Overview
Title
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Amendment 8
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The NOAA made a new rule to help protect a type of fish called herring and make sure the fish don't run out. They also decided where certain fishing nets can't be used to keep everyone and everything that uses these fish happy and healthy.
Summary AI
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has finalized a rule that amends the Atlantic Herring Fishery Management Plan to introduce Amendment 8. This rule establishes a new Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) control rule that considers the role of herring in the ecosystem and prohibits midwater trawling within federal waters inshore from the U.S./Canada border to the Rhode Island/Connecticut border. The aim is to sustainably manage herring resources, addressing both overfishing risks and potential conflicts between different user groups such as commercial fishermen and ecotourism operators, while ensuring herring is available as essential forage for other marine species. These measures respond to the declining herring biomass and are expected to provide both ecological and long-term economic benefits, despite potential short-term economic impacts on the fishing industry.
Abstract
This rule implements Amendment 8 to the Atlantic Herring Fishery Management Plan. This amendment specifies a long-term acceptable biological catch control rule for herring and addresses localized depletion and user group conflict. It also establishes an acceptable biological catch control rule that accounts for herring's role in the ecosystem and prohibits midwater trawling in inshore federal waters from the U.S./Canada border to the Rhode Island/Connecticut border. Amendment 8 supports sustainable management of the herring resource and seeks to ensure that herring is available to minimize possible detrimental biological impacts on predators of herring and associated socioeconomic impacts on other user groups.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document under review outlines a rule finalized by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that amends the Atlantic Herring Fishery Management Plan through the introduction of Amendment 8. The aim of this rule is to establish a new Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) control rule that considers herring's crucial role in the marine ecosystem. Additionally, it prohibits midwater trawling within inshore federal waters from the U.S./Canada border down to the Rhode Island/Connecticut border.
General Summary
The rule seeks to sustainably manage herring resources in response to declining biomass levels, addressing overfishing risks, and potential conflicts between various user groups, such as commercial fishermen and ecotourism operators. A significant aspect of the rule intends to ensure herring remains available as essential forage for other marine species such as fish, marine mammals, and birds.
Significant Issues and Concerns
Several significant issues emerge from the document. First, the document’s density and technical language make it challenging for stakeholders to grasp all aspects of the rule effectively. An executive summary or highlights section would be beneficial to enhance clarity. Another concern is the reliance on qualitative assessments and stakeholder input without robust quantitative data backing the socioeconomic impacts of the fishing restrictions. Furthermore, while the document acknowledges potential impacts on offshore wind projects, it lacks a detailed analysis, which might be increasingly relevant given the scale of future projects. Finally, the anticipated impacts are discussed without providing concrete metrics for evaluating the success or failure of the implemented measures over time.
Impact on the Public
Broadly, the document may impact the public by contributing to more sustainable fishery practices, aimed at preserving marine ecosystems. However, these practices, primarily the prohibition of midwater trawling in certain waters, may initially result in economic adjustments for those directly involved in the fishing industry. By ensuring herring availability for marine predators, the measures can help maintain ecological balances that could benefit ecotourism and recreational fisheries, although the general public needs to be aware of potential short-term negative economic impacts on the fishing industry.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Fishing Industry: For those involved in midwater trawling, the prohibition could lead to increased operational costs and potentially reduce revenue, as vessels may need to shift efforts offshore or adopt different fishing methods with varied success rates.
Ecotourism and Recreational Fisheries: These sectors might experience positive impacts as a result of more herring being available as forage for marine predators, leading to enhanced opportunities for viewing or catching other species reliant on herring.
Local Communities and Small Businesses: The document stresses consideration for how decreased catches could affect fishing communities reliant on herring, with a need for diversifying economic activities or adopting alternative bait sources for fisheries like lobster.
Environmental Stakeholders: Environmental advocates generally support the rule as it aligns with goals for ecosystem-based management, ensuring balance within marine ecosystems and long-term biological sustainability.
Overall, while the rule endeavors to ensure ecological sustainability, its short-term economic consequences suggest a need for careful implementation and monitoring to balance diverse interests among stakeholders involved in marine resource utilization. Additionally, addressing the issues of clarity, assessment of economic dynamics, and impact measurement would improve stakeholder engagement and implementation outcomes.
Financial Assessment
The document referenced from the Federal Register outlines Amendment 8 to the Atlantic Herring Fishery Management Plan, specifically addressing how it will affect small entities involved in the fishing industry and incorporating financial references. The primary financial references relate to business classifications and economic impacts on these small enterprises.
Small Business Classification
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) established a specific size standard to classify businesses within the commercial fishing industry as small businesses. According to the document, a small business is defined as having annual gross receipts not exceeding $11 million. This classification is used for compliance purposes, ensuring that regulations are tailored appropriately to the size and capacity of the entities operating within the industry. This definition intends to help smaller companies navigate regulatory landscapes without facing undue burdens more suitable for larger, more robust corporations.
Economic Impacts on Small Entities
The document recognizes that the new regulations, including the Amendment 8 provisions, are likely to have diverse economic impacts on small businesses. Given the nature of these financial issues, it is crucial for stakeholders to understand how the anticipated changes could affect their operations. The document suggests that small fishing firms using specific gear types, like midwater trawl gear, might be more significantly affected because of potential closures and restrictions in certain fishing areas. The expectation of a 30% reduction in revenue for the midwater trawl fleet signifies a notable financial adjustment for these businesses.
Issues Related to Financial References
The issue surrounding estimations and forecasts provided on the economic impact hints at some concerns. The absence of detailed analysis on the long-term economic effects might lead to gaps in understanding the broader financial landscape for small businesses. Moreover, comments from public consultations highlighted that the stated impacts could differ when considering qualitative assessments against financial data not fully detailed in the document. This raises concerns about whether the financial ramifications were sufficiently evaluated and communicated, particularly for stakeholders trying to gauge the amendment's full economic scope.
Commentary on Financial Clarity
The approach of using $11 million as a threshold simplifies the classification system and aligns with NMFS standards, yet the translation of these numbers into practical impacts on fishery businesses could benefit from additional data transparency. In addressing such financial issues, federal documents like this one must balance technical specificity with accessible communication. Users of this amendment would benefit from a clearer breakdown of potential financial impacts on a variety of small business models, including different fishing methods and reliance on the herring resource for broader commercial and recreational purposes.
In conclusion, while the financial references related to business classification and revenue implications are clear, the depth and breadth of economic impact analyses appear insufficient based on stakeholder feedback. It is important for future documents to address these concerns by offering more detailed projections and thorough assessments of financial outcomes, ensuring that stakeholders, especially small businesses, can prepare for and adapt to regulatory changes effectively.
Issues
• The document is lengthy and densely packed with information, which may make it difficult for stakeholders to fully comprehend and engage with all aspects of the rule. Consider adding an executive summary or highlights section for clarity.
• The language used in describing the ecosystem and fishing restrictions is quite technical, which may not be easily accessible to all readers, particularly those not familiar with fishery management terms and processes.
• There are numerous references to data and assessments that might not be completely transparent to the general public or stakeholders not directly involved in the processes, potentially limiting their ability to critique or understand the rationale.
• The economic impact assessments, while detailed, may not fully capture the long-term dynamic effects on small businesses due to changes in fishery management practices.
• The basis for defining user group conflicts and the socioeconomic impacts of fishing restrictions on different user groups could be clarified, as it appears to heavily rely on qualitative assessments and stakeholder input without clear quantitative backing.
• The description of measures such as the ABC control rule and inshore midwater trawl restricted area could benefit from clearer presentation of their specific quantitative impacts on fish stock levels and fishing practices.
• Potential impact on offshore wind projects is acknowledged but lacks detailed analysis, which may be pertinent given the scale of potential future projects.
• The document relies heavily on the concept of 'anticipated impacts' without providing concrete metrics or criteria for evaluating the success or failure of the implemented measures over time.
• Effort shift concerns, such as the potential for midwater trawl vessels to switch to bottom trawl gear, are noted but not extensively analyzed in terms of possible environmental and economic impacts.