The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is proposing to prohibit fishing for krill, an important species in the marine ecosystem, in U.S. waters. The proposed rule comes after NOAA responded to objections from the White House.

The proposed rule, published in the Federal Register on May 20, would ban any harvesting of krill in the Pacific Ocean from three to 200 miles off the west coast, the so-called U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. State regulations in California, Oregon, and Washington ban krill harvest up to three miles off the coast of those states.

NOAA is proposing to provide krill with federal protection because of krill's critical position in the marine food chain. Krill are small, shrimp-like crustaceans abundant in the Pacific Ocean, and they serve as a food source for a variety of marine animals including whales, salmon, and some sea birds.

Conservationists hailed the proposal as a victory for the Pacific ecosystem. Michael LeVine, an attorney with Oceana, a nonprofit conservation group, called the proposal "a watershed moment for responsible ocean management and conservation."

NOAA proposed the ban on krill harvests at the behest of its Pacific Fishery Management Council. The Council is one of several councils that make recommendations on fishery management for various bodies of water adjacent to the U.S. The Council is comprised of representatives from federal and state government agencies, commercial and recreational fisherman groups, and fishery-dependent businesses.

In a prior attempt to propose the ban on krill harvests, NOAA was rebuffed by the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). In an October 2007 letter returning the rule to NOAA for reconsideration, OIRA Administrator Susan Dudley complained NOAA did not adequately identify the need for regulation since krill is "completely unexploited" and "there are no known plans for exploitation."

NOAA had acknowledged a market for krill does not exist but framed its proposal as a proactive measure. In support of the ban, the Pacific Fishery Management Council said, "The Council has agreed it is critical to take preventive action at this time to ensure that a krill fishery will not develop that could potentially harm krill stocks, and in turn harm other fish and non-fish stocks."

NOAA resubmitted a draft proposed rule on Feb. 27 for OIRA's review. On May 13, OIRA cleared the proposal for publication.

LeVine, of Oceana, is pleased the review period has ended and the proposed rule is moving forward. "We commend all the policymakers involved in implementing the kind of proactive visionary protection we need to move forward with healthy and resilient ocean ecosystems," he said.

To meet OIRA's objections, NOAA did not alter the details of its proposal to ban krill harvests; rather, it changed its justification for the proposed action. As a result of the OIRA review, NOAA includes a more robust discussion of the economics of the rule.

Unlike the original proposal submitted to OIRA in 2007, the agency now claims a market for krill does exist. The proposal states, "A market for krill currently exists in Washington and Oregon, where salmon farms use krill products as a supplemental feed."

NOAA also weighed the costs and benefits of alternatives to an outright ban. The proposal says the agency also considered creating exemptions from the ban if potential harvesters met certain conditions; the agency also considered taking no action. In the October 2007 letter, Dudley criticized NOAA for failing to consider options other than an outright ban.

The public may comment on the rule until June 19.