25.1 Preamble

Effective fisheries management aims to maintain the integrity of aquatic ecosystems and maximize the value of fisheries resources to the nation and to local communities by managing commercial and recreational harvests at sustainable levels, and to provide desirable seafood-producing and recreational fishing opportunities and other tourism-related benefits. While many fish stocks are abundant or recovering, many are still in decline or the status is unknown. The states have compelling interests and roles in how the federal government carries out its fisheries conservation and management responsibilities because ultimately federal regulations affect state fisheries management programs and the economies, communities, and constituents of states.

25.2 Need for State-Federal Partnerships

Effective, cooperative fisheries management, recovery of species, and protection of aquatic habitat can best be accomplished through a federal re-commitment to a strong state-federal partnership. Federal regulations can and often do significantly impact the social and economic welfare of coastal fishing communities, and state decisions have significant implications for federally managed species and offshore habitats.

A vast percentage of the fish that are harvested in federal waters spend parts of their life cycles in states’ estuaries and territorial waters. As the stewards of the land-water interface, the states are also the public trust stewards for the nation’s marine fishery resources. Coordinated state-federal action is, in most cases, the most efficient and effective way of achieving national policy objectives.

Fisheries management should be carried out through the states, whenever practicable, since state regulatory procedures are more flexible, more expedient, and more easily implemented than federal procedures. States also have extensive experience implementing effective regional approaches where appropriate, such as the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, the Gulf State Marine Fisheries Commission, the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, and the Potomac River Fisheries Commission. Therefore, the Governors urge Congress to provide additional opportunities for states to lead in the development and execution of marine policies and programs.

25.3 Implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act

In 2006, Congress reauthorized and updated the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Governors support full implementation and funding of this act. In particular, governors:

• support funding for full state pasrticipation and state implementation fo federally-mandated programs;
  
• support funding for training programs to prepare new and existing council members for complying with the legal, scientific, economic, and conflict of interest requirements applicable to the fishery management process;
  
• urge the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (Fisheries) to work with states to implement expanded use of joint state-federal enforcement agreements;
  
• encourage NOAA Fisheries to work with states to implement the recreational angler registry and improved recreational data collection provisions, and, to the extent that NOAA Fisheries finds the need to impose registry fees, any such funds collected need to be used for improved recreational data collection;
  
• coordinate with states in establishing and implementing national guidelines for Limited Access Privilege Programs that will allow groups or individuals to trade shares of a fishery’s overall catch; and
  
• ensure that states are included in the NOAA Fisheries process for harmonizing the procedural differences between the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the National Environmental Policy Act to ensure meaningful public participation and thorough environmental and economic analysis while removing duplicative requirements.

25.4 Coastal Communities

As amended, the Magnuson-Stevens Act establishes standards to promote sustainable fishing and the designation of essential fish habitat. While each standard is important, governors call special attention to the standards that require the consideration of the best scientific information available and take into account the importance of fishery resources to fishing communities to provide for the sustained participation of these communities and, to the extent practicable, minimize adverse economic impacts on them.

As fishery managers continue to work towards the goal of sustainability, new regulations can have severe repercussions for some fishing communities. Regulations that lower fishing quotas have historically reduced the income generated by the commercial fishing fleet. In addition, new regulations might negatively influence recreational angler participation, resulting in additional economic losses to coastal communities from diminished retail purchases (e.g., gasoline, food, equipment) and the local jobs those businesses support. The socio-economic effects of fishery regulations need to be better understood and assistance should be provided for affected fishermen and communities during these transition periods, while the industry waits for the fish stocks to recover.

Governors understand that recovery of fish stocks will help coastal communities, affected industries, and the nation in the long term; however, the task of fulfilling these mandates is daunting. In many locations, stock declines are exacerbated and recovery impeded by environmental conditions outside of the control of fishery managers. Fluctuations in ocean temperatures, current patterns, predator-prey dynamics, and other available food sources can adversely affect a fish stock. These natural fluctuations can cause hardships for individual fishermen and coastal communities, similar to the difficulties experienced by farmers during weather extremes. For this reason, governors recommend that national policy treat fishermen in the same manner as other agricultural producers with respect to disaster assistance. As the nation transitions to sustainable fisheries, Congress has an obligation to adequately fund state and federal efforts to fulfill the mandates outlined in the updated Magnuson-Stevens Act.

25.5 Scientific Research and Data Collection

States, the federal government, and academia should coordinate and form partnerships to further research efforts and to create synergy among research projects. Fisheries management relies heavily on scientific research and data collection activities for accurate and timely information. Yet, the status of more than one-half of federally managed species is unknown. Data collection, management, and analysis, as well as additional research, are needed to complete stock assessments, define life cycles of species, and establish the extent and function of essential fish habitat, much of which is found in states’ jurisdiction. Comprehensive cooperative data collection programs should be developed or enhanced—and funded—to fill these information gaps, including cooperative research with fishermen, research cruises, and observers programs. Additionally, scientists and regulators should seek solutions for reducing bycatch and should conduct research to ascertain catch rates of targeted and incidental catch.

Governors support funding for the national cooperative research and management program to improve data collection. As part of this effort, the Governors support efforts to collect sound social and economic data since such data is essential to effective fishery management decisions.

In addition, governors urge federal fishery managers to work closely with their state counterparts, the academic community, and fishery participants to collect accurate and timely data on recreational catch patterns.  Current data has been determined insufficiently accurate or timely to support effective and efficient regulation of many fisheries with significant recreational components. However, to the extent that NOAA Fisheries chooses to impose federal fees on recreational fisherman, any such funds should be used for improved recreational data collection.

25.6 Enforcement

To be effective, fishery management plans must be enforced. Enforcement can be increased and improved through the coordination of fisheries enforcement efforts and by leveraging existing state agency capabilities through cooperative state-federal law enforcement agreements. Therefore, governors support the expanded use of Joint Enforcement Agreements to implement cooperative fisheries enforcement programs with state agencies as authorized in the revised Magnuson-Stevens Act. Also, governors believe NOAA Fisheries and the U.S. Coast Guard should strengthen cooperative enforcement efforts at the national level by developing a unified strategic plan for fishery enforcement that includes significantly increased joint training and that provides sufficient funding for cooperative enforcement; and, at the regional and local levels, by developing a stronger and more consistent process for sharing information and coordinating enforcement.

Governors recognize that the U.S. Coast Guard provides invaluable services in fulfilling its mission of protecting natural resources. The Coast Guard protects our national shores from illegal takings of fish by foreign fishing fleets, enforces conservation laws, protects the domestic fishing fleet, and saves constituents lives. Governors support these efforts and urge Congress to continue to recognize the importance of the Coast Guard’s natural resources services.

One part of the enforcement effort is the Vessel Monitoring System (VMS), which can identify specific vessels and their precise locations. Governors support maximizing the use of the VMS for fishery-related enforcement. VMS should, over time, be used on all commercial fishing vessels that receive permits under federal fishery plans. The federal government should fund any mandatory VMS program. The states, with input from NOAA Fisheries and the regional fishery management councils, should also identify state fisheries that could significantly benefit from VMS implementation. Access to VMS or other data that are critical to enforcement should be directly available/accessible to state enforcement agents in real time. Prosecution in state courts for federal violations should be specifically allowed.

25.7 Overcapitalization and Capacity

In some fisheries, overcapitalization is a significant contributor to management problems. Where state communities identify the need, the federal government should assist state governments and industry through programs of fleet restructuring that reduces overcapitalization. Fleet restructuring should only take place with the support of industry and state governments. Congress has historically provided incentives to encourage expansion of the U.S. fishing fleet through incentives such as the Capital Construction Fund (CCF). Further expansion of the fleet may no longer be needed, and Congress should allow funds from such incentive programs to be used for safety and quality upgrades, and to support approved fleet restructuring efforts, but not increased capacity.

25.8 Limited Access Privilege Programs and Other Rights-Based Approaches to Fishery Management

Fishery managers should be afforded the entire suite of management tools when regulating fisheries. Cooperative markets, community quotas, and limited entry permits are all valuable tools presently used to control the harvest of fish. While Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQs), Individual Fishing Quotas (IFQs), and other rights-based management approaches—also called Limited Access Privilege Programs (LAPPs)—are not ideal, appropriate, or desired for every fishery or region, they provide an option in fisheries management that can reduce the race for fish, promote conservation, minimize overcapitalization, and create a safer fishery with a higher quality product that maximizes dockside values. Governors urge NOAA Fisheries to work with states and regional fishery management councils as it establishes and implements national guidelines for Limited Access Privilege Programs, as authorized under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

In particular, governors caution against the use of a “one-size-fits-all” approach. Rather, the LAPPs guidelines need to encourage tailored approaches that respect the individual needs of fisheries, fishing communities, fishing regions, and unique local biological and social conditions. Such guidelines also need to ensure that state policies and regulations are incorporated into any new federal program. The guidelines should also ensure the LAPP program does not create an inalienable property right; considers historical catch while determining the limits of the concentration of IFQ shares by individuals or entities; and promotes a sustainable fishery.

25.9 Aquaculture

Governors recognize the potential for increased aquaculture activity in both state waters and in the federal waters of the Exclusive Economic Zone. Aquaculture offers certain benefits to producers, but it also carries risk. Aquaculture has the potential biological risks of introduction of invasive and transgenic species to ecosystems; transmission of disease from aquaculture fish to native stocks; competition for food sources by escapees; and the potential for concentrated release of waste products into aquatic systems. States must be substantially involved in aquaculture planning in the federal waters off state coasts and in federal regulations affecting aquaculture in state waters, and should be able to reject aquaculture operations if they are not in the best interest of the state.

Furthermore, while aquaculture introduces potential new economic activity and can be complementary to native wild stock fisheries, it can also impact longstanding wild stock fish markets, the fishing industry, and coastal communities. Production of wild capture seafood has been a historic source of economic and cultural vitality for many coastal communities. Aquaculture can significantly and quickly reduce the demand for wild capture seafood and cause significant economic and cultural stress on coastal communities. The federal government should act to assist fishermen during their adjustment to new market conditions through the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act and other assistance.

In 2003, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) introduced country-of-origin labels for seafood. These labels indicate whether a fish is from a wild-harvest or aquaculture fishery, in which country wild-harvested fish were captured, and where farm-raised fish were grown. Governors support country-of-origin labels for seafood as an important component of consumer education and decisionmaking.

Wild-capture seafood harvests are distinguished from farm-raised fish in a number of ways. Wild-capture fish develop in a natural habitat. For this reason, the Governors support the inclusion of wild-capture seafood in any future USDA organic labeling program.

Time limited (effective Winter Meeting 2009–Winter Meeting 2011).
Adopted Winter Meeting 2001; reaffirmed Winter Meeting 2003; revised Winter Meeting 2005, Winter Meeting 2007, and Winter Meeting 2009.