Contents

• Introduction
• Overview of U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils
• National Standards for Fishery Conservation and Management
• Regional Fishery Management Council Functions
• Regional Fishery Management Council Structure and Composition
• Voting Members
• Nonvoting Members
• Executive Director and Staff
• Scientific and Statistical Committee
• Additional Committees and Advisory Panels
• Council Coordination Committee
• Management Activities of the Fishery Management Councils
• Fishery Management Plans
• Implementation of Fishery Management Plans
• Preventing Overfishing and Rebuilding Overfished Fisheries
• Identifying and Protecting Essential Fish Habitat
• Balance of Authorities Between the Secretary and the Fishery Management Councils in Specific Circumstances
• Recent Science and Management Priorities for Regional Fishery Management Councils
• Consideration of Climate Change, Marine Ecosystems, and Other Ocean Uses
• Incorporation of Ecosystem-Based Approaches into Management Actions
• Appropriations in Support of Fishery Management Councils
• Issues for Congress
• Amending the Magnuson-Stevens Act
• Science and Management Priorities for Regional Fishery Management Councils
• Funding to Fishery Management Councils

Summary

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 territorial waters) with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA; P.L. 94-265) established 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.

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-20^th century, with U.S. marine fisheries valued at $321 billion and responsible for 2.3 million jobs as of 2022.² 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 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, such as through its consideration of two separate bills introduced in the 117^th 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 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 Fishery Management Council (GFMC)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

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

Source: CRS, modified from U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils (FMCs), "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 and South Atlantic FMCs. The Pacific FMC additionally includes representatives from Idaho.

National Standards for Fishery Conservation and Management

MSA mandates that the FMCs apply the 10 National Standards for Fishery Conservation and Management (hereinafter, National Standards) in their management plans and actions.³⁰ MSA requires that any FMP prepared by a given FMC or regulation promulgated is 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

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 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.

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 GFMC 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 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 individuals submitted by tribal governments.⁵² In another example, the governor of a state submitting individuals for appointment to the GFMC 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.

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 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

In April 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14276, "Restoring American Seafood Competitiveness," which required multiple federal actions with respect to U.S. fisheries management.⁷² Among its contents, the executive order (1) directed the Secretary to work with FMCs and partners to address and refine the regulation of certain fisheries and (2) required FMCs to provide recommendations to the Secretary for prioritized actions regarding future fisheries management.⁷³

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.⁷⁴ All FMPs and their amendments (or other modifications) are subject to review and approval by the Secretary;⁷⁵ 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.⁷⁶

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.⁷⁷ In other cases, FMCs may create FMPs for a particular habitat (e.g., pelagic Sargassum and its limited commercial fishery)⁷⁸ or geography (e.g., Arctic Management Area).⁷⁹ 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).⁸⁰

Under MSA, any FMP prepared by an FMC or the Secretary for the management of a given fishery shall contain the following components:⁸¹

• Conservation and management measures to prevent overfishing, rebuild overfished stocks, and as related to the long-term health and stability of that fishery⁸²
• 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 conditions⁸³

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 fishery⁸⁴

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:

• "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 fishery⁸⁵
• 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 fishery⁸⁶

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.⁸⁷ All FMCs have the authority to designate zones and time periods that limit or prohibit fishing practices.⁸⁸ 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.⁸⁹

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.⁹⁰ 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 ensuring accountability within those limits.⁹¹ 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,⁹² a reduction in the next year's ACL, closed fishing seasons,⁹³ or modifications to bag or fishing trip limits.⁹⁴ 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.⁹⁵ 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.⁹⁶

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.⁹⁷ The 2023 annual report, for example, noted that 21 federally managed stocks (i.e., 6% of those with known overfishing status) were subject to overfishing, 47 were overfished (i.e., 18% of those with known overfished status), and 50 stocks were on the rebuilt list.⁹⁸ As of 2023, 48 stocks continue to have rebuilding plans, 8 of which are no longer overfished but continue to be managed under rebuilding plans.⁹⁹

Identifying and Protecting Essential Fish Habitat

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.¹⁰⁰ 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.¹⁰¹ 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,¹⁰² to minimize adverse effects from fishing on such EFH.¹⁰³ 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.¹⁰⁴ For example, these actions may include issuing restrictions on fishing gear, time and area closures, and/or harvest limits, as necessary.¹⁰⁵ 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.¹⁰⁶

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.¹⁰⁷ Each FMC may comment on and make recommendations to the Secretary and any federal or state agency regarding that activity.¹⁰⁸ 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.¹⁰⁹ The Secretary is to recommend measures to the particular agency to conserve that habitat,¹¹⁰ 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.¹¹¹

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/.

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.¹¹² 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:¹¹³

(i) The importance of the ecological function provided by the habitat.

(ii) The extent to which the habitat is sensitive to human-induced environmental degradation.

(iii) Whether, and to what extent, development activities are, or will be, stressing the habitat type.

(iv) 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.¹¹⁴ 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.¹¹⁵ 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.¹¹⁶ 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.¹¹⁷ The use of any bottom tending gear within this area is prohibited at all times.¹¹⁸

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 FMP (and any amendment) for that fishery or may require its joint preparation by multiple FMCs.¹¹⁹ The Secretary also is required to establish the boundaries between geographical areas of authority between adjacent FMCs.¹²⁰ 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.¹²¹ 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.¹²²

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.¹²³ 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.¹²⁴ Although the Secretary has direct jurisdiction over the management of Atlantic highly migratory species,¹²⁵ including development of their FMPs and amendments, MSA requires the Secretary to consult with FMCs affected by any FMP, amendment, or regulation.¹²⁶ 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.¹²⁷ For example, the GFMC repealed its FMP for the stone crab fishery of the then-named Gulf of Mexico in 2010, after which NMFS repealed the FMP and removed its implementing regulations in 2011.¹²⁸

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.¹²⁹ 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.¹³⁰ 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.¹³¹

Recent 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.¹³² Additionally, the incorporation of environmental justice considerations into FMC management actions has been a recurring priority.¹³³ FMCs have expressed their desire for greater engagement on aquaculture-related issues and fishery impacts on threatened and endangered species.¹³⁴ 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.¹³⁵

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.¹³⁶
• Marine biodiversity—for example, FMCs serve on Regional Fishery Management Organization advisory councils or as commissioners,¹³⁷ and are interested in participating in international negotiations related to marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdictions as an emerging priority.¹³⁸
• 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-2023.¹³⁹
• Marine spatial planning—for example,¹⁴⁰ FMCs have established multiple special use or restricted zones in their areas of authority over time,¹⁴¹ while the MAFMC and NEFMC are engaged in addressing the trade-offs of offshore wind development on their respective fisheries.¹⁴²
• 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,¹⁴³ and during the development of programmatic environmental impact statements.¹⁴⁴

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,¹⁴⁵ concerns that have been raised by stakeholders and in legislation before Congress.¹⁴⁶ Additionally, FMCs have expressed their desire for greater involvement in Section 7 consultations of the Endangered Species Act (ESA),¹⁴⁷ with respect to fishery management activities that may affect threatened or endangered species.¹⁴⁸ During recent 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),¹⁴⁹ and best approaches for assessing and developing fishing level recommendations in response to species distributional changes.¹⁵⁰ Stakeholders have raised these concerns, which have also been reflected in introduced legislation to amend MSA.¹⁵¹

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."¹⁵² 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.¹⁵³ 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.¹⁵⁴

Since 2006, NMFS and FMCs have jointly implemented ecosystem management approaches (Figure 3).¹⁵⁵ 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.¹⁵⁶ 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.¹⁵⁷ EBFM may also apply these factors to a multispecies or system-level approach for managing total harvest, as related to total ecosystem production, for example.¹⁵⁸ In recognition of these factors, EBFM implementation plans are in effect for all FMC jurisdictions as of 2019.¹⁵⁹ 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.¹⁶⁰

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 figure illustrates 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.¹⁶¹ As of August 2023, the NPFMC, PFMC, WPRFMC, and SAFMC each have at least one FEP for geographies in their respective jurisdictions, with the WPRFMC managing its fisheries under five FEPs.¹⁶² FEPs are intended to complement the existing fishery management framework included in MSA;¹⁶³ 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.¹⁶⁴ 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.¹⁶⁵ A number of regions are incorporating these recommendations into their FEPs to varying extents.¹⁶⁶

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.¹⁶⁷ For example, the NPFMC enacted a 2 million metric ton limit for all groundfish in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area,¹⁶⁸ which has been in effect for decades to achieve OY and is intended to preserve ecosystem function.¹⁶⁹ 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.¹⁷⁰ 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.¹⁷¹ Additionally, NOAA routinely produces regional ecosystem status reports (ESRs), which include information about the ecosystem dynamics in a given FMC region.¹⁷² 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.¹⁷³

Additional FMC efforts to incorporate ecosystem-level considerations into fisheries management include those for addressing and reducing fisheries bycatch within regions,¹⁷⁴ and through the development of specific plans for the management and conservation of forage fish, a key component of marine food webs.¹⁷⁵ H.R. 4690 in the 117^th 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.¹⁷⁶ Similar considerations also were included in H.R. 8862 in the 118^th Congress. H.R. 59 in the 117^th 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 America groupers to account for red tide bloom effects on their populations.¹⁷⁷

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."¹⁷⁸ In FY2023, Congress appropriated a total of $409.6 million in support of these efforts.¹⁷⁹ NOAA originally requested $436.6 million for these efforts in FY2023 and requested $457 million for FY2024.¹⁸⁰ In FY2024, Congress appropriated a total of $411.6 million for these efforts.¹⁸¹

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.¹⁸² Every two years, the Secretary allocates available funds from the fund among FMC regions according to FMC recommendations and based on their regional priorities.¹⁸³ FMCs may also designate certain amounts for inclusion in the fund.¹⁸⁴

Some FMCs are also supported by FMC-specific funds that are codified in MSA.¹⁸⁵ 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).¹⁸⁶

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.¹⁸⁷ 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.¹⁸⁸ 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. For example, in the 117^th Congress, two bills (H.R. 59, H.R. 4690) proposed amending MSA regarding the composition, 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.

In the 117^th 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 117^th 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 117^th 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.

More recently, H.R. 8862, introduced in the 118^th Congress, and H.R. 4690, introduced in the 117^th Congress, would have comprehensively amended MSA in similar ways. Other bills introduced in the 117^th Congress (S. 2150 and S. 907) and in the 115^th 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 example, in May 2022, the CCC published a revised working paper on MSA issues encompassing the cumulative positions of the eight FMCs.¹⁸⁹ 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.¹⁹⁰ 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.¹⁹¹ 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.¹⁹² 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.¹⁹³ Other stakeholders have promoted conservation protections and stock rebuilding efforts through MSA.¹⁹⁴ Alternatively, regional fishing industry groups and angler communities have raised concerns about the economic effects of conservation and stock rebuilding efforts and the impacts of forage fish protections on nationally important species.¹⁹⁵ 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.¹⁹⁶

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.¹⁹⁷

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.¹⁹⁸

As marine ecosystems and their fisheries continue to respond to environmental and human-associated stressors,¹⁹⁹ 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 data gaps that may arise due to offshore wind development and other stressors.²⁰⁰ In addition, representatives from the fishing industry have advocated for additional funding for fisheries science and management in response to climate change.²⁰¹ 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,"²⁰² 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]."²⁰³

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.²⁰⁴ 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.²⁰⁵ However, 30%-40% of respondents also perceived that ecosystem-based approaches would be too complex and costly as a management system.²⁰⁶ 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.²⁰⁷ Congress may evaluate funding and the resources necessary to support enhancements to fisheries science and management approaches in consideration of these additional concerns.

Footnotes