Overview
Title
Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; 2021 Harvest Specifications for Pacific Whiting, and 2021 Pacific Whiting Tribal Allocation
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The government wants to make sure there are enough fish to catch, so they came up with a plan that gives part of the fish to some Native American tribes because they have special fishing rights. They want to hear what people think about this plan before making a final decision.
Summary AI
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has proposed a rule setting the 2021 allocation of Pacific whiting fishery resources. This rule allocates 17.5% of the U.S. total allowable catch (TAC) of Pacific whiting to Pacific Coast Indian tribes, honoring their treaty rights. The remaining TAC will be divided among various non-tribal fishing sectors, with a focus on preventing overfishing and achieving optimal yields. Public comments on the proposal are invited until March 18, 2021, emphasizing the importance of community input.
Abstract
NMFS issues the proposed rule for the 2021 Pacific whiting fishery under the authority of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Pacific Whiting Act of 2006, and other applicable laws. This proposed rule would allocate 17.5 percent of the U.S. total allowable catch of Pacific whiting for 2021 to Pacific Coast Indian tribes that have a treaty right to harvest groundfish, and implement set-asides for Pacific whiting research and incidental mortality in other fisheries. The proposed measures are intended to help prevent overfishing, achieve optimum yield, and ensure that management measures are based on the best scientific information available.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
Overview
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), a division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, has proposed a new rule for the 2021 Pacific whiting fishery. The rule seeks to allocate a portion of the fishing resources, specifically 17.5% of the United States' total allowable catch (TAC) of Pacific whiting, to Pacific Coast Indian tribes, recognizing their treaty rights to harvest groundfish. These allocations are intended to prevent overfishing and ensure sustainable fisheries, relying on the best available scientific information.
Key Issues and Concerns
There are several areas within the proposed rule that may present challenges or cause confusion:
Complex Language: The document contains technical terms and jargon specific to fisheries management. This complexity might make it difficult for the general public to fully understand the implications of the rule.
Reapportionment Process: The document refers to the reapportionment, or reallocation, process for tribal allocations. However, it does not clearly explain how unused allocations will be handled or what criteria will guide the redistributive process.
Tribal Allocation Justification: The choice of a 17.5% allocation to the tribal fisheries is not clearly justified within the document. This could lead to questions about how this specific percentage was determined and whether it aligns appropriately with the needs and rights of the tribes.
Consultation with Tribes: While the document mentions the requirement for meaningful consultation with tribal officials, it lacks details on the outcomes of these consultations. This could raise concerns about the transparency and inclusiveness of the decision-making process.
Economic Impact on Fisheries Sectors: There is some ambiguity about how the allocation may impact the economic viability and competition among the different fishing sectors that participate in the Pacific whiting fishery.
Environmental Considerations: The document does not provide an in-depth analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed fishing allocations. This is a notable omission given the emphasis on sustainable fishing practices.
Reduction in Incidental Mortality Set-Aside: The proposal includes a reduction in the incidental mortality set-aside from 1,500 mt in 2020 to 750 mt in 2021. However, the rationale behind this decrease is not thoroughly explained.
Impact on Small Entities: Although the proposal acknowledges the impact on small businesses, it lacks detailed examples or analyses of these impacts, potentially leaving stakeholders without a complete understanding of the effects.
Public and Stakeholder Impact
The proposed rule has broad implications for various stakeholders:
Tribal Communities: The allocation of 17.5% of the TAC to Pacific Coast Indian tribes is a significant recognition of their treaty rights. This rule could enhance their ability to engage in the Pacific whiting fishery, potentially supporting economic and cultural preservation within these communities.
Non-Tribal Fishing Industries: For non-tribal fishing sectors, the rule dictates the division of the remaining TAC, which might influence operational strategies and economic outcomes. The reapportionment process of unharvested tribal allocations could further affect these industries by potentially increasing their access to available resources.
Environmental Groups: Stakeholders interested in the environmental sustainability of fisheries may express interest in greater transparency regarding the environmental impacts of the allocations.
Small Businesses: The impact on small non-tribal fishing businesses may depend on the final allocations, as well as the opportunities (or lack thereof) for reapportionment of unused tribal allocations.
Through these allocations, the NMFS aims to manage the Pacific whiting fishery efficiently, balancing ecological sustainability with economic competitiveness, while upholding tribal rights. However, as with any regulatory proposal, the details and equitable distribution of resources will be crucial to its success and acceptance by affected parties.
Financial Assessment
The Federal Register document outlines proposed rules for the allocation of the fishing harvest for Pacific whiting, focusing significantly on financial aspects related to this allocation. The document highlights various monetary considerations and rules applicable to the allocation process of this valuable fishery resource.
Summary of Financial Allocations
The primary financial allocation discussed in the document is the 17.5% allocation of the U.S. total allowable catch (TAC) of Pacific whiting set aside for Pacific Coast Indian tribes. This allocation is part of a broader effort to recognize and uphold the treaty rights of these tribes to harvest groundfish, ensuring they have a share in the fishery equal to their entitlements. The actual amount of the tribal allocation in metric tons (mt) is not specified in the document due to the pending determination of the U.S. TAC. However, it explains that the tribal share can range significantly depending on the final TAC figure agreed upon.
Financial References in Issues
Determinants of the Tribal Allocation: The allocation of 17.5% to the tribal fisheries is based on requests from the tribes and recognition of their treaty rights. However, the document does not provide a detailed, transparent methodology or historical justification for how the specific 17.5% allocation was settled, which could lead to ambiguity and challenges in understanding this financial decision.
Economic Impact on Small Entities: The document acknowledges the potential impact on small entities involved in non-tribal fisheries but provides a limited economic analysis of these impacts. The potential ex-vessel revenue from the tribal allocation, estimated using an average shoreside ex-vessel price of $154 per mt, ranges from $3.8 million to $14.9 million. This range reflects significant economic stakes for involved small business entities in the fishing industry.
Definition of Small Business in Fisheries: The document defines a small business in fish harvesting as one with combined annual receipts not exceeding $11 million and similarly sets criteria for marinas and charter/party boats at $7.5 million. These definitions are crucial as they determine which entities might be disproportionately affected by the proposed allocations and regulations.
Research and Bycatch Set-Asides: A significant financial adjustment is noted in the reduction of the incidental mortality set-aside from 1,500 mt in 2020 to 750 mt in 2021. This reduction underscores a financial and resource management strategy, reflecting decreased average mortality in recent years, but lacks extensive explanation regarding potential impacts on ecological management or related financial considerations.
The document incorporates these financial aspects to propose a regulatory framework that balances treaty rights with economic sustainability. However, more detailed economic analysis and transparent explanation of allocation percentages could enhance understanding and minimize potential impacts on various stakeholders within the fishery sector.
Issues
• The document uses complex language and technical terms related to fisheries management, which may be difficult for a general audience to understand.
• Potentially unclear language regarding the process of 'reapportionment' for tribal allocations, including how unused allocations are handled and the criteria for reapportionment.
• The justification for the specific 17.5% allocation to the tribal fisheries is not explicitly detailed, which could lead to ambiguity about how this percentage was determined.
• The document references the need for meaningful consultation with tribes under Executive Order 13175, but does not detail the specific outcomes or nature of such consultations, which could be important for transparency.
• It is unclear how the allocation impacts the economic viability or competition among the different fisheries sectors mentioned.
• There is no in-depth analysis of the potential environmental impact of the proposed allocations or fishing activities.
• The document does not provide a detailed explanation or rationale for the reduction of incidental mortality set-aside from 1,500 mt in 2020 to 750 mt in 2021.
• Potential concerns about the impact on small entities are acknowledged, but detailed economic analysis or examples to illustrate these impacts are limited.