Bill Overview
Title: American Fisheries Advisory Committee Act of 2021
Description: of 2021 This bill directs the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to establish the American Fisheries Advisory Committee to advise on an existing grant program to address the needs of fishing communities, optimize economic benefits by building and maintaining sustainable fisheries, and increase opportunities to keep working waterfronts viable. NOAA must establish six regions within the committee. The committee must consist of members chosen regionally and across sectors of the fishing industry. Additionally, the committee must (1) identify the needs of the fishing community, (2) develop request for proposals for the grant program, (3) review grant applications, and (4) provide NOAA with grant applications for approval.
Sponsors: Rep. Young, Don [R-AK-At Large]
Target Audience
Population: People involved in or reliant on the U.S. fishing industry
Estimated Size: 5000000
- The bill is focused on fishing communities which primarily consist of fishermen, fishery-related businesses, and their families.
- The goal to optimize economic benefits and maintain sustainable fisheries implies that economic stakeholders such as employees, suppliers, and local businesses will also be affected.
- The establishment of the committee across six regions suggests that multiple geographic fishing areas will be included.
- Fishing industry sectors include commercial, recreational, and subsistence fishers, all of whom will likely be impacted by the act.
Reasoning
- The American Fisheries Advisory Committee Act is primarily aimed at improving conditions for fishing communities across the U.S. by advising on grant allocations. This means that the main beneficiaries will likely be those directly involved in fishing, but there can be peripheral benefits for businesses and families associated with the industry.
- While the budget allocated is substantial, it is limited in relation to the entire fishing industry. Therefore, the most direct impacts can be expected for communities where these grants fund significant local projects directed at supporting economic and community needs.
- The policy's focus on sustainable fisheries suggests positive long-term outcomes not only for economic stability but also for environmental health, which could benefit broader populations indirectly involved in environmental aspects of fishing.
- The policy is regionally distributed across six regions, implying that large portions of the geographic spread of U.S. fishing will be represented and can have varied impacts depending on the regional needs and proposals funded.
Simulated Interviews
Commercial Fisherman (New Bedford, MA)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This committee could be really beneficial if it actually listens to us—the locals who know these waters best.
- If grants help us upgrade our equipment while focusing on sustainability, it'll help future generations too.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Seafood Restaurant Owner (Miami, FL)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If this act helps ensure a steady supply of sustainable seafood, it'll be beneficial for my business.
- I hope the grant funds help maintain fish stocks because that directly impacts my menu.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 2 |
Sustainable Fisheries Advocate (Seattle, WA)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a great step towards preserving our fisheries, provided it's not bogged down by bureaucracy.
- Engaging local communities is crucial for the success of this initiative.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Marine Biologist (Galveston, TX)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could foster better data and collaboration opportunities for my research.
- Long-term sustainability is key, and policy-driven efforts are necessary.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Retired Fisherman (Kodiak, AK)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've seen the toll overfishing can take. It's heartening to see some attention being paid to these matters.
- Funding should focus on restoration projects to replenish fish stocks.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 2 |
Culinary Supply Chain Expert (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- For the supply chain, this could mean better stability and security in terms of sourcing sustainably.
- My concern is whether the policy will actively adapt to rapidly changing environmental conditions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Environmental Scientist (Juneau, AK)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful that this policy could lead to improved criteria for what constitutes 'sustainable' practices.
- Collaboration across sectors can be the biggest win here.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Recreational Fishing Guide (Portland, ME)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Recreational fishing doesn't always get the attention it deserves in these kinds of policies.
- If this helps keep fish populations thriving, it will certainly help my business.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Commercial Fishing Boat Captain (San Diego, CA)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I want to ensure that the local crew and entire supply chain benefit from these grants—not just the big players.
- The regional differences make sense, as needs vary widely.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 2 |
Fish Processor (Gulf Shores, AL)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might stabilize supply to my plant, which is crucial.
- It's uncertain whether smaller processors like us will see direct benefits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 1 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $8000000 (Low: $6000000, High: $10000000)
Year 2: $8500000 (Low: $6250000, High: $10500000)
Year 3: $8800000 (Low: $6500000, High: $10800000)
Year 5: $9000000 (Low: $6750000, High: $11000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Effectiveness of the committee in identifying and addressing fishery needs is critical.
- Grant program success and resultant economic benefits can vary significantly by region.
- The initial costs might seem substantial, but benefits could improve over time as efficiencies are realized.