Commercial Fishery Disaster Assistance

Commercial Fishery Disaster Assistance
Updated November 10, 2008
Harold F. Upton
Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division

Commercial Fishery Disaster Assistance
Summary
Disaster relief may be provided by the federal government to assist the fishing
industry when it is affected by a commercial fishery failure. A commercial fishery
failure occurs when fishermen endure hardships resulting from fish population
declines or other disruptions to the fishery. The Department of Commerce can
provide disaster assistance under either Section 308 of the Interjurisdictional
Fisheries Act (16 U.S.C. § 4107), as amended, or Section 312(a) of the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C § 1861(a)). The
National Marine Fisheries Service plays a central role in determining whether a
disaster has occurred and in allocating federal funding to states and affected fishing
communities. Congress plays a pivotal role by appropriating funds and providing
oversight of the process.
Fisheries are subject to environmental variability that may affect the fishery
resource and/or commercial infrastructure such as boats, shoreside processing, and
market channels. Since 1994, federal fishery failures have been declared on 25
occasions and nearly $730 million in federal funding has been appropriated for
fishery disaster relief. Funds have been allocated to fisheries of the North Pacific,
Pacific Northwest, Gulf of Mexico, and the East Coast. Recent cases include Gulf
of Mexico fisheries in the wake of hurricanes Gustav and Ike, the Chesapeake Bay
blue crab fishery, and the West Coast salmon troll fishery, where strict harvest limits
were imposed in response to declines of Sacramento River Chinook salmon.
Direct federal financial assistance has been provided to fishermen and fishing
communities in the form of grants, job retraining, employment, and low interest
loans. Assistance has also included fishery data collection, research, and fishing
capacity reduction programs to prevent or lessen the effects of future disruptions to
fisheries. However, critics contend that disaster assistance programs often fall short
of expectations because sometimes funds are not disbursed in a timely manner,
ambiguities complicate the definition of a fishery failure, relief may not be integrated
with long-term fishery management objectives, and funds may not reach the people
who are in the greatest need of assistance.

Contents
In troduction ......................................................1
Program Requirements and Procedures.................................1
MSFCMA ...............................................2
IFA .....................................................3
MSFCMA Regional Coastal Disaster Assistance.................4
Small Business Administration...............................5
Fishery Disaster Declarations........................................5
State Role................................................9
Fishing Capacity Reduction Programs..............................9
Recent Actions by NOAA and Congress ..........................10
Gulf of Mexico Fisheries (Hurricanes Katrina and Rita)...........10
West Coast Salmon Ocean Troll Fishery (Klamath)..............12
New England Multispecies Fishery...........................13
West Coast Salmon Ocean Troll Fishery (Sacramento)...........13
Gulf of Mexico Fisheries (Hurricanes Gustav and Ike)............14
Chesapeake Bay Blue Crab.................................14
Recent Administrative Actions by NMFS......................14
Issues for Congress...............................................15
Timing of Relief..........................................15
Long-Term Management Approaches.........................16
Defining Fishery Failures...................................16
Who Benefits?...........................................17
List of Tables
Table 1. Fishery Failure Causes, Types of Assistance, and Use of Funds.......2
Table 2. Fishery Failure Declarations Since 1994 ........................6
Table 3. Assistance Provided for Commercial Fishery Resource Disasters by
Fishery Disaster and Year of Appropriation.........................7

Commercial Fishery Disaster Assistance
Introduction
Disaster relief may be provided by the federal government to assist the fishing
industry when it is affected by a commercial fishery failure. A commercial fishery
failure occurs when fishermen endure hardships resulting from fish population
declines or other disruptions to the fishery. The Department of Commerce can
provide disaster assistance under either Section 308 of the Interjurisdictional
Fisheries Act (IFA; 16 U.S.C. § 4107), as amended, or Section 312(a) of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA; 16
U.S.C § 1861(a)). The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) plays a central
role in determining whether a disaster has occurred and in allocating federal funding
to states and affected fishing communities. Congress plays a pivotal role by
appropriating funds and providing oversight of the process.
Fisheries are subject to environmental variability that may affect the fishery
resource and/or commercial infrastructure such as boats, shoreside processing, and
market channels. Since 1994, federal fishery failures have been declared on 25
occasions and nearly $730 million in federal funding has been appropriated for
fishery disaster relief. Funds have been allocated to fisheries of the North Pacific,
Pacific Northwest, Gulf of Mexico, and the East Coast. Direct financial assistance
has been provided to fishermen and fishing communities in the form of grants, job
retraining, employment, and low interest loans. Assistance has also included fishery
data collection, research, and fishing capacity reduction programs to prevent or lessen
the effects of future disruptions to fisheries. Recent cases include Gulf of Mexico
fisheries in the wake of hurricanes Gustav and Ike, the Chesapeake Bay blue crab
fishery, and the West Coast salmon troll fishery, where strict harvest limits were
imposed in response to declines of Sacramento River Chinook salmon. Several
issues related to fishery disaster relief include timing relief disbursements to meet
critical needs, integrating relief with long-term management objectives, defining and
declaring a fishery failure, and reaching people who may be in the greatest need of
relief.
Program Requirements and Procedures
The Department of Commerce can provide disaster assistance under either the
MSFCMA or the IFA.¹ Differences exist under each law with regard to the causes
of a fishery failure, and the use of funds (see Table 1). Several recent fishery failures
have been declared under both laws, providing program managers greater latitude in
matching relief with the needs of recipients.

¹ See the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Fishery Disaster Assistance
website at [http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/mb/financial_services/disaster.htm].

Table 1. Fishery Failure Causes, Types of Assistance,
and Use of Funds
Section Fishery Failure Causes Types of Assistance and Use
SectionFishery resource disaster as a result(1) assessment of the social and
312(a) of of — economic effects of the failure
MSFCMA(1) natural causes(2) assistance to the community
(2) man-made causes beyond the(3) projects to restore the fishery
control of fishery managers toor prevent reoccurrence of a
mitigate through conservation andsimilar failure
management measures, including(4) federal share of assistance
regulatory restrictions imposed tocannot be greater than 75%
protect human health or the marine
environment
(3) undetermined causes
SectionFishery resource disaster arising (1) restore a fishery affected by

308(b) offrom — a fishery failure;

IFA(1) natural causes(2) prevent a future fishery
(2) undetermined causesfailure
(3) federal share of funding is
limited to 75% of costs
SectionFishery resource disaster arising(1) direct assistance to

308(d) offrom — fishermen;

IFA(1) natural disasters such as a(2) indirect assistance through
hurricanestate agencies, local
government, and nonprofit
organizations
(3) no limit on the federal share
of costs
SectionRegional fishery disaster — (1) activities authorized under
315 of(1) results in economic losses to theeither MSFCMA or IFA
MSFCMAcoastal or fishing communities(2) the Secretary may waive
(2) affects more than one state or amatching requirements if no
major fishery managed by a Councilreasonable means are available
or interstate fishery commissionfor meeting the match and the
(3) is determined by the Secretary toprobable benefit of federal
be a commercial fishery failurefinancing outweighs the public
under § 312(a) of MSFCMA orinterest in imposing the match
fishery resource disaster under §
308(d) of IFA
MSFCMA. In 1996, MSFCMA was amended to include a new section focusing
on a transition to sustainable fisheries. This section includes Subsection 312(a) to
provide fishery disaster relief when fishery failures occur, especially for those
fisheries in need of stock rebuilding. Under Section 312(a), the process is started at
the discretion of the Secretary of Commerce, at the request of the governor of an
affected state, or at the request of a fishing community. The Secretary then

determines whether a commercial fishery failure has occurred due to a fishery
resource disaster resulting from:
^!natural causes;
^!man-made causes beyond the control of fishery managers to mitigate
through conservation and management measures, including
regulatory restrictions imposed to protect human health or the
marine environment; or
^!undetermined causes.
Requests usually contain information describing the alleged fishery failure.
Although guidelines for handling requests are not codified in rule, the Secretary
typically directs the appropriate Regional Administrator for NMFS to collect and
analyze required information such as the historical context, the biological and
economic magnitude of the disaster, and the relationship between underlying causes
and the alleged fishery failure.² Depending on the circumstances, states may provide
most of these data and the related analysis. The Secretary uses the information to
determine whether or not the situation constitutes a fishery failure. Once the
Secretary declares that a fishery failure has occurred, Congress may use the
authorization in the MSFCMA to appropriate funds for financial assistance to
harvesters and other affected parties.
After funds are appropriated, the Secretary would make relief available to the
affected state or fishing community, often through state agencies. Funding under the
MSFCMA may be used to address a broad variety of needs including assessment of
the social and economic effects of the failure, assistance to the community, and
projects to restore the fishery or prevent reoccurrence of a similar failure. Before
releasing funds, the Secretary must also determine that relief activities would not
expand the size and scope of the failure in that fishery, other fisheries, or affect
fisheries in other geographic regions. The federal share of assistance carried out
under the MSFCMA cannot be greater than 75% of the cost of relief activities.
IFA. The IFA was enacted in 1986 to distribute federal funds to states for
developing interstate fishery research programs. Under IFA, funds are authorized to
provide assistance for a commercial fishery failure in Section 308(b) and Section
308(d). Under Section 308(b), the causes of a commercial fishery failure or serious
disruption to future production due to a fishery resource disaster include natural and
undetermined causes. In Section 308(d), fishery resource disasters are referred to as
natural disasters. The definition of a fishery resource disaster appears to be broader
under the MSFCMA because human-related causes are also included. Otherwise,
the process of collecting information and determining whether a failure has occurred
is similar under both laws.
IFA funding under Section 308(b) may be used by states alone or by the
Secretary in cooperation with the states. Funding may be provided for any purpose

² NMFS Procedures and Guidance for Disaster Assistance Under Magnuson-Stevens Act
Section 312(a) and Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act Sections 308(b) and 308(d) can be found
at [http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/directives/].

the Secretary determines as appropriate to restore a fishery affected by a fishery
failure or to prevent a future fishery failure. Under Section 308(b), funds may not be
used for grants to charter fishing vessels, and the federal share of activity funding is
limited to 75% of costs. Funding under Section 308(d) of IFA may be used to
provide direct assistance to fishermen or to provide assistance indirectly through state
agencies, local government, and nonprofit organizations. In contrast to the
MSFCMA and Section 308(b) of IFA, there is no limit on the federal share of costs
under Section 308(d). Section 308(d) also outlines the conditions under which
funding may be used for other activities such as fishing capacity reduction programs.
These programs include fishing vessel buybacks, gear reduction, or fishing permit
retirement. Funding under both MSFCMA and IFA is usually appropriated by
Congress as needs arise, rather than in anticipation of future needs.
MSFCMA Regional Coastal Disaster Assistance. In 2006, MSFCMA
was amended to add Section 315 the Regional Coastal Disaster Assistance,
Transition, and Recovery Program. When a catastrophic regional fishery disaster
occurs, the Secretary may establish a regional program to provide immediate disaster
relief assistance to fishermen, charter fishing operators, U.S. fish processors, and
owners of related fishery infrastructure. A catastrophic regional fishery disaster is
defined as a natural disaster, such as a hurricane or tsunami, or a regulatory closure
to protect human health or the marine environment. A catastrophic regional fishery
disaster is an event that:
^!results in economic losses to the coastal or fishing communities;³
^!affects more than one state or a major fishery managed by a Council
or interstate fishery commission; and
^!is determined by the Secretary to be a commercial fishery failure
under Section 312(a) of MSFCMA or as a fishery resource disaster
under Section 308(d) of IFA of 1986.
Within two months after a catastrophic regional fishery disaster, the Secretary
is required to provide the governor of each participating state with a comprehensive
economic and socioeconomic evaluation of the region’s fisheries. The evaluation
would assess the current and future economic viability of affected fisheries including
the economic impact of foreign fish imports and direct, indirect, or environmental
impacts of the disaster on the fishery and coastal communities. Subject to the
availability of appropriations, the program would provide funds for infrastructure
needs, job training assistance, fishing capacity reduction, and for other activities
authorized under either MSFCMA or IFA. Under the Regional Coastal Disaster
Assistance, Transition, and Recovery Program, the Secretary may waive the matching
requirements if no reasonable means are available for meeting the match, and the

³ Eight regional Fishery Management Councils were created by the Fishery Conservation
and Management Act, later renamed the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management
Act and more recently the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
Council members are appointed by the Secretary of Commerce from lists of candidates
knowledgeable of fishery resources, provided by state governors. The councils prepare
fishery management plans (FMPs) for those fisheries that occur primarily within the federal
waters of the Exclusive Economic Zone (3-200 nautical miles from shore). Links to
individual Council websites are available at [http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/].

probable benefit of 100% federal financing outweighs the public interest in imposing
the match.
Small Business Administration. When businesses suffer economic
injuries from a disaster, the Small Business Administration (SBA) may also
determine whether a disaster declaration is warranted.⁴ For example, when red tide
required closure of the Maine shellfish fishery in 2005, SBA evaluated the impact on
small businesses and determined a disaster declaration was justified. The declaration⁵
makes affected businesses eligible for Economic Injury Disaster Loans. The purpose
of the loan program is to provide working capital at low interest rates to assist in the
recovery of businesses harmed by a disaster.
Fishery Disaster Declarations
Since 1994, the Secretary of Commerce has declared 25 fishery resource
disasters. During this period Congress has appropriated nearly $730 million for
fishery disaster relief. Table 2 provides a list of fishery disasters and funds
appropriated by Congress for each.
Fishery resource disasters are diverse, both with respect to their causes and
scope. Most declarations have resulted from natural events such as hurricanes,
floods, changes in ocean conditions, or algal blooms such as red tide. In coastal areas
hurricanes may damage fishing industry infrastructure such as vessels, docks, fish
houses, and related businesses. Even if the resource remains abundant, harvesting,
processing, and transport to markets may not be possible until repairs are undertaken
and basic services are restored. In addition to the costs of repairs and the replacement
of equipment and gear, lost fishing time can also be costly. The fishery resource may
also be directly affected if, in addition to damaged infrastructure, hurricanes cause
damage to oyster beds from silt and debris. Algal blooms such as red tide are another
type of natural event that can render seafood toxic and result in fishery closures.
Under these conditions, fishermen may be completely shut down for months until
toxin levels in shellfish decline to acceptable levels.
Declines in fishery resource abundance may result from several factors, such as
natural environmental variations, human effects on the environment, and overfishing.
Salmon fisheries are sensitive to natural changes in oceanic conditions. Salmon
abundance has also been affected where dams, irrigation, grazing, mining, and
forestry practices have degraded salmon habitat, especially for salmon populations
in the Pacific Northwest. Overfishing has also contributed to fish population declines
in several resource disaster cases such as the New England multispecies fishery and
the Pacific groundfish fishery. In these cases, fish abundance decreased significantly
and stock rebuilding has required substantial decreases in harvest.

⁴ For SBA purposes, disasters may also be declared by the President, state governor,
Secretary of Agriculture, or Secretary of Commerce.
⁵ For information concerning SBA Economic Injury Disaster Loans, see [http://www.sba.
gov/services/disasterassistance/index.html]. Also see CRS Report RL33243, Small Business
Administration: A Primer on Programs, by N. Eric Weiss.

Table 2. Fishery Failure Declarations Since 1994
Fishery or RegionAuthorityDeclared Appropriation
New England Multispecies I IFA 308(b)3/18/94$86.8 million^a
Northwest Salmon Fisheries IIFA 308(d)5/26/94$12 million
Gulf of Mexico Hurricanes IFA 308(d)8/2/95$15 million
New England Multispecies IIIFA 308(d)8/12/95$26 million
Northwest Salmon Fisheries IIIFA 308(d)8/2/95$13 million
Bristol Bay/Kuskokwim River (AK)MSA 312(a)11/5/97$7 million
Gulf of Mexico Flooding EventsMSA 312(a)8/7/98$3.5 million
Northwest Salmon Fisheries IIIMSA 312(a)8/7/98$3.5 million
Bristol Bay/Kuskokwim River (AK) MSA 312(a)9/9/98$50 million
Florida Trap FisheriesMSA 312(a)9/20/99$4.8 million
North Carolina FisheriesMSA 312(a)9/22/99$6 million
Long Island Sound Lobster MSA 312(a)2/4/00$13.9 million
West Coast Groundfish FisheriesMSA 312(a)2/4/00$5 million
Bering Sea Alaska Snow CrabMSA 312(a)5/11/00$10 million
Alaska Salmon (Norton Sound)IFA 308(b)8/4/00$15 million
MSA 312(a)$7.5 million
Fraser River/Lummi Indian SalmonMSA 312(a)11/13/02None to date
Georgia Blue CrabMSA 312(a)5/8/03None to date
Red Tide (Massachusetts)MSA 312(a)6/16/05$2.5 million
Red Tide (Maine)MSA 312(a)6/23/05$2 million
Gulf of Mexico Fisheries (Katrina^bMSA 312(a)9/9/05$128 million
and Rita)IFA 308(d)10/4/05$110 million
Klamath river Basin (Salmon)IFA 308(b)8/10/06$60.4 million
MSA 312(a)
Sacramento River (Troll salmon)IFA 308(b)5/1/08$170 million
MSA 312(a)
Gulf of Mexico (Gustav and Ike)IFA 308(d)9/17/08None to date
Chesapeake Bay Blue CrabMSA 312(a)9/23/08None to date
^Source:^A^d^{apted f}^r^om^th^{e NOA}^A^,^Of^fⁱ^ce^of^Man^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^an^{d B}^u^dg^{et, Fis}^h^ery^Dis^a^s^t^{er A}^s^sⁱ^s^t^an^ce
^W^e^b^p^a^g^e^,^[^h^t^t^p^:^/^/^www.ⁿ^m^f^s^.ⁿ^o^a^a^.^g^o^v^/^mb^/^fⁱⁿ^aⁿ^cⁱ^a^l^_^s^e^r^vⁱ^c^e^s^/^dⁱ^s^a^s^t^e^r^.^h^t^m]^.
^{a. F}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^w^a^s^{appropriated on}^s^e^v^e^{ral dif}^f^e^ren^t^occas^ion^s^f^r^om^{1994 to 1999.}
^{b. F}ⁱ^s^h^ery^f^aⁱ^l^u^res^f^o^{r bot}^h^h^u^r^ri^can^es^w^e^re^decl^ared^uⁿ^d^er^{§ 312(a) of}^t^h^{e MS}^F^C^MA^an^{d § 308(d)}
^of^t^h^{e IF}^A^.

Funds for disaster assistance have been used for a wide variety of purposes, and
may include direct assistance to fishermen such as:
^! com p ensat i on;
^!community grants;
^! training;
^!loans and debt refinancing; and
^!employment on fishery related projects.
Other forms of indirect fishery-related assistance have included fishing capacity
reduction (vessel, permit, and gear buybacks), formation of a fisheries research trust,
economic planning grants, and research grants. Table 3 summarizes funding and
activities by fishery or disaster event for fishing disaster declarations.
Table 3. Assistance Provided for Commercial Fishery Resource
Disasters by Fishery Disaster and Year of Appropriation
^New^Eⁿ^{gland M}^u^ltis^pecies
^{1994 — $30 m}^illion.^A^s^sⁱ^s^t^an^{ce: f}ⁱ^s^hⁱⁿ^gⁱⁿ^du^s^t^ry^g^r^an^ts^th^{at in}^clu^d^{ed em}^ploy^m^eⁿ^t^f^o^r
^fⁱ^s^h^erm^eⁿ^(trainⁱⁿ^g^,ⁿ^e^w^bu^sⁱⁿ^e^s^s^opportuⁿ^ities^,^aqu^acu^ltu^{re, m}^a^rk^etin^g^,^an^{d by}^-^catch
^redu^ction⁾^{, dem}^oⁿ^s^tration^bu^y^b^ack^prog^ram^,^loan^prog^ram^,^an^{d f}^a^m^ily^as^sⁱ^s^t^an^{ce cen}^ters^.
^{1995 — $25 m}^illion.^A^s^sⁱ^s^t^an^{ce: v}^e^s^s^e^{l bu}^y^b^ack^{, adm}ⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ration^,^an^{d f}ⁱ^s^h^erm^aⁿ^h^ealth
^prog^ram^.
^{1999 — $6.8 m}^illion.^C^oⁿ^tⁱⁿ^u^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^f^r^om^{1994 f}^aⁱ^l^u^{re w}ⁱ^t^h^as^sⁱ^s^t^an^{ce t}^h^atⁱⁿ^cl^u^d^ed
^com^p^en^s^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^f^o^{r l}^o^s^t^fⁱ^s^hⁱⁿ^g^tⁱ^m^{e an}^{d cooperat}ⁱ^v^{e res}^earch^.
^{2000 — $25 m}^illion.^C^oⁿ^tⁱⁿ^u^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^f^r^om^{1994 f}^aⁱ^l^u^{re w}ⁱ^t^h^as^sⁱ^s^t^an^{ce t}^h^atⁱⁿ^cl^u^d^{ed perm}ⁱ^t
^bu^y^b^ack^an^{d cooperat}ⁱ^v^{e res}^earch^.
^{2001 — $1 m}^illion.^C^oⁿ^tⁱⁿ^u^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^f^r^om^{1995 of}^t^h^{e f}ⁱ^s^h^erm^aⁿ^h^eal^t^h^prog^ram^.
^{2008 — $13.4}^m^illion^(dis^as^{ter n}^o^{t declared). A}^s^sⁱ^s^t^an^{ce: f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^{r f}ⁱ^s^h^erm^eⁿ^,^fⁱ^s^hⁱⁿ^g
^b^u^sine^sse^s,^aⁿ^d^a^he^a^{lth insur}^a^nc^e^p^r^o^g^r^a^m^.
^{Pacific Northw}^es^{t Salm}^on
^{1994 — $12 m}^illion.^A^s^sⁱ^s^t^an^ce:^fⁱ^s^hⁱⁿ^g^permⁱ^t^bu^y^b^ack^{, h}^a^bi^t^a^t^res^t^oratⁱ^oⁿ^j^obs^{, an}^{d dat}^a
^co^llectioⁿ^j^o^b^s^.
^{1995 — $13 m}^illion.^A^s^sⁱ^s^t^an^ce:^fⁱ^s^hⁱⁿ^g^permⁱ^t^bu^y^b^ack^{, h}^a^bi^t^a^t^res^t^oratⁱ^oⁿ^j^obs^{, an}^{d dat}^a
^co^llectioⁿ^j^o^b^s^.
^{1998 — $3.5 m}^illion.^A^s^sⁱ^s^t^an^{ce: f}ⁱ^s^hⁱⁿ^g^bu^y^b^ack^prog^ram^.
^{2007 — $60.4}^m^illion⁽^K^lam^a^th^Riv^e^r^-^r^e^lated⁾^{. A}^ssistan^{ce: d}ⁱ^r^{ect p}^a^y^m^en^{ts to}^fⁱ^sh^er^m^eⁿ^f^o^r
^b^u^sine^{ss e}^x^p^e^nse^s^.
^{2008 — $100}^m^illion^{($170 m}^illion^{total). A}^s^sⁱ^s^t^an^{ce: di}^{rect pay}^m^en^ts^{to com}^m^e^{rcial an}^d
^recreation^a^{l ch}^{arter f}ⁱ^s^h^erm^eⁿ^.
^G^u^{lf of M}^e^xⁱ^{co Hurricanes}
^{1995 — $15}^m^illion^(h^u^r^ri^can^es^an^{d t}^r^opi^cal^s^t^orm^s^f^r^om^1992-^{1995). A}^s^sⁱ^s^t^an^ce:
^com^p^en^s^a^tion^{to f}ⁱ^s^h^erm^eⁿ^,^Gu^lf^s^t^ates^f^o^{r re}^s^earch^an^{d h}^a^{bitat res}^t^oration⁽ⁱⁿ^s^h^o^{re licen}^s^e
^bu^y^b^ack^T^X^an^{d cooperat}ⁱ^v^{e res}^earch^L^A^).
^{2006 — $128 m}^illion.^A^ssistan^{ce: r}^e^h^a^b^ilitatin^g^o^y^ster^b^e^d^s^an^d^sh^rⁱ^m^p^g^r^o^uⁿ^d^{s, r}^e^seedⁱⁿ^g^,
^reh^a^bilitatin^g^,^an^{d s}^t^orin^g^oy^s^t^{er reef}^s^,^an^{d cooperativ}^{e res}^earch^an^{d m}^oⁿ^itorin^g^.
^{2007 — $110 m}^illion.^A^s^sⁱ^s^t^an^{ce s}ⁱ^mⁱ^l^a^{r t}^o^{2006 f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^.

^A^l^as^k^a^S^a^l^m^on
^{1998 — $7}^m^illion^(B^ris^t^{ol B}^a^y^/^Ku^s^k^ok^wⁱ^m^Rⁱ^v^e^{r). A}^s^sⁱ^s^t^an^{ce: com}^m^uⁿ^ity^g^r^an^ts^{, loan}
^prog^ram^,^econ^o^mⁱ^{c plan}ⁿⁱⁿ^g^g^r^an^ts^{, an}^{d f}ⁱ^s^h^eries^res^earch^{, edu}^cation^,^an^{d train}ⁱⁿ^g^g^r^an^ts^.
^{1999 — $50 m}^illion⁽^B^rⁱ^st^o^l^B^a^y^/^K^u^sko^k^wⁱ^m^Ri^ve^r^/^Y^uko^{n Ri}^ve^r⁾^.^A^ssi^st^aⁿ^c^e^:^e^m^e^r^ge^nc^y
^assistan^{ce to}^af^f^ected^f^a^m^{ilies, d}ⁱ^r^{ect lo}^an^{s, co}^m^m^uⁿ^ity^d^e^v^e^lo^p^m^en^{t activ}^ities.
^{2000 — $15}^m^illion⁽^N^o^r^t^o^{n So}^und^/^K^usko^kwⁱ^m^/^Y^uko^{n Ri}^ve^r⁾^.^A^ssi^st^aⁿ^c^e^:^e^c^o^no^mⁱ^c
^dev^e^l^opm^en^t^an^{d l}^o^an^s^.
^{2001 — $7.5}^m^illion⁽^N^o^r^t^o^{n So}^und^/^K^usko^kwⁱ^m^/^Y^uko^{n Ri}^ve^r⁾^.^A^ssi^st^aⁿ^c^e^:^e^c^o^no^mⁱ^c
^dev^e^l^opm^en^t^an^{d l}^o^an^s^.
^G^u^l^f^{of M}^e^xⁱ^{co Fl}^oodⁱⁿ^g
^{1997 — $3.5 m}^illion.^A^s^sⁱ^s^t^an^{ce: res}^earch^an^{d data collection}^.
^Fl^ori^d^{a T}^r^ap^Fi^s^h^ery
^{2000 — $ 4.8 m}^illion.^A^s^sⁱ^s^t^an^{ce: direct as}^sⁱ^s^t^an^{ce to f}ⁱ^s^h^erm^eⁿ^,^bu^y^b^ack^{trap certif}^icates^,
^r^e^tr^iev^e^lo^{st tr}^ap^{s an}^d^d^e^b^r^{is, an}^d^r^e^sear^ch^oⁿ^g^oⁱⁿ^g^tr^ap^r^e^d^u^ctioⁿ^p^r^o^g^r^a^m^.
^{North Carolina Fis}^h^eries
^{2000 — $6 m}^illion.^A^s^sⁱ^s^t^an^ce:^di^rect^econ^o^mⁱ^{c rel}ⁱ^e^f^t^o^s^eaf^{ood deal}^ers^,^ch^art^e^{r an}^{d h}^ead
^b^o^a^{ts an}^d^co^m^m^e^r^c^{ial f}ⁱ^shⁱⁿ^g^pⁱ^er^{s, r}^e^sear^ch^an^d^r^e^so^u^r^{ce assessm}^en^{t, an}^d^m^itig^atioⁿ^o^f^o^y^ster
^l^o^sse^{s b}^y^e^nha^ncⁱ^{ng ha}^bⁱ^t^a^t^.
^Lo^ng^Isla^{nd So}^{und Lo}^bst^{er F}ⁱ^shery
^{2000 — $13.9 m}^illion.^A^s^sⁱ^s^t^an^{ce: econ}^o^mⁱ^{c com}^p^en^s^a^tion^,^{trap tag}^bu^y^b^ack^{, j}^{ob train}ⁱⁿ^g^,
^sm^a^{ll b}^u^sine^{ss d}^e^ve^lo^p^m^eⁿ^t,^inte^r^e^{st sub}^s^id^y^lo^aⁿ^s,^aⁿ^d^r^e^se^a^r^c^h^oⁿ^c^a^u^se^{s o}^f^the^dⁱ^sa^ste^r^.
^West^Co^a^s^t^G^r^o^undf^{ish F}ⁱ^sheries
^{2000 — $5 m}^illion.^A^s^sⁱ^s^t^an^{ce: com}^p^en^s^a^tion^{to in}^divⁱ^du^als^,^prov^{ided direct s}^u^s^t^ainⁱⁿ^g^{aid to}
^fⁱ^sh^er^m^eⁿ^,^an^d^assistan^{ce to}^r^e^so^u^r^{ce d}^e^p^eⁿ^d^en^{t co}^m^m^uⁿ^ities.
^B^ering^Sea^Ala^s^k^a^Sno^w^Cra^b
^{2000 — $10 m}^illion.^A^s^sⁱ^s^t^an^{ce: com}^m^uⁿ^ity^an^{d econ}^o^mⁱ^{c dev}^e^lopm^en^{t, B}^e^rin^g^Sea
^ecos^y^s^t^em^res^earch^{, an}^{d cooperat}ⁱ^v^{e res}^earch^.
^{Red Tide (}^M^a^ssa^chuset^t^s^a^{nd M}^a^ine)
^{2006 — $5 m}^illion.^A^s^sⁱ^s^t^an^{ce: pay}^com^p^en^s^a^tion^{to in}^divⁱ^du^als^an^{d m}^aⁿ^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^(res^earch
^aⁿ^d^m^oⁿⁱ^t^o^rⁱ^ng)^.
^G^e^orgi^{a Bl}^u^e^C^r^ab
^D^ecl^aratⁱ^oⁿ^m^a^{de i}ⁿ^{2003 bu}^tⁿ^o^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^h^a^s^been^provⁱ^d^ed.
^Fras^{er R}ⁱ^ver/^L^u^m^mⁱ^Iⁿ^dⁱ^an^Fi^s^h^{ery (S}^ock^e^{ye s}^a^l^m^on⁾
^D^ecl^aratⁱ^oⁿ^m^a^{de i}ⁿ^{2002 bu}^tⁿ^o^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^h^a^s^been^provⁱ^d^ed.
^Source:^A^d^{apted f}^r^om^th^e^Nation^a^l^Ocean^ic^an^{d A}^t^m^o^s^p^h^e^{ric A}^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ration^,^Of^fⁱ^{ce of}^Man^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t
^aⁿ^d^B^u^d^g^e^t^,^Fⁱ^s^h^e^r^y^Dⁱ^s^a^s^t^e^r^As^sⁱ^s^t^aⁿ^c^e^W^e^b^p^a^g^e^,^[^h^t^t^p^:^/^/^www.ⁿ^m^f^s^.ⁿ^o^a^a^.^g^o^v^/^mb^/^fⁱⁿ^aⁿ^cⁱ^a^l^_^s^e^r^vⁱ^c^e^s^/
^dⁱ^sa^ste^r^.^h^tm^]^.

State Role. States are frequently an active partner throughout the process,
from requesting the Secretary of Commerce to declare a fishery failure and providing
related data to disbursing relief to fishermen and related businesses. Relief funding
is often provided directly to states, or in cases of regional disasters through regional
commissions such as the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. For example,
in 2007, distribution of Oregon salmon troll fishery relief was planned and
coordinated by the state Department of Agriculture in cooperation with related
agencies and nonprofit organizations such as the Oregon Salmon Commission. In
addition to matching funds, state government may also provide funding when federal
funds are not available, although historically such funding has been limited.
Fishing Capacity Reduction Programs
Many U.S. fisheries are overcapitalized — investments in fishing capacity are
greater than that needed to harvest the fishery resource on a sustainable basis. When
fishery resources decline precipitously, as in the case of a fishery failure, effects on
the fishing industry are likely to be greater when there is excess fishing capacity
operating in the fishery. First, when excess fishing capacity exists, overfishing often
occurs and management goals are likely to involve rebuilding of fish populations.
During rebuilding, the fishery is likely to be highly regulated with relatively low
allowable harvests. Second, since many fisheries are already overcapitalized and
fully exploited, there are few alternative fishing opportunities. Finally, the financial
effects of any fishery failure are likely to be greater when there is overcapacity
because of the larger number and/or size of vessels and associated crew participating
in the fishery.
Fishing capacity reduction, often referred to as buyback programs, has been a
prominent feature of several disaster relief programs. Capacity reduction is usually
accomplished through the direct purchase of fishing vessels, gear, and/or fishing⁶
permits. The use and funding of capacity reduction are discussed in Section 312(b)
of the MSFCMA and Section 308(d) of the IFA.
The general objectives of buyback programs are to provide immediate relief to
fishermen, decrease the level of fishing effort to improve the profitability of the
remaining fishing fleet, and conserve the resource. The effectiveness of buyback
programs in reducing fishing capacity depends on whether the remaining fishermen
have the incentive to continue investing in boats and gear. Often there is also
“latent” fishing effort — boats and gear with permits to fish that are inactive or only
marginally utilized in the fishery. The exit of some vessels may encourage this
latent fishing effort (vessels) to re-enter the fishery, resulting in little or no net
reduction in fishing capacity. Furthermore, the first to accept buybacks may be the
least efficient vessels in the fleet. This results in fleet reductions that are relatively
modest yet expensive because only the oldest and least efficient units are taken out
of production.

⁶ See CRS Report 97-441 ENR, Commercial Fishing: Economic Aid and Capacity
Reduction, by Andrew Read and Eugene H. Buck.

Although capacity reduction programs attempt to provide long-term benefits to
those who decide to remain in the fishery, poorly crafted programs may result in little
or no benefit at the expense of taxpayers. Although a means to ease financial
hardship caused by a fishing disaster, lasting benefits may depend on better
recognition of the motivations of vessel owners and fishermen.
Recent Actions by NOAA and Congress
The following summaries include fishery disaster declarations since 2005, the
most recent of which address Gulf of Mexico fisheries affected by hurricanes Gustav
and Ike and the Chesapeake Bay soft shell crab fishery. The most recent funding for
fishery disaster assistance is $75 million included in the Consolidated Security,
Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 110-329). These
funds are reserved for fishery resource disasters that have been declared by the
Secretary of Commerce under the IFA and the MSFCMA. Unlike in most recent
cases, specific fishery disasters were not identified for funding, although the fisheries
identified by two most recent declarations (Gulf of Mexico fishing industry and the
Chesapeake Bay blue crab fishery) are potential recipients.
Gulf of Mexico Fisheries (Hurricanes Katrina and Rita). In the wake
of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, Gulf of Mexico harvesting and shoreside fishery
infrastructure were damaged or in some cases completely destroyed. On September
9, 2005, Commerce Secretary Gutierrez announced a formal determination of a
fishery failure in the Gulf of Mexico resulting from the effects of Hurricane Katrina.
On October 4, 2005, Secretary Gutierrez announced a formal determination of an
additional fishery failure in Louisiana and Texas due to the effects of Hurricane Rita.
The immediate effects of the fishery failure were difficult to discern because of
the broad geographic area affected by the hurricanes and the substantial damage to
infrastructure such as ports, processing, and general access to markets. In 2004, Gulf
of Mexico annual landings of major fisheries including shrimp, finfish, and oysters⁷
totaled 1.476 billion pounds with a dockside value of $669 million. In the areas
initially affected by Katrina there were 15 major fishing ports, 177 seafood
processing facilities, 1,816 federally permitted fishing vessels, and more than 13,000
state-permitted fishing vessels.⁸ Private recreational fishing boats, charter boats, and
related infrastructure were also extensively damaged.
The Fisheries and Oceans Subcommittee of the House Committee on Resources
held a hearing on December 15, 2005, to assess the impacts of hurricanes Katrina and⁹
Rita on Gulf of Mexico fishery resources, industry, and communities. In response

⁷ U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries of the United
States, 2005, Current Fishery Statistics No. 2005 (Washington, DC: February 2007), p. 6.
⁸ For more background information on initial damages and recovery, see CRS Report
RS22241, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita: Fishing and Aquaculture Industries — Damage and
Recovery, by Eugene H. Buck.
⁹ The name of the House Committee on Resources was changed at the beginning of the 110^th
(continued...)

to questions concerning the magnitude of damages, the Assistant Administrator of
NMFS stated that $1.2 billion might be needed to assist the recovery of the fishing
industry.¹⁰ Further refinement of estimates from Gulf states and the Administration
were requested by several subcommittee members. Another general concern voiced
at the hearing was the need for timely funding focused on the fishing industry.
Several federal reports regarding hurricane impacts on Gulf of Mexico fisheries
have been released since the December 2005 hearing. NMFS released, “Report to
Congress on the Impacts of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma on Alabama,
Louisiana, Florida, Mississippi, and Texas Fisheries,” in July 2007.¹¹ This report
describes fishery conditions before and after the 2005 hurricane season and also
describes other trends affecting the fishing industry such as rising costs and seafood
imports. A second report, “Economic Damages to Infrastructure Incurred by
Louisiana Fishing Industries Due to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005” was also
released in July 2007. This report estimated fisheries losses of $582 million in
Louisiana and $988 million for the entire Gulf of Mexico.¹² Both reports stressed
that estimates should be conditioned on data and methods used in each state, factors
influencing fisheries, and uncertainties related to the rate of recovery from storm
damage.
On June 15, 2006, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for
Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006, (P.L. 109-234)
was enacted. It allocated $128 million to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) “Operations, Research, and Facilities” account for expenses
related to Hurricane Katrina.¹³ General areas identified for funding included
scanning, mapping, and coordinating marine debris removal, rehabilitating oyster
beds and shrimp grounds, undertaking cooperative research to monitor the recovery
of Gulf fisheries, and assisting fishermen to recover from economic impacts. On
May 25, 2007, The U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and
Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007, (P.L. 110-28) was enacted. Funding
allocated to the NOAA “Operations, Research, and Facilities” account totaled $110
million for impacts of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on the shrimp and fishing
industries.
The Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, through a cooperative agreement
with NOAA, administers and coordinates funding of recovery programs through

⁹ (...continued)
Congress to the House Committee on Natural Resources and the Subcommittee on Fisheries
and Oceans was changed to the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans.
¹⁰ The Assistant Administrator also referred to potential buyouts and other needs to
restructure the industry because of Gulf of Mexico fishing fleet overcapacity.
¹¹ The report is available at [http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/msa2007/docs/Fisheries_Report_
Final.pdf].
¹² R. H. Caffey et al., “Economic Damages to Infrastructure Incurred by Louisiana Fishing
Industries Due to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005,” Report to the U.S. Department of
Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (July 2007), pp. 86-88.
¹³ The measure included $90 million plus a $38 million transfer from the United States
Department of Agriculture that was to be used for improving oyster grounds.

grant agreements with each of the Gulf states. Funds appropriated in 2006 are being
used to restore damaged oyster beds, to remove debris, to restore fishery habitat, and
to support cooperative research. Funds appropriated in 2007 are being used to assist
individual commercial fishermen, other fishing industry businesses, and resource
management agencies to promote Gulf fishery products.
West Coast Salmon Ocean Troll Fishery (Klamath). On July 6, 2006,
a fishery failure was declared for the West Coast ocean troll salmon fishery. Chinook
salmon stocks that spawn in California and Oregon rivers intermingle in the ocean
and are harvested together off the coasts of these states. Klamath River fall Chinook¹⁴
salmon is a key stock with respect to both landings and regulation of the fishery.
The ocean troll salmon fishing season between Cape Falcon, Oregon, and Point
Sur, California, was strictly limited during the 2006 season.¹⁵ From 2001 to 2005,
drought conditions in the upper Klamath Basin resulted in very low flow conditions
in the Klamath River and its tributaries. Low flows likely contributed to substantial
mortality of juvenile and adult Chinook salmon by creating an environment in which
Chinook salmon become more susceptible to endemic diseases. Returns of Klamath
River fall Chinook fell below 35,000, the regulatory floor set for any one year, in
2004 and 2005, and the 2006 run size was projected to be approximately 25,000. As
a result of the anticipated low spawning return, the Pacific Fishery Management
Council (PFMC) recommended, and NOAA issued, a Temporary Rule for
Emergency Action to strictly curtail the troll salmon fishery off Oregon and
California from May 1, 2006, to August 31, 2006. Although a complete closure of
the fishery was avoided, landings decreased in 2006 by 81% when compared to the
average of the preceding five years.
The Governors of Oregon and California requested action based on the 2006
forecast of Klamath River fall Chinook salmon returns and the actions taken in the
spring of 2006 by the PFMC and NMFS. Since the PFMC developed the 2006
season regulations in the spring of 2006, the likely effects of the curtailed fishery
were anticipated before the actual losses were realized. Fishermen and others
associated with the fishing industry were concerned that aid to fishing communities
might be delayed. On July 6, 2006, the Secretary of Commerce declared a fishery
resource disaster under Section 308(b) of the IFA, and on August 10, 2006, under
Section 312(a) of the MSFCMA. Fishing industry concerns increased during the fall
of 2006 and spring of 2007 when no federal funding was provided. In May 2007, the
U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability

¹⁴ The conservation objectives under the Pacific Fishery Management Council’s (PFMC)
Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery Management Plan require returns of 33-34% of potential adult
natural spawners and no fewer than 35,000 naturally spawning adults to the Klamath River.
When the stock is projected to fall below this level, PFMC is required to recommend a
closure of the salmon fisheries within its jurisdiction that harvest Klamath River fall
Chinook salmon.
¹⁵ From 2001 to 2005, the dressed weight of Oregon and California troll salmon landings
averaged 8.025 million pounds, but in 2006 landings dropped to 1.529 million pounds. For
West coast troll salmon fishery statistics, see [http://www.pcouncil.org/salmon/salblue
book/salbluebook.html ].

Appropriations Act, 2007, (P.L. 110-28) allocated $60.4 million to the NOAA
“Operations, Research, and Facilities” account to be distributed among eligible
recipients affected by the commercial fishery failure. Assistance is being distributed
by the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission to Oregon and California
fishermen and Indian tribes that rely on salmon. Oregon salmon troll fishery landings
and revenue improved only slightly during the 2007 season.
New England Multispecies Fishery. In 2007, the governors of Maine,
Massachusetts, and Rhode Island requested that the Secretary of Commerce declare
a fishery failure for the Northeast Multispecies (groundfish) fishery. They cited
economic hardships endured by New England fishermen because of restrictive
fishery regulations for groundfish species such as cod. In October 2007, NMFS
responded that revenue declines in Maine and Massachusetts were not sufficient to
warrant a commercial fishery failure. NMFS cited increases in 14 of 18 groundfish
stocks in the most recent stock assessment and total fishery revenue increases for
some ports during the last year. Industry representatives responded that a disaster
was declared 13 years ago when fish landings were more than twice as high as in
2007. The actual biological and economic impacts cited by NMFS and industry
sources differ depending on the time period used, species considered, and fishing
port.
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 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The Secretary
did not change his decision. However, the omnibus spending bill passed on
December 17, 2007, included $13.4 million in the NOAA budget for the
Massachusetts multispecies fishery. The funding was provided to lessen the
economic impacts associated with New England Fishery Management Council’s¹⁶
Framework 42 of Amendment 13 to the Multispecies Fishery Management Plan.
In August 2008, Massachusetts Governor Patrick announced the disbursement of
$11.3 million to Massachusetts fishermen and fishing businesses, $750,000 for crew
members, $630,000 for a health insurance program for crew members, and $700,000
to cover administrative fees. Concerns have been raised because fishermen in New
Hampshire and Maine who face similar economic hardships are not eligible for
Massachusetts funding.
West Coast Salmon Ocean Troll Fishery (Sacramento). On April 10,
2008, the Pacific Fishery Management Council adopted a complete closure of
commercial and sport fisheries off California and most of Oregon in response to the
collapse of the Sacramento River fall Chinook salmon run. The minimum
conservation goal for Sacramento fall Chinook is 122,000 to 180,000 spawning

¹⁶ The primary purpose of Framework 42 of Amendment 13 to the Multispecies Fishery
Management Plan is to establish a biennial adjustment process to review the fishery
periodically and recommend changes to management measures necessary to end overfishing
and rebuild stocks.

salmon,¹⁷ while as recently as 2002, 775,000 adults returned to spawn.¹⁸ Even with
ocean fishery closures, the 2008 returns of Sacramento fall Chinook were projected
to be 54,000 fish. The cause of the decline is uncertain, although the National
Marine Fisheries Service has suggested that changes in ocean conditions such as
unfavorable shifts in ocean temperature and related lack of food for juvenile salmon
is a likely cause.
On May 1, 2008, in response to requests by the governors of California, Oregon,
and Washington, the Secretary of Commerce declared a commercial fishery failure
for the West Coast salmon fishery. Congress provided $170 million in disaster funds
in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (P.L.110-246) for commercial
and recreational fishermen who were affected by the fishery failure. As of September
2008, $100 million has been released to the Pacific States Marine Fishery
Commission to be distributed as relief to commercial fishermen, processors, charter
boat operators, recreational guides, and other businesses dependent on fishing.
Gulf of Mexico Fisheries (Hurricanes Gustav and Ike). On September
17, 2008, Commerce Secretary Gutierrez determined that Hurricanes Gustav and Ike
had caused a fishery resource disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. The determination
authorized assistance to fishermen under the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act and
made fishing businesses eligible for Small Business Administration loans.
Commercial fishing in the affected areas of Louisiana and Texas consists mostly of
shrimp, finfish, and oyster harvests. NOAA is working with the region to assess
impacts on the commercial fishing industry, including damage to fishing ports and
seafood processing facilities.
Chesapeake Bay Blue Crab. On September 23, 2008, Secretary Gutierrez
determined that a commercial fishery failure for the soft shell blue crab fishery¹⁹ of
the Chesapeake Bay had occurred under § 312(a) of the MSFCMA. The blue crab
population has declined since the 1990s, with a 41% decline in the value of soft shell
blue crabs landings in Maryland and Virginia. Although the cause is uncertain,
factors contributing to the blue crab population decline are likely to include
deteriorating water quality, loss of habitat, and overfishing.²⁰ Maryland and Virginia
adopted new commercial and recreational regulations for 2008 to shorten the season
in both states, limit the harvest of female crabs in Maryland, and close the winter
dredge fishery in Virginia. The fishery failure determination was made in response
to requests by the governors of Virginia and Maryland based on the decline of the
resource and the importance of this fishery to Chesapeake Bay communities and the
regional economy.
Recent Administrative Actions by NMFS. In 2007, NMFS began
developing regulations related to definitions, procedures, and provisions of § 312(a)

¹⁷ The number of salmon needed to return to the river to sustain this salmon population.
¹⁸ For Pacific salmon fishery management information, see [http://www.pcouncil.org/].
¹⁹ Blue crab are harvested at three stages — as hard crab, as peeler crabs (just prior to
molting), and as soft shell crabs (immediately after molting).
²⁰ See [http://www.dnr.state.md.us/fisheries/regulations/bluecrabproposedregulations.html]

and § 315 of the MSFCMA and § 308(b) and § 308(d) of the IFA.²¹ As an initial step
NMFS solicited information regarding all aspects of fisheries disaster assistance
from the general public, fishing industry, scientific community, coastal communities,
and federal and state resource agencies. A partial list of topics identified by NMFS
includes:
^!defining terms such as commercial fisheries failure, fishery resource,
and fishery resource disaster;
^!determining the degree to which those engaged in a fishery suffer
economic hardship;
^!defining the characteristics or parameters of a fishery resource
disaster, the end date of a disaster, and the information required to
request a fishery failure or disaster determination; and
^!delineating the scope of biological and economic data to be
reviewed.
NMFS plans to use public input to determine which issues need to be addressed
in developing a proposed rule and ultimately a final rule.
Issues for Congress
Commercial fisheries are strongly influenced by environmental conditions that
may affect industry infrastructure or the abundance and distribution of the fishery
resource. These changes often take place suddenly; in the case of hurricanes and
harmful algal blooms within a fishing season with little or no warning. Disaster
relief programs may help save businesses that have been devastated and can address
severe economic fluctuations by providing assistance until conditions return to
“normal.” Several concerns have emerged that relate to the nature of commercial
fisheries and disaster relief programs, including (1) timing relief to meet crucial
needs, (2) relating disaster relief to long-term fisheries management, (3) defining a
fishery failure, and (4) determining the beneficiaries of relief.
Timing of Relief. The timeliness of disaster relief is a concern because relief
funds are seldom appropriated in anticipation of disasters. First, information
regarding the scope of the disaster usually needs to be compiled by the fishing
industry, state and local governments, and NMFS. Difficulties in concluding this
task can be compounded by the lack of data and readily available economic studies.
In cases such as Hurricane Katrina, it was immediately clear that a disaster had
occurred, and the Secretary made a determination within two weeks of the landfall
of Hurricane Katrina. Although the full dimensions of the disaster and the level and
scope of resource needs remained uncertain for months after the disaster, many have
asserted that some basic aid should have been provided to members of the fishing
industry immediately after the disaster.

²¹ NMFS Procedures and Guidance for Disaster Assistance Under Magnuson-Stevens Act
312(a) and Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act 308(b) and 308(d) can be found at
[http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ directives/].

For the West Coast troll salmon fishery in 2006, immediate questions revolved
around whether a resource disaster would occur. Background information, fishery
landings, and economic data were needed for the Secretary to make a determination.
Managers and participants were aware of the impending fishery closure before
regulations were adopted because the poor condition of the Klamath River Chinook
salmon stock was well documented. Even after regulations were adopted, some
questioned whether a fishery failure could be declared before the season started and
the fishing industry had actually been harmed.
After a fishery failure is declared, funding is dependent on appropriations by
Congress. Given the timing of appropriations bills and congressional schedules, it
can be difficult to appropriate funding in a timely manner. Hurricane Katrina and
Hurricane Rita fishery disaster funding was appropriated in June 2006, more than
nine months after the Gulf fishery failure was declared in September 2005. Many in
the industry asserted that the greatest need occurred immediately after the hurricanes,
when infrastructure, vessels, gear, and markets were lost to fishermen and other
industry participants. The West Coast troll salmon fishery was declared a fishery
failure in the summer of 2006, but funding was not appropriated until May 2007.
In the short-term, many fishing industry participants believe that the most
pressing concern should involve getting relief to those individuals and businesses
most directly and immediately affected by the fishery failure. For these needs, some
have advocated establishing a disaster fund with funding appropriated in advance that
could provide assistance on short notice. In 2008, Congress moved in this direction
by appropriating $75 million for fishery disasters in the Consolidated Security,
Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009 (P.L. 110-329).
Long-Term Management Approaches. Often direct or indirect assistance
to the fishing industry is part of a relief program. Some have criticized federal
assistance because it delays the inevitable readjustment that may be needed for
fisheries with excess harvesting capacity. Critics argue that climatic and/or
environmental conditions are blamed for fish population declines caused by
overfishing. Most fish populations vary over time, and frequently it is difficult to
determine the relative importance of the factors that cause these variations.
Features of several programs such as buybacks, fisherman training, and
cooperative data collection focus on concerns related to the need for readjustments
in fishing fleet size. Yet, when relief is provided, even when it includes a buyback
program, greater numbers of fishermen and effort usually remain in the fishery than
would be sustainable in the long-run. Many fisheries managers agree that relief such
as vessel buybacks needs to be more closely integrated with ongoing fisheries
management objectives.
Defining Fishery Failures. The general causes of fishery resource disasters
that result in commercial fishery failures are defined by the MSFCMA and IFA.
However, specific characteristics of a fishery resource disaster such as scale, timing,
and extent are not defined. Since there is no set definition of a fishery failure or
fishery resource disaster, the Secretary of Commerce has a large degree of discretion
when determining whether a fishery failure has occurred.

For example, in 2007 the governors of Maine, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island
requested the Secretary of Commerce to declare a fishery failure for the Northeast
Multispecies (groundfish) fishery. There appears to be general agreement that
Northeast fishermen have faced continuing hardships during the last several years,
but disagreement centers on whether this disruption rises to the level of a fishery
failure. These ambiguities appear to be one of the reasons that NMFS solicited the
public for information related to fishery resource disasters in early 2008.
Who Benefits? Who benefits from disaster funding is a reoccurring point of
contention. Participants such as fishermen and fish processors may be widely
dispersed and difficult to locate and track. Although it is often possible to contact
vessel and processing plant owners, industry-related labor such as crew members and
fish processing employees may be difficult to track. In some fisheries, crew members
are temporary labor that follow fishing opportunities.²² Because of the transient
nature of employment in the fishing industry and seasonal movement of fishing
vessels among regions, labor statistics regarding the employment of fishermen are
either difficult to obtain or may not exist. Similar problems may occur in related
fishery processing and distribution sectors. Some have voiced the need for better
labor statistics that can assist in forecasting and planning for the effects of different
fisheries programs, including disaster relief.
Economic effects of fishery disasters on the local community and region are also
difficult to quantify. Services directly related to fishing such as boat repairs, dock
services, and fishing equipment suppliers, as well as other businesses indirectly
related to fishing are likely to be harmed by losses in the fish harvesting and
processing sectors. Although general regional impacts can be estimated using
economic models, it is often difficult to identify the level of impacts on these
businesses because of their dispersed nature and their indirect relationship to fishing.
Many have claimed that a broader understanding of these community impacts is
needed. Relatedly some also argue for more deliberate and long-term data collection
and planning to link community concerns with marine fisheries management.

²² For more information, see CRS Report RS21312, How Many Fishermen?, by Eugene H.
Buck.