Policy Impact Analysis - 117/S/2923

Bill Overview

Title: Fishery Resource Disasters Improvement Act

Description: This bill revises the Fisheries Resource Disaster Relief Program and repeals or revises certain reporting requirements. The bill revises the procedures and process for determining whether there has been a commercial fishery failure as a result of a fishery resource disaster because of natural, man-made, or undetermined causes. The Department of Commerce shall have the sole authority to determine the existence, extent, and beginning and end dates of a fishery resource disaster. Additionally, Commerce must include in its budget justification materials submitted to Congress in support of the budget of Commerce for each fiscal year, (as submitted with the President's budget) a separate statement of the amount requested to be appropriated for that fiscal year for outstanding unfunded fishery resource disasters. The bill repeals a program that provides disaster relief assistance to fishermen, charter fishing operators, and others affected by a catastrophic regional fishery disaster, known as the regional coastal disaster assistance, transition, and recovery program. With respect to reporting requirements, the bill requires (1) biennial rather than annual reports (under current law, annual reports) relating to the recovery of Klamath River Coho salmon, and (2) inclusion of additional information in the biennial reports on international compliance regarding the conservation of living marine resources. The bill also repeals the requirement for annual reporting to Congress on bycatch reduction agreements.

Sponsors: Sen. Wicker, Roger F. [R-MS]

Target Audience

Population: People dependent on commercial fishing industries worldwide

Estimated Size: 1700000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Commercial Fisherman (Gulf Coast, Alabama)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 16/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm concerned about the repeal of the existing relief program. It helped my business survive rough times.
  • Having Commerce in charge might delay the relief process, making it harder to manage finances short-term.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 4 6
Year 2 5 6
Year 3 5 6
Year 5 6 7
Year 10 6 7
Year 20 7 8

Seafood Processor (New Bedford, Massachusetts)

Age: 51 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 15/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I worry that any delays in relief could impact fish supplies and our processing timelines.
  • It might cause temporary layoffs if fishery disasters aren't promptly addressed.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 7
Year 2 6 7
Year 3 7 8
Year 5 7 8
Year 10 8 9
Year 20 8 9

Charter Fishing Operator (Seattle, Washington)

Age: 29 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 1.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • We might not see immediate issues, but the long-term impact of less frequent disaster reporting could be severe.
  • I'm hoping the adjustments to advocacy lead to better data collection and resource allocation.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 8
Year 2 8 8
Year 3 8 9
Year 5 9 9
Year 10 9 10
Year 20 10 10

Environmental Scientist (Anchorage, Alaska)

Age: 37 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 9

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 14/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • From a scientific and environmental view, tighter controls are good, but stakeholder communication is key.
  • The change in reporting requirements allows more comprehensive studies over prolonged periods.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 9 9
Year 2 9 9
Year 3 9 9
Year 5 9 9
Year 10 9 9
Year 20 9 9

Retired Fisherman (San Diego, California)

Age: 62 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I've seen both good and bad policies; this might make things difficult for new entrants right at the starting point.
  • The past relief mechanisms were vital during my active years.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 6
Year 2 5 6
Year 3 5 6
Year 5 5 6
Year 10 6 7
Year 20 6 7

Fish Market Vendor (Portland, Oregon)

Age: 33 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 18/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Business might be hindered if supply is affected by delayed disaster relief.
  • Advocating with local fisheries could see improved relationships and agreements.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 6
Year 2 6 7
Year 3 6 7
Year 5 7 7
Year 10 7 8
Year 20 8 8

Nonprofit Manager (New Orleans, Louisiana)

Age: 40 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 4.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Fewer immediate relief options could strain community recovery initiatives.
  • Programs need to align with the slow buildup to enable communal support mechanisms effectively.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 7
Year 2 6 8
Year 3 7 8
Year 5 7 8
Year 10 8 9
Year 20 8 9

Port Authority Official (Miami, Florida)

Age: 54 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 1.0 years

Commonness: 11/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • There's potential for improved disaster response with streamlined processes, but it depends on resource allocation.
  • Economic impact assessments might expose gaps if data is lacking.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 8
Year 2 8 9
Year 3 8 9
Year 5 8 9
Year 10 9 9
Year 20 9 10

Aquaculture Researcher (Vermont City, Vermont)

Age: 39 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Changes to disaster criteria might foster sustainable practices if execution-wise, framework carries efficacy.
  • Research benefits from wider reporting intervals.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 8
Year 2 8 8
Year 3 9 9
Year 5 9 9
Year 10 9 9
Year 20 10 10

Fishery Equipment Manufacturer (Houston, Texas)

Age: 28 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 17/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Demand may fluctuate if fishery operations slow due to delays in disaster determinations.
  • I've invested in adaptable product offerings to mitigate some risks.
  • Policies need to be responsive to industry needs.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 7 8
Year 5 7 8
Year 10 8 9
Year 20 8 9

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)

Year 2: $155000000 (Low: $105000000, High: $205000000)

Year 3: $160000000 (Low: $110000000, High: $210000000)

Year 5: $170000000 (Low: $115000000, High: $220000000)

Year 10: $200000000 (Low: $135000000, High: $250000000)

Year 100: $200000000 (Low: $135000000, High: $250000000)

Key Considerations