Overview
Title
Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan; Amendment 35; Notice of Availability
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The government is planning to keep an eye on certain fish in the sea to make sure they are safe and not too many are caught. They want ideas from people on how to do this until May 4, 2025.
Summary AI
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), is proposing Amendment 35 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (PCGFMP). This amendment aims to define specific fish stocks that need conservation and management, as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Amendment 35 targets eight fish species prioritized for stock assessments due in 2025 or 2027 and is mainly administrative. It does not change fishing schedules or locations but helps in preventing overfishing, rebuilding depleted fish stocks, and achieving optimal yields. Public comments on the amendment are invited until May 4, 2025.
Abstract
NMFS announces that the Pacific Fishery Management Council (referred to as "the Council") has submitted amendment 35 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (PCGFMP) to the Secretary of Commerce for review. If approved, amendment 35 would define stocks that are in need of conservation and management, consistent with the provisions and guidelines of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Amendment 35 would define stocks for eight species within the fishery management unit. These species were prioritized because they are scheduled for stock assessments in 2025 or in 2027. Amendment 35 is necessary for NMFS to make stock status determinations, which in turn will help prevent overfishing, rebuild overfished stocks, and achieve optimum yield. Amendment 35 is administrative in nature and does not change harvest levels or timing and location of fishing, nor does it revise the goals and objectives or the management frameworks of the PCGFMP.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document under review is a notice from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), proposing Amendment 35 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (PCGFMP). This proposed amendment focuses on defining specific stocks of fish that require conservation and management. The amendment involves eight fish species and is part of efforts to assess and manage these species more effectively, as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The public is invited to comment on this proposal until May 4, 2025.
Summary of the Document
Amendment 35 is primarily administrative and seeks to accurately define fish stocks that need conservation within the management framework. This approach does not modify fishing schedules or locations but aims to enhance the effectiveness of fishery management by preventing overfishing, aiding in the recovery of depleted stocks, and achieving optimal yields from fishery resources. The species targeted for this amendment are scheduled for future stock assessments, which are crucial for making informed decisions about managing these fish populations.
Significant Issues or Concerns
Several issues arise in the document that may impact understanding and engagement by the public and stakeholders:
Complexity of Language: The document uses highly technical language, likely making it difficult for individuals without a background in fishery management to understand. This complexity could limit meaningful public engagement or comment on the proposed amendment.
Submission Process for Comments: The process for submitting comments involves navigating to an external portal and following detailed instructions. This method might deter individuals who are not familiar with digital processes or do not have easy internet access.
Detailed but Complex Explanation: The account of how stock definitions were determined is thorough but may be inaccessible to those unfamiliar with specific fishery management terminology.
Potential Ambiguity: The phrase "may not be considered" regarding comments not submitted through the specified method could discourage alternative ways of providing feedback, which might otherwise be valuable.
Economic Impact: The document does not elaborate on potential economic impacts due to the restructuring of stock definitions. This lack of detailed information could raise concerns among stakeholders about how new definitions might affect the fishing industry economically.
Use of the Term "Coastwide": Heavily used throughout the document without explicit definition, the term "coastwide" might lead to misunderstandings about its specific implications in stock management.
Limited Exploration of Alternatives: The document assumes a single coastwide stock definition for several species without outlining detailed alternative approaches, possibly limiting a full exploration of available options.
Impact on the Public
For the general public, especially those residing in coastal areas and with interests in environmental conservation, the document signals ongoing efforts to manage fishery resources sustainably. However, the intricate details and technical nature might limit their ability to provide informed feedback or fully grasp the implications.
Impact on Stakeholders
Specific stakeholders, including commercial and recreational fishermen, environmental groups, and local communities dependent on fishing, might experience varied impacts:
Positive Impacts: The aim to prevent overfishing and rebuild fish stocks could support long-term sustainability and productivity in fishery operations, providing economic stability for fishers and fishery-dependent communities.
Negative Impacts: Without clear information on how revised stock definitions might affect harvest levels or economic aspects, some stakeholders could face uncertainty. Concerns might arise over new management measures that could alter fishing limits or create regulatory burdens.
By proposing this amendment, NMFS seeks to better align conservation efforts with the best available scientific information while fostering sustainable fishery practices. However, balancing scientific precision with public accessibility and stakeholder engagement remains a challenge.
Issues
• The document is highly technical, which might make it difficult for the general public to fully understand. Simplifying terminology could increase accessibility.
• The process for submitting comments could be streamlined, as it requires navigating to an external portal and following specific instructions that could be cumbersome for some users.
• The explanation of the stock definition process is detailed but complex, which may be challenging for individuals unfamiliar with fishery management terms.
• There is potential ambiguity in the phrase 'may not be considered' regarding comments submitted by methods other than the specified electronic submission, which could discourage alternative feedback methods.
• The document does not provide detailed information on the potential economic impacts of restructuring stock definitions, which could be of concern to stakeholders who might be affected.
• The term 'coastwide' is heavily used without a clear definition within the document itself, which might lead to confusion about its precise meaning in the context of stock management.
• The document assumes a single coastwide stock definition for several species without offering detailed alternative approaches, which might be seen as limiting comprehensive exploration of all options.