General Summary of the Bill

The proposed legislation, known as the "Fishery Improvement to Streamline untimely regulatory Hurdles post Emergency Situation Act" or the "FISHES Act," aims to address delays in funding processes during fishery resource disasters. It mandates the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve or deny spend plans for fishery resources within a specified timeframe. Additionally, it seeks to amend existing legislation, particularly the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, to streamline procedures for submitting spend plans after a fishery disaster has been declared. The bill outlines specific timelines for fund allocation to ensure timely assistance to affected fisheries.

Summary of Significant Issues

One of the primary issues with the bill lies in its title, which is long and complex. The acronym "FISHES Act" might not clearly communicate the purpose of the legislation, leading to potential confusion among the public. Additionally, the bill specifies rigorous timelines for the submission and review of spend plans—120 days for submission and 10 days for review. These timeframes may be challenging to meet for all involved parties, raising concerns about feasibility and administrative burden.

Moreover, there is a lack of clarity regarding what constitutes a "complete spend plan," which may result in disputes or inconsistencies in the approval process. Another notable concern is the role of the Director of the OMB, which is described ambiguously, particularly concerning its impact on the process timeline. Finally, the term "affirmative fishery resource disaster determination" is undefined, potentially leading to confusion for stakeholders trying to draft or evaluate spend plans.

Impact on the Public

For the general public, especially those reliant on fisheries for their livelihoods, this bill intends to ensure a quicker response to emergencies affecting fishery resources. By setting specific deadlines for funding allocations, the bill aims to mitigate prolonged financial hardship for individuals and communities after a disaster. However, the complexity of the title and process could make it difficult for the public to fully grasp the bill’s benefits and objectives.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

Stakeholders such as fishery managers, environmental agencies, and the fishing industry may see both positive and negative impacts from the bill. On the positive side, the expedited process for spend plan approvals and fund disbursement could lead to faster recovery and support for impacted fisheries, thus benefiting the industry financially and operationally.

On the other hand, the stringent timelines for plan submission and review may pose challenges, particularly for smaller operations with limited administrative capacity. The lack of clarity over definitions and criteria might exacerbate these challenges, leading to potential delays or rejections of spend plans if stakeholders fail to meet unspecified requirements. Additionally, the ambiguous role of the OMB could create bureaucratic confusion, potentially stalling fund disbursement despite legislative intentions.

In conclusion, while the FISHES Act seeks to improve the responsiveness of financial aid following fishery disasters, its effectiveness will largely depend on how these ambiguities and procedural challenges are addressed in practice.