce Committee marked up S. 39 on March 28, 1996. An amended S. 39 was reported May 23, 1996 (S. Rept. 104-276). The Senate debated and amended S. 39 on September 18, 1996, with final passage by a 100-0 vote on September 19, 1996. On Sept. 27, 1996, the House voted 384-30 to accept the Senate-passed version of S. 39. On Oct. 11, 1996, President Clinton signed this measure as P.L. 104-297.

Ten major issues were addressed by P.L. 104-297 -- 1) individual fishing quota programs; 2) bycatch, discards, and waste; 3) overfishing, capacity reduction, and recovery plans; 4) fees; 5) FMP implementation; 6) fishing gear; 7) conflicts of interest; 8) habitat protection; 9) observers; and 10) Council composition.

These ten major issues were addressed as follows:

1) individual fishing quota programs. The new law mandates that an exclusive central registry system be created for any limited access program to provide for the registration of permit titles and interests. In addition, it authorizes the collection of fees and establishes a Limited Access System Administration Fund. P.L. 104-297 prohibits, until October 1, 2000, individual fishing quota programs unless such programs were approved before January 4, 1995. This measure modifies and creates other quota-related requirements, and the Secretary of Commerce is required to collect fees relating to any individual fishing quota program or community development quota program. On the West Coast, P.L. 104-297 requires that the North Pacific Fishery Management Council recommend a program that uses all fees authorized for the halibut and sablefish fisheries off Alaska to guarantee obligations. On the East Coast, this measure prohibits, until January 1, 2000, any fee collection in the surf clam and ocean quahog fishery or in the wreckfish fishery. In the Gulf of Mexico, this law mandates an independent peer review of the red snapper fishery and prohibits the Gulf Council, until October 1, 2000, from preparing any plan, amendment, or regulation that creates an individual quota program or authorizes consolidation of licenses, permits, or endorsements that result in different trip limits for vessels in the same class. After that date, any such action would be allowed only if approved in a referendum. Furthermore, this new law requires that any subsequent Gulf Council plan, amendment, or regulation: (1) contain separate quotas for recreational and commercial fishing; and (2) ensure that the quotas reflect allocations among such sectors and do not reflect harvests in excess of such allocations. For background information on these concerns, see CRS Report 95-849 ENR, Individual Transferable Quotas in Fishery Management.

2) bycatch, discards, and waste. The new law provides for an international agreement on bycatch reduction standards and measures, and requires national fishery conservation and management standards to minimize bycatch and its mortality. In the North Pacific, this measure requires the North Pacific Council to submit conservation and management measures to lower economic discards, and allows: (1) a system of fines to provide incentives to reduce bycatch and bycatch rates; and (2) measures that provide allocations of regulatory discards to individual vessels as an incentive to reduce bycatch. Furthermore, it requires the Council to (1) submit conservation and management measures to ensure total catch measurement; and (2) report on the advisability of requiring the full catch retention by fishing vessels and full use by U.S. fish processors of economic discards if the economic discards (or the mortality of the discards) cannot be avoided. In the Gulf of Mexico, this law requires (1) a program to develop technological and other changes to minimize shrimp trawl bycatch, evaluate related ecological impacts, benefits, and costs, and assess the use of unavoidable bycatch; (2) the Secretary to report to specified congressional committees on incidental harvest by the shrimp trawl fishery; and (3) establishment of a fishery conservation and management ecosystem advisory panel. Finally, this measure requires a study of the contribution of bycatch to charitable organizations. For background information on these concerns, see CRS Report 90-575 ENR, Waste from Fish Harvesting and Processing: Growing Environmental Concerns.

3) overfishing, capacity reduction, and recovery plans. The new law requires an annual report and other actions relating to overfishing, and adds emergency action provisions relating to interim measures needed to reduce overfishing. This measure authorizes a fishing capacity reduction program if certain requirements are met, but makes participation voluntary. It provides for funding, including authorizing an industry fee system if approved by an industry referendum, and mandates establishing a task force to study and report on the federal role in subsidizing the expansion and contraction of fishing capacity and otherwise influencing aggregate capital investments in fisheries. In addition, this measure amends federal law to allow fishery product customs duties to be used to fund the federal share of the capacity reduction program. This law prohibits new loan guarantees until October 1, 2001, for new fishing vessel construction if such construction would result in an increased harvesting capacity in the U.S. exclusive economic zone, and authorizes guarantees for obligations issued in connection with a fishing capacity reduction program established under specified provisions. A special fishing capacity reduction fund is established. For background information on these concerns, see CRS Report 95-296 ENR, Overcapitalization in the U.S. Commercial Fishing Industry.

4) fees. The new law regulates permit fee use, authorizes the collection of fees, and establishes a Limited Access System Administration Fund. In addition, it requires the Secretary of Commerce to collect fees relating to any individual fishing quota program or community development quota program. This measure requires the North Pacific Fishery Management Council to recommend a program that uses all fees authorized under specified provisions in the halibut and sablefish fisheries off Alaska to guarantee obligations. On the East Coast, this law prohibits, until January 1, 2000, any fee collection from the surf clam and ocean quahog fishery or in the wreckfish fishery. Related to overcapacity, this measure provides for funding of a fishing vessel capacity reduction program, including authorizing an industry fee system if approved by an industry referendum.

5) FMP implementation. The new law revises requirements regarding the review and implementation of fishery management plans, amendments, and regulations, and authorizes the repeal or revocation of a fishery management plan under the authority of a Council only if the Council approves such action by a three-quarters majority.

6) fishing gear. The new law requires publication of a list of all fisheries under each Council and all gear used in such fishing, requires anyone using gear or engaging in a fishery not on the list to give advance notice to the appropriate Council, and allows related emergency prohibitions on gear or fishing.

7) conflicts of interest. The new law modifies Fishery Management Council requirements regarding disclosure of financial interest.

8) habitat protection. The new law mandates guidelines regarding fish habitat conservation and enhancement.

9) observers. The new law sets forth provisions regarding observers, including concerning regulations, training, and worker's compensation.

10) Council composition. The new law modifies Fishery Management Council requirements regarding composition.

Other miscellaneous issues addressed by P.L. 104-297 include 1) a mandate to establish a western Alaska community development quota program under which a percentage of the total allowable catch of any Bering Sea fishery is allocated to the program, with a required phase-in of an increase in such quotas approved in 1995 by the North Pacific Council for the Bearing Sea crab fisheries; 2) authorization of measures to address specific concerns of the Pacific Insular Area (American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Island, Wake Island, or Palmyra Atoll); 3) an authorization of appropriations to carry out the Act through FY1999; and 4) a specific authorization of expenditures for fishery resource disasters (resulting from natural causes, man-made causes beyond the control of fishery managers, or undetermined causes).

LEGISLATION

P.L. 104-43, H.R. 716
Section 802 states that no allocation of fish may be made to foreign harvesters under the authority of the Magnuson Act in the absence of an implemented fishery management plan. In addition, the Secretary of Commerce may not approve any permit application proposing foreign fishing for Atlantic mackerel or Atlantic herring, unless such action is recommended by the appropriate regional management council. Signed into law November 3, 1995.

P.L. 104-297, S. 39
Amends the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act to authorize appropriations, to provide for sustainable fisheries, and for other purposes. Introduced January 4, 1995; referred to Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Field hearings have been held in Rockport, ME (March 4, 1995); Boston, MA (March 4, 1995), Seattle, WA (March 18, 1995); Anchorage, AK (March 25, 1995); New Orleans, LA (May 13, 1995); Charleston, SC (July 15, 1995); and Morehead City, NC (July 17, 1995). This measure was marked up on March 28, 1996, and reported as amended May 23, 1996 (S.Rept. 104-276). The Senate debated and amended S. 39 on September 18, 1996, with final passage by a 100-0 vote on September 19, 1996. The House voted to accept the Senate version on Sept. 27, 1996. Signed into law Oct. 11, 1996.

H.R. 39 (Young of Alaska)
Amends the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act to improve fishery management. Introduced January 4, 1995; referred to Committee on Resources. Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans held hearing February 23, 1995. Markup held by the full Committee May 10, 1995; amended bill reported June 30, 1995 (H.Rept. 104-171). On September 18, 1995, the House conducted general debate on H.R. 39, and on October 18, 1995, the House amended and passed this measure. H.R. 39 was referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

H.R. 542 (Saxton)
Approves a governing international fishery agreement (GIFA) between the United States and the People's Republic of China. Introduced January 17, 1995; referred to Committee on Resources. Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans held hearing January 25, 1995.

H.R. 543 (Saxton)/S. 267 (Stevens, et al.)
H.R. 543 approves a governing international fishery agreement (GIFA) between the United States and the Republic of Estonia. Title VII of S. 267 approves this same GIFA. H.R. 543 was introduced January 17, 1995; referred to Committee on Resources. Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans held hearing January 25, 1995. S. 267 introduced January 24, 1995; referred to Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Reported with amendments May 26, 1995 (S. Rept. 104-91). Much of S. 267, but not the Estonia GIFA language, was incorporated into H.R. 716 on June 30, 1995, and H.R. 716 was passed by the Senate in lieu of S. 267.

H.R. 1417 (Smith of Washington)
Amends the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act to provide for a 3-year research plan to assess the status of stocks of fish that are managed under the Pacific Fisheries Management Council Pacific Coast Groundfish Plan. Introduced April 5, 1995; referred to Committee on Resources. Similar language was incorporated into H.R. 39 during markup on May 10, 1995.

H.R. 1465 (Zeliff)
Amends the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act to establish additional prohibitions against removing, damaging, tampering with, or moving fishing gear and fish, including gear and fish from aquaculture operations in the exclusive economic zone. Introduced April 6, 1995; referred to Committee on Resources. Similar language was incorporated into H.R. 39 during markup on May 10, 1995.

H.R. 1756 (Chrysler et al.), H.R. 1923 (Solomon et al.)/S. 929 (Abraham et al.)
Dismantles the Department of Commerce with many of the fisheries functions currently within the National Marine Fisheries Service (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) transferred to the Department of the Interior. H.R. 1756 introduced June 7, 1995; referred jointly to the Committees on Commerce, Transportation and Infrastructure, Banking and Financial Services, International Relations, National Security, Agriculture, Ways and Means, Government Reform and Oversight, the Judiciary, Science, and Resources. The Committee on Resources marked up H.R. 1756 on September 12, 1995, and ordered the amended measure reported. H.R. 1923 introduced June 22, 1995; referred jointly to all House Committees, except Appropriations and Standards of Official Conduct. S. 929 introduced June 15, 1995; referred to Committee on Governmental Affairs. Reported with amendments October 20, 1995 (S.Rept. 104-164).

H.R. 2369 (Underwood)
The Pacific Insular Areas Fisheries Empowerment Act of 1995 amends the Magnuson Act to provide for the development of the fishery resources within the exclusive economic zone of the insular areas of the United States. Introduced September 20, 1995; referred to Committee on Resources. On October 18, 1995, this measure was incorporated into H.R. 39 during House floor debate.

H.R. 2655 (Saxton)
The Atlantic Striped Bass Preservation Act of 1995 amends the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act to authorize the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council to prepare a fishery management plan for Atlantic striped bass under the authority of the Magnuson Act. Introduced November 16, 1995; referred to Committee on Resources. The Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans held a hearing on December 12, 1995.

S. 431 (Snowe)
Amends the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act to authorize the Secretary of Commerce to prepare fishery management plans and amendments to fishery management plans under negotiated rulemaking procedures. Introduced February 16, 1995; referred to Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

S. 432 (Snowe)
Amends the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act require the Secretary of Commerce to prepare conservation and management measures for the northeast multispecies (groundfish) fishery under negotiated rulemaking procedures, and for other purposes. Introduced February 16, 1995; referred to Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS

Hearings

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. Subcommittee on Fisheries Management. Conflicts of Interest Within the Regional Fisheries Management Councils. Hearing, March 23, 1994. 103rd Congress, 2nd session, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Washington, 1994. 118 p. "Serial No. 103-87"

----- Fisheries User Fees Under the Magnuson Act. Hearing, June 29, 1994. 103rd Congress, 2nd session, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Washington, 1994. 343 p. "Serial No. 103-111"

----- International Straddling Fisheries Stocks. Hearing, September 22, 1993. 103rd Congress, 1st session, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Washington, 1993. 114 p. "Serial No. 103-59"

----- Magnuson Act and Seafood Safety. Field hearing (Brooklyn, NY), September 10, 1993. 103rd Congress, 1st session, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Washington, 1993. 170 p. "Serial No. 103-51"

----- Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act -- Beaufort, NC. Field hearing (Beaufort, NC), November 6, 1993. 103rd Congress, 1st session, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Washington, 1994. 121 p. "Serial No. 103-77"

----- Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act -- Part II. Hearing, September 29, 1993. 103rd Congress, 1st session, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Washington, 1993. 145 p. "Serial No. 103-61"

----- Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act Reauthorization. Hearings, March 3, April 21, and June 16, 1993. 103rd Congress, 1st session, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Washington, 1993. 498 p. "Serial No. 103-28"

----- Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act Reauthorization -- Part II. Field hearing (Anchorage, AK), August 12, 1993. 103rd Congress, 1st session, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Washington, 1993. 122 p. "Serial No. 103-49"

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Resources. Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans. Improving Fisheries Management in Magnuson Act. Hearing, February 23, 1995. 104th Congress, 1st session, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Washington, 1996. 359 p. "Serial No. 104-49"

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Small Business. Subcommittee on Government Programs. Small Business Administration Programs to Assist the New England Fishing Industry. Field Hearing (Gloucester, MA), April 10, 1995. 104th Congress, 1st session, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Washington, 1995. 90 p. "Serial No. 104-26"

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Small Business. Subcommittee on Regulation, Business Opportunities, and Technology. Economic Impact of the Whiting Allocation on Oregon Coastal Communities. Field Hearing (Newport, OR), June 4, 1993. 103rd Congress, 1st session, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Washington, 1993. 201 p. "Serial No. 103-24"

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. International Fisheries. Hearings, July 21, 1994. 103rd Congress, 2nd session, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Washington, 1993. 73 p. "S. Hrg. 103-721"

----- Reauthorization of the Magnuson Fishery, Conservation, and Management Act. Hearings, June 30 and August 4, 1993. 103rd Congress, 1st session, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Washington, 1993. 240 p. "S. Hrg. 103-411"

----- Reauthorization of the Magnuson Fishery, Conservation and Management Act. Hearings, August 19, 20, and 21, 1993. 103rd Congress, 1st session, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1993. 170 p. "S. Hrg. 103-586"

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. National Ocean Policy Study. Federal Financial Programs Affecting Commercial Fisheries. Hearing, June 8, 1993. 103rd Congress, 1st session, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Washington, 1993. 58 p. "S. Hrg. 103-339"

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries. S. 39, Hearing on the Reauthorization of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Field hearing (Rockport, ME), March 4, 1995. 104th Congress, 1st session, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Washington, 1995. 124 p. "S. Hrg. 104-174"

----- S. 39, Hearing on the Reauthorization of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Field hearing (Boston, MA), March 4, 1995. 104th Congress, 1st session, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Washington, 1995. 112 p. "S. Hrg. 104-179"

----- S. 39, Hearing on the Reauthorization of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Field hearing (Seattle, WA), March 18, 1995. 104th Congress, 1st session, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Washington, 1995. 360 p. "S. Hrg. 104-184"

----- S. 39, Hearing on the Reauthorization of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Field hearing (Anchorage, AK), March 25, 1995. 104th Congress, 1st session, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Washington, 1995. 372 p. "S. Hrg. 104-217"

----- S. 39, Hearing on the Reauthorization of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Field hearing (New Orleans, LA), May 13, 1995. 104th Congress, 1st session, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Washington, 1995. 198 p. "S. Hrg. 104-228"

----- S. 39, Reauthorization of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Field hearing (Charleston, SC), July 15, 1995. 104th Congress, 1st session, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Washington, 1995. 77 p. "S. Hrg. 104-335"

----- S. 39, Reauthorization of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Field hearing (Morehead City, NC), July 17, 1995. 104th Congress, 1st session, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Washington, 1996. 160 p. "S. Hrg. 104-336"

Reports

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Resources. Fishery Conservation and Management Amendments of 1995; report to accompany H.R. 39. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1995. 84 p. (104th Congress, 1st session. House. Report no. 104-171)

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Sustainable Fisheries Act; report to accompany S. 39. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1996. 173 p. (104th Congress, 2nd session. Senate. Report no. 104-276)

Documents

Fishery Conservation and Management Amendments of 1995. Debate in the House. Congressional Record [daily ed.] v. 141, September 18, 1995: H9116-H9121.

----- Debate and vote in the House. Congressional Record [daily ed.] v. 141, October 18, 1995: H10213-H10247.

----- In Extensions of Remarks of Don Young. Congressional Record [daily ed.] v. 141, January 4, 1995: E9.

----- In Extensions of Remarks of Jennifer Dunn. Congressional Record [daily ed.] v. 141, October 24, 1995: E2008.

Sustainable Development. In Extensions of Remarks of Don Young. Congressional Record [daily ed.] v. 142, September 28, 1996: E1773.

Sustainable Fisheries Act. Debate in the Senate. Congressional Record [daily ed.] v. 142, September 18, 1996: S10794-S10827.

----- Debate and vote in the Senate. Congressional Record [daily ed.] v. 142, September 19, 1996: S10906-S10934.

----- Debate and vote in the House. Congressional Record [daily ed.] v. 142, September 27, 1996: H11418-H11445, H11468-H11469.

----- In Extensions of Remarks of George Miller. Congressional Record [daily ed.] v. 142, September 30, 1996: E1871-E1872.

West Coast Fishing Interests Oppose S. 39. In Extensions of Remarks of George Miller. Congressional Record [daily ed.] v. 142, September 30, 1996: E1833-E1834.

FOR ADDITIONAL READING

Boledovich, Glenn. "Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act: Congress Debates Amendments As Deadlines Approach for 1994 Reauthorization." Ocean and Coastal Law Memo, Issue 42 (August 1994). 14 p.

Decker, Catherine E. "Issues in the Reauthorization of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act." Ocean and Coastal Law Journal, v. 1, No. 2 (1995): 323- 350.

DiSilvestro, Roger. "Are We Headed Toward a Fishless Ocean?" Defenders, Spring 1995: 26- 33.

Fisheries Council of Canada. Building a Fishery That Works: A Vision for the Atlantic Fisheries. Ottawa, 1994. 45 p.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture. Rome: 1995. 57 p.

McManus, Robert J. America's Saltwater Fisheries: So Few Fish, So Many Fishermen. Natural Resources and Environment, Spring 1995: 13-17, 65.

National Research Council. An Assessment of Atlantic Bluefin Tuna. Committee to Review Atlantic Bluefin Tuna, Ocean Studies Board, Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources. National Academy Press, Washington, 1994. 148 p.

Parfit, Michael. "Diminishing Returns: Exploiting the Ocean's Bounty." National Geographic, v. 188, no. 5 (November 1995): 2-37.

Pollock, Susan. "The Last Fish." Sierra, July/August 1995: 48-53, 72-74.

Safina, Carl. "Where Have All the Fishes Gone?" Issues in Science and Technology, Spring 1994: 37-43.

Weber, Peter. Net Loss: Fish, Jobs, and the Marine Environment. Worldwatch Institute, Washington. Worldwatch Paper 120, July 1994. 76 p.

----- "Protecting Oceanic Fisheries and Jobs." Chapter 2 in State of the World, 1995. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1995. p. 21-37.

World Wildlife Fund. "A Future Without Fish." Conservation Issues, v. 1, no. 4, December 1994: 1, 3-4, 8-11.

CRS Reports

CRS Report 95-367 ENR. Atlantic Bluefin Tuna: International Management of a Shared Resource, by Eugene H. Buck. 26 p.

CRS Report 95-937 ENR. Federal Agency Programs in Living Aquatic Resources and Aquatic Habitat Protection, by Eugene H. Buck. 102 p.

CRS Report 95-849 ENR. Individual Transferable Quotas in Fishery Management, by Eugene H. Buck. 23 p.

CRS Report 95-296 ENR. Overcapitalization in the U.S. Commercial Fishing Industry, by Eugene H. Buck. 19 p.

CRS Report 95-553 ENR. Social Aspects of Federal Fishery Management, prepared by Eugene H. Buck. 19 p.

CRS Report 95-460 ENR. Summaries of Major Laws Implemented by the National Marine Fisheries Service, by Eugene H. Buck. 29 p.

CRS Report 95-4 ENR. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: Living Resources Provisions, by Eugene H. Buck. 6 p.

CRS Reports Home

National Council for Science and the Environment
1725 K Street, Suite 212 - Washington, DC 20006
202-530-5810 - info@NCSEonline.org

95036: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act Reauthorization

95036: Magnuson Fishery Conservation
and Management Act Reauthorization