Comment from Marcia Hamilton

To Whom it May Concern, The Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council has the follow public comments on 74 FR 2467 (Proposed rule on disaster relief provisions of the MSA and IFA): In general the proposed rule is a positive step forward in clarifying the definitions and process to be used to provide relief to fishery participants and others affected by fishery resource disasters. The definitions provided for fishery disasters that include both manmade and natural disasters appear appropriate and will help to clarify this currently ambiguous term. However a requirement to show a decline in 12 month revenues following a disaster would require that affected parties wait at least one year before even applying for relief. Because the majority of fishing operations in the Western Pacific Region are small, self-financed, and owner operated with little capital reserves, this lengthy waiting period would likely spell their demise. Not only would this be highly adverse for those directly affected, given the dependence of our island communities on seafood to meet basic nutritional needs, it would also be significantly detrimental to these communities. We understand the need to document the losses suffered and suggest that projections of losses be accepted with an application for relief within 90 days following a fishery disaster. These projections can be verified before the application is approved. This approach would be especially relevant for our region where the majority of recent disaster-scenarios involve clear and easily documented long-lasting impacts such as the destruction of fishing vessels and landing sites by typhoons, as well as the permanent closure of fishing areas due to the implementation of marine monuments, sanctuaries, marine protected areas, military areas and other such actions. Under these scenarios it does not appear necessary to wait 12 months to recognize and document the scope of the impact. Of course, if no relief is forthcoming fishery participants may borrow money to rebuild their vessels, however the ability of some to quickly find the necessary capital to continue their livelihoods should not be held against them such that only those who did not find other sources of capital can receive relief. If a 12 month waiting period is truly necessary, a method to reimburse the necessary spending by those who couldn’t wait 12 months to resume fishing must be included if the intent is to provide true relief to fishery participants and other affected parties. The proposed rule’s definition of a catastrophic regional fishery disaster as affecting more than one state or territory would preclude relief to the Western Pacific Region as our states and territories are separated by thousands of miles of ocean. We suggest that the final rule include language stating that in the Western Pacific Region a catastrophic regional fishery disaster includes one that affects fishing throughout an entire state or territory. This would allow fishery participants and support industries to benefit from the intent of this rule (to broadly and quickly provide relief following disasters that impact fishery operations across a wide area). We appreciate the inclusion of recreational fishing in the proposed rule but suggest that the final rule define what a community’s “disaster relief plan” is as this term does not appear in the MSRA. Immediate questions include: what would such a plan include, who would prepare it, would it be transmitted to NMFS, and would it require NMFS approval? Thank you for considering these public comments. Marcia Hamilton Council staff