Endangered Species: A Compendium

This Compendium explores the major features and controversies of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). It covers areas such as funding and exemptions. It demonstrates how science has been used in selected cases and offers a discussion of the nature and role of science in general, and its role in the ESDA process in particular, together with general and agency information quality requirements and policies, and a review of how the courts have viewed agency use of science.

Detailed coverage is provided the polar bear, Columbia Basin salmon and steelhead trout, Pacific salmon and steelhead trout, bald eagle, gray wolves, sage grouse, and whale populations.

The ESA has been among the most contentious environmental laws because of its strict substantive provisions. Increasing numbers of animal and plant species face possible extinction. These species are valued for ecological, educational, scientific, recreational, spiritual, aesthetic, and (in some cases) economic reasons. Some contend that because the loss of species could have predictable and unpredictable social and economic effects, all species should be saved. Others disagree, and hold that the cost to society to save species is concrete and large, while the benefits are vague. Protection of endangered and threatened species—and the law that protects them, the 1973 Endangered Species Act (ESA, 16 U.S.C. §§1531-1543)—are controversial, in part, because dwindling species are often indicators of competition for scarce resources.


Date of Report: January 2, 2013
Number of Pages: 282
Order Number: C12018
Price: $59.95

To Order:

C12018.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Commercial Fishery Disaster Assistance

Harold F. Upton
Analyst in Natural Resources Policy

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 can be declared when fishermen endure economic hardships resulting from fish population declines or other disruptions to the fishery. The Department of Commerce can provide disaster assistance under Sections 308(b) and 308(d) of the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act (16 U.S.C. § 4107), as amended, and Sections 312(a) and 315 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C § 1861a and 1864). The National Marine Fisheries Service plays a central role in determining whether a commercial fishery failure 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. States also play a role by initiating requests, providing information, and planning for the use of funds.

Oceanic conditions, climate, and weather events can impact fishery resources and/or commercial infrastructure such as boats, shoreside processing, and ports. Since 1994, federal commercial fishery failure determinations have been made on 42 occasions, and nearly $840 million in federal funding has been appropriated specifically for fishery disaster relief. Funds have been allocated to fisheries of the North Pacific, Pacific Northwest, Gulf of Mexico, and the East Coast. The most recent fishery failures have been declared for the Northeast multispecies fishery, Mississippi Sound fisheries, and certain Alaska Chinook salmon fisheries.

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, resource restoration, 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.

During the 112th Congress, marginal changes to fisheries disaster determinations and disaster assistance were proposed in several bills. H.R. 1646 and H.R. 6350 would have amended the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to require the Secretary of Commerce to make a fishery disaster determination within 60 days after receiving a request. An amendment to S. 3240, the Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2012, would have made make commercial fishermen eligible for disaster loans that are available to farmers. Continued congressional interest in fishery disaster assistance during the 113th Congress may stem from the need to address funding for recently declared fisheries disasters and to improve the process for declaring fisheries disasters and providing assistance to the fishing industry.


Date of Report: January 10, 2013
Number of Pages: 21
Order Number: RL34209
Price: $29.95

To Order:

RL34209.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Seafood Marketing: Combating Fraud and Deception

Eugene H. Buck
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

Congress is facing questions of whether the law applicable to fraudulent seafood sales and marketing is clear and enforceable, whether agency enforcement efforts targeting seafood fraud are adequate, and whether the penalties for seafood fraud are a deterrent. Congress may become involved in oversight of how federal agencies are addressing these issues, and legislation related to these concerns may be considered.

With increased seafood imports and decreased monitoring, fraud and deception in seafood marketing appears to be growing more widespread. The flesh of many fish species is similar in taste and texture and, therefore, it is difficult to identify species in fillet form, especially after preparation for consumption. Thus, it can be relatively easy to substitute an inexpensive species for one of higher value. Inaccurate (low) counts or net weights (“short weighting”) result in consumers receiving less for their money than advertised and anticipated. Overbreading may cause consumers to pay shrimp prices for excess bread crumbs. Excessive amounts of ice glaze (overglazing) can deliberately be used to increase the apparent weight, and therefore the apparent value, of the delivered product. In addition, some new treatment procedures by the seafood industry, such as carbon monoxide/tasteless smoke, are being questioned for their potential to deceive consumers. Since food safety and bioterrorism concerns have taken precedence, regulatory agencies have been less able to maintain control of economic fraud.

The extent of this fraud is not well documented. The National Fisheries Institute (NFI) has undertaken an initiative to promote economic integrity within the seafood industry, concentrating on three primary areas:

• transshipment of products to avoid antidumping and countervailing duties; 
• mislabeling of products or species substitution; and 
• mislabeling of weights or counts of products. 

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is the primary agency responsible for ensuring that food sold in interstate commerce is properly labeled. FDA’s jurisdiction covers seafood and the agency operates an oversight compliance program, the Seafood Regulatory Program, for fishery products. Responsibility for a food product’s safety, wholesomeness, identity, and economic integrity rests with the processor or importer, who must comply with regulations promulgated under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) and the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (FPLA).

In the 112th Congress, S. 50 proposed directing the Departments of Commerce and of Health and Human Services, the Federal Trade Commission, and other federal agencies to combat seafood fraud; on January 26, 2012, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation reported this bill. H.R. 6200 sought to address seafood fraud by requiring labels to identify species and origin for both domestic and imported fish and by requiring a plan to coordinate FDA and National Marine Fisheries Service seafood inspection.

This report reviews recent incidents of fraud and deception and examines related policy issues.


Date of Report: January 2, 2013
Number of Pages: 16
Order Number: RL34124
Price: $29.95

To Order:

RL34124.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the 112th Congress: Conflicting Values and Difficult Choices

Eugene H. Buck
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

M. Lynne Corn
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

Kristina Alexander
Legislative Attorney

Pervaze A. Sheikh
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

Robert Meltz
Legislative Attorney

The Endangered Species Act (ESA; P.L. 93-205, 16 U.S.C. §§1531-1543) was enacted to increase protection for, and provide for the recovery of, vanishing wildlife and vegetation. Under ESA, species of plants and animals (both vertebrate and invertebrate) can be listed as endangered or threatened according to assessments of their risk of extinction. Habitat loss is the primary cause for listing species. Once a species is listed, powerful legal tools are available to aid its recovery and protect its habitat. Accordingly, when certain resources are associated with listed species—such as water in arid regions like California, old growth timber in national forests, or free-flowing rivers—ESA is seen as an obstacle to continued or greater human use of these resources. ESA may also be controversial because dwindling species are usually harbingers of broader ecosystem decline or conflicts. As a result, ESA is considered a primary driver of largescale ecosystem restoration issues.

Major issues concerning ESA in recent years have included the role of science in decision making, critical habitat (CH) designation, incentives for property owners, and appropriate protection for listed species, among others.

Although many bills were introduced, little legislation related to ESA was enacted by the 112th Congress. Committees conducted oversight of the implementation of various federal programs and laws that address threatened and endangered species. P.L. 112-10 (final appropriations for FY2011) included a legislative delisting of a portion of the reintroduced Rocky Mountain gray wolf population. P.L. 112-74 provided slightly more than $237 million for FWS endangered species and related programs; this FY2012 funding for FWS core ESA programs was 0.5% more than the FY2011 enacted amount and 3.5% less than the FY2012 Administration request.

The authorization for spending under ESA expired on October 1, 1992. The prohibitions and requirements of ESA remain in force, even in the absence of an authorization, and funds have been appropriated to implement the administrative provisions of ESA in each subsequent fiscal year. Proposals to reauthorize and extensively amend ESA were last considered in the 109th Congress, but none were enacted. No legislative proposals were introduced in the 110th, 111th , or 112th Congresses to reauthorize ESA.

This report discusses oversight issues and legislation that was introduced in the 112th Congress to address ESA implementation and management of endangered and threatened species.


Date of Report: January 7, 2013
Number of Pages: 27
Order Number: R41608
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R41608.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Desalination and Membrane Technologies: Federal Research and Adoption Issues

Nicole T. Carter
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

In the United States, desalination and membrane technologies are increasingly used to augment municipal water supply, to produce high quality industrial water supplies, and to reclaim contaminated supplies (including from oil and gas development). As of 2005, approximately 2,000 desalination facilities larger than 0.3 million gallons per day (MGD) were operating in the United States, with a total capacity of 1,600 MGD which represents more than 2.4% of total U.S. municipal and industrial freshwater use. At issue for Congress is what should be the federal role in supporting desalination and membrane technology research and facilities. Desalination issues before the 113th Congress include how to focus federal research, at what level to support desalination research and projects, and how to provide a regulatory context that protects the environment and public health without disadvantaging the technology.

Desalination processes generally treat seawater or brackish water to produce a stream of freshwater, and a separate, saltier stream of water that requires disposal (often called waste concentrate). In the last decade, many states (e.g., Florida, California, and Texas) and cities have actively investigated the feasibility of large-scale municipal desalination. Coastal communities look to seawater or estuarine water, while interior communities look to brackish aquifers. The most common desalination technology in the United States is reverse osmosis, which uses permeable membranes to separate the freshwater from the saline water supply. Membrane technologies are also effective for other water treatment applications. Many communities and industries use membranes to remove contaminants from drinking water, treat contaminated water for disposal, and reuse industrial wastewater (e.g., saline waters co-produced from oil and gas development). For some applications, there are few competitive technological substitutes.

Wider adoption of desalination is constrained by financial, environmental, and regulatory issues. Although desalination costs dropped steadily in recent decades, significant further decline may not happen with existing technologies. Electricity expenses represent from one-third to one-half of the operating cost of desalination. Its energy intensity also raises concerns about associated greenhouse gas emissions and its usefulness as a climate change adaptation measure. Substantial uncertainty also remains about the technology’s environmental impacts, in particular management of the saline waste concentrate and the effect of surface water intake facilities on aquatic organisms. Desalination facilities require a significant number of local, state, and federal approvals and permits.

Emerging technologies (e.g., forward osmosis, nanocomposite and chlorine resistant membranes) show promise for reducing desalination costs. Research to support developfull-scale facilities. For the most part, local governments, sometimes with state-level involvement, are responsible for planning, testing, building, and operating desalination facilities. Some states, universities, and private entities also undertake and support desalination research. While interest in desalination persists among some Members, especially with drought concerns high, effortsment of emerging technologies and to reduce desalination’s environmental and social impacts is particularly relevant to the debate on the future level and nature of federal desalination assistance. The federal government generally has been involved primarily in desalination research and development (including for military applications), some demonstration projects, and select to maintain or expand federal activities and investment are challenged by the domestic fiscal climate and differing views on federal roles and priorities.


Date of Report: January 8, 2013
Number of Pages: 18
Order Number: R40477
Price: $29.95


To Order:

R40477.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.