U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils

U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils

U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils
August 4, 2023
Eight U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils (FMCs) jointly manage federal marine
fisheries (i.e., those occurring in waters up to 200 nautical miles offshore beyond state or
Anthony R. Marshak
territorial waters) with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The
Analyst in Natural
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA; P.L. 94-265) established
Resources Policy
the FMCs, their roles, and their responsibilities. Congress comprehensively modified FMC roles

and responsibilities twice, when MSA was amended in 1996 (P.L. 104-297) and 2006 (P.L. 109-
479). MSA amendments, together with FMC-specific decisions and emerging priorities, have led

to changes in FMCs’ organization, focus, and requirements, including their partnership with
NOAA. In recent years, FMCs and NOAA have implemented management actions that consider the interactions of fisheries
with other components of the ecosystem.
MSA prescribes certain FMC procedures and functions within their respective regions, including FMC structure and
composition, as well as for the national Council Coordination Committee, which consists primarily of the leadership from
each of the eight FMCs. FMCs comprise voting and nonvoting members who represent the interests of commercial and
recreational fishing sectors, federal and state agencies, and additional sectors. FMC voting members include representatives
from NOAA and state fishery management agencies, in addition to appointed members from fishing and other sectors. A
chair, elected from the voting membership of a given FMC, is responsible for that FMC’s business transactions. An
appointed executive director and other full- and part-time employees perform administrative duties necessary for the FMC’s
functions. Additionally, each FMC includes a Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) that provides scientific advice for
fisheries management decisions. Each FMC also may establish additional committees and advisory panels.
One of the FMCs’ primary responsibilities is the “preparation, monitoring, and revision” of fishery management plans
(FMPs) in accordance with 10 national standards for fishery conservation and management established in MSA. FMCs
develop these FMPs and jointly implement them with NOAA, with participation and advice from the states, the fishing
industry, consumer and environmental organizations, and other stakeholders regarding the plans’ “establishment and
administration.” Furthermore, as established in MSA, the FMPs include multiple required and discretionary components,
such as conservation and management measures, harvest limits in consideration of optimum yield (i.e., sustainable harvest
that will provide the greatest overall benefit to the United States, particularly with respect to food production, recreational
opportunities, and marine ecosystem protections), descriptions and identification of essential fish habitat (EFH), and criteria
for overfishing and overfished conditions (i.e., a rate or level of harvest or population status that jeopardizes a fishery’s
capacity to remain sustainable). The FMPs contain management provisions, such as the establishment of limited access
systems or limited access privilege programs. FMPs are reviewed and approved at the Secretary of Commerce’s discretion.
Together with NOAA, FMCs implement FMPs in their respective jurisdictions to prevent overfishing, rebuild overfished
stocks, identify and protect EFH, and comanage federal fisheries as specified in MSA. FMCs and NOAA primarily manage
fisheries through the development and enforcement of annual catch limits (ACLs; i.e., the maximum level of total harvest to
ensure overfishing does not occur). FMCs also work with NOAA to rebuild fisheries that at one time have been classified as
overfished through fishery-specific rebuilding plans and to protect the EFH of managed fishery species.
The FMCs, and fisheries management in general, have been of continued interest to Congress. Topics including the impacts
of climate and environmental stressors on fisheries, the ecological consequences of overfishing on marine biodiversity, and
concerns about the economic impacts of conservation and management actions on fishing communities have received
congressional attention in recent years. Additionally, Congress has shown interest in discussions related to conflicts between
the commercial and recreational fishing sectors and the roles of local versus federal management for certain stocks. Congress
may continue to consider amending MSA, its oversight of federal fisheries management, and allocating appropriations in
consideration of emerging FMC priorities, including broader ecosystem-based approaches in NOAA and FMC fisheries
management efforts.
Congressional Research Service

link to page 5 link to page 7 link to page 8 link to page 10 link to page 13 link to page 13 link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 15 link to page 15 link to page 15 link to page 16 link to page 16 link to page 18 link to page 18 link to page 20 link to page 22 link to page 22 link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 26 link to page 29 link to page 30 link to page 30 link to page 33 link to page 33 link to page 8 link to page 21 link to page 21 link to page 27 link to page 31 link to page 31 U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils

Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Overview of U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils............................................................ 3
National Standards for Fishery Conservation and Management ............................................... 4
Regional Fishery Management Council Functions ................................................................... 6
Regional Fishery Management Council Structure and Composition .............................................. 9
Voting Members ........................................................................................................................ 9
Nonvoting Members ................................................................................................................ 10
Executive Director and Staff ................................................................................................... 10
Scientific and Statistical Committee ........................................................................................ 11
Additional Committees and Advisory Panels ........................................................................... 11
Council Coordination Committee ............................................................................................ 11
Management Activities of the Fishery Management Councils ...................................................... 12
Fishery Management Plans ..................................................................................................... 12
Implementation of Fishery Management Plans ....................................................................... 14
Preventing Overfishing and Rebuilding Overfished Fisheries.......................................... 14
Identifying and Protecting Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) ................................................. 16
Balance of Authorities Between the Secretary and the Fishery Management
Councils in Specific Circumstances .............................................................................. 18
Emerging Science and Management Priorities for Regional Fishery Management
Councils ...................................................................................................................................... 20
Consideration of Climate Change, Marine Ecosystems, and Other Ocean Uses .................... 20
Incorporation of Ecosystem-Based Approaches into Management Actions ........................... 22
Appropriations in Support of Fishery Management Councils ....................................................... 25
Issues for Congress ........................................................................................................................ 26
Amending the Magnuson-Stevens Act .................................................................................... 26
Science and Management Priorities for Regional Fishery Management Councils ................. 29
Funding to Fishery Management Councils ............................................................................. 29

Figures
Figure 1. The Eight U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils ................................................ 4
Figure 2. Identified Essential Fish Habitat and Designated Habitat Areas of Particular
Concern for Pacific Coast Groundfish ....................................................................................... 17
Figure 3. The Various Levels of Ecosystem Management ............................................................ 23

Tables
Table 1. Subject Areas in H.R. 59 and H.R. 4690 (117th Congress) That Would Have
Amended MSA and Regional Fishery Management Council Activities .................................... 27

Congressional Research Service

link to page 34 U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils

Contacts
Author Information ........................................................................................................................ 30

Congressional Research Service

U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils

Introduction
Fisheries are important contributors to U.S. ocean economies and the livelihoods of coastal
communities.1 Marine fisheries revenue and employment have increased since the mid-20th
century, with U.S. marine fisheries valued at $253 billion and responsible for 1.7 million jobs as
of 2020.2 Following guidelines in law and regulation, fisheries managers create measures to
address overexploitation and assist in the recovery of overharvested fishery populations.3 U.S.
fisheries management entities create and enforce rules to allow for harvest within national
maritime boundaries in consideration of sustainable management standards.4
In 1976, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA; P.L. 94-265)
established eight individual U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils (FMCs) with authority
over marine federal fisheries (i.e., those occurring in waters up to 200 nautical miles offshore and
beyond state or territorial waters) in their respective geographic areas.5 The eight FMCs, in
cooperation with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), manage marine
fisheries in U.S. federal waters.6 MSA, as amended,7 is the primary federal fisheries management
law and assigned specific managerial roles and responsibilities to the FMCs and NOAA.8 MSA
established the FMCs to prepare, monitor, and revise fishery management plans (FMPs) in
accordance with 10 national standards.9 FMCs develop these FMPs and jointly implement them
with NOAA, with participation and advice from the states, the fishing industry, consumer and
environmental organizations, and other stakeholders regarding their establishment and
administration.10 Under statute, FMPs also are to take into account the states’ social and economic
needs.11
FMCs are composed of members from the fishing industry, federal and state agencies, and other
fishery-related sectors, all of whom represent interests specific to the states in a given region and

1 16 U.S.C. §1802(13) defines a fishery as “one or more stocks of fish which can be treated as a unit for purposes of
conservation and management and which are identified on the basis of geographical, scientific, technical, recreational,
and economic characteristics; and any fishing for such stocks”; U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Fisheries Economics of the United
States 2020: Economics and Sociocultural Status and Trends Series, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-
236, February 2023, pp. 9-10, 13-15, at https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/2023-03/FEUS-2020-final-web.pdf.
2 Ibid.
3 Ray Hilborn and Daniel Ovando, “Reflections on the Success of Traditional Fisheries Management,” ICES Journal of
Marine Science, vol. 71, no. 5 (2014), pp. 1040-1046.
4 NOAA, NMFS, “National Standard Guidelines,” at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/laws-and-policies/
national-standard-guidelines; 16 U.S.C. §1851.
5 16 U.S.C. §1801(b)(5).
6 16 U.S.C. §§1851-1869.
7 16 U.S.C. §§1801-1891d.
8 Ibid.
9 16 U.S.C. §1851; in 1990, through P.L. 101-627, this language was amended to, “exercise sound judgment in the
stewardship of fishery resources through the preparation, monitoring, and revision of such plans.” MSA does not define
the term fishery management plan (FMP). NOAA defines an FMP as “1. A document prepared under supervision of the
appropriate fishery management council (FMC) for management of stocks of fish judged to be in need of management.
The plan must generally be formally approved. An FMP includes data, analyses, and management measures; 2. A plan
containing conservation and management measures for fishery resources, and other provisions required by the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, developed by FMCs or the Secretary of Commerce.” NOAA, NOAA Fisheries Glossary,
NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-69, 2006, p. 16, at https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/12856
(hereinafter, NOAA, NOAA Fisheries Glossary).
10 16 U.S.C. §§1801(b)(5), 1852, and 1854.
11 16 U.S.C. §1801(b)(5)(B).
Congressional Research Service

1

U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils

manage regional fisheries in federal waters.12 Conversely, individual state agencies and interstate
marine fisheries commissions manage marine fisheries in coastal state waters,13 as included in
MSA and the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-659).14
Amendments to MSA, together with FMC-specific decisions and emerging priorities over time,
have led to changes in FMCs’ organization, foci, and requirements, including in the councils’
partnership with NOAA when implementing management actions and contributing to
scientifically informed assessments.15 Congress amended MSA through reauthorization acts in
1996 (Sustainable Fisheries Act; P.L. 104-297) and 2006 (Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006; P.L. 109-479). The focus and
responsibilities of the FMCs have broadened over the years. These shifts are based on legislative
changes and NOAA policies and FMC efforts to increasingly account for ecological and
environmental effects (e.g., climate, multispecies interactions, habitat factors) on fishery species
in fisheries management actions.16
Congress has recurrently expressed interest in MSA, the FMCs, and fisheries management in
general. Congressional debate centers on the impacts of climate and environmental stressors on
fisheries, trade-offs between protected species and specific fishing practices, the ecological
consequences of overfishing on marine biodiversity,17 and concerns about management actions on
fishing communities, among other related topics. Recurring discussions have occurred related to
conflicts between the commercial and recreational fishing sectors, the roles of local versus federal
management for interjurisdictional fisheries species, and concerns about flexibility in fisheries
management practices. Congress has debated these subjects during recent efforts to amend MSA,
including through its consideration of two separate bills introduced in the 117th Congress (H.R. 59
and H.R. 4690).18
The objective of this report is to assist Congress in understanding the basis for the federal
fisheries management enterprise, particularly the structure, function, and respective foci of the
eight FMCs and their evolving approaches. This report is not a comprehensive overview of MSA;
rather, it provides an overview of the FMCs, including information about their membership and
joint management process with NOAA and the evolution in their management approach to
incorporate ecosystem-based considerations. The report describes issues for Congress related to

12 16 U.S.C. §1852.
13 State in this context may include a U.S. state or a U.S. territory.
14 16 U.S.C. §1856; 16 U.S.C. §§4101-4107.
15 NOAA, NMFS, “National Marine Fisheries Service Policy 01-120: Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management
Policy,” May 23, 2016, at https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/dam-migration/01-120.pdf (hereinafter, NOAA, NMFS
Policy 01-120); U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils, Celebrating 40 Years of Regional Fisheries
Management, 2016, at http://www.fisherycouncils.org/s/MSA-40-Anniversary-Pub-Final-May2016.
16 Ibid.
17 50 C.F.R. §600.310(e)(2)(i)(B) defines overfishing as occurring “whenever a stock or stock complex is subjected to a
level of fishing mortality or total catch that jeopardizes the capacity of a stock or stock complex to produce maximum
sustainable yield (MSY) on a continuing basis.”
18 Debate surrounding these topics and of these bills occurred at hearings of the House Committee on Natural
Resources and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, as well as during listening tours with
stakeholders (U.S. Congress, House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Water, Oceans, and Wildlife,
Subcommittee on Water, Oceans, and Wildlife Legislative Hearing, 117th Cong., 1st sess., November 16, 2021; U.S.
Congress, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Fluke Fairness Act of 2021, 117th Cong., 2nd
sess., February 3, 2022, 117-66; Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council (WPRFMC), “Testimony
Provided to the Listening Session Hosted by U.S. Rep. Huffman on the Re-authorization of the MSA on Feb. 21,
2020,” at https://www.wpcouncil.org/msa-testimony/).
Congressional Research Service

2

link to page 8 U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils

the FMCs, including amendments to MSA and emerging science and management priorities for
FMCs.
Overview of U.S. Regional Fishery Management
Councils
MSA, as amended, details requirements for the composition, roles, responsibilities, and functions
of FMCs.19 MSA includes provisions prescribing FMC structure, actions, and procedural matters
(see below sections), which have been amended over time.20
Through MSA, Congress established eight individual FMCs across specific geographic areas of
the U.S. exclusive economic zone, with representation from U.S. states and territories in that area
(Figure 1). Each FMC has primary jurisdiction over the fisheries of its region.21 The FMCs are as
follows:
• Caribbean Fishery Management Council (CFMC)22
• Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC)23
• Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC)24
• New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC)25
• North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC)26
• Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC)27
• South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC)28
• Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council (WPRFMC)29

19 16 U.S.C. §§1852-1855.
20 16 U.S.C. §1852.
21 Representatives on a given FMC include those from the commercial and recreational fishing sectors, federal and state
agencies, and others knowledgeable in the fisheries of a given region.
22 The Caribbean Fishery Management Council (CFMC) manages within federal waters of the U.S. Caribbean,
including those off Puerto Rico (9-200 nautical miles offshore) and the U.S. Virgin Islands (3-200 nautical miles
offshore).
23 The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC) manages within U.S. federal waters of the northern
Gulf of Mexico, including those off Texas and the Florida Gulf Coast (9-200 nautical miles offshore), and off
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama (3-200 nautical miles offshore).
24 The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) manages within federal waters (3-200 nautical miles
offshore) off Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, including occasional secondary
jurisdiction for particular species in North Carolina federal waters and with representation from North Carolina on the
council, as amended in the Sustainable Fisheries Act (P.L. 104-297; 16 U.S.C. §1852(a)(1)(B).
25 The New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) manages within federal waters (3-200 nautical miles
offshore) off Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Maine.
26 The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) manages within federal waters (3-200 nautical miles
offshore) off Alaska and with representation from Washington and Oregon on the council.
27 The Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) manages within federal waters (3-200 nautical miles offshore) off
California, Oregon, and Washington, with representation from Idaho on the council.
28 The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) manages within federal waters (3-200 nautical miles
offshore) off the Florida Atlantic Coast, extending to Key West, and off Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina.
The council has primary jurisdiction for federal waters off North Carolina.
29 The WPRFMC manages within federal waters (3-200 nautical miles) off Hawaii, American Samoa, and Guam and
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

3

U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils

Figure 1. The Eight U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils

Source: U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils, “Fishery Management Councils,” at
http://www.fisherycouncils.org/.
Notes: In some cases, there may be overlap in state representation on particular Regional FMCs. Washington
and Oregon have representatives on both the North Pacific and Pacific FMCs. North Carolina has
representatives on both the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic FMCs. The jurisdictional boundaries for managed
species are generally at the North Carolina/Virginia border, with a few exceptions. Florida has representatives on
both the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic FMCs. The Pacific FMC additionally includes representatives from
Idaho.
National Standards for Fishery Conservation and Management
MSA mandates the FMCs to apply the 10 National Standards for Fishery Conservation and
Management (hereinafter, National Standards) in their management plans and actions.30 MSA
requires any FMP prepared or regulation promulgated by a given FMC to be consistent with the
established National Standards. As mandated in MSA, NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS; also known as NOAA Fisheries) developed guidelines for each National
Standard to assist in the development and review of FMPs, amendments, and regulations prepared
by FMCs and NMFS.31

within waters (0-200 nautical miles) off the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and Pacific Remote
Islands (i.e., Wake Island, Midway Atoll, Johnston Island, Palmyra Atoll and Kingman Reef, Jarvis Island, Baker and
Howland Islands).
30 16 U.S.C. §1851. The original authorization of MSA established seven National Standards, and the 1996
amendments added three more National Standards.
31 As included in 50 C.F.R. §600.305-600.355.
Congressional Research Service

4

U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils

National Standards for Fishery Conservation and Management
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended (MSA; 16 U.S.C. §1851),
established 10 national standards (NS) that are to be fol owed in any fishery management plan to ensure
sustainable and responsible fishery management:
NS 1 - Conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing
basis, the optimum yield from each fishery for the U.S. fishing industry.
NS 2 - Conservation and management measures shall be based upon the best scientific information available.
NS 3 - To the extent practicable, an individual stock of fish shall be managed as a unit throughout its range,
and interrelated stocks of fish shal be managed as a unit or in close coordination.
NS 4 - Conservation and management measures shall not discriminate between residents of different states.
If it becomes necessary to allocate or assign fishing privileges among various U.S. fishermen, such
allocation shall be (A) fair and equitable to all such fishermen; (B) reasonably calculated to promote
conservation; and (C) carried out in such manner that no particular individual, corporation, or other
entity acquires an excessive share of such privileges.
NS 5 - Conservation and management measures shall, where practicable, consider efficiency in the use of
fishery resources, except that no such measure shall have economic allocation as its sole purpose.
NS 6 - Conservation and management measures shall take into account and allow for variations among, and
contingencies in, fisheries, fishery resources, and catches.
NS 7 - Conservation and management measures shall, where practicable, minimize costs and avoid
unnecessary duplication.
NS 8 - Conservation and management measures shall, consistent with the conservation requirements of
MSA (including the prevention of overfishing and rebuilding of overfished stocks), take into account the
importance of fishery resources to fishing communities by using economic and social data that meet the
requirements of paragraph (2), in order to (A) provide for the sustained participation of such
communities and (B) to the extent practicable, minimize adverse economic impacts on such
communities.
NS 9 - Conservation and management measures shall, to the extent practicable, (A) minimize bycatch and
(B) to the extent bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize the mortality of such bycatch.
NS 10 - Conservation and management measures shall, to the extent practicable, promote the safety of
human life at sea.

Notes: 16 U.S.C. §1802(33) defines optimum yield as the amount of fish that is prescribed on the basis of the
maximum sustainable yield (MSY) from the fishery, as reduced by any relevant economic, social, or ecological
factor, and, in the case of an overfished fishery, provides for rebuilding to a level consistent with producing
the MSY in such fishery.
MSA does not define maximum sustainable yield (MSY). Some experts define MSY as the highest possible
annual catch that can be continuously taken from a stock under existing environmental conditions that stil
allows the population to sustain itself and keeps the stock at the level producing the maximum growth of its
population. See Athannassios C. Tsikliras and Rainer Froese, “Maximum Sustainable Yield,” in Encyclopedia of
Ecology, 2nd ed., ed. Brian D. Fath (Towson, MD: Elsevier, 2019), pp. 108-115.
16 U.S.C. §1802(2) defines bycatch as “fish which are harvested in a fishery, but which are not sold or kept for
personal use, and includes economic discards and regulatory discards. Such term does not include fish
released alive under a recreational catch and release fishery management program.”
50 C.F.R. §600.310(e)(2)(i)(E) states that a stock or stock complex is considered “overfished” when its
biomass has declined below a point at which the capacity of the stock or stock complex to produce MSY on a
continuing basis has been jeopardized.
As derived from 50 C.F.R. §600.310(d)(2), a stock complex is defined as “a group of stocks that are sufficiently
similar in geographic distribution, life history, and vulnerabilities to the fishery such that the impact of
management actions on the stocks is similar.” Nicholas A. Farmer et al., “Stock Complexes for Fisheries
Management in the Gulf of Mexico,” Marine and Coastal Fisheries, vol. 8, no. 1 (2016), pp. 177-201.
Congressional Research Service

5

U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils

Regional Fishery Management Council Functions
Under MSA, the mandated functions of individual FMCs comprise the development and
description of sustainable fishing practices, which are to be included in FMPs and their
amendments. FMCs also are expected to establish regionally specific management programs,
including the option to apply market-based management approaches, and to participate in
cooperative efforts with NOAA and other parties to enhance commercial and recreational
fisheries management. MSA requires each FMC to do the following:32
• Prepare and submit an FMP, and any necessary amendments, to the Secretary of
Commerce (hereinafter, the Secretary), for each fishery under the FMC’s
authority that requires conservation and management
• Prepare comments on any application for foreign fishing, and on any FMP or
amendment, transmitted to the FMC
• Conduct public hearings to allow all interested persons an opportunity to be
heard in the development of FMPs and their amendments and with respect to the
administration and implementation of MSA
• Submit to the Secretary periodic reports as the FMC deems appropriate and any
other relevant report that the Secretary may request
Additionally, MSA requires FMCs to review on a continuing basis, and revise as appropriate, the
following:
• The condition of a given fishery, including its maximum sustainable yield (MSY)
and optimum yield (OY)33
• Annual domestic harvest and domestic processing of the OY
• The portion of OY made available for foreign fishing
For each of their managed fisheries, FMCs are required to develop annual catch limits (ACLs)
that may not exceed the fishing level recommendations of their Scientific and Statistical
Committees (SSCs) or FMC-specific peer review process.34 FMCs also are to develop, in
conjunction with their SSCs, multiyear research priorities for fisheries. In addition, MSA requires

32 16 U.S.C. §1852(h).
33 MSA does not define maximum sustainable yield (MSY). Some experts define MSY as the highest possible annual
catch that can be continuously taken from a stock under existing environmental conditions that still allows the
population to sustain itself and keeps the stock at the level producing the maximum growth of its population. See
Athannassios C. Tsikliras and Rainer Froese, “Maximum Sustainable Yield,” in Encyclopedia of Ecology, 2nd ed., ed.
Brian D. Fath (Towson, MD: Elsevier, 2019), pp. 108-115. 16 U.S.C. 1802(33) defines optimum, with respect to the
yield from a fishery, as the amount of fish that “(A) will provide the greatest overall benefit to the Nation, particularly
with respect to food production and recreational opportunities, and taking into account the protection of marine
ecosystems; (B) is prescribed on the basis of the maximum sustainable yield from the fishery, as reduced by any
relevant economic, social, or ecological factor; and (C) in the case of an overfished fishery, provides for rebuilding to a
level consistent with producing the maximum sustainable yield in such fishery.”
34 MSA does not define annual catch limit (ACL). NOAA defines an ACL in 50 C.F.R. §600.310(f)(1)(iii) as “a limit
on the total annual catch for a stock or stock complex, which cannot exceed the acceptable biological catch (ABC), that
serves as the basis for invoking accountability measures (AMs). An ACL may be divided into sector-ACLs.” FMCs set
ACLs through development of FMPs or their amendments, and ACLs are subject to approval by the Secretary of
Commerce. If approved, ACLs are implemented and monitored by NOAA Fisheries. Stocks that are managed with
international agreements or that have life cycles of less than one year are exempted as included in 50 C.F.R.
§600.310(h)(1). NOAA, NMFS, “Frequent Questions: Annual Catch Limit Monitoring,” at
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/southeast/sustainable-fisheries/frequent-questions-annual-catch-limit-monitoring.
Congressional Research Service

6

U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils

FMCs to conduct any other activities that are required by, or provided for, in statute or that are
relevant to the above functions.
Together with the Secretary, as administered by NMFS,35 FMCs may establish market-based
limited access systems that limit participation in a fishery to those satisfying particular eligibility
requirements specified in an FMP, its amendment, or an associated regulation.36 For a fishery
managed under a limited access system, FMCs also may submit a limited access privilege
program for secretarial approval to allow for a portion of the total allowable catch of that fishery
to be received or held for exclusive use by a person,37 fishing community, or regional fishery
association.38 Requirements for limited access privileges are included in MSA.39 Congress also
established community development quota programs, another version of a limited access system,
for Western Alaskan and Western Pacific communities; these programs allow for annual
percentages of total allowable catch in each directed fishery of the Bering Sea and the Aleutian
Islands and in the Western Pacific regions to be allocated to eligible villages and participants in
those respective regions.40 These community development quota programs are administered by
the NPFMC, WPRFMC, and the Secretary.

35 Lee G. Anderson and Mark C. Holliday (eds.), The Design and Use of Limited Access Privilege Programs, NOAA,
NMFS, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-86, November 2007, at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/
resource/document/design-and-ause-limited-access-privilege-programs.
36 16 U.S.C. §1802(27).
37 MSA does not define total allowable catch. NOAA defines total allowable catch (TAC) as “the annual
recommended or specified regulated catch for a species or species group. The regional fishery management council sets
the TAC from the range of acceptable biological catch.” NOAA, NOAA Fisheries Glossary, p. 54.
38 A Regional Fishery Association (RFA) is defined in 16 U.S.C. 1802(14) as an association formed for the mutual
benefit of members to meet social and economic needs in a region or subregion and is composed of persons engaging in
the harvest or processing of fishery resources in that specific region or subregion or who otherwise own or operate
businesses substantially dependent on a fishery. RFAs can acquire and hold limited access privilege programs, subject
to limitations on composition and eligibility as determined by RFA by-laws, FMCs, and the Secretary.
39 16 U.S.C. §1853a.
40 MSA does not define directed fishery. NOAA defines directed fishery as “fishing that is directed at a certain species
or group of species. This applies to both sport and commercial fishing.” NOAA, NOAA Fisheries Glossary, p. 10; 16
U.S.C. §1855(i).
Congressional Research Service

7

U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils

MSA-Established Regional Programs
MSA (16 U.S.C. §1855(i))) mandates specific regional programs in which particular U.S. Regional FMCs engage.
Such programs include the limited access Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) Crab Rationalization and its quota
share loan program (16 U.S.C. §1862(j)) and the Western Pacific Sustainable Fisheries Fund (16 U.S.C.
§1824(e)(7)).
The BSAI Crab Loan Program, which is overseen by NOAA Fisheries with direct input from the NPFMC, provides
long-term loans to individual fishers for the purchase of crab quota shares. In June 2022, the NPFMC received a
request from its advisory panel to consider emergency action under MSA to provide flexibility to program
participants in light of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic and the sudden and recent reduction of overall
crab total allowable catch. NOAA Fisheries issued a temporary rule allowing for greater flexibility and temporary
suspension of the active participation requirement under the program.
In another example, the Western Pacific Sustainable Fisheries Fund is a U.S. Treasury repository that includes
funds for use by the WPRFMC. Any payments received by the Secretary of Commerce under a Pacific Insular
Area fishery agreement, and any funds or contributions received in support of conservation and management
objectives under a marine conservation plan for certain Pacific Insular Areas, are deposited into this fund.
Payments received by the Secretary under a Pacific Insular Area fishery agreement for American Samoa, Guam, or
the Northern Mariana Islands are deposited into the U.S. Treasury, and transferred to the Treasury of the Pacific
Insular Area for which those funds were col ected. The funds are then made available to the governor of that area
to compensate the WPRFMC and Secretary of State and to implement an approved marine conservation plan. The
Secretary provides available funding from the fund to the WPRFMC to carry out these provisions, including
implementation of an approved marine conservation plan, or to use any remaining funds to meet conservation and
management objectives in the state of Hawaii.
Sources: NOAA Fisheries, “Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska; Bering Sea and Aleutian
Islands Crab Rationalization Program; C Shares,” 87 Federal Register 42390-42394, 2022; 16 U.S.C.
§1824(e)(6); 16 U.S.C. §1862(j).
Notes: A Pacific Insular Area fishery agreement is an agreement to authorize foreign fishing within the exclusive
economic zone adjacent to a U.S. Pacific Insular Area (i.e., American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana
Islands, and the Pacific Remote Islands, as applicable, and including all islands and reefs appurtenant to such
island, reef, or atol ). A marine conservation plan is developed by the WPRFMC and the appropriate
governor and details uses for funds in accordance with regional fisheries conservation and management
objectives and with planned, prioritized marine conservation projects. It is required prior to entering into a
Pacific Insular Area fishery agreement.
Congress has required FMCs to work collectively with NOAA and the states to strengthen
recreational fisheries data collection and to incorporate that information into management actions,
as appropriate. These requirements were included in the Modernizing Recreational Fisheries
Management Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-405), which additionally mandated these parties to evaluate
the NOAA Fisheries Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP).41 MRIP is a state-
regional-federal partnership that develops, implements, and aims to continually improve a
national network of recreational fishing surveys to estimate total catch from recreational fishing.
FMC representatives serve with NOAA and state representatives on MRIP regional
implementation teams, which identify data needs for recreational catch and effort for their
respective regions and recommend programmatic improvements. Additionally, the GMFMC and
SAFMC, which each manage mixed-use fisheries to which the recreational fishing and charter
fishing sectors are major contributors,42 have consulted with NOAA on efforts to examine and

41 NOAA, NMFS, Marine Recreational Information Program: Collaborating to Improve Recreational Fishing
Estimates—Strategic Plan: 2017-2022, 2017, at https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/dam-migration/mrip-strategic-plan-
2017-2022.pdf.
42 Felicia C. Coleman et al., “The Impact of United States Recreational Fisheries on Marine Fish Populations,” Science,
vol. 305, no. 5692 (2004), pp. 1958-1960; P.L. 115-405 defines a mixed use fishery as “a federal fishery in which two
or more of the following occur: (A) Recreational fishing. (B) Charter fishing. (C) Commercial fishing; MSA, under 16
U.S.C. §1802(3), defines charter fishing as “fishing from a vessel carrying a passenger for hire who is engaged in
recreational fishing.”
Congressional Research Service

8

U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils

account for allocation (or reallocation) of fishing privileges in those fisheries. FMCs also
participate in efforts to address illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing through
engagements with the White House National Ocean Council IUU Fishing/Seafood Fraud
Committee and the U.S. Interagency Working Group on IUU Fishing.43
Regional Fishery Management Council Structure
and Composition
All FMCs have a similar structure that reflects the expertise and interest of the states (or
territories) in their authority areas, as established in MSA.44 As described below, each FMC has
the following components, which may vary among FMCs in terms of their total membership (e.g.,
number of voting members) or in their proportional representation among fisheries-related
sectors: voting members, nonvoting members, an executive director and staff, a Scientific and
Statistical Committee, and additional committees and advisory panels.
Voting Members
The voting members conduct FMC business and finalize decisions by majority vote. Each FMC
includes two types of voting members:45
1. Designated state and federal members, including the principal official with
marine fishery management responsibility and expertise from each state,46 and
the NMFS regional director for the geographical area concerned
2. Members appointed by the Secretary for a term of no more than three years47
The Secretary is to appoint members of each FMC from a list of qualified individuals submitted
by the governor of each applicable constituent state.48 All voting members nominated by state
governors are required to disclose certain financial interests.49 The voting members of a given
FMC select a chair (and in some cases a vice chair) responsible for the transaction of business as
specified under MSA from among the voting membership.50 MSA generally requires that FMC
meetings are open to the public. Furthermore, each FMC establishes its own applicable
procedures.
MSA includes requirements regarding specific appointments and apportionments of voting
members within particular FMCs.51 For example, the Secretary is to appoint to the PFMC one
representative from an Indian tribe (or his or her designee) with federally recognized fishing
rights from California, Oregon, Washington, or Idaho, from a list of not fewer than three

43 Cochaired by NOAA, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the U.S. Department of State. NOAA, NMFS, “The U.S.
Interagency Working Group on IUU Fishing,” at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/international-affairs/us-
interagency-working-group-iuu-fishing.
44 16 U.S.C. §§1852(b)-(c); (f)-(g).
45 As established in 16 U.S.C. §1852(b).
46 State in this context may include a U.S. state or a U.S. territory.
47 In accordance with 16 U.S.C. 1852(b)(2)-(5) and as specified for each FMC in 16 U.S.C. 1852(a)(1).
48 As detailed in 16 U.S.C. §1852(b)(2)(C).
49 16 U.S.C. §1852(j).
50 16 U.S.C. §1852(e) and 16 U.S.C §1852(i).
51 16 U.S.C. §1852(b).
Congressional Research Service

9

U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils

individuals submitted by tribal governments.52 In another example, the governor of a state
submitting individuals for appointment to the GMFMC is to include at least one nominee each
from the commercial, recreational, and charter fishing sectors and at least one other individual
who is knowledgeable in the conservation and management of fisheries resources in its
jurisdiction.53
The Secretary may remove any appointed voting member if the FMC recommends removal by
not less than two-thirds of the voting membership and submits a removal recommendation to the
Secretary in writing with a statement of the basis for the recommendation.54
Nonvoting Members
Nonvoting members on FMCs represent federal and interstate agencies outside the Department of
Commerce and NOAA. The nonvoting members of each FMC include one directorate
representative each from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Coast Guard, and
corresponding applicable interstate marine fisheries commission, and a representative from the
Department of State.55 The PFMC includes one additional nonvoting member who is appointed
by, and serves at the pleasure of, the governor of Alaska.56
Executive Director and Staff
Each FMC may appoint and assign duties to an executive director (and deputy director, in the
case of several FMCs) and other full- and part-time administrative employees.57 FMC staff
typically include a number of fishery management specialists and/or analysts, as well as
communication, outreach, operations, and administrative support specialists.58 Fishery
management specialists and analysts often work on specific stocks or stock complexes,59 their
FMPs, and relevant monitoring and assessment programs that may intersect with efforts by
NOAA, including those for essential fish habitat (EFH), protected species, and ecosystems.

52 16 U.S.C. §1852(b)(5). Representation rotates among the tribes in consideration of individuals’ qualifications, the
rights of those tribes involved and judicial cases that set forth the exercising of those rights, and geography. The current
representative is from the Nez Perce Tribe Fisheries Department; he is serving his third term through August 2024.
53 16 U.S.C. §1852(b)(2)(D).
54 16 U.S.C. §1852(b)(6).
55 16 U.S.C. §1852(c).
56 16 U.S.C. §1852(c)(2). The current representative is the commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
57 16 U.S.C. §1852(f).
58 CFMC, “CFMC Staff,” at https://www.caribbeanfmc.com/about-us/council-staff; GMFMC, “Council Staff,” at
https://gulfcouncil.org/about/staff/; NPFMC, “Council Staff,” at https://www.npfmc.org/about-the-council/council-
staff/.
59 NOAA Fisheries defines a stock as “a part of a fish population usually with a particular migration pattern, specific
spawning grounds, and subject to a distinct fishery. A fish stock may be treated as a total or a spawning stock. Total
stock refers to both juveniles and adults, either in numbers or by weight, while spawning stock refers to the numbers or
weight of individuals that are old enough to reproduce.” NOAA, NOAA Fisheries Glossary, p. 49. As derived from 50
C.F.R. §600.310(d)(2), a stock complex is defined as “a group of stocks that are sufficiently similar in geographic
distribution, life history, and vulnerabilities to the fishery such that the impact of management actions on the stocks is
similar.” Nicholas A. Farmer et al., “Stock Complexes for Fisheries Management in the Gulf of Mexico,” Marine and
Coastal Fisheries, vol. 8, no. 1 (2016), pp. 177-201.
Congressional Research Service

10

U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils

Scientific and Statistical Committee
Each FMC is to establish, maintain, and appoint members to an SSC.60 SSCs assist in the
development, collection, evaluation, and peer review of statistical, biological, economic, social,
and other scientific information relevant to the development and amendment of any FMP. They
provide scientific advice for fishery management decisions, including recommendations for the
maximum amount of a given fish stock that can be harvested (i.e., the acceptable biological catch
[ABC]),61 MSY, overfishing preventions, and for achieving stock rebuilding targets. They
additionally report on stock status and health, bycatch, habitat status, social and economic
impacts of management measures, and the sustainability of fishing practices. FMC-appointed
SSC members may be federal or state employees, academics, or independent experts. All SSC
members, including the chairperson, are appointed for multiyear terms and must disclose their
financial interests.62 FMCs and their SSCs also develop five-year research priorities for fisheries
and their management.63
Additional Committees and Advisory Panels
Each FMC is to establish committees and advisory panels for carrying out its functions as
necessary, which include committee and panel chairs appointed by an FMC.64 The Secretary also
is to establish advisory panels to assist in the collection and evaluation of information relevant to
the development of any management plan or amendment. Any decisions and recommendations
made by committees and advisory panels (including SSCs) are considered advisory in nature.
Council Coordination Committee
MSA permits the FMCs to establish a Council Coordination Committee (CCC), which consists of
the chairs, vice chairs, and executive directors of each of the eight FMCs and other staff, as
appropriate.65 The FMCs established the CCC in 1977; the CCC meets twice a year and discusses
issues of relevance to all FMCs.66 Leadership of the CCC revolves each year among each of the
eight FMCs.67 The CCC may establish working groups or subcommittees to address particular
issues, which may include members and/or staff from FMCs, the CCC, FMC-established advisory
bodies, and NMFS staff with expertise as necessary.68 Standing bodies include the Legislative

60 16 U.S.C. §1852(g).
61 NOAA Fisheries defines acceptable biological catch (ABC) as the maximum amount of fish stock than can be
harvested without adversely affecting recruitment of other components of the stock. NOAA, NMFS, “Frequent
Questions: Annual Catch Limit Monitoring,” at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/southeast/sustainable-fisheries/
frequent-questions-annual-catch-limit-monitoring; NOAA defines recruitment as “the amount of fish added to the
exploitable stock each year due to growth and/or migration into the fishing area.” NOAA, NOAA Fisheries Glossary,
pp. 39-40.
62 16 U.S.C. §1852(g)(1).
63 16 U.S.C. §1852(h)(7).
64 16 U.S.C. §1852(g).
65 16 U.S.C. §1852(l).
66 Council Coordination Committee of the U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils (CCC), Meeting History, at
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56c65ea3f2b77e3a78d3441e/t/63ef8c94ee7e0b357af5e1dd/1676643476374/
CCC-Meeting-History_221020.pdf.
67 CCC, Terms of Reference for the Council Coordination Committee, November 7, 2019, at
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56c65ea3f2b77e3a78d3441e/t/5e4317049e9e58673cda7100/1581455109751/
CCC_TOR_2019-11-07.pdf. Hereinafter, CCC, Terms of Reference.
68 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service

11

link to page 22 link to page 22 U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils

Work Group, the Council Communications Group, the Habitat Workgroup, and the Scientific
Coordination Subcommittee (SCS).69
Management Activities of the Fishery Management
Councils
FMC management activities include the development and joint implementation of FMPs with
NOAA, including the required and discretionary components of FMPs. Furthermore, MSA directs
FMCs and NOAA to work together to prevent overfishing, rebuild overfished stocks, identify and
protect EFH,70 and comanage fisheries in other ways.71
Fishery Management Plans
One responsibility of the FMCs is to ensure stewardship of fishery resources through the
preparation, monitoring, and revision of FMPs. States, the fishing industry, and other interested
parties may provide input on the establishment and administration of the FMPs.72 All FMPs and
their amendments (or other modifications) are subject to review and approval by the Secretary;73
this process involves initial publication in the Federal Register with an opportunity for public
comment and approval, disapproval, or partial approval to be made by the Secretary within 30
days of the end of the comment period.74
FMCs may develop an FMP for a specific fishery species, stock complex, or functional group
(e.g., groundfish, reef fish) in a given region. In some cases, FMPs may be comanaged by more
than one FMC, at the Secretary’s discretion.75 In other cases, FMCs may create FMPs for a
particular habitat (e.g., pelagic Sargassum and its limited commercial fishery)76 or geography
(e.g., Arctic Management Area).77 In accordance with national standards, the Secretary also may
prepare an FMP or amendment for any fishery if the Secretary disapproves the FMC’s FMP, or
any portion thereof, and the FMC involved does not submit a revision (see section, “Balance of
Authorities Between the Secretary and the Fishery Management Councils” for more
information).78

69 The Scientific Coordination Subcommittee (SCS) is composed of the chairs from each of the Regional Fishery
Management Council Scientific and Statistical Committees; Ibid.
70 Defined in 16 U.S.C. §1802(10) as “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding or
growth to maturity.”
71 16 U.S.C. §§1853-1855.
72 16 U.S.C. §1801(b)(5).
73 16 U.S.C. §1854(a).
74 16 U.S.C. 1854(a)(3) states, “If the Secretary does not notify a Council within 30 days of the end of the comment
period of the approval, disapproval, or partial approval of a plan or amendment, then such plan or amendment shall take
effect as if approved.”
75 16 U.S.C. §1854(f).
76 SAFMC, Fishery Management Plan for Pelagic Sargassum Habitat of the South Atlantic Region, Including a Final
Environmental Impact Statement, Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, Regulatory Impact Review, and Social Impact
Assessment/Fishery Impact Statement, November 2002, at https://safmc.net/documents/sargassum-fishery-
management-plan/.
77 NPFMC, Fishery Management Plan for Fish Resources of the Arctic Management Area, August 2009, at
https://www.npfmc.org/wp-content/uploads/ArcticFMP-1.pdf.
78 More detailed information about FMPs is available at NOAA, NMFS, “Fisheries Management Info,” at
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

12

U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils

Under MSA, any FMP prepared by an FMC or the Secretary for the management of a given
fishery shall contain the following components:79
• Conservation and management measures to prevent overfishing, rebuild
overfished stocks, and as related to the long-term health and stability of that
fishery80
• A description of the fishery (e.g., number of vessels, quantity of fishing gear
used, type and location of species involved, fishery revenues)
• A description of the commercial, recreational, and charter fishing sectors that
participate in the fishery
• Considerations and provisions for temporary adjustments regarding access to the
fishery for vessels otherwise prevented from harvesting because of weather or
ocean conditions81
FMPs also are required to assess and specify the following:
• The present and probable future condition of the fishery
• The capacity and extent to which U.S. fishing vessels will annually harvest the
specified OY
• The portion of such OY that will not be annually harvested by U.S. fishing
vessels and can be made available for foreign fishing
• The capacity and extent to which U.S. fish processors will annually process the
portion of OY that will be harvested by U.S. fishing vessels
• The pertinent data that will be submitted to the Secretary with respect to
commercial, recreational, and charter fishing and fish processing in the fishery82
In addition, FMPs are to include descriptions and identification of EFH for the fishery, including
actions to minimize adverse effects on EFH caused by fishing, to the extent practicable, and
additional actions to encourage EFH conservation.
Furthermore, FMPs are to contain information about the cumulative conservation, economic, and
social impacts (including to safety at sea) of conservation and management measures on
participants in the fishery, as included in a fishery impact statement.
Related to actions to manage and rebuild overfished fisheries, FMPs shall include the following:

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/rules-and-announcements/plans-and-agreements; U.S. Regional Fishery Management
Councils at http://www.fisherycouncils.org/; Jason S. Link and Anthony R. Marshak, Ecosystem-Based Fisheries
Management: Progress, Importance, and Impacts in the United States (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021).
Hereinafter, Link and Marshak, Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management.
79 16 U.S.C. §1853.
80 These measures also shall be consistent with the 10 National Standards in MSA and other applicable laws and
regulations, including recommendations (e.g., closed areas, catch quotas, species size limits) by international
organizations in which the United States participates.
81 These adjustments are to occur following consultation with the U.S. Coast Guard and persons using the fishery. Any
adjustment shall not adversely affect conservation efforts in other fisheries or discriminate among participants in the
affected fishery as included in 16 U.S.C. §1853(a)(6).
82 For example, type and quantity of fishing gear used, catch by species (by weight and by numbers of fish), fishing
areas, time of fishing, number of hauls, economic information, and estimated and actual processing capacity used by
U.S. fish processors. All FMPs submitted to the Secretary for review, and those for which an amendment is submitted,
are to assess and specify the nature and extent of scientific data needed for effective implementation of the plan.
Congressional Research Service

13

U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils

• “Objective and measurable criteria” that are used to identify when a fishery is
overfished or approaching an overfished condition and conservation and
management measures to prevent or end overfishing and rebuild the fishery83
• Any expected reductions to harvest from rebuilding plans or other conservation
and management actions, including their fair and equitable allocations among the
commercial, recreational, and charter fishing sectors of that fishery84
In accounting for bycatch, FMPs are required to include the following:
• A standardized reporting methodology to assess the amount and type of bycatch
occurring in the fishery
• Specific conservation and management measures to minimize bycatch and
minimize the mortality of any bycatch that cannot be avoided
Finally, FMPs are also required to include measures to ensure accountability and established
mechanisms for specifying ACLs in the plan and implementing regulations or annual
specifications at a level such that overfishing does not occur in the fishery.
FMCs also may include discretionary provisions, such as information on permitting and/or
necessary fishing limitations (e.g., fishing zones, gear restrictions, fishing closures, catch and sale
limits, deep-sea coral protections) in FMPs.85 All FMCs have the authority to designate zones and
time periods that limit or prohibit fishing practices.86 If desired, and often under particular
circumstances, FMCs, including through their FMPs, may delegate management of a given
fishery to a state if the state’s laws are consistent with regulations in that FMP.87
Implementation of Fishery Management Plans
FMCs are responsible for implementing FMPs and their amendments, together with NOAA.
Amendments to MSA have reflected shifting fisheries management priorities among sustaining
fish populations, responding to the effects of overfishing, and conserving fisheries and their
habitats.88 MSA mandates a greater focus on these priorities in both the required and discretionary
contents of FMPs.
Preventing Overfishing and Rebuilding Overfished Fisheries
Congress has amended MSA to strengthen requirements for the FMCs and NOAA to prevent
overfishing and to rebuild overfished fisheries by using precautionary approaches when managing
a given fishery’s total catch. FMCs approach situations of overfishing by setting catch limits and

83 The inclusion of these measures is applicable to the case of a fishery that the FMC or the Secretary has determined is
overfished or approaching an overfished condition.
84 NOAA defines a rebuilding plan as “1. A document that describes policy measures that will be used to rebuild a fish
stock that has been declared overfished; 2. A plan that must be designed to recover stocks to the BMSY level within 10
years when they are overfished (i.e., when biomass [B] < minimum stock size threshold)”; NOAA, NOAA Fisheries
Glossary, p. 39. In this context, NOAA defines BMSY as “the weight (biomass) of a group of fish necessary to produce
maximum sustainable yield (MSY)”; NOAA, NOAA Fisheries Glossary, p. 3.
85 16 U.S.C. §1853(b).
86 16 U.S.C. §1853(b)(2).
87 16 U.S.C. §1856(a)(3)(B).
88 CRS In Focus IF10267, Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA): Reauthorization
Issues for the 115th Congress.
Congressional Research Service

14

U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils

ensuring accountability within those limits.89 Using information from an NMFS stock assessment,
including information on the stock’s ability to replenish itself, FMCs and their SSCs use a process
to identify the allowable catch amount (i.e., an ACL). In addition, FMCs use this information to
set limits so as to avoid future overfishing of stocks. NMFS monitors annual commercial and
recreational landings in accordance with catch limits and may implement in-season and
emergency closures, if necessary, among other actions if they are exceeded.
FMC-enacted accountability measures include regulatory changes such as quota closures,90 a
reduction in the next year’s ACL, closed fishing seasons,91 or modifications to bag or fishing trip
limits.92 The FMCs determine specific fishing quotas based on the set ACL and proportionally
allocate said quotas to particular fishing sectors (i.e., commercial, recreational, charter fishing),
the constituent states of that fishery, and for fisheries managed under a limited access privilege
program as applicable. The FMCs consider factors including the historical contributions of
particular fishing sectors or states to a given fishery when determining these apportionments.
FMCs additionally work with NOAA to rebuild those fisheries that at one time have been
classified as overfished.93 The determination of whether a stock is subject to overfishing or
classified as overfished is based on specific criteria that are included in a given FMP. If a NOAA
assessment determines that a stock is overfished or is experiencing overfishing, the agency is to
immediately notify the appropriate FMC to request action be taken to end overfishing and to
implement conservation and management measures to rebuild the fishery as needed. Rebuilding
plans for an overfished fishery are to specify a time period to rebuild the fishery, which is
intended to be “as short as possible” and shall consider the status and biology of any overfished
stocks of fish, the needs of the fishing community, recommendations by participatory
organizations, and the interaction of the overfished stock with the marine ecosystem.94
NOAA assesses the overfished and overfishing statuses for the stocks and stock complexes that it
manages, including those managed in FMC FMPs. NOAA publishes updates to fishery stock
statuses on a quarterly basis and reports end-of-year updates in annual reports to Congress and the
FMCs.95 The 2022 annual report, for example, noted that 24 federally managed stocks (i.e., 7% of
those with known overfishing status) were subject to overfishing, 48 were overfished (i.e., 19% of
those with known overfished status), and 49 stocks were on the rebuilt list.96 As of 2022, 48
stocks continue to have rebuilding plans, seven of which are no longer overfished but continue to
be managed under rebuilding plans.97

89 16 U.S.C. §1853(a)(15).
90 NOAA defines a quota as “a specified numerical harvest objective, the attainment (or expected attainment) of which
causes closure of the fishery for that species or species group.” NOAA, NOAA Fisheries Glossary, p. 39.
91 NOAA defines a closed season or seasonal closure as “the banning of fishing activity (in an area or of an entire
fishery) for a few weeks or months, usually to protect juveniles or spawners.” NOAA, NOAA Fisheries Glossary, p. 6.
92 NOAA defines a bag limit as “The number and/or size of a species that a person can legally take in a day or [fishing]
trip. This may or may not be the same as a possession limit.” NOAA, NOAA Fisheries Glossary, p. 3.
93 16 U.S.C. §1854(e).
94 16 U.S.C. §1854(e)(4)(A).
95 16 U.S.C. §1854(e)(1).
96 NOAA Fisheries, Status of Stocks 2022. Annual Report to Congress on the Status of U.S. Fisheries, 2023, at
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/s3/2023-04/2022-Status-of-Stocks-RtC-041423-0.pdf.
97 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service

15

link to page 21 U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils

Identifying and Protecting Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)
Due to historic loss of aquatic habitats, the 1996 reauthorization of MSA acknowledged the
importance of habitat considerations and conservation for commercial and recreational fisheries.98
MSA declared the need for a national program, carried out by NOAA and the FMCs, to facilitate
the protection of EFH and address the long-term threats of habitat loss on fisheries’ continued
viability.99 FMCs are required to describe and identify EFH for each fishery managed under an
FMP, including geographic information and details as to where each applicable species and life
stage is found,100 to minimize adverse effects from fishing on such EFH.101 For example, the EFH
for Pacific Coast groundfish, managed by the PFMC, is shown in Figure 2.
In addition, MSA mandated FMCs to identify actions that should be considered to ensure the
conservation and enhancement of EFH.102 For example, these actions may include issuing
restrictions on fishing gear, time and area closures, and/or harvest limits, as necessary.103 FMCs
are to conduct a complete review of all EFH information at least once every five years, and
update FMPs based on new scientific evidence or other relevant information.104
MSA additionally mandates responsibilities for federal agencies regarding EFH. Each federal
agency is required to consult with the Secretary on any action taken by that agency that may
adversely affect any identified EFH.105 Each FMC may comment on and make recommendations
to the Secretary and any federal or state agency regarding that activity.106 Each FMC is required
to comment on and make recommendations to these parties regarding any activity that is likely to
substantially affect the habitat of an anadromous fishery resource (i.e., Atlantic salmon, NEFMC;
Pacific salmon, PFMC, NPFMC) under its authority.107 The Secretary is to recommend measures
to the particular agency to conserve that habitat,108 and the agency is to respond with a description
of proposed measures for avoiding, mitigating, or offsetting the impact of the activity on that
habitat, or an explanation of its reasoning for not following the Secretary’s recommendations.109

98 16 U.S.C. §1801(a)(9); NOAA, NMFS, “Laws & Policies: Magnuson-Stevens Act,” at
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/laws-policies/magnuson-stevens-act.
99 16 U.S.C. §1801(a)(6); 16 U.S.C. §1855(b).
100 50 C.F.R. §600.815(a)(1)(i).
101 16 U.S.C. §1853(a)(7).
102 16 U.S.C. §1855(b)(1)(B).
103 Ibid.
104 50 C.F.R. §600.815(a)(10).
105 16 U.S.C. §1855(b)(2).
106 16 U.S.C. §1855(b)(3).
107 16 U.S.C. §1855(b)(3)(B). 16 U.S.C. §1802 defines anadromous species as “species of fish which spawn in fresh or
estuarine waters of the United States and which migrate to ocean waters.”
108 16 U.S.C. §1855(b)(4).
109 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service

16

Figure 2. Identified Essential Fish Habitat and Designated Habitat Areas of Particular Concern for Pacific Coast Groundfish
(identified essential fish habitat [left panel] and designated habitat areas of particular concern [right panel])

Sources: Pacific Fishery Management Council, Amendment 28 (Groundfish Essential Fish Habitat, Rockfish Conservation Area Modifications, and Magnuson-Stevens Act
Discretionary Closures) to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan for the California, Oregon, and Washington Groundfish Fishery, 2020, at
https://www.pcouncil.org/actions/amendment-28-pacific-coast-groundfish-essential-fish-habitat-rockfish-conservation-area-modifications-and-magnuson-act-discretionary-
closures/; Pacific Fishery Management Council, Amendment 19 (Essential Fish Habitat) to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan for the California,
Oregon, and Washington Groundfish Fishery, 2005, at https://www.pcouncil.org/documents/2005/11/groundfish-fmp-amendments-18-19-language.pdf/.
CRS-17

link to page 21 link to page 21 U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils

FMCs also are authorized to designate habitat areas of particular concern (HAPCs; Figure 2),
which are a subset of EFH that are especially vulnerable to degradation and represent high-
priority conservation and management areas.110 HAPCs do not include additional restrictions or
protections beyond those of EFH but focus increased management attention on specific locations
compared with surrounding areas. FMCs may identify and designate HAPCs based on at least one
of the following four considerations:111
1. The importance of the ecological function provided by the habitat
2. The extent to which the habitat is sensitive to human-induced environmental
degradation
3. Whether and to what extent development activities are, or will be, stressing the
habitat type
4. The rarity of the habitat type
FMCs have designated HAPCs throughout all eight FMC regional jurisdictions. Examples
include PFMC-specified locations for Pacific groundfish (Figure 2) and SAFMC designations of
specific sites that include corals and coral reefs.112 For example, in 2009, the SAFMC designated
60,000 square kilometers throughout its jurisdiction as deep sea coral HAPC to reduce trawling
impacts in the area.113 Furthermore, FMCs may designate habitat protection zones in areas where
deep sea corals have been identified by NOAA, its Deep Sea Coral Research and Technology
Program, and/or a given FMC to ensure their protection from fishing gear.114 In 2016, for
example, NOAA and the MAFMC designated the Frank R. Lautenberg Deep-Sea Coral
Protection Area to protect deep sea corals in Mid-Atlantic federal waters beyond 450 meters in
depth.115 The use of any bottom tending gear within this area is prohibited at all times.116
Balance of Authorities Between the Secretary and the Fishery Management
Councils in Specific Circumstances
The Secretary, primarily through NOAA, works with FMCs in overseeing other elements of the
fisheries management enterprise. Under statute, the Secretary may have final authority over some
FMC actions. For example, for any fishery that extends beyond the geographical area of a given
FMC, the Secretary has the authority to designate which FMC is responsible for preparing the

110 NMFS, NOAA, “Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Essential Fish Habitat (EFH),” 67 Federal Register 2343-
2383, 2002.
111 NOAA, NMFS, “Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Essential Fish Habitat (EFH),” 67 Federal Register 2378-
2379, 2002.
112 SAFMC, Comprehensive Amendment Addressing Essential Fish Habitat in Fishery Management Plans of the South
Atlantic Region: Amendment 4 to the Coral, Coral Reefs, and Live/Hard Bottom Habitat Fishery Management Plan,
October 1998, at https://safmc.net/documents/comprehensive-efh-amendment/.
113 SAFMC, Comprehensive Ecosystem-Based Amendment 1 for the South Atlantic Region, October 2009, at
https://safmc.net/documents/comprehensive-ecosystem-based-amendment-1/.
114 16 U.S.C. §1853(b)(2).
115 NOAA, “Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Omnibus Deep-Sea Coral Amendment,” 86 Federal Register
33553-33566, June 25, 2021.
116 The Amendment 16 to the MAFMC Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan states that
“bottom-tending gear includes but is not limited to bottom-tending otter trawls, bottom-tending beam trawls, hydraulic
dredges, non-hydraulic dredges, bottom-tending seines, bottom longlines, pots and traps, and sink or anchored gillnets.”
MAFMC, Amendment 16 to the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan. Measures to
Protect Deep Sea Corals from Impacts of Fishing Gear. Environmental Assessment, Regulatory Impact Review, and
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, August 2016, at https://static1.squarespace.com/static/
511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/5d8ce2d40675282db89b3628/1569514218680/2016_MSB-Am16ea.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

18

U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils

FMP (and any amendment) for that fishery or may require its joint preparation by multiple
FMCs.117 The Secretary also is required to establish the boundaries between geographical areas of
authority between adjacent FMCs.118 In addition, the Secretary is required to consult with the
appropriate officials of an FMC that may be affected by a proposed designation of a national
marine sanctuary and to allow that FMC to prepare draft fishing regulations to implement within
a proposed sanctuary designation.119 The Secretary is responsible for creating and maintaining a
central registry system for all limited access system permits and for promulgating their associated
regulations following consultations with FMCs.120
In other parts of MSA, the Secretary may proceed with particular fisheries management actions
with a given FMC’s consultation or approval. For example, MSA explicitly notes that the
Secretary may not establish a limited access system in a secretarially prepared FMP unless that
system is first approved by a majority of the voting members of the applicable FMC.121
Additionally, the Secretary is to submit any Secretary-prepared FMP or amendment for a fishery
managed by a given FMC for consideration and comment by that FMC and the public.122
Although the Secretary has direct jurisdiction over the management of Atlantic highly migratory
species,123 including development of their FMPs and amendments, MSA requires the Secretary to
consult with FMCs affected by any FMP, amendment, or regulation.124 Finally, to repeal or revoke
the FMP for any fishery under its authority, the FMC is to first approve that action by three-
quarters majority of FMC voting members before the Secretary may repeal or revoke the FMP.125
For example, the GMFMC repealed its FMP for the stone crab fishery of the Gulf of Mexico in
2010, after which NMFS repealed the FMP and removed its implementing regulations in 2011.126
In certain cases, the Secretary and the FMCs also work together on advisory fishery negotiation
panels (FNPs) to assist in the development of specific conservation and management measures
for a fishery.127 FNPs may be established for specific purposes, such as assisting an FMC with
specific fisheries under its authority, finding consensus among interests on a contentious issue,
providing additional support in developing a rebuilding plan, or for other reasons.128 The results
and recommendations from the FNP are advisory in nature, with no obligation by the Secretary or
a given FMC to use any or all of them.129

117 16 U.S.C. §1854(f).
118 16 U.S.C. §1854(f)(2).
119 16 U.S.C. §1433(b)(2)(D); 16 U.S.C. §1434(a)(5).
120 16 U.S.C. §1855(h).
121 16 U.S.C. §1854(c)(3).
122 16 U.S.C. §1854(c)(4).
123 MSA, under 16 U.S.C. §1802(21), defines highly migratory species as “tuna species, marlin (Tetrapturus spp. and
Makaira spp.), oceanic sharks, sailfishes (Istiophorus spp.), and swordfish (Xiphias gladius).”
124 16 U.S.C. §1854(g)(1)(A).
125 16 U.S.C. §1854(h).
126 NOAA, “Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Stone Crab Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico;
Removal of Regulations,” 76 Federal Register 139, July 20, 2011; NOAA, “Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of
Mexico, and South Atlantic; Stone Crab Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Removal of Regulations,” 76 Federal Register
185, September 23, 2011.
127 16 U.S.C. §1855(g). A fishery negotiation panel (FNP) is defined in 50 C.F.R. §600.750 as “an advisory committee
established by one or more Councils or the Secretary in accordance with these regulations to assist in the development
of fishery conservation and management measures.”
128 50 C.F.R. §600.751.
129 16 U.S.C. §1855(g)(3).
Congressional Research Service

19

U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils

Emerging Science and Management Priorities for
Regional Fishery Management Councils
FMC science and management priorities continue to broaden through enhanced consideration of
environmental, socioeconomic, and intergovernmental factors. FMC and CCC meetings have
focused on topics such as climate governance and scenario planning, international management
strategies, area-based management and protections, greater understanding of EFH, and
enhancements to recreational fisheries management and data collection.130 Additionally, the
incorporation of environmental justice considerations into FMC management actions is a
recurring priority.131 FMCs have expressed their desire for greater engagement on aquaculture-
related issues and fishery impacts on threatened and endangered species.132 Furthermore, the
WPRFMC and its stakeholders have raised concerns about the effects of national marine
sanctuary designations and proposed marine national monument expansions on western Pacific
fisheries and fishing communities.133
Consideration of Climate Change, Marine Ecosystems, and Other
Ocean Uses
FMCs are addressing several emerging issues, including the following:
• Climate change—for example, FMCs, together with NOAA and state fishery
management organizations, are conducting climate change scenario planning
exercises to examine governance and management issues related to climate
change and fish stock distributions.134
• Marine biodiversity—for example, FMCs serve on Regional Fishery
Management Organization advisory councils or as commissioners,135 and are

130 U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils, “Council Coordination Committee,” at
http://www.fisherycouncils.org/ccc-meetings.
131 The CCC Environmental Justice Working Group leads these efforts. Ibid.
132 CCC, Regional Fishery Management Council Positions on Magnuson-Stevens Act Reauthorization Issues, May 31,
2022, at https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56c65ea3f2b77e3a78d3441e/t/632b17d89c9d5012369763d1/
1663768546263/220531_CCC_MSA_Reauth_Working_Paper_final.pdf (hereinafter, CCC, Regional Fishery
Management Council Positions); CCC, Meeting Report: Council Coordination Committee—October 18-20, 2022,
Washington, DC, 2022, at https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56c65ea3f2b77e3a78d3441e/t/
63629064a664e84c59c0b206/1667403876592/October-2022-CCC-Meeting-Report.pdf (hereinafter, CCC, Meeting
Report, October 2022.
133 WPFMC, “Press Release: Council Rebukes Proposal to Expand Marine National Monument in Pacific,” September
22, 2022, at https://www.wpcouncil.org/press-release-council-rebukes-proposal-to-expand-marine-national-monument-
in-pacific-22-september-2022/; Paula Dobbyn, “NOAA Rejects Wespac’s Proposed Fishing Rule for Hawaii Marine
Monument,” Honolulu Civil Beat, February 24, 2023,at https://www.civilbeat.org/2023/02/noaa-rejects-wespacs-
proposed-fishing-rule-for-hawaii-marine-monument/.
134 CCC, Meeting Report, October 2022.
135 NMFS, NOAA, “Nominations for U.S. Commissioners to Regional Fisheries Management Organizations,” 87
Federal Register 31525-31530, May 24, 2022. NOAA defines a regional fishery management organization as “treaty-
based bodies whose objective is to ensure the sustainable conservation and management of shared fish stocks and other
living marine resources through international cooperation.” NOAA, NMFS, “International and Regional Fisheries
Management Organizations,” at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/international-affairs/international-and-regional-
fisheries-management-organizations.
Congressional Research Service

20

U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils

interested in participating in international negotiations related to marine
biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdictions as an emerging priority.136
• Conservation areas—for example, the CCC Area-Based Management
Subcommittee is carrying out investigations to accurately characterize
conservation areas in the U.S. exclusive economic zone, with a final report and
GIS data expected to be published by mid-2023.137
• Marine spatial planning—for example,138 FMCs have established multiple special
use or restricted zones in their areas of authority over time,139 while the MAFMC
and NEFMC are engaged in addressing the trade-offs of offshore wind
development on their respective fisheries.140
• Aquaculture—for example, FMCs have expressed their desire for greater
involvement in the identification and assessment of aquaculture projects,
including those associated with Aquaculture Opportunity Area implementation
efforts,141 and during the development of programmatic environmental impact
statements.142
FMCs are also leading efforts to enhance engagements with the recreational fishing community
through annual meetings and workshops. Topics of focus include improvements to data collection
and the development of recreational harvest control rules framework actions for more stable
approaches to recreational harvest limit setting,143 concerns that have been raised by stakeholders
and in legislation before Congress.144 Additionally, FMCs have expressed their desire for greater
involvement in Section 7 consultations of the Endangered Species Act (ESA),145 with respect to
fishery management activities that may affect threatened or endangered species.146 During recent

136 CCC, Meeting Report: Council Coordination Committee. May 17-19, 2022. Annapolis, Maryland, 2022, at
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56c65ea3f2b77e3a78d3441e/t/62911281c2642d6c015aef61/1653674625362/
Final+May+2022+CCC+Meeting+Report.pdf. Hereinafter, CCC, Meeting Report, May 2022.
137 CCC, Meeting Report, May 2022.
138 The International Oceanographic Commission defines marine spatial planning as “a public process of analyzing and
allocating the spatial and temporal distribution of human activities in marine areas to achieve ecological, economic, and
social objectives that are usually specified through a political process.” Charles Ehler and Fanny Douvere, Marine
Spatial Planning: A Step-by-Step Approach Toward Ecosystem-Based Management, Intergovernmental Oceanographic
Commission and Man and the Biosphere Programme, IOC Manual and Guides No. 53, ICAM Dossier No. 6, Paris,
2009, at https://repository.oceanbestpractices.org/bitstream/handle/11329/459/186559e.pdf?sequence=1.
139 U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils, U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils: Decades of Knowledge
and Experience in Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning, 2011, at https://static1.squarespace.com/static/
56c65ea3f2b77e3a78d3441e/t/579147278419c2b0469d2162/1469138731491/MSP-Flier+v4.pdf.
140 MAFMC and NEFMC, “Offshore Wind in the Northeast Region,” at https://www.mafmc.org/northeast-offshore-
wind.
141 As established by Executive Order 13921, “Promoting American Seafood Competitiveness and Economic Growth,”
85 Federal Register 28471-28477, May 12, 2020; CCC, Regional Fishery Management Council Positions.
142 CCC, Regional Fishery Management Council Positions.
143 NMFS, NOAA, “Recreational Fisheries Update, Council Coordination Committee, May 18th, 2022,” at
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56c65ea3f2b77e3a78d3441e/t/62795c00b9d67f0b5d378d9c/1652120579132/
G1_CCC+RecFish+Presentation+May+2022.pdf.
144 Examples include the Modernizing Recreational Fisheries Management Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-405) and proposed
legislation during the 117th Congress, including H.R. 59, the Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing
Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act.
145 Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act corresponds to 16 U.S.C. §1536; CRS Report R46677, The Endangered
Species Act: Overview and Implementation, by Pervaze A. Sheikh and Erin H. Ward.
146 Marian Macpherson, “National Marine Fisheries Service Policy 01-117: Integration of Endangered Species Act
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

21

link to page 27 U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils

workshops, FMCs have also focused on scientific enhancements to management, including
greater incorporation of ecosystem indicators into stock assessments, developing information to
support management of interacting species in consideration of ecosystem-based fisheries
management (EBFM),147 and best approaches for assessing and developing fishing level
recommendations in response to species distributional changes.148 Stakeholders have raised these
concerns, which have also been reflected in introduced legislation to amend MSA.149
Incorporation of Ecosystem-Based Approaches into Management
Actions
The 2006 amendments to MSA noted that “a number of [FMCs] have demonstrated significant
progress in integrating ecosystem considerations in fisheries management using the existing
authorities provided by this Act.”150 The amendments additionally mandated that NOAA, in
consultation with the FMCs, complete a study on the state of the science to advance the concepts
and integration of ecosystem considerations in regional fisheries management.151 That study
recommended the expansion of fishery surveys, enhancements to stakeholder participation in
FMC activities, evaluations of proposed management strategies through predictive modeling, and
additional efforts to implement ecosystem approaches into FMC efforts.152
Since 2006, NMFS and FMCs have jointly implemented ecosystem management approaches
(Figure 3).153 Various levels of ecosystem management exist that build from traditional single
species fisheries management of a particular stock to (1) an ecosystem approach to fisheries
management (EAFM), accounting for environmental effects (i.e., climate, habitat, ecology) on an
individual stock, to (2) ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM), accounting for
environmental effects through a multispecies approach (i.e., on multiple fishes), and (3)
ecosystem-based management (EBM) of the fisheries sector together with all other ocean-use
sectors.154 An EAFM may focus on the inclusion of ecosystem factors in analytical tools and
other products (e.g., stock or ecosystem assessments) to enhance understanding of fishery
dynamics for informing management decisions of a particular fishery.155 EBFM may also apply
these factors to a multispecies or system-level approach for managing total harvest, as related to

Section 7 with Magnuson-Stevens Act Processes,” NOAA, NMFS, September 2018, at
https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/dam-migration/01-117.pdf; CCC, Meeting Report, October 2022; CCC, Regional
Fishery Management Council Positions.
147 The 2016 NOAA Fisheries Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management (EBFM) Policy defines EBFM as “a systematic
approach to fisheries management in a geographically specified area that contributes to the resilience and sustainability
of the ecosystem; recognizes the physical, biological, economic, and social interactions among the affected fishery-
related components of the ecosystem, including humans; and seeks to optimize benefits among a diverse set of societal
goals”; NOAA, NMFS Policy 01-120.
148 U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils, “Seventh National SCS Workshop (2022),” at
http://www.fisherycouncils.org/ssc-workshops/scs-7.
149 For example, H.R. 4690, the Sustaining America’s Fisheries for the Future Act of 2022.
150 16 U.S.C. §1801(a)(11).
151 16 U.S.C. §1882(f).
152 NOAA, NMFS, Report to Congress: The State of Science to Support and Ecosystem Approach to Regional Fishery
Management, NOAA Technical Memorandum, NMFS-F/SPO-96, 2009, at https://swfsc-
publications.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/CR/2009/2009Nat.pdf.
153 Link and Marshak, Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management.
154 Ibid.
155 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service

22

U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils

total ecosystem production, for example.156 In recognition of these factors, EBFM
implementation plans are in effect for all FMC jurisdictions as of 2019.157 However, some have
argued that it may be impractical or unnecessary for management to implement all elements of
EBFM, since no two fisheries or ecosystems are exactly alike.158
Figure 3. The Various Levels of Ecosystem Management

Source: NOAA Fisheries; Jason S. Link and Anthony R. Marshak, Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management: Progress,
Importance, and Impacts in the United States (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021).
Notes: The above figure il ustrates the various levels of ecosystem management, particularly focused on the
fisheries sector. It depicts management of that sector and the other sectors in a marine ecosystem, building from
single species fisheries management (SSFM) to ecosystem-based management (EBM).
Some FMCs have developed, or are in the process of finalizing, fishery ecosystem plans (FEPs)
for their respective geographic areas of authority.159 As of August 2023, the NPFMC, PFMC,
WPRFMC, and SAFMC each have at least one FEP for geographies in their respective

156 Ibid; Jason S. Link and Reg A. Watson, “Global Ecosystem Overfishing: Clear Delineation with Real Limits to
Production,” Science Advances, vol. 5, no. 6 (2019), eaav0474, pp. 1-11. Hereinafter Link and Watson, 2019.
157 NOAA, NMFS, “Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management Implementation Plans,” at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/
national/ecosystems/ecosystem-based-fishery-management-implementation-plans.
158 John T. Trocha, Maite Pons, and Merrill B. Rudd, “Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management: Perception on
Definitions, Implementations, and Aspirations,” PLoS One, vol. 13, no. 1 (2018), e0190467, pp. 1-9.
159 NOAA defines a fishery ecosystem plan as “a metric to help fishery managers determine whether management
effectively incorporates core ecosystem principles. Fishery ecosystem plans provide a clear description and
understanding of the fundamental physical, biological, and human/institutional context of ecosystems within which
fisheries are managed; direct how that information should be used in the context of fishery management plans; set
policies that guide development and implementation of fishery management options.” NOAA, NMFS, “Ecosystem-
Based Fishery Management Implementation Plans—Fishery Ecosystem Plans,” at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/
national/ecosystems/ecosystem-based-fishery-management-implementation-plans#fishery-ecosystem-plans.
Congressional Research Service

23

U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils

jurisdictions, with the WPRFMC managing its fisheries under five FEPs.160 FEPs are intended to
complement the existing fishery management framework included in MSA;161 typically, they are
fewer in number than the multiple FMPs managed by a given FMC. In 1999, the congressionally
established Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panel (EPAP) identified FEPs as an important
mechanism for implementing EBFM and provided recommendations to Congress about FEP
contents.162 Example recommendations include incorporating assessments on ecosystem health
and species habitat needs throughout their life histories into FEPs, and including examinations of
ecological, human, and institutional effects on fisheries. MSA also authorized the Secretary to
support regional pilot programs with FMCs to implement the EPAP recommendations into
FEPs.163 A number of regions are incorporating these recommendations into their FEPs to varying
extents.164
Some FMC regions have developed ecosystem-level reference points to help inform management
decisions and are developing preliminary calculations of system-wide or aggregate group harvest
limits related to OY, ecosystem biomass and production, and food web structure.165 For example,
the NPFMC enacted a 2 million metric ton limit for all groundfish in the Bering Sea and Aleutian
Islands Management Area,166 which has been in effect for decades to achieve OY and is intended
to preserve ecosystem function.167 Multiple regions, particularly those managed by the MAFMC
and NEFMC, also are developing approaches to manage at the aggregate level and to track
changes in ecosystem-level resilience.168 Scientists recently have developed indexes accounting
for system-level harvest and inherent ecosystem productivity limits with the aim of preventing
ecosystem overfishing in FMC jurisdictions.169 Additionally, NOAA routinely produces regional
ecosystem status reports (ESRs), which include information about the ecosystem dynamics in a
given FMC region.170 ESRs, which NOAA communicates to FMCs and their SSCs, are intended
to assist these bodies with incorporating ecosystem-level considerations into their management
efforts. Several FMC regions also are exploring the cumulative socioecological impacts that
affect their fisheries ecosystems and are developing best practices to assess social and
environmental trade-offs.171

160 NOAA, NMFS, “Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management Implementation Plans—Fishery Ecosystem Plans,” at
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ecosystems/ecosystem-based-fishery-management-implementation-
plans#fishery-ecosystem-plans.
161 Erin B. Wilkinson and Karen Abrams, Benchmarking the 1999 EPAP Recommendations with Existing Fishery
Ecosystem Plans, NOAA, NMFS, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OSF-5, November 2015, at
https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/9065. Hereinafter Wilkinson and Abrams, 2015.
162 Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panel (EPAP), Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management: A Report to Congress, 1999,
at https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/23730. The EPAP was established in 1996 under 16 U.S.C. §1882.
163 16 U.S.C. §1882(f)(2); Wilkinson and Abrams, 2015.
164 Wilkinson and Abrams, 2015; Link and Marshak, Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management.
165 Link and Marshak, Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management.
166 P.L. 108-199, Division B, Title VIII, §803, January 23, 2004, 118 Stat. 110.
167 NOAA, NMFS, “Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management Strengthens Resilience to Climate Change,” at
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/feature-story/ecosystem-based-fisheries-management-strengthens-resilience-climate-
change.
168 Link and Marshak, Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management.
169 Link and Watson, 2019.
170 Ecosystem Status Reports are a product of the NOAA Integrated Ecosystem Assessments program; NOAA,
“Ecosystem Status Reports,” at https://www.integratedecosystemassessment.noaa.gov/ecosystem-status-reports.
171 Link and Marshak, Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management.
Congressional Research Service

24

U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils

Additional FMC efforts to incorporate ecosystem-level considerations into fisheries management
include those for addressing and reducing fisheries bycatch within regions,172 and through the
development of specific plans for the management and conservation of forage fish, a key
component of marine food webs.173 H.R. 4690 in the 117th Congress proposed enhanced
consideration of these elements through greater inclusion of data that quantify bycatch and
incorporate bycatch reduction advancements into FMC actions and measures. Furthermore, it
would have required SSCs to develop multiyear research priorities for forage fish and maintain a
sufficient abundance, diversity, and localized distribution of forage fish populations to support
their role in marine ecosystems. For example, these efforts could build on recent MAFMC efforts
for butterfish, a species of forage fish.174 H.R. 59 in the 117th Congress recommended that FMCs
also consider changes to an ecosystem when developing ACLs. These considerations could
strengthen the use of ecosystem factors in stock assessments and resulting ACLs that buffer for
these environmental effects, such as those recently applied to Gulf of Mexico groupers to account
for red tide bloom effects on their populations.175
Appropriations in Support of Fishery Management
Councils
Congress typically appropriates funds to NMFS for various FMC-related activities, including for
budget line items in support of operations and research efforts entitled “Regional Councils and
Fisheries Commissions,” “Fisheries Science and Management,” “Fisheries and Ecosystem
Science Programs and Services,” and “Fisheries Data Collections, Surveys, and Assessments.”176
In FY2023, Congress appropriated a total of $409.6 million in support of these efforts.177 NOAA

172 The National Bycatch Reduction Strategy, developed by NOAA in collaboration with partners, includes objectives
and actions that guide NOAA Fisheries’ efforts to reduce bycatch and bycatch mortality throughout its regions. NMFS,
NOAA, National Bycatch Reduction Strategy, December 2016, at https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/17062.
173 Examples include efforts by the CFMC, MAFMC, and PFMC. MAFMC, Unmanaged Forage Omnibus Amendment,
March 2017, at https://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/5a0b49b053450ab00cbe4e46/
1510689203283/20170613_Final%2BForage%2BEA_FONSI%2BSigned.pdf.
174 In 2015, the MAFMC refined the butterfish quota based on enhanced information about its seasonal habitat
preferences and their effects on its distribution and probability of encounter in fishery abundance surveys throughout
the year. As a result of incorporating this environmental information into the assessment process, the fishery was no
longer listed as overfished, and the MAFMC increased its quota. Northeast Fisheries Science Center, NOAA, NMFS
58th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (58th SAW). Assessment Summary Report, March 2014, at
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/53347ccce4b02c9d8fc8cfdf/1395948748692/
Tab+03_SAW_SARC+Presentation.pdf; NOAA, “Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Mackerel,
Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries; Specifications and Management Measures,” 80 Federal Register 14870-14875, March
20, 2015.
175 GMFMC, “Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council Ecosystem Activities. Council Member Ongoing
Development Workshop,” 2022, at https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56c65ea3f2b77e3a78d3441e/t/
636977aaf551a92f57539799/1667856298193/CMOD+2022+-+GMFMC+Resources.pdf.
176 For example, see Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, Legislative Text, Congressional Record, vol. 168, part
197 (December 19, 2022), p. S7344; and Joint Explanatory Statement Submitted by Mr. Leahy, Chair of the Senate
Committee on Appropriations, Regarding H.R. 2617, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, Congressional Record,
daily edition, vol. 168, No. 198 (December 20, 2022), p. S7908.
177 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service

25

U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils

originally requested $436.6 million for these efforts in FY2023,178 and has requested $457 million
for FY2024.179
Furthermore, under MSA, the Secretary is to maintain a “Fisheries Conservation and
Management Fund” to disburse funds for efforts related to the improvement of commercial and
recreational fishery harvest data collection, cooperative fishery research and analysis,
technological advancements, analyses of fish and seafood for health benefits and risks, the
marketing of sustainable fishery products, and the provision of direct assistance to fishers to
offset any mandated gear modifications or fishing practices.180 Every two years, the Secretary
allocates available funds from the fund among FMC regions according to FMC recommendations
and based on their regional priorities.181 FMCs may also designate certain amounts for inclusion
in the fund.182
Some FMCs are also supported by FMC-specific funds that are codified in MSA.183 Congress
also has restricted FMCs or the Secretary from using appropriated funds to develop certain FMPs,
amendments, or regulations that are associated with quotas, permits, or licenses for particular
fisheries (e.g., red snapper).184
Issues for Congress
Congress may consider refinements to MSA and FMC funding levels. Congress may mandate
particular requirements for FMCs, including specific requirements that their management
approaches consider environmental and economic tradeoffs. U.S. fisheries continue to respond to
environmental stressors, such as overfishing, habitat degradation, climate change, eutrophication,
and increasing storm intensity, with anticipated effects to their sustainability.185 FMC
management actions account for the effects of these stressors on fishery populations and are
broadening into complementary approaches that also consider their ecological consequences to
marine ecosystems and socioeconomic impacts to fishing communities.186 Many of these
emergent management priorities and approaches have been in development since the last set of
amendments to MSA. Therefore, Congress may consider codifying management approaches,
considerations, flexibilities, and precautionary measures being undertaken by FMCs and NOAA.
These topics will be considered below.
Amending the Magnuson-Stevens Act
Congress has introduced legislation to amend MSA in the last several Congresses. In the 117th
Congress, two bills (H.R. 59, H.R. 4690) proposed amending MSA regarding the composition,

178 NOAA, Budget Estimates, Fiscal Year 2023, Congressional Submission, 2023, p. Control Table-2, at
https://www.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/2022-04/FY23_NOAAPresidents_Budget_508Compliant.pdf.
179 NOAA, Budget Estimates, Fiscal Year 2024, Congressional Submission, 2023, p. Control Table-2, at
https://www.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/2023-04/NOAA_FY24_CJ.pdf.
180 16 U.S.C. §1891b.
181 16 U.S.C. §1891b(d).
182 16 U.S.C. §1891b(c).
183 16 U.S.C. §1824(e)(7)-(8).
184 16 U.S.C. §1851 note; P.L. 104-208.
185 Link and Marshak, Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management.
186 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service

26

link to page 31 U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils

functioning, and roles and responsibilities of FMCs as related to multiple subject areas. Table 1
lists subject areas in each bill that directly reference the FMCs.
Table 1. Subject Areas in H.R. 59 and H.R. 4690 (117th Congress) That Would Have
Amended MSA and Regional Fishery Management Council Activities
Subject Area (in alphabetical order)
H.R. 59
H.R. 4690
Annual Catch Limits
X
X
Bycatch
—
X
Catch Shares and Limited Access Privilege Programs
X
X
Climate Change and Emerging Fisheries
—
X
Cooperative Research and Management
X
X
Council Composition, Functions, Programs, and
X
X
Engagements with NOAA
Essential Fish Habitat
—
X
Electronic Technologies
X
X
Forage Fish
—
X
North Pacific and Arctic Fisheries
X
—
Northeast Regional Pilot Research Trawl Survey and Study
X
X
Permits
X
X
Preventing Overfishing and Rebuilding Fish Stocks
X
X
Recreational Data Improvements
X
X
Transparency in Council Procedures
X
X
Sources: CRS, from H.R. 59, 117th Congress; and H.R. 4690, 117th Congress.
Notes: MSA = Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA; P.L. 94-265, as amended);
NOAA = National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. For each subject, an “X” indicates inclusion in a
bil , a “—” indicates that it was not included.
In the 117th Congress, H.R. 59 and H.R. 4690 overlapped in terms of multiple topics applicable to
FMCs and their functioning, including enhancements to fisheries science and data, refinements to
the regularity of stock assessments, revisions for rebuilding overfished stocks, and emphasis on
fishing communities. Both bills also referenced subsistence fishing communities, beyond the
current primary focus on commercial and recreational sectors, and included language for ensuring
the transparency of FMC activities.
Each bill had a different scope. For example, H.R. 59 in the 117th Congress primarily would have
addressed fisheries management through enhanced management flexibilities, including, for
example, refinements to red snapper management through enhanced consideration of recreational
fishing activities, among other topics. H.R. 4690 in the 117th Congress would have revised FMC
composition, and included greater tribal and Indigenous representation on the NPFMC and
WPRFMC and additional requirements for FMC member expertise, among other changes.
Other bills introduced in the 117th Congress (S. 2150 and S. 907) and in the 115th Congress (H.R.
4726 and S. 2264) would have made other changes to MSA and its corresponding requirements
for FMCs.
The CCC and other stakeholders often issue statements and working papers on proposed
amendments to MSA and submit comment letters on related bills to Members of Congress. For
Congressional Research Service

27

U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils

example, in May 2022, the CCC published a revised working paper on MSA issues encompassing
the cumulative positions of the eight FMCs.187 FMC members are also occasionally invited to
provide testimony during congressional hearings and at events related to the subject of MSA.
FMC priorities for MSA include addressing issues related to stock rebuilding, climate change,
data limitations on commercial and recreational fisheries, and enhancements to cooperative
research with the fishing industry. FMCs also recommended an increased frequency of stock
assessments to reduce uncertainty when setting ACLs, additional resources for stock surveys, and
NOAA’s development of a comprehensive plan and schedule to address stock assessment needs
on a national basis. Additionally, the CCC communicated its opposition to any prescriptive
requirements regarding the incorporation of particular data sources into stock assessments and
deferred to existing legal requirements (e.g., Information Quality Act; P.L. 106-554) for
considering and evaluating nongovernmental data for inclusion in assessments. Additional CCC
priorities included fishery management issues related to ending overfishing, ensuring flexibility in
administering catch-share programs, considering multi-FMC approaches to managing range-
shifting species, and ensuring flexibilities in defining and consulting on EFH.
FMCs have expressed support for modifications to MSA that are national in scope with
“reasonable flexibility” to address region-specific issues.188 FMCs also have communicated
concerns about amended language that may address only region-specific issues or the possibility
that focusing on a given region could negatively affect operations in other regions. Furthermore,
the councils have recommended that any legislation be flexible enough to achieve conservation
objectives, be focused on intended outcomes, and consider how additional mandates (including
any analytical requirements) would place further pressure on the FMCs in meeting MSA
requirements. FMCs have expressed a desire for legislation to avoid limiting FMC and NOAA
flexibility to respond to changing climates and shifting ecosystems and to ensure both parties
have the resources to respond to any legislative provisions. FMCs stated that among their highest
priorities when considering any modifications to MSA were the preservation and enhancement of
stock assessments and fisheries surveys.
Additional stakeholders from fishing and seafood-related industries have expressed opinions on
proposed amendments to MSA.189 For example, some in the fishing industry have supported
legislative language to address climate change effects on fisheries, improve recreational fisheries
data collection, and enhance the use of electronic technologies in fisheries management by both
FMCs and NOAA, as included in recent bills.190 Other interest groups likewise have supported
efforts to address the impacts of climate change on domestic fisheries and to incorporate climate
change concerns and refined approaches to addressing bycatch into management.191 Other
stakeholders have promoted conservation protections and stock rebuilding efforts through
MSA.192 Alternatively, regional fishing industry groups and angler communities have raised

187 CCC, Regional Fishery Management Council Positions.
188 Ibid.
189 Examples include the Seafood Harvesters of America, the Marine Fish Conservation Network, the Alaska Longline
Fishermen’s Association, the Pacific Coast Federation of Fisherman’s Associations, and others.
190 Seafood Harvesters of America, “Seafood Harvesters of America Statement on Magnuson Stevens Act
Reauthorization Bill Introduction,” at https://www.seafoodharvesters.org/blog/seafood-harvesters-of-america-
statement-on-magnuson-stevens-act-reauthorization-bill-introduction.
191 National Fisherman Staff, “Magnuson-Stevens Changes Move Through House Committee,” National Fisherman,
September 29, 2022, at https://www.nationalfisherman.com/national-international/magnuson-stevens-changes-move-
through-house-committee.
192 Letter from Tim Sloane, Program Director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, May 27,
2015, at https://conservefish.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/letters/Pacific-Coast-Federation-of-Fishermens-
Associations-May-27.PDF.
Congressional Research Service

28

U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils

concerns about the economic effects of conservation and stock rebuilding efforts and the impacts
of forage fish protections on nationally important species.193 Furthermore, some stakeholders
from commercial and recreational fishing communities have raised concerns about the economic
effects of stricter bycatch provisions and EFH regulations in proposed bills.194
If Congress continues its consideration of MSA, it may address these priorities and approaches
expressed by FMCs and NOAA. In particular, Congress may consider whether to codify these
FMC approaches and may determine appropriate funding for their execution. Alternatively,
Congress may conduct oversight of the current authorities and management approaches and may
determine any relevant appropriations.
Science and Management Priorities for Regional Fishery
Management Councils
Congress may consider emerging FMC and CCC scientific and management priorities, including
those for EBFM. Congress may address FMC-communicated priorities or potentially leave
discretion for supporting or discontinuing these efforts to NOAA and FMCs under current
mandates. Congress could consider FMC and NOAA EBFM needs, codify ecosystem-based
approaches to management, and consider appropriate funding for their related efforts.
Alternatively, Congress may decide to support fisheries management approaches codified in MSA
and under recent appropriations. Many of these FMC focus areas align with priorities for
amending MSA that have been expressed by FMCs and in proposed legislation, including for
fisheries management in response to climate change, commercial and recreational data needs, and
in addressing overfishing, bycatch, and refinements to limited access privilege programs.195
Funding to Fishery Management Councils
Congress could consider whether to provide the same or different funding amounts to support
science and management needs to enable continued incorporation of ecosystem considerations
into FMC management actions. Alternatively, Congress could allow NOAA and FMCs to allocate
available funds to support these efforts. Congress may also opt to retain discretions to the
Secretary for particular funding priorities as part of the Fisheries Conservation and Management
Fund, for example, or to FMCs through FMC-specific funding agreements (e.g., Western Pacific
Sustainable Fisheries Fund). Similarly, Congress could allow NOAA in consultation with the
FMCs to continue determining how best to apply funds in support of cooperative research with
the fishing industry toward these efforts.196
As marine ecosystems and their fisheries continue to respond to environmental and human-
associated stressors,197 some interested parties have raised concerns about funding to support
federal science and management related to these stressors. Some organizations have stated that
additional funds are needed to ensure fisheries science and management can expand to address

193 Kirk Moore, “Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Steams on amid Partisan Shoals,” National Fisherman,
September 22, 2022, at https://www.nationalfisherman.com/national-international/magnuson-stevens-reauthorization-
steams-on-amid-partisan-shoals.
194 Ibid.
195 CCC, Regional Fishery Management Council Positions.
196 16 U.S.C. §1867(c).
197 Elena Gissi et al., “A Review of the Combined Effects of Climate Change and Other Local Human Stressors on the
Marine Environment,” Science of the Total Environment, vol. 755, no. 10 (February 2021), 142564, pp. 1-14.
Congressional Research Service

29

U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils

data gaps that may arise due to offshore wind development and other stressors.198 In addition,
representatives from the fishing industry have advocated for additional funding for fisheries
science and management in response to climate change.199 As part of its FY2023 appropriations
explanatory statement, Congress encouraged NMFS to “adapt its fishery management practices to
the reality of the changing climate and to deliver the climate informed advice needed for effective
marine resource management in rapidly changing oceans,”200 which may have implications for
future FMC requirements. In the FY2023 appropriations explanatory statement, Congress also
directed NMFS to report about options “for States to exchange or trade quota through FMCs as
fish stocks expand and shift due to climate change” and to make recommendations for “improved
coordination and transparent decision-making among [FMCs], including in cases where stocks
have shifted into waters off states that currently are not party to the relevant [FMC].”201
Other fisheries stakeholders have expressed dissatisfaction with current management approaches
and identified a need to continue focusing on and funding efforts related to stock rebuilding and
EFH as mandated in MSA.202 In response to surveys about ecosystem approaches to management,
which began in 2006, the majority of stakeholders from several regions stated that ecosystem-
based approaches would be beneficial to fisheries and fishing communities.203 However, 30%-
40% of respondents also perceived that ecosystem-based approaches would be too complex and
costly as a management system.204 Additionally, some stakeholders considered elements of
ecosystem approaches to management, such as managing prey species so that predators or marine
mammals have sufficient prey, as being less important than other fisheries management
priorities.205 Congress may evaluate funding and the resources necessary to support enhancements
to fisheries science and management approaches in consideration of these additional concerns.

Author Information

Anthony R. Marshak

Analyst in Natural Resources Policy

198 Kirk Moore, “Offshore Wind Requires Funding Boost for NOAA Surveys, Science Centers, Advocates Say,”
National Fisherman, March 17, 2023, at https://www.nationalfisherman.com/national-international/offshore-wind-
requires-funding-boost-for-noaa-surveys-science-centers-advocates-say.
199 Dave Monti, “Fishing Report: Now’s the Time to Fund NOAA’s Climate-Change Battle,” Providence Journal, June
3, 2022, at https://www.providencejournal.com/story/sports/outdoors/2022/06/03/ri-fishing-report-its-time-fund-noaa-
battle-against-climate-change/7484302001/.
200 Joint Explanatory Statement Submitted by Mr. Leahy, Chair of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, Regarding
H.R. 2617, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 168, No. 198 (December
20, 2022), pp. S7908-S7910.
201 Ibid.
202 Ayeisha A. Brinson and Kristy Wallmo, “Stakeholder Attitudes Toward Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management,”
Marine Fisheries Review, vol. 77, no. 3 (December 2015), pp. 17-30.
203 Ibid.
204 Ibid.
205 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service

30

U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R47645 · VERSION 1 · NEW
31