Bill Overview
Title: To provide that the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shall not issue an interim or final rule that includes an area closure in the South Atlantic for species managed under the Snapper-Grouper Fishery Management Plan until the South Atlantic Great Red Snapper Count study is complete and the data related to that study is integrated into the stock assessment.
Description: This bill prohibits the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration from issuing an interim or final rule that includes an area closure in the South Atlantic for species managed under the Snapper-Grouper Fishery Management Plan until (1) the South Atlantic Great Red Snapper Count study is complete, and (2) the data related to such study is integrated into the South Atlantic red snapper research track and operational stock assessment.
Sponsors: Rep. Rutherford, John H. [R-FL-4]
Target Audience
Population: People dependent on South Atlantic Snapper-Grouper fisheries
Estimated Size: 2000000
- The bill specifically addresses the management of fisheries in the South Atlantic, with a focus on species managed under the Snapper-Grouper Fishery Management Plan.
- Fishers, both commercial and recreational, in the South Atlantic region rely on access to these fisheries for their livelihoods and leisure activities.
- The local economies in the South Atlantic states that depend on fishing and related tourism may be impacted.
- The seafood industry in the United States relies, in part, on fish stock from the South Atlantic.
- Anyone involved in the fishery supply chain, from catch to market, will be affected by changes in access or stock assessments.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily impacts those directly involved in the fishing industry or communities reliant on it in the South Atlantic region.
- Commercial fishers, recreational anglers, and businesses related to tourism and seafood processing in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina are the primary targets.
- The Cantril wellbeing scores capture expected changes in life satisfaction and economic stability over time due to the policy.
- A significant portion of the population may not feel immediate effects, resulting in no or low impact scores.
- Given the estimated population size, the policy's financial cap reflects its targeted approach to improve fishery management without enforcing blanket restrictions.
Simulated Interviews
Commercial Fisher (Jacksonville, Florida)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy makes sense as it gives time for better data before any closures.
- I'm hopeful but anxious about any potential future restrictions.
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 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 2 |
Marine Biologist (Charleston, South Carolina)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's crucial to wait for comprehensive studies before making drastic moves.
- There's a balance between conservation and livelihoods.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Recreational Angler (Savannah, Georgia)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Waiting for more data makes sense, it could potentially avoid unnecessary restrictions.
- I enjoy fishing and hope access remains unchanged.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Seafood Restaurant Owner (Miami, Florida)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a short-term relief, but I've seen fish stocks decline before and worry about long-term impact.
- I appreciate that the policy considers research before restriction.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Retired Fisherman (Wilmington, North Carolina)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've seen the cycles in fishing and believe this study-first approach is wise.
- There's a lot riding on accurate assessments, but the future looks promising if done right.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 2 |
Tourism Business Owner (Beaufort, South Carolina)
Age: 40 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Delaying closures allows my business to prepare and adjust based on accurate data.
- I worry about how changes affect customer interests.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 1 |
Environmental Advocate (Orlando, Florida)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Sustainable management is key, and delaying rash decisions can help balance needs.
- Hope it improves both fish stocks and industry reliance.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Seafood Wholesaler (Raleigh, North Carolina)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This pause is good for suppliers like me to plan better amid evolving regulations.
- Need for continuous updates on fish stock health.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 2 |
Recreational Fishing Guide (Hilton Head, South Carolina)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My clients seek out these species, so business would suffer without them available.
- Clear information helps, but any closure is concerning.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 2 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 1 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 1 |
Charter Boat Captain (Brunswick, Georgia)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support data-driven decisions, but consistent updates are crucial for planning.
- Maintaining fish populations benefits all.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 2 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $3000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $4000000)
Year 2: $3000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $4000000)
Year 3: $3200000 (Low: $2200000, High: $4200000)
Year 5: $3500000 (Low: $2500000, High: $4500000)
Year 10: $4000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $5000000)
Year 100: $10000000 (Low: $7000000, High: $13000000)
Key Considerations
- The outcome of the South Atlantic Great Red Snapper Count study will significantly impact future management decisions.
- Potential environmental costs if fish stocks are mismanaged during the delay in rule-making.
- Pressure from the fishing industry and local economies to prevent closures.
- Integration of comprehensive scientific data is critical for sustainable fishery management.