Sponsors (7)
Requires federal fisheries managers to define, track, and manage “forage fish” — small, schooling species that feed larger fish, seabirds, and marine mammals — and to account for their role when setting catch limits and approving new fisheries. It directs NOAA/Secretary of Commerce and regional Fishery Management Councils to adopt a formal definition, create management guidelines, add specific species (river herring and shad) to relevant plans, strengthen scientific advice and monitoring, and pause new directed forage-fish fisheries until science and plans are completed. Establishes deadlines and phased implementation: the Secretary must define “forage fish” (12 months) and issue management guidelines (18 months); Councils get new duties (effective in 2 years); managers must incorporate prey‑needs into annual catch limits (phased in, 5 years); and short deadlines apply for adding river herring and shad to plans and boosting at-sea monitoring.
Defines forage fish as generally small to intermediate-sized species that occur in schools or dense aggregations and function as a main pathway for energy to flow from phyto- and zooplankton to higher trophic level predators.
States that while most species serve as prey at some life stage, forage fish maintain this trophic role throughout their lives and that fluctuations in forage fish populations can cause significant changes in marine communities and ecosystems.
Declares that particular attention to management of forage fish species, and addressing their unique role in marine ecosystems, is critical to maintaining ecosystem function and sustainable fisheries.
Add a new subsection (l) to section 305 of the Magnuson‑Stevens Act requiring the Secretary, with advice from the Councils, to issue a definition of the term “forage fish” for purposes of the Act not later than 12 months after the date of enactment. The Secretary must give due consideration to definitions included in approved fishery management plans.
When issuing the definition of “forage fish,” the Secretary must consider the following factors: (1) the species is at a low trophic level; (2) the species is generally small- to intermediate-sized; (3) the species occurs in schools or other dense aggregations; (4) the species contributes significantly to the diets of other fish, marine mammals, or birds; and (5) the species serves as a conduit for energy transfer to species at a higher trophic level.
Who is affected and how:
NOAA Fisheries / Secretary of Commerce: must develop a formal definition of forage fish, produce management guidelines, run stakeholder workshops, and oversee plan amendments. Expect new rulemaking, guidance drafting, interagency coordination, and enforcement steps.
Regional Fishery Management Councils and SSCs: face expanded duties and timelines. Councils must identify unmanaged forage fish, recommend pauses on new directed forage fisheries, and possibly develop management plans; SSCs must provide expanded, continuous scientific advice. These tasks will require staff time, science reviews, and additional Council actions.
Commercial fishing fleets (especially mid‑water trawl and any operations targeting small pelagics): may face delayed openings for new directed forage-fish fisheries, more stringent monitoring (increased at‑sea observers for mid‑water trawl trips), and potentially lower or more constrained catch limits once diet-based ACL rules take effect. This can affect catch composition, trip planning, and operating costs.
Seafood processors and distributors: may see changes in raw material availability and supply stability if forage-fish catch limits are tightened or if new directed fisheries are paused.
Coastal and fishing-dependent communities: could experience economic impacts where local fisheries depend on forage fish; at the same time, conserving forage fish may strengthen ecosystem resilience and benefit predator stocks (e.g., larger commercial species) over time.
Marine mammals, seabirds, and higher‑trophic commercial fish: benefit from mandated consideration of their prey needs in ACLs, improving ecosystem-level protections.
Scientific and research community (universities, labs, independent researchers): likely to be called on for stock assessments, diet and trophic studies, monitoring design, and evaluation of ecosystem impacts; Councils must set research priorities for forage fish.
State agencies: the bill preserves State authority within State boundaries but may increase coordination or requests for data and cooperation; states are not stripped of authority but may be asked to assist with monitoring or management measures affecting regional fisheries.
Enforcement and observer programs: will need to scale up monitoring for specified fleets (e.g., mid‑water trawls) and implement new data collection tied to diet-based ACLs; this may require budget and staffing changes.
Overall impact: The bill shifts U.S. federal fisheries management toward stronger ecosystem-based rules for forage fish, increasing scientific inputs, monitoring, and precautionary limits. In the short run, it raises administrative and monitoring workloads and may constrain certain fishing activities; over the medium to long term, it aims to protect food-web function and the sustainability of predator fisheries and marine ecosystems.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Last progress June 4, 2025 (8 months ago)
Introduced on June 4, 2025 by Debbie Dingell