FINAL
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REGULATORY AMENDMENT 1 TO THE
ATLANTIC TUNAS, SWORDFISH, AND SHARKS
FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN
REDUCTION OF BYCATCH, BYCATCH MORTALITY,
AND INCIDENTAL CATCH
IN THE ATLANTIC PELAGIC LONGLINE FISHERY
(Includes Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement,
Regulatory Impact Review, and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis)
Revised
June 14, 2000
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service
Office of Sustainable Fisheries
Highly Migratory Species Division
1315 East-West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910
(301) 713-2347
(301) 713-1917 (FAX)
Reduction of Bycatch, Bycatch Mortality, and Incidental Catch
in the Atlantic Pelagic Longline Fishery
Final Action: Implement time/area closures in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Bight/East Florida Coast and prohibit use of live bait in the Gulf of Mexico by pelagic longline fishermen who hold federal highly migratory species permits. The final rule will be published by August 1, 2000.
Type of statement: Final Documents: Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Social Impact Assessment, Regulatory Impact Review, and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Lead Agency: National Marine Fisheries Service: Office of Sustainable Fisheries
For further information: Rebecca Lent
Attn.: Karyl Brewster-Geisz
Highly Migratory Species Management Division
1315 East-West Highway: F/SF1
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Phone: (301) 713-2347/ fax: (301) 713-1917
Abstract: The intent of these final actions is to reduce the occurrence of bycatch and incidental catch by U.S. commercial fishermen who hold Federal highly migratory species permits and use pelagic longline gear in the Atlantic Ocean. The final action would amend the Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan by establishing time and area closures and gear restrictions to pelagic longline fishing to reduce the bycatch and bycatch mortality of highly migratory species, threatened or endangered turtle species, and the incidental catch of marine mammals and sea birds. This action minimizes the reduction in target catches of tuna, swordfish, and other commercially-viable species. The final action prohibits the use of pelagic longline gear year-round in an area of the northeastern Gulf of Mexico (DeSoto Canyon) and an area along the east coast of Florida (East Florida Coast). A third area located off Georgia, South Carolina and a portion of North Carolina (Charleston Bump) is closed to pelagic longline gear during February through April. In addition, this final action prohibits the use of live bait on pelagic longline gear used in the Gulf of Mexico. These measures address objectives in the Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan and Amendment One of the Atlantic Billfish Fishery Management Plan, consistent with National Standard 9 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
Alternatives considered for managing bycatch and incidental catch from pelagic longlines ranged from no action to a total prohibition of the use of pelagic longline gear. In addition to time/area closures, alternatives examined include limiting the gear soak time, requiring circle hooks, and other gear-based actions.
Table of Contents
1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 1-1
1.1 General 1-1
1.2 What is Bycatch and Incidental Catch? 1-1
1.3 Objectives of the Final Action 1-3
1.4 Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act 1-4
1.5 Advisory Panel Deliberation and Public Comment 1-4
1.6 Background Research and Supplemental Analyses 1-5
1.7 The Fishery Management Plan and the Framework Process 1-7
1.8 Summary 1-8
2.0 ALTERNATIVES 2-1
2.1 Use of Time/Area Closures to Reduce Bycatch, Bycatch Mortality, and Incidental Catch from Pelagic Longline Gear in the Atlantic Ocean 2-2
2.2 Use of Gear Restrictions and Modifications to Reduce Bycatch, Bycatch Mortality, and Incidental Catch from Pelagic
Longline Gear in the Atlantic Ocean
2-3
2.3 Reduce fishing capacity in the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery 2-5
3.0 ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS 3-1
3.1 Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act 3-2
3.2 Executive Order 12866 3-2
3.3 Net Economic Benefit 3-3
3.4 Economic Impact 3-3
3.5 Consumer Surplus and Angler's Willingness-to-Pay 3-3
3.6 Producer Surplus and Income to Captain and Crew 3-4
3.7 Non-Market Valuation 3-4
3.8 Net National Benefits 3-5
3.9 Theoretical and Empirical Studies of Fishing Behavior 3-6
3.10 A Summary of Vessel Buyback Programs 3-6
3.11 Other Options for Economic Relief 3-8
4.0 SOCIAL CONSIDERATIONS 4-1
5.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 5-1
5.1 Swordfish 5-1
5.2 Atlantic Billfish 5-1
5.3 Atlantic Tunas 5-2
5.4 Large Coastal and Pelagic Sharks 5-2
5.5 Other Finfish 5-3
5.6 Status of the Stocks 5-3
5.7 Marine Mammals 5-4
5.8 Sea Turtles 5-5
5.8.1 Background Information for Biological Opinion for the Atlantic Pelagic Longline Fishery 5-5
5.8.2 Conclusion of Biological Opinion 5-12
5.8.3 Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives 5-12
5.8.4 Incidental Take Statement 5-14
5.8.5 Reasonable and Prudent Measures 5-15
5.9. Sea Birds 5-16
6.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PELAGIC LONGLINE FISHERY FOR ATLANTIC HMS
6-1
6.1 Pelagic Longline Gear 6-1
6.2 Pelagic Longline Catch and Discard Patterns 6-2
6.2.1 U.S. Catch in Relation to International Catch of Atlantic Highly Migratory Species 6-3
6.2.2 Marine Mammals 6-4
6.2.3 Sea Turtles 6-4
6.3 Regional U.S. Pelagic Longline Fisheries Description 6-4
6.3.1 The Gulf of Mexico Yellowfin Tuna Fishery 6-5
6.3.2 The South Atlantic ~ Florida East Coast to Cape Hatteras Swordfish Fishery 6-5
6.3.3 The Mid-Atlantic and New England Swordfish and Bigeye Tuna Fishery
6-6
6.3.4 The U.S. Atlantic Distant Water Swordfish Fishery 6-6
6.3.5 The Caribbean Tuna and Swordfish Fishery 6-6
6.3.6 Regional Pelagic Longline Catches 6-7
6.3.7 Pelagic Longline Vessel Characteristics 6-11
6.4 Economics of Pelagic Longline Fishing 6-12
6.4.1 Costs 6-12
6.4.2 Revenues 6-14
6.4.3 Imports 6-15
6.5 Management of the U.S. Atlantic Pelagic Longline Fishery 6-17
7. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 7-1
7.1 Use of Time/Area Closures to Reduce Bycatch, Bycatch Mortality, and Incidental Catch from Pelagic Longline Gear in the Atlantic Ocean 7-1
7.2 Use of Gear Restrictions and Modifications to Reduce Bycatch, Bycatch Mortality, and Incidental Catch from Pelagic Longline Gear in the Atlantic Ocean
7-59
7.3 Reduce Pelagic Longline Fishing Effort 7-83
7.4 Summary of the Cumulative Impacts of All Alternatives Considered 7-84
7.4.1 Impacts on Finfish 7-84
7.4.2 Impacts on Protected Species 7-84
7.4.3 Impacts on Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) 7-84
8.0 FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS AND REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW 8-1
8.1 The Need for Action and the Objectives of this Regulation 8-1
8.2 Description of the Small Entities which Might be Affected by this Regulation
8-2
8.3 Description of the Compliance and Reporting Requirements 8-4
8.4 Relevant Federal Rules which Might Conflict with this Regulation 8-4
8.5 Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 8-4
8.5.1 Materials and Methods for Gross Revenue Analysis on Time/Area closures
8-4
8.5.2 Results of Gross Revenue Analysis on Commercial Vessels 8-8
8.5.3 Results of Gross Revenues Analysis on Dealers 8-11
8.5.4 Impacts of the Prohibition of Live Bait on Commercial Vessel Gross Revenues 8-17
8.5.5 Impacts of Final Actions on Commercial Fishing Costs 8-17
8.5.6 Economic impacts on the Recreational Fishing Sector 8-18
8.5.7 Alternatives designed to Minimize Significant Economic Impacts of these Regulations and a Statement as to why
Other Alternatives were Rejected
8-19
8.6 Regulatory Impact Review 8-20
8.6.1 Possible Changes in Gross Revenues 8-20
8.6.2 Possible Changes in Fishing Costs 8-23
8.6.3 Summary of Net Benefits 8-23
8.7 Issues raised during the Comment Periods, the Response of the Agency, and Changes made as a Result of these Issues 8-24
8.8 Possible Economic Impacts of a Closure of the Grand Banks 8-25
8.9 Conclusion 8-27
9.0 SOCIAL IMPACT AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ASSESSMENTS 9-1
9.1 Community Profiles 9-2
9.2 Possible Social Impacts of the Time/Area Closure Final Actions 9-3
9.3 Possible Social Impacts of the Final Action to Prohibit Live Bait 9-10
9.4 Possible Social Impacts of Delaying Implementation of the Time/Area Closures
9-10
9.5 Environmental Justice 9-10
9.6 Conclusion 9-12
10.0 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 10-1
10.1 Consideration of Magnuson-Stevens Act Section 304 (g) Measures and National Standards 10-1
10.1.1 Evaluation of Possible Disadvantage to U.S. Fishermen in Relation to Foreign Competitors 10-1
10.1.2 Provide U.S. Fishing Vessels Reasonable Opportunity to Harvest Quota
10-1
10.1.3 Pursue Comparable International Fishery Management Measures 10-2
10.1.4 Consider Traditional Fishing Patterns and the Operating Requirements of the Fisheries 10-2
10.1.5 National Standards 10-3
10.2 MITIGATING MEASURES 10-4
10.3 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 10-5
10.4 LIST OF AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED 10-5
10.5 LIST OF PREPARERS 10-6
10.6 FINDING 10-6
11.0 REFERENCES 11-1
Click here to go to Appendices.
APPENDIX A. PROTECTED SPECIES DATA RELATED TO THE ATLANTIC PELAGIC LONGLINE FISHERY App. A-1
APPENDIX B. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES App. B-1
General App. B-1
Use of Time/Area Closures to Reduce Bycatch App. B-10
Gear Modifications App. B-18
Environmental Justice App. B-21
Protected and Endangered Species App. B-21
Dolphin/Wahoo Issue App. B-22
Redistribution of Effort App. B-24
Analysis of Ecological Benefits of Closures App. B-28
Mitigation of Economic Impacts App. B-31
Social and Economic Analyses App. B-38
APPENDIX C. METHODS USED FOR TIME/AREA ANALYSES App. C-1
Time/area Analysis with No Reallocation of Effort App. C-1
Time/area Analysis with Effort Displacement App. C-2
Areas Included in the Proposed Rule but not in the Draft Technical Memorandum App. C-4
Dolphin-Wahoo Pelagic Longline Fishery Analysis App. C-5
APPENDIX D LIVE BAIT VS. DEAD BAIT EVALUATIONS OF U.S. PELAGIC LONGLINE FISHING INCIDENTAL CATCH RATES OF BILLFISH IN THE GULF OF MEXICO. App. D-1
APPENDIX E. COMMONLY USED FISHERIES MANAGEMENT ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS App. E-1
List of Tables
Table 5.1. Status of Highly Migratory Species Stocks in the Atlantic Ocean. 5-3
Table 5.2. Status of Atlantic sea turtle populations: Species taken in the pelagic longline fishery 1992-1997. 5-5
Table 5.3. Summary of incidental take levels anticipated under the incidental take statements associated with NMFS existing BOs in the US Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. 5-6
Table 5.4. Estimated Sea Turtle Takes Recorded in the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Pelagic Longline Fishery for Swordfish, Tuna and Sharks, 1992 - 1998. 5-7
Table 5.5. Comparison of the estimates of total bycatch by species and year among the pooling treatment of zero observer
effort strata using two different pooling orders.
5-8
Table 5.6. Observed Levels of Loggerhead and Leatherback Sea Turtles Taken Incidental to Commercial Pelagic Longlining for Swordfish and Tuna in the U.S. Atlantic Fleet in 1999. 5-10
Table 6.1. Average Number of Hooks per set, 1995 through 1998. 6-2
Table 6.2. Reported total annual catch of species caught by U.S. Atlantic pelagic longlines, in number of fish 1995 through 1998 6-2
Table 6.3. Annual Proportion of Billfish in the U.S. Pelagic Longline Catch in 1995 6-3
Table 6.4. Percentage of U.S. pelagic longline catches (landings + discards) as a proportion of the total annual reported ICCAT catches. 6-4
Table 6.5. Regional Swordfish Pelagic Longline Catch: 1997 and 1998 6-7
Table 6.6. Regional Pelagic longline catches of tunas (mt whole weight), by year and area, by U.S. pelagic longline fleet 6-8
Table 6.7. Number of blue marlin, white marlin and sailfish discarded (dead and alive), by area, from U.S. commercial longline vessels, based on pelagic logbook reports 6-9
Table 6.8. U.S. commercial dead discards (mt ww) and recreational landing estimates (mt) of Atlantic Marlins for 1994, 1995 and 1996. 6-10
Table 6.9. Regional U.S. Atlantic Pelagic Longline Catches of Sharks in 1998 6-10
Table 6.10. Average variable cost per pelagic longline trip for 1996 6-13
Table 6.11. Average percent and value of the cost components of pelagic longline trips: 1996-1997. 6-13
Table 6.12. Average characteristics of trips and sets, by region and season. 6-13
Table 6.13. Index of ex-vessel prices for swordfish and tunas, 1989 - 1998. 6-15
Table 6.14. Swordfish Import Data Collected under the Swordfish Import Monitoring Program (lbs). 6-16
Table 7.1. Impact of the June bluefin tuna closure, by species, for 1995 through 1998. 7-5
Table 7.2. Summary of annual (1993 through 1998) number of swordfish kept and discarded, number of hooks used, and annual ratio of swordfish kept to swordfish discarded from the two blocks identified for closure in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico (DeSoto Canyon). 7-17
Table 7.3. Summary of monthly catch and discards of swordfish between 1995 through 1998 in the Charleston Bump area. 7-18
Table 7.4. Summary of monthly catch and discards of swordfish between 1995 through 1998 in the East Florida Coast area. 7-18
Table 7.5. Closure alternatives for the Charleston Bump and East Florida Coast sub-areas of SAtlE. 7-19
Table 7.6. Comparison of time-area options under no effort redistribution and effort redistribution models. 7-21
Table 7.7. Impact of the DeSoto Canyon, Charleston Bump and East Florida Coast closures, 1995 through 1998, on the estimated weight of target catch (x 100,000 lbs) "with" and "without" redistribution of effort. 7-26
Table 7.8. Impact of final time/area closures on the number of loggerhead and leatherback turtles caught and release unharmed, injured or killed on pelagic longline sets made during 1995 through 1998. 7-28
Table 7.9. Impact on fishermen that results from the projected change in ex-vessel gross revenue based on change in number of target species caught in 1997 (in millions of dollars) for closing the Charleston Bump and East Florida Coast areas. 7-29
Table 7.10. Impact of the GulfB + SAtlE closure on the estimated weight of target catch
(x 100,000 lbs) "with" and "without" redistribution of effort. 7-33
Table 7.11. Impact on fishermen that results from the projected change in ex-vessel gross revenues based on change in number of target species caught in 1997 (in millions of dollars) for closing GulfB+SAtlE 7-35
Table 7.12. Impact of the GulfB + SAtlC closure on the estimated weight of target catch
(x 100,000 lbs) "with" and "without" redistribution of effort. 7-39
Table 7.13. Impact on fishermen that results from the projected change in ex-vessel gross revenue based on change in number of target species caught in 1997 (in millions of dollars) for closing GulfB+SAtlC 7-40
Table 7.14. Impact of the GulfB+SAtlB closure on the estimated weight of target catch
(x 100,000 lbs) "with" and "without" redistribution of effort. 7-42
Table 7.15. Impact on fishermen that results from the projected change in ex-vessel gross revenues based on change in number of target species caught in 1997 (in millions of dollars) for closing GulfB+SAtlB 7-43
Table 7.16. Impact of the GulfC+SAtlB closure on the estimated weight of target catch
(x 100,000 lbs) "with" and "without" redistribution of effort. 7-46
Table 7.17. Impact on fishermen that results from the projected change in ex-vessel gross revenues based on change in number of target species caught in 1997 (in millions of dollars) for closing GulfC+SAtlB 7-47
Table 7.18. Estimated 1998 Pelagic Longline Landings (metric tons whole weight). 7-51
Table 7.19. Closure effectiveness of selected options under the time/area closure alternative, 1995 through 1998. 7-57
Table 7.20. Changes in billfish discards from pelagic longline sets in the Gulf of Mexico.
7-60
Table 7.21. Comparison of live and dead bait information from logbook and observer databases in the Gulf of Mexico. 7-63
Table 7.22. The proportion of live HMS in various time intervals after being hooked. 7-79
Table 7.23. A Summary of the Cumulative Impacts of All Alternatives Considered Relative to the Status Quo 7-85
Table 7.24. Gear modifications that might decrease turtle takes in the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery. 7-86
Table 8.1 The 1998 average ex-vessel price and weight information used to estimate each vessel's gross revenue. 8-8
Table 8.2 The estimated percent change in gross revenues for permit holders under the Draft and Final SEIS. 8-10
Table 8.3 The estimated percent change in weight of fish handled (A), in gross revenues from swordfish (B), and in gross revenues from yellowfin tuna (C) by 125 dealers under the draft and final SEIS. 8-14
Table 8.4 The catch composition of pelagic longlines, by area, in numbers. 8-22
Table 8.5 Gross revenues of pelagic longline fishermen from each species. 8-22
Table 8.6 Summary of benefits and costs for the final actions. 8-24
Table 8.7 Changes to the Final Regulations from the Proposed Regulations 8-25
Table 8.8 Summary information on vessels that fished in the Grand Banks. 8-26
Table 9.1 A summary of census data of coastal communities near the affected states.
9-11
Table 9.2 Population estimates for the States on the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico by race and Hispanic origin: July 1, 1998. 9-11
Table A1. Observer's comments on takes of marine mammals by pelagic longline fishing
operations. App. A-2
Table A2. Observed takes of sea turtles in the 1995 - 1998 pelagic longline fishery by year, calendar quarter, and fishing
area. Blank areas indicate no effort for that year, quarter, and area.
App. A-5
Table A3. Observed Incidental Takes of Sea Birds, By Species By Pelagic Longlines:
July 1990-June 1997. App. A-7
Table C-1. Spatial boundaries for closures within the Gulf of Mexico and along the SE U.S. Atlantic coast.
App. C-6
Table C-2. Example of temporal variations in the effectiveness of closing area GulfB during
1995. App. C-6
Table C-3. Calculation procedures for estimating dispersion of effort using 1995 blue marlin in GulfB.
App. C-7
Table C-4. Pelagic logbook reports of effort, catch and bycatch in the proposed South Atlantic closed area in 1998. App. C-8
List of Figures
Figure 6.1. Typical U.S. pelagic longline gear. 6-1
Figure 6.2. Geographic areas used in summaries of pelagic logbook data from 1992 - 1998.
6-5
Figure 6.3. Frequency distribution, by homeport state, of pelagic longline vessels with directed or incidental limited access HMS permits 6-11
Figure 6.4. Distribution of vessel lengths with home ports from the Gulf of Mexico, the southeastern U.S. Atlantic coast (south of 36o N latitude) and northeastern U.S. Atlantic coast (north of 36o N latitude). 6-12
Figure 7.1. Percent change in catch resulting from closures of areas in the Gulf of Mexico and southeastern U.S. Atlantic coast. 7-7
Figure 7.2. Geographic boundaries for DeSoto Canyon, East Florida Coast and Charleston Bump. 7-16
Figure 7.3 Percent change in catch resulting from DeSoto Canyon, Charleston Bump and East Florida Coast closures, 1995 through 1998. 7-26
Figure 7.4. Geographic boundaries for GulfB and SAtlE. 7-32
Figure 7.5. Percent change in catch resulting from closure of area GulfB (March to September), SAtlE (year-round), 1995 through 1998. 7-33
Figure 7.6. Geographic boundaries of Gulf B and SAtlC. 7-37
Figure 7.7. Percent change in catch resulting from closure of area GulfB (March to September), S-SAtlC (year-round), 1995 through 1998. 7-38
Figure 7.8. Geographic boundaries of GulfB and SAtlB. 7-41
Figure 7.9. Percent change in catch resulting from closure of area GulfB (March to September), SAtlB (year-round), 1995 through 1998. 7-42
Figure 7.10. Geographic boundaries of GulfC and SAtlB. 7-45
Figure 7.11. Percent change in catch resulting from closure of area GulfC (March to September), SAtlB (year-round), 1995 through 1998. 7-46
Figure 7.12. Turtle interactions with respect to hook depth. 7-68
Figure 7.13. The number of pelagic longline sets made in the Grand Banks area and the number of turtle interactions in 1994-1995. 7-70
Figure 9.1 The location of business addresses of directed swordfish limited access permit holders. 9-6
Figure 9.2 A close-up of the location of business addresses of directed swordfish limited access permit holders near the closed areas. 9-6
Figure 9.3 The location of the business addresses of incidental swordfish limited access permit holders. 9-7
Figure 9.4 A close-up of the location of the business addresses of incidental swordfish limited access permit holders near the closed areas. 9-7
Figure 9.5 The location of the business addresses of all swordfish dealers. 9-8
Figure 9.6 The location of business addresses of all shark dealers. 9-8
Figure 9.7 The location of business addresses of all BAYS dealers. 9-9
Figure 9.8 The location of business addresses of all BFT dealers. 9-9
Figure 10.1. Average distribution of swordfish catch (landings + discards, in number of fish) from 1991-1998. Proportion of fish less than 125 cm lower jaw fork length is the lightly shaded area. 10-3
Figure A1. Map of 1995-1997 marine mammal interactions with the Atlantic Pelagic Longline Fishery.
App. A-1
Figure A2. Takes of Sea Birds in the Atlantic Pelagic Longline Fishery: 1997-1998. App. A-6
Figure C1. Percentage in total bycatch by species and month during 1996 from closures in the Gulf of Mexico. App. C-9
Figure C2. Area SAtlE (gray line) and its analytical proxy (black line). App. C-9
Figure C3. DeSoto Canyon area in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico. App. C-10
1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
This final rule implements time/area closures and gear restrictions for pelagic longline gear deployed by U.S.-flagged vessels in the Atlantic Ocean to reduce pelagic longline bycatch, bycatch mortality, and incidental catch, consistent with National Standard 9 (NS9). Pelagic longline gear is the dominant commercial fishing gear used by U.S. fishermen in the Atlantic Ocean to target highly migratory species (HMS). Further, it is a common commercial fishing gear used by vessels from many other nations in the Western Atlantic Ocean. Pelagic longline fishing by U.S. commercial fishermen is conducted offshore of the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, in the Caribbean basin and South Atlantic Ocean, with a significant proportion of fishing effort occurring within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Management of the U.S. pelagic longline fishery in the Atlantic Ocean and surrounding waters has historically relied upon a catch or landing quota and/or a minimum size limits. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) closely monitors the United States pelagic longline fleet through observer and logbook programs; a vessel monitoring program (VMS) is scheduled for implementation in the pelagic longline fishery on September 1, 2000.
Pelagic longline gear can be modified (gear type and configuration, timing of sets, etc.) to target yellowfin tuna, bigeye tuna, sharks, or swordfish. However, this gear also catches other species (or sizes) of fish (e.g., marlin, sailfish, undersized swordfish), mammals (porpoises or whales) that are either hooked or entangled, sea birds, and sea turtles that are not the gear's targets. Many of the species are not kept because they cannot be legally retained due to species prohibitions, minimum size limits, quotas, or other regulations (i.e., regulatory discards), and in these cases, animals must be released in a manner intended to maximize survival. However, there can be significant mortality of the bycatch as a result of the interaction with pelagic longline gear. In other instances, species are not kept by choice, due to market value, hold capacity, or for a myriad of other reasons.
Bycatch and bycatch mortality of billfish, undersized swordfish, and sea turtles has been a particular concern for many years because of its impact on the stocks of these species. In September 1997, NMFS released the first report entitled "A Report to Congress: Status of Fisheries in the United States." This report designated North Atlantic swordfish, Atlantic blue marlin, Atlantic white marlin, bluefin tuna, and the large coastal shark (LCS) complex as overfished; west Atlantic sailfish and bigeye tuna were added to the overfished stocks list in 1998 and northern albacore tuna was added in 1999. Further, several sea turtle stocks are listed as either endangered or threatened (see Section 5).
1.2 What is Bycatch and Incidental Catch?
Bycatch has become a central concern of fishing industries, environmentalists, resource managers, scientists, and the public, both nationally and globally. A 1994 report of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations estimated that nearly one-quarter (27 million metric tons (mt)) of the total world catch by commercial fishing operations was discarded (Alverson et al., 1994). Bycatch precludes other more productive uses of fishery resources; it is important to minimize the waste associated with bycatch when so many of the world's fisheries are either fully exploited or overexploited. As a source of fishing mortality, excessive bycatch in commercial fisheries can slow rebuilding of overfished stocks (if most of the bycatch dies) and imposes direct and indirect costs on commercial fishing operations by increasing sorting time, and decreasing the amount of gear available to catch target species. Bycatch concerns also apply to populations of marine mammals, sea turtles, seabirds and other components of ecosystems for which there are no commercial or recreational uses.
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) defines bycatch as:
fish that are harvested in a fishery, but are not sold or kept for personal use, and includes economic discards and regulatory discards. [Bycatch] does not include fish released alive under a recreational catch and release fishery management program.
Some relevant examples of fish that are included in the Magnuson-Stevens Act's definition of bycatch are Atlantic billfish caught and discarded by commercial fishing gear (even if tagged and released); undersized swordfish; and bigeye and yellowfin tunas caught and discarded by commercial fishermen; species for which there is little or no market and which are therefore discarded, such as blue sharks; and other highly migratory species that are not landed for various reasons (including fish hooked and lost, or fish released at the boat - whether or not the fish was tagged). Bycatch also includes the release of prohibited shark species and LCS caught by pelagic longline gear during a closure of that fishery. The recreational fishery can also have bycatch, including both regulatory discards (fish caught below minimum size limits or in excess of bag limits, e.g., 27 inch minimum size for yellowfin tuna with a three-fish per person per trip bag limit), and selective discards of fish that could legally be retained. However, bycatch does not include Atlantic HMS harvested in a commercial fishery that are not regulatory discards and that are tagged and released alive under a scientific tag-and-release program. Recreationally caught billfish and white sharks are now part of a catch-and-release program under the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Sharks, and Swordfish (HMS FMP) and Amendment One to the Atlantic Billfish Fishery Management Plan (Billfish FMP Amendment) and as such, are not considered bycatch.
Incidental catch is the catch of those animals that are caught incidental to fishing operations that may or may not be discarded, e.g., bluefin tuna caught on a pelagic longline gear. Incidental catch also includes marine mammals and sea birds which are discarded but are not included in the Magnuson-Stevens Act definition of bycatch. NMFS focuses this rulemaking not only on bycatch as defined by the Magnuson-Stevens Act but on all discarded animals.
NMFS initiated efforts to address the issue of bycatch of finfish and turtles and incidental catch of marine mammals in 1997 through the development and publication of the HMS FMP and Billfish FMP Amendment. These documents provide detailed discussions of bycatch and incidental catch issues associated with the various HMS commercial and recreational fisheries. The HMS FMP and its associated consolidated rule include several measures to reduce bycatch, including a time/area closure for pelagic longline fisheries to reduce discards of bluefin tuna, limited access for swordfish and shark fisheries, proposed quota reductions that serve as part of the foundation for international negotiations, gear restrictions (e.g., the ban on drift gillnets for tuna fishing as a result of frequent encounters with marine mammals and other protected species), and outreach programs (e.g., providing information on the impacts of circle hooks, live vs. dead bait, etc.). Further, the Billfish FMP Amendment defers management of billfish bycatch in commercial HMS fisheries to the plan that manages the directed fisheries in which billfish bycatch occurs; namely the HMS FMP.
The HMS FMP indicated that time and area closures could be a useful tool to reduce bycatch and bycatch mortality in the pelagic longline fishery in the short term. The HMS FMP included a time/area closure for pelagic longline fishermen to address bluefin tuna incidental catch. Although the draft HMS FMP proposed a time/area closure in the Florida Straits aimed at reducing undersized swordfish bycatch, public comment indicated that the closure was likely too small to be effective, and was not comprehensive with respect to the incidental catch of other species. NMFS agreed with the comments and did not finalize the Florida Straits closure, instead opting to develop a more effective closure, together with pelagic longline gear restrictions, to address bycatch issues, which is the purpose of this final rule.
1.3 Objectives of the Final Action
The following objectives were developed to guide agency action, to the extent practicable, to reduce bycatch, bycatch mortality, and incidental catch of undersize swordfish, billfish, and other overfished and protected species from the U.S. pelagic longline fishery operating in the Atlantic Ocean:
(1) Maximize the reduction in finfish bycatch;
(2) Minimize the reduction in the target catch of swordfish and other species;
(3) Consider impacts on the incidental catch of other species to minimize or reduce incidental catch levels; and
(4) Optimize survival of bycatch and incidental catch species.
This rulemaking is also consistent with the objectives of the HMS FMP and the Billfish FMP Amendment. It particularly addresses the objective of the HMS FMP "to minimize, to the extent practicable, bycatch of living marine resources and the mortality of such bycatch that cannot be avoided in the fisheries for Atlantic tuna, swordfish, and sharks." Although the Billfish FMP Amendment defers management of commercial fishing bycatch to the HMS FMP, it does state an objective of that plan is to "...minimize to the extent practicable, bycatch and discard mortality of billfish on gears..." Further, to the extent that these actions reduce mortality levels of overfished resources, particularly of pre-reproductive fish and spawning populations, these objectives will augment rebuilding efforts initiated in the HMS FMP and Billfish FMP Amendment.
1.4 Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is the primary Federal legislation governing interactions between fisheries and species whose continued existence is threatened or endangered. Through a consultative process, this law requires Federal agencies to evaluate proposed actions in light of the impacts they could have on these ESA-listed species. In the case of marine fisheries, NMFS' Office of Sustainable Fisheries (OSF) consults with the NMFS Office of Protected Resources (OPR) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine what impacts major fishery management actions will have on threatened and endangered populations of marine species and what actions can be taken to reduce or eliminate negative impacts. Under the formal consultative process, NMFS issues a Biological Opinion (BO) which outlines expected impacts of the proposed action and specifies the reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid jeopardy or, if the action does not jeopardize threatened or endangered species, specifies reasonable and prudent measures to minimize impacts of any incidental take of the endangered or threatened species (see Section 5.8).
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972 is the principal Federal legislation that guides marine mammal species protection and conservation policy. Under requirements of the MMPA, NMFS produces an annual List of Fisheries that classifies domestic commercial fisheries by gear type relative to their rates of incidental mortality or serious injury of marine mammals. The Atlantic pelagic longline fishery for HMS is considered a Category I fishery, which indicates that this gear is associated with frequent serious injury or mortality to marine mammals. Fishermen participating in Category I fisheries are required to be registered under the MMPA and, if selected, to accommodate an observer aboard their vessels. Vessel owners or operators in Category I fisheries must report to NMFS all incidental mortalities and injuries of marine mammals during the course of commercial fishing operations.
1.5 Advisory Panel Deliberation and Public Comment
As a result of the re-authorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, an HMS Advisory Panel (AP) and an Atlantic Billfish AP were formed during 1997. These panels consist of members from recreational, commercial, environmental, and scientific communities, as well as from state fisheries agencies, the five Atlantic Fishery Management Councils, and the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT) Advisory Committee. NMFS held a joint HMS-Atlantic Billfish AP meeting during the development of the FMPs in July 1997 to expressly evaluate bycatch issues and options. The discussion focused on possible time/area closures and gear restrictions and/or gear modifications. The draft HMS FMP and draft Billfish FMP Amendment issued in October 1998 included a time/area closure in the Florida Straits to pelagic longline fishing activity during the months of July, August, and September as part of a management strategy to reduce bycatch of undersized swordfish and Atlantic billfish. NMFS received numerous comments concerning the use of time/area closures for the pelagic longline fishery. A range of comments supported the proposed Florida Straits closure, other nursery areas (for swordfish in particular) such as the Charleston Bump and areas in the Gulf of Mexico, and a year-round ban of pelagic longline gear. Comments also opposed any time/area closure that would have unpredictable results due to redistributed effort. Specific to the proposed area in the Florida Straits, many comments indicated that the area was too small to have the desired conservation effect because fishermen would redistribute their effort along the fringe of the closed areas.
After considering these comments, NMFS agreed and deferred the implementation of a time/area closure for protection of undersized swordfish and billfish pending further analyses of the impacts of effort redistribution, and increased effectiveness with temporal and/or spatial expansion of the time/area management window. Further rationale for the delay was based on the potential magnitude of the economic and social impacts that would likely result from a more extensive time/area closure. Consistent with the delay in the implementation of additional time/area closures in the pelagic longline fishery, NMFS delayed until September 1, 2000, the requirement for all commercial vessels with pelagic longline gear on board to have a NMFS-approved vessel monitoring system.
In June 1999 and again in February 2000, NMFS met with the HMS and Atlantic Billfish APs on various time/area strategies. The latter meeting was to solicit comments on the proposed rule (published December 15, 1999). NMFS considered comments by the APs in the development of this document and the accompanying final rule. Further, NMFS held 13 public hearings on the proposed rule and received several hundred written and verbal comments through March 1, 2000. On April 26, 2000, NMFS published an additional notice to request comments on the expanded Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) summary, on an additional closed area alternative (DeSoto Canyon) in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, and on the applicability of delayed implementation strategies for time/area closures for the pelagic longline fishery. The comment period on the additional notice closed on May 12, 2000, with approximately 200 written comments and 2000 form letters received on the additional notice alone. Summaries of the comments submitted and NMFS' response can be found in Appendix B and will also be included in the preamble to the final rule.
1.6 Background Research and Supplemental Analyses
The original Swordfish FMP, approved on August 22, 1985, included measures to reduce the number of small swordfish (defined as swordfish under 50 pounds dressed weight (dw)) taken along the Atlantic coast. The primary regulatory mechanism in the plan to reduce the catch of these fish was the Variable Season Closure (VSC). In essence this was a time/area closure in which each fishing area (New England/Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, East Florida Coast, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean) was to be closed a sufficient amount of time to reduce its catch of small fish. Each area's reduction was determined by first calculating the difference between the total number of fish under 50 pounds dw in the most recent year and the number caught in 1980 and dividing by the number caught in the most recent year (for all areas combined). This fraction was multiplied by each area's catch of small fish in the most recent year resulting in the number of small fish by which that area had to reduce its catch. For each area, monthly landings of small fish were determined for the most recent year and divided by the number of days in the month. The number of closure days necessary to achieve the requisite reduction was then determined. Closures were to be during September, October, November or December. Each Council then was to select the starting date for closure, but the duration of the closure was set by the requisite reduction and the monthly landings pattern for the previous year. Although the VSC provision was approved by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), it was not implemented.
In 1997, NMFS examined billfish catch information from pelagic longline gear during 1986-1996. Catches were plotted, by quarter, year, and species, with copies of these plots provided to the HMS and Billfish APs. Results of these qualitative plots of catch frequency indicated that billfish are encountered throughout the range of the pelagic longline fisheries, with areas of high billfish catch generally reflecting areas of high pelagic longline effort (P. Mace, pers. comm.). However, some notable differences in the distribution of the various billfish species were identified relative to the range of fishing effort (NMFS, unpublished), including, for example, a relatively higher occurrence of blue and white marlin discards in the western Gulf of Mexico, relative to the level of pelagic longline fishing effort.
Goodyear (1998) examined pelagic logbook data from U.S. commercial fishermen to determine the distribution of relative monthly catch rates of billfish and target species by one, two and five degree areas to identify potential time/area strata that could reduce billfish bycatch. The areas examined were limited to the operational areas of the U.S. pelagic longline fleet, which includes a large area outside the U.S. EEZ. Although the results of Goodyear's study demonstrate that time/area closures could be effective in reducing billfish bycatch in commercial fishing gear, his study did not account for redistribution of pelagic longline effort to other open time/area cells. Billfish are sparsely distributed over vast ocean areas; therefore shifting commercial efforts could result in similar, or perhaps even higher billfish encounter rates elsewhere. Another point to consider is the spatial distribution of the closed areas considered in Goodyear's study, which ranged from the Grand Banks, along the east U.S. coast, Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean. Some of the areas identified by Goodyear (1998) are outside the U.S. EEZ where other countries also operate commercial longline fleets. Although ATCA provides authority to close these areas to U.S. pelagic longline vessels, the time/area portion of the final rule focuses on the U.S. EEZ to maximize the effectiveness of the closures, because most effort and catch by U.S.-flagged pelagic longline vessels is within this area.
Cramer and Scott (1998) examined pelagic logbook records for 1987 through 1996 to determine the effect of closures on swordfish and discards from the U.S. pelagic longline fishery. They used two analytical techniques (perfect hindsight analysis and five-year average analysis) to identify spatial patterns in the reduction of bycatch and target catches resulting from quarterly closures of two degree squares (latitude X longitude). The perfect hindsight analysis indicated that 50 percent reduction of reported swordfish discards could be achieved with a loss of approximately 15 percent of target catch. The overwhelming majority of the two degree square closures selected by the five-year average analysis were below 35oN latitude. Cramer and Scott ranked the two degree square areas on a quarterly basis and calculated the expected reduction in discards and target catch. If all effort was removed from those areas, reductions ranged from 15 to 27 percent for swordfish discards, 6 to 14 percent for billfish discards, 7 to 12 percent for swordfish landings, 4 to 6 percent in dolphin landings and 1 to 2 percent in bigeye, albacore, yellowfin, and skipjack (BAYS) tunas landings. Estimates were also made of the number of landed and discarded fish that would not have been caught if all the effort from the closed areas was distributed among the remaining two degree squares in proportion to the reported effort in those squares. Under this scenario, swordfish discards would decrease by 7 to 23 percent, billfish discards be reduced by 2 to 8 percent, swordfish landings could increase by 0 to 4 percent, and BAYS landing could also increase by 4 to 9 percent.
NMFS published a draft technical memorandum which outlined analyses of various areas for closure to longline fishing (Appendix C of the Draft Supplementary Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS)). Those analyses were purely biological and focused on areas of high bycatch rates. Refer to Section 7.0 and Appendix C of this document for more information on the analytical procedures used in the time/area analysis.
A recent manuscript from the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center (Scott et al., 2000; Appendix D) provides an analysis of available logbook and observer data sets to evaluate the relationships of U.S. pelagic longline catch rates of billfish in the Gulf of Mexico relative to use of live and dead bait. Blue marlin, white marlin and sailfish discards are combined for this analysis; observer sets with unidentified billfish species, which could include swordfish, are also included in the analysis. Predicted reduction in total billfish bycatch ranges from 2 percent to approximately 30 percent depending upon the source of information (logbook and observer) and assumptions about effort levels following conversion from live to dead bait.
1.7 The Fishery Management Plan and the Framework Process
NMFS published the HMS FMP and Billfish FMP Amendment in April 1999. These documents included rebuilding plans to comply with provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act for fisheries identified as overfished, and also contained fishery conservation and management measures to address bycatch and bycatch mortality concerns associated with HMS fisheries. This Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) and the final rule serve as a regulatory amendment to the HMS FMP. Therefore, the final actions apply to those fishermen holding permits for highly migratory species and who use pelagic longline gear. Those pelagic longline fishermen who may target dolphin and wahoo in the South Atlantic Bight but do not hold permits for HMS are required to discard all HMS. The Secretary of Commerce sought the help of the South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils (FMC) to develop complementary regulations, as appropriate. The South Atlantic FMC (SAFMC) published a draft FMP (April 2000) for the dolphin and wahoo fishery of the Atlantic, Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico. The draft FMP includes a preferred action to prohibit the use of pelagic longline gear for dolphin and wahoo within "any time or area closure in the SAFMC's area of jurisdiction (Atlantic Coast) which is closed to the use of such gear for highly migratory species." The Gulf of Mexico FMC in its comments on the proposed rule and Draft Supplementary Environmental Impact Statement supported a total closure of the Gulf of Mexico to pelagic longline gear during March through September.
Under the HMS FMP, the activities involved in continuing fishery management include monitoring, evaluation, adjustment, and revision. There are two primary methods that can be used to change management measures included in an FMP: FMP amendment and framework regulatory adjustment. The HMS FMP included time/area restrictions, gear use restrictions, and gear modifications as management options under the framework procedures. Framework regulatory adjustment procedures provide for timely changes to the management measures in the regulations in response to new information about the fishery. Framework adjustment lends flexibility and efficiency to the regulatory process by allowing NMFS to make time-critical changes in the regulations without engaging in the longer process of amending the FMP. Framework adjustment is not intended to circumvent the FMP amendment process that must take place when circumstances in the fishery change substantially or when a different management philosophy or objectives are adopted, triggering significant changes in the management system. Rather, framework adjustment is intended to make it possible to manage fisheries and meet the objectives of the FMP more responsively under conditions requiring timely management actions. As with an FMP amendment, framework adjustments must go through extensive public and analytical review. This includes a proposed rule, a public comment period, at least one public hearing, and a final rule. AP meetings will be held for a rulemaking if the agency deems it necessary for purposes of consultation or AP review. The AP and public comment processes for this final action on bycatch reduction under the framework process are summarized above in Section 1.4.
The purpose of this document is to consider a full range of fishery management alternatives that minimize, to the extent practicable, bycatch, bycatch mortality, and incidental catches of undersized swordfish, billfish, and other non-target HMS, as well as protected species taken by U.S. commercial pelagic longline fishermen operating in the Atlantic Ocean. NMFS considered alternatives that enhance the survival of bycatch and incidental catches of these species that are captured on pelagic longline gear. In this document, NMFS considers the biological, social and economic impacts of these potential management actions. This document supports rulemaking by providing the required analyses of the impacts of the final regulations. This FSEIS serves as a supplement to the environmental impact statement that accompanied the regulations that implemented the HMS FMP . That document can be requested from NMFS, Highly Migratory Species Division, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, or accessed from the following Internet address: http://www.nmfs.gov/sfa/hmspg.html.
The following alternatives represent the range of options NMFS considered to reduce bycatch, bycatch mortality, and incidental catch of undersize swordfish, billfish, and other overfished and protected species from pelagic longline gear utilized by U.S.-flagged vessels operating in the Atlantic Ocean. By focusing on pelagic longline fishing effort within the U.S. EEZ, the final actions will have maximal effect with respect to areas of the Atlantic Ocean where all fishing effort, whether by a U.S.-flagged or foreign-flagged vessel, is regulated by the United States. Further, a significant portion of the U.S. pelagic longline effort occurs within these waters. Each alternative identifies potential regulatory mechanisms for implementation. Alternatives are evaluated in Section 7.0 with respect to existing data(1) on target and incidentally caught species, as well as ecological, social, and economic impacts. Economic and social impacts are more fully discussed in Sections 8.0 and 9.0, respectively.
NMFS considered the following fourteen alternatives before selecting the final actions.
Use of Time/Area Closures to Reduce Bycatch, Bycatch Mortality, and Incidental Catch from Pelagic Longline Gear in the Atlantic Ocean
Alternative 1. Closure of DeSoto Canyon, Charleston Bump and East Florida Coast
Alternative 2. Closure of GulfB and SAtlE
Alternative 3. Closure of GulfB and SAtlC
Alternative 4. Closure of GulfB and SAtlB
Alternative 5. Closure of GulfC and SAtlB
Alternative 6. Prohibit Use of Pelagic Longline Gear
Alternative 7. No Action (Status Quo)
Use of Gear Restrictions and Modifications to Reduce Bycatch, Bycatch Mortality, and Incidental Catch from Pelagic Longline Gear in the Atlantic Ocean
Alternative 8. Prohibit the Use of Live Bait on Pelagic Longline Gear used in the Gulf of Mexico
Alternative 9. Measures to rig longlines so hooks are fished deeper in the water column
Alternative 10. Prohibit the setting of a pelagic longline in water temperatures greater than 68 degrees F in the Grand Banks Region
Alternative 11. Prohibit setting the pelagic longline from 3 p.m. until 9 p.m.
Alternative 12. Require Use of Circle Hooks
Alternative 13. Reduce pelagic longline soak time
Reduction of Fishing Capacity
Alternative 14. Reduce fishing capacity in the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery
A brief description of each alternative follows.
2.1 Use of Time/Area Closures to Reduce Bycatch, Bycatch Mortality, and Incidental Catch from Pelagic Longline Gear in the Atlantic Ocean
Final Action: Use pelagic longline time/area closures to reduce bycatch, bycatch mortality, and incidental catch
This action will spatially and temporally limit the use of pelagic longline gear by U.S.-flagged vessels in areas along the southeastern Atlantic coast of the United States and Gulf of Mexico. NMFS evaluated five alternatives (Section 7.1), including the final action, that identify specific spatial and temporal constraints to the closure in this area to maximize the effectiveness of this management strategy relative to the stated objectives, while considering economic and social impacts to fishermen and their communities within the closed areas. The final action selected is the combined closures of an area in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico and a closure of two areas along the southeastern U.S. Atlantic coast. The DeSoto Canyon alternative was published in a notice on April 26, 2000, (65 FR 24440) and NMFS received public comments until May 12, 2000.
Rejected Option: Prohibit use of pelagic longline gear
This alternative would have banned the use of pelagic longline gear by all U.S.-flagged vessels targeting HMS in the Atlantic Ocean. This alternative was rejected because bycatch can be addressed through time/area closures and gear restrictions as implemented in this final rule. Furthermore, banning longlining is inconsistent with provisions of ATCA and the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Rejected Option: No Action (Status Quo)
This rejected alternative would have maintained the existing regulations for the pelagic longline fishery along the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean coasts of the United States. These regulations prohibit commercial fishermen utilizing pelagic longline gear from retaining, possessing or selling: swordfish under 33 pounds dw; Atlantic marlins from the Atlantic Ocean; and all west Atlantic sailfish and longbill spearfish from or in the U.S. EEZ. These fishermen are also subject to target catch limits in order to land a bluefin tuna. Use of pelagic longline gear is currently prohibited during the month of June in the Mid-Atlantic Bight closed area from 39 to 40 N and 68 to 74 W to reduce the bycatch of bluefin tuna. Fishermen must release all large coastal sharks if the directed fishery is closed and are subject to bycatch limits on swordfish if that directed fishery is closed. In addition, a 1999 ICCAT recommendation established a discard allowance of 400 mt of swordfish from the North Atlantic for the 2000 fishing season; the discard allowance is reduced to zero by the 2003 fishing season. Although the United States received 80 percent of the discard allowance, total U.S. North Atlantic swordfish discards for 1998 were 443 mt. Further, overage in discards from one year will come off the following year's quota for that country.
2.2 Use of Gear Restrictions and Modifications to Reduce Bycatch, Bycatch Mortality, and Incidental Catch from Pelagic Longline Gear in the Atlantic Ocean
Final Action: Prohibit the use of live bait on pelagic longline gear in the Gulf of Mexico
This final action will prohibit the use of live bait on pelagic longline gear year-round in the Gulf of Mexico to reduce the catch-per-unit-effort of non-target HMS, primarily Atlantic billfish. There is evidence from analysis of logbook and at-sea observer data that hooks rigged with live bait are more attractive to billfish (see Section 7.2 Appendix D). A live bait prohibition in the Gulf of Mexico is expected to reduce interactions with billfish.
Not Selected at this Time: Measures to rig longlines so hooks are fished deeper in the water column
This alternative would have prohibited the setting of hooks closer than 240 feet from the nearest float in order to reduce interactions with sea turtles. There is some evidence from logbook and at-sea observer data collections that hooks rigged closer to floats attached to the mainline are more likely to interact with sea turtles. This is most likely due to the fact that hooks rigged closer to floats will remain at a shallower depth than those farther away from floats, as the weight of the mainline will draw it deeper between floats. As turtles tend to forage closer to the surface due to the need for air, it is less likely that they will encounter the deeper hooks. Further research is needed to provide sufficient cause and effect relations between water depth of pelagic longline gear and sea turtle takes.
Not Selected at this Time: Prohibit the setting of a pelagic longline in water temperatures greater than 68 degrees F in the Grand Banks region
This alternative would have prohibited setting of pelagic longline gear in "warm" waters (greater than 68oF) that may have high concentrations of sea turtles. There is some evidence from logbook and at-sea observer data that longline sets made in local areas of warm surface waters of the Grand Banks are more likely to interact with sea turtles. This is most likely due to the fact that turtles prefer warmer waters and once transported to the Grand Banks in the Gulf Stream, will tend to remain in local eddies and currents that are warmer than the prevailing surface waters in the areas of mixing on the Grand Banks. If longline fishermen on the Grand Banks avoid surface waters warmer than 68o F, it is less likely that they would encounter sea turtles. Further research is needed in defining turtle distributional patterns and physical oceanographic features in the Grand Banks area. Additionally, a mechanism would need to be identified and tested to enforce such a management action.
Not Selected at this Time: Prohibit the setting of a pelagic longline from 3 p.m. until 9 p.m.
This rejected alternative would have prohibited setting pelagic longline gear between 3 p.m. and 9 p.m. in order to reduce interactions with sea turtles. There is some evidence from logbook and at-sea observer data that longline sets made in the late afternoon and early evening are more likely to interact with sea turtles. This is most likely due to the fact that turtles are visual predators and may feed more actively in surface waters in late afternoon and early evening. As the longline gear is set at the surface and descends to fishing depths as the distance from the vessel increases, it is more likely that turtles will interact with the gear if it is descending through surface waters during a time of feeding activity. Setting the gear earlier in the day or later at night may decrease the chances that the gear will encounter sea turtles. Again, as with other rejected options, further research is needed on the effectiveness of this rejected alternative in reducing sea turtle takes.
Not Selected at this Time: Require the use of circle hooks on pelagic longline gear
This rejected alternative would have required that all pelagic longlines be rigged with circle hooks. Conventional "J-hooks" could not be possessed on board any pelagic longline vessel. Circle hooks are more difficult to swallow and tend to catch fish by hooking the lips rather than the gut. Fish that are not to be retained are more likely to be released with less injury. Some species of sea turtles would also likely benefit from reduced injuries, as circle hooks are less likely to be swallowed. This alternative was rejected until current studies are completed to determine if sufficient scientific evidence is provided to support a regulatory requirement mandating their use by pelagic longline fishermen.
Not Selected at this Time: Reduce pelagic longline soak times
This rejected management alternative would have established a maximum soak time for pelagic longline sets. A shorter soak time would mean that incidental catch and bycatch could be released sooner and with less injury. This could lead to increased survivability of released finfish and turtles. This alternative was rejected until current studies are completed to determine if sufficient scientific evidence is provided to support a regulatory requirement mandating their use by pelagic longline fishermen.
2.3 Reduce fishing capacity in the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery
This rejected alternative would have further limited the capacity in the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery in order to mitigate the effects of redistributed effort under a time/area closure alternative. Conceivably, all longline sets that would otherwise have been made in a closed area would be redistributed to open areas. The incidental catch and bycatch of this redistributed effort must be balanced against the reductions anticipated in the closed areas. Reducing the production capacity of the fleet through retirement of permits, consolidation or a vessel buyback could reduce overall effort and thus incidental catch. NMFS is currently undertaking a analysis of overcapacity in all federally-managed fisheries and will report to the public the findings of that study.
2.0 ALTERNATIVES 2-1
2.1 Use of Time/Area Closures to Reduce Bycatch, Bycatch Mortality, and Incidental Catch from Pelagic Longline Gear in the Atlantic Ocean 2-2
2.2 Use of Gear Restrictions and Modifications to Reduce Bycatch, Bycatch Mortality, and Incidental Catch from Pelagic
Longline Gear in the Atlantic Ocean
2-3
2.3 Reduce fishing capacity in the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery 2-5
Before implementing management measures, NMFS must consider the economic impacts in accordance with two laws: the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Reg Flex Act) and Executive Order 12866 (E.O. 12866). The requirements under E.O. 12866 and Reg Flex Act are similar. Both require a description of the need for the action, and the management objectives. These requirements can be found in Sections 1 and 2 of this document. They also require an analysis of each alternative, the expected effects, and a description of the reasons why an action is being taken (Sections 7, 8, and 9). The main difference between the Reg Flex Act and E.O. 12866 is the focus of the analysis. While the Reg Flex Act focuses on individual businesses, E.O. 12866 focuses on the entire fishery.
The analyses required for E.O. 12866 and under the Reg Flex Act are included in Section 8, and additional economic impacts are discussed throughout this document, particularly in Section 7. Additional information about the Reg Flex Act, E.O. 12866, and economic impacts can be found in Chapter 7 of the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks (NMFS, 1999).
Before implementing management measures, NMFS considers all economic concerns and works with the constituency, including representatives of small businesses, to identify alternatives, consider the impacts of these alternatives, and to select preferred alternatives based on various factors, including relative effects on small businesses. NMFS has consistently worked with its constituents throughout the public scoping processes, public hearings, and extensive comment periods. NMFS also works with two Advisory Panels, formed under the re-authorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, that include representatives of small businesses. For the regulations in this document NMFS held 13 public hearings during two comment periods and received hundreds of written comments and over 2,000 form letters. Many of the comments received mentioned the economic and social impacts these regulations will have on all fishermen, commercial and recreational. A summary of comments submitted and the agency's responses can be found in Appendix B of this document. Comments that specifically related to the economic and social impacts and analyses can be found in the sections titled "Mitigation of Economic Impacts" and "Social and Economic Analyses".
In addition, NMFS strives for improved collection and analyses of data pertaining to the social and economic aspects of the fisheries. The 1996 Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act (SBREFA) has increased the focus on these analyses. NMFS is endeavoring to develop clearer guidance on the actual implementation of the requirements pertinent to fishery management. NMFS believes the goals of fishery management are consistent with those of the Reg Flex Act: implement fishery management regulations to ensure a healthy resource that will sustain viable fisheries for both commercial and recreational constituents and the businesses associated with those fisheries.
3.1 Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act
The 1996 SBREFA amended the Reg Flex Act and made compliance with Sections of the Reg Flex Act subject to judicial review. The purpose of the Reg Flex Act is to require agencies to assess impacts of their proposed regulations on small entities and to encourage Federal agencies to utilize innovative administrative procedures when dealing with small entities. If an action is believed to be significant, the Reg Flex Act requires agencies to perform an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) during the proposed rule stage and, after considering public comment, a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) during the final rule stage.
In a regulatory flexibility analysis, the focus is on small businesses and the effect of regulatory measures on their revenues and/or costs. The analyses should contain sufficient information to make a determination of whether the rule has a "significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities" under Reg Flex Act. While the current National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) guidelines for the Reg Flex Act focus primarily on impacts on either gross revenues and/or costs (depending upon the measure being considered as well as available data), the financial condition of affected firms (i.e., the net effect of gross revenue and cost changes) is also an important consideration in these analyses. The NOAA guidelines for the Reg Flex Act are currently being revised (65 FR 32078). The comment period for these revisions began on May 22, 2000, and will remain open until June 21, 2000.
The definition of a "small entity" includes small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. The Small Business Administration considers a small business as a firm with annual receipts averaging over three years up to three million dollars annually. For processors, a small business is one with 500 or fewer employees; the wholesale industry size standard is 100 or fewer employees. A small organization is defined as any non-profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. NMFS believes that all participants in pelagic longline fisheries, including processors, can be defined as small entities.
In compliance with E.O. 12866, the Department of Commerce and NOAA require the preparation of a Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) for all regulatory actions that either implement a new FMP or significantly amend an existing plan, or may be significant in that they reflect agency policy concerns and are of public interest. The RIR is part of the process of preparing and reviewing FMPs and regulatory actions and is intended to provide a comprehensive review of the changes in net economic benefits to society associated with proposed regulatory actions. Thus, the focus of the RIR is on the net economic benefit from the entire fishery, not the net economic benefit to individual fishermen. The analysis also provides a review of the problems and policy objectives prompting the regulatory proposals and an evaluation of the major alternatives that could be used to solve the problems. The purpose of the analysis is to ensure that the regulatory agency systematically and comprehensively considers all available alternatives so that the public welfare can be enhanced in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
One type of measurement used in evaluating the economic importance of a fishery is net economic benefit, also referred to as economic value. Net economic benefit is a measure of the "value" of a fishery and is the sum of producer and consumer surplus associated with the fishery. For the commercial fishery, net economic benefit includes profits (difference between total revenues and total costs) to producers (vessel operators, suppliers, fish dealers, retailers, etc.) and the net benefits to seafood consumers. In examining alternatives, these are often considered at the margin, i.e., the change in net benefits in moving from the status quo to another alternative. Note that net economic benefit considers employment as a cost; thus, all other things being equal, the more employment generated under an alternative, the lower the net economic benefit.
Due to limited data on fishing costs, and limited studies measuring consumer surplus for seafood products, net economic benefits are difficult to measure in HMS commercial fisheries. Trip-level data on fishing costs are collected on a voluntary basis in an add-on questionnaire at the end of the pelagic longline trip summary form. NMFS is considering making this add-on mandatory (64 FR 55900). Some cost data are also available from previous surveys of the various HMS fleets. These may be used to generate partial estimates of net economic benefit, notably producer surplus (revenues-costs).
Another type of economic measurement is economic impact. Economic impact is often what fishermen, commercial and recreational, refer to in emphasizing the importance of their activities to local communities and the national economy. Economic impact is a measure of the income, tax revenues, and employment generated by an activity. In the commercial fishery, information on expenditures (bait, tackle, labor, etc.) as well as the ex-vessel value of landings plus value-added are usually used to designate economic impacts. Non-consumptive uses of a resource (e.g. whale watching) also generate economic activity. The relative levels of economic impact allow cross-comparison of the effect of the measures on the level of expenditures -- primarily fishing costs -- from both the recreational and commercial fisheries. Expenditures may be examined in the format of an input-output model, which traces the "ripple" effect of every dollar of expenditures in one sector on other sectors, often referred to as secondary, or induced, effects. Expenditures can also be used to estimate the number of jobs generated by various management measures. Economic impacts can be important to communities, as employment levels, income, and a wider tax base are desirable economic effects of fishing activities.
3.5 Consumer Surplus and Angler's Willingness-to-Pay
There are two basic types of consumer surplus. The first one relates to those people who purchase and eat fish at grocery stores or restaurants. This consumer may be willing to pay more money for better quality fish. The second type of consumer surplus relates to recreational fishermen who find fishing enjoyable and satisfying even if it is catch and release. This consumer may be willing to pay more money for better quality fishing.
Changes in consumer surplus can occur due to changes in the price of seafood. Because a large percentage of swordfish consumed in the United States is imported (approximately 71 percent; NMFS, 2000), it is assumed that regulations affecting the operation of the domestic fishery (other than a complete closure) will not result in significant price changes at the consumer level and therefore will not result in changes in consumer surplus. However, consumers may be willing to pay more for domestically caught swordfish, or other fish, especially if it is fresher or fished with conservation in mind.
Changes in the availability of recreational fishing opportunities also affects the angler's willingness-to-pay. To the extent that restrictions on U.S. longlines may enhance recreational fisheries for HMS, increased angler satisfaction may be an additional economic benefit for the alternatives considered in this document. NMFS received many comments on the impacts of this type of consumer surplus during the comment period. A summary of these comments can be found in Appendix B.
3.6 Producer Surplus and Income to Captain and Crew
Producer surplus is measured by the economic rent (above normal profits) earned by the vessel owners, captain and crew. For the purposes of this analysis, profits will be used as a proxy for economic rents earned by the vessel owners. Note that crew wages are generally considered to be part of the variable costs of fishing to the vessel owner. Profits are affected through changes in both revenue and costs which occur because of the management action. For example, time/area closures will likely affect fishing costs due to greater distances to fishing grounds for affected vessels.
Initial losses in producer surplus are typically estimated for year one of the management measure. Vessels might incur further losses in future seasons, but will also have time to adjust their fishing practices so as to minimize these losses. Labor will also adjust as some crew members leave the industry or shift to vessels in other fisheries that are unaffected by the pelagic longline regulations.
Income to the captain and crew depends on the wages they receive. If the crew members are earning more money in longline fishing than they would earn in the next best alternative fishing area and/or occupation available to them, their income is likely to decrease as a result of the proposed action. It is assumed that crew members would be able to find alternative employment because it is possible they are capable of participating in another fishery (i.e., some may possess a broad range of commercial fishing skills).
Although marine mammals and other protected species are not normally traded in economic markets, society still places a value on protecting these species from human-induced mortality. Thus, those who place a value on the survival of a species also benefit from the protection of these species afforded by fisheries regulation. Contingent valuation techniques have been used by economists to assess the value to society of such non-market goods and services, and the techniques have been endorsed by a NOAA Blue Ribbon Panel of independent experts. However, the use of contingent valuation techniques to answer public policy questions is still considered controversial.
NMFS does not have value estimates for animals protected by the ESA or MMPA taken by longlines, but studies indicate that society does value the existence of marine mammal species encountered by other fishing gears (Strand, McConnell, and Bockstael, 1994). For that reason, it is important to consider the value to society of protecting endangered and threatened species. Due to lack of specific valuation data, no attempt has been made to include such values in the analysis presented below. Rather, they are mentioned to illustrate the high value the public places on eliminating human-induced mortality of marine mammal stocks. This high public value is illustrated in Chakravorty and Nemoto's (2000) study described below.
Chakravorty and Nemoto (2000) used 1995 logbook data from the Hawaii [pelagic] longline fishery to estimate a spatial and dynamic model of fishermen's decisions on effort in a multi-species fishery. The model is then used as a policy simulation exercise to examine the impacts of time/area closures (inshore and offshore) and an increase in the auction fee at Honolulu ex-vessel market. A simulated inshore time/area closure (e.g., to reduce commercial-recreational conflicts) results in vessels compensating by fishing further offshore, and making fewer trips, thus increasing fishing costs and reducing crew wages. Closing areas further offshore (e.g., for turtle conservation) results in greater effort inshore, with shorter but more numerous trips, with fewer swordfish sets and catches. The offshore analyses allow estimation of the costs of turtle conservation in terms of foregone profits to the longline fleet, roughly $15,000 per turtle.
Net national benefits are the benefits minus the costs under the alternatives. Due to lack of cost data, only marginal changes in gross revenues are evaluated. Because costs are likely changing as well, these analyses are only a partial picture of the effect of the various alternatives. The net economic benefits are measured as the change in consumer and producer surplus brought about by the preferred management measures. As indicated above, these net benefits are minimum estimates because they do not include non-market benefits such as existence values or non-consumptive use values. These benefits are difficult to calculate and are not generated in this document. In practice, one of the most straightforward methods of evaluating producer and consumer surplus is to allocate and allow the sale of individual transferrable quotas ( ITQs): for example, the price that might be bid by an individual fisherman for the right to harvest one swordfish reflects either producer surplus (for a commercial fisherman) or angler willingness-to-pay (for a recreational angler) or existence value (for a conservationist). Although ITQs are not in place for the swordfish fishery, the limited access system implemented in July 1999 imparts a value to permits and may provide a proxy for estimating this value in a few years. Initial observations on transfers of permits indicate sale/offer prices of $10,000 for a directed swordfish permit; it can be assumed that incidental permits would be worth less money. Further, permits for larger vessels would be worth more than those for smaller vessels given the existing vessel upgrading provisions. These values reflect primarily the present value of expected net revenues from swordfish fishing (subject to vessel restrictions) for a range of outgoing years.
3.9 Theoretical and Empirical Studies of Fishing Behavior
Theoretical studies of fishing behavior have attempted to isolate the major determinants of the decision-making behavior of commercial fishermen. Having such models allows the analyst to determine the effect of specific variables, including those that might be affected by fishery policy. Economic theory indicates that the fishermen's decisions relative to choice of fishing area are most influenced by net returns in the fishery, or the difference between gross revenues and costs. The fisherman could formulate expectations about the relative net returns across sites based on the estimated travel cost of accessing the sites and the expected catch rates at each site. Everything else being equal, fishermen prefer sites with high catch rates that are closer to port to sites that have lower catch rates and/or are farther from port. In many cases, fishermen must make tradeoffs between travel costs and catch rates.
The social and economic effects of closing fishing grounds are reflected primarily in the impacts on net returns, which are a function of the relative net returns in closed areas versus the areas and/or times that could remain open to the fisherman. Therefore, a key factor in assessing the impacts is comparing the net returns in the remaining "choice set" of times and areas versus those that are being closed. If a fisherman is taking a decision on fishing site subject to the constraint of time/area closures, and if the next best choice is a more distant site but with higher catch rates, then the effect might be marginal. However, if the next best site is substantially more distant and has the same or lower catch rates, then the fisherman might experience significant reductions in net revenues.
In the analyses presented in this document, the choice set is "closed" for the no effort redistribution model, and the choice set is basically the open areas of the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic under the effort redistribution model (Appendix C). For the purposes of assessing the impact on bycatch, the analyses show the net effect on both target catch and incidental catch. The former allows an estimation of the effect of the closure on gross revenues.
The effects on net revenues are more difficult to estimate due to the need to assess the change in fishing costs. The primary fishing cost affected by a closure analysis is travel costs, which include fuel costs as well as the opportunity cost of the captain and crew's time. It is difficult to assess whether vessels would permanently relocate (likely in the case of a year-round closure) and thus take trips of similar distance from a port in an open area, or stay in their home ports, and either "wait out" some or all of the closure, or steam to open areas during the closure (e.g. in the case of the Charleston Bump closure for a limited number of months). Returns are affected primarily by catch rates, although relative prices also play an important role.
3.10 A Summary of Vessel Buyback Programs
Reducing fishing capacity is one overcapitalization alternative that could provide some economic relief. Commonly known as buyback, this alternative pays harvesters in fisheries with too much fishing capacity either (a) to surrender their fishing permits for that fishery or (b) both to surrender all their fishing permits and withdrawn their fishing vessels from all fishing (by scrapping or by title restriction). A buyback's statutory authority is section 312(b)-(e) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The buyback's intent is to decrease excess harvesting capacity, increase the economic efficiency of the remaining harvesting capacity, and facilitate the conservation and management of fishery resources.
There have been a number of buyback programs that have been implemented or are in the initial stages of implementation. Buyback programs funded entirely or in part by the Federal government have reduced the number of permitted fishing vessels in New England, Texas, and Washington. Beginning in 1976 and continuing to the present, programs financed partly or entirely by the Federal government have awarded cash compensation to people surrendering salmon fishing licenses in the Pacific Northwest. More recently, federal funds have been used to purchase licensed vessels in the New England groundfish fishery, and contributed to the fishing license buyback program in the Texas Bay and bait shrimp fisheries. Responding to interest in expanding these programs and the arguments of those who believe that industry should both play a more central role in designing buyback programs and pay for profitable programs, the Sustainable Fisheries Act amended the Magnuson-Stevens Act to create new buyback program options. New fishing vessel reduction programs authorized by Section 312 of the Sustainable Fisheries Act can draw on both Federal and industry funding, these programs operate under federal guidelines and assistance, and they will use loans from the federal treasury.
Payments for reducing fishing capacity can be fixed, based on market values or production histories, determined by reverse auctions, or a combination of these. Buyback costs can be funded by Federal appropriations, Federal loans repayable by post-buyback harvesters, contributions from other public or private entities, or a combination of these. Title XI of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as amended, is the authority under which NMFS' Fisheries Finance Program makes loans for financing buyback costs.
On May 18, 2000, NMFS implemented an interim final rule for implementing a section 312 buyback (65 FR 31444). Although NMFS has not yet conducted a buyback solely under the section 312 authority, NMFS has conducted one buyback partially under the section 312 authority and several buybacks under other authorities.
NMFS recently conducted a $90 million buyback in the Bering Sea pollock fishery. Although separately authorized by the American Fisheries Act, the pollock buyback involved a loan under Title XI that will be repaid by fees collected under section 312. The pollock buyback's cost was financed by a $15 million Federal appropriation and a $75 million buyback loan from the Fisheries Finance Program. Post-buyback pollock harvesters will repay the loan over the next 30 years by a fee of 0.6 cents for each pound of inshore pollock they land. Shoreside processors will deduct the fee from ex-vessel proceeds otherwise payable to the harvesters, and forward fee revenues to NMFS for application to the loan. This buyback involved fixed payments and vessel scrapping as well as the revocation of all fishing permits the vessels possessed.
Except for several additional requirements, buyback loans entirely under the authority of section 312 work the same way as the pollock buyback loan. The additional requirements are that the repayment fees equal some portion (not to exceed 5 percent) of the ex-vessel value of post-buyback landings and that industry referenda authorize the fees before buyback loans occur. Under Title XI alone, however, 20 years is the maximum maturity for buyback loans. Buyback loans are statutory loans. Buyback loans involve no promissory notes, mortgages, or other conventional loan documentation. Post-buyback landing fees are the exclusive source of repaying, and security for, buyback loans. Fee payment and collection are mandatory. Beyond these fees, however, no one has any other liability for loan repayment.
Before enactment of the section 312 and Title XI buyback authorities, NMFS conducted a major buyback in the Northeast multispecies fishery. Under the authority of the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act and funded entirely by Federal appropriations, this buyback involved vessel scrappings as well as permit revocations. For $24.39 million, this buyback scrapped 79 vessels. These 79 vessels had been responsible for 19.47 percent of this fishery's production over a three year period. The buyback also revoked the 79 multispecies fishing permits these vessels possessed, as well as 456 permits the vessels possessed for other species.
The multispecies buyback involved a reverse auction. Each bidder specified the price (buyback payment) for which the bidder was willing to withdraw fishing capacity and the average value over a 3-year period of all multispecies production for the vessel and permit involved. The price, stated as a percentage of the production, was the factor by which this buyback ranked bids for acceptance. The bids accepted were those whose buyback prices were the lowest percentage of the production values.
In connection with the Northeast multispecies buyback, NMFS also made $20 million in general Title XI loans available for refinancing existing debts on vessels remaining in the fishery after the buyback. By providing longer repayment terms and lower interest rates, these Title XI refinancing loans decreased the debt service burdens of post-buyback vessels.
Other buybacks preceding the section 312 authority have involved inshore fishing permits in the Washington state salmon fishery and the Texas state shrimp fishery. Also conducted under the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act, 75 percent of these buyback costs were funded by Federal appropriations. The other 25 percent was funded by non-Federal sources.
3.11 Other Options for Economic Relief
Besides buyback programs, there may be other options for economic relief. NMFS has worked with a number of other agencies/departments to explore programs that are available to fishermen and other businesses affected by fishery management measures. These programs are described below.
Mandates to conduct social impact assessments come from both the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. NEPA requires federal agencies to consider the interactions of natural and human environments by using a "systematic, interdisciplinary approach which will ensure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences...in planning and decision-making" [NEPA section 102(2)(a)]. Moreover, agencies need to address the aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, or health effects which may be direct, indirect, or cumulative. Consideration of social impacts is a growing concern as fisheries experience increased participation and/or declines in stocks. With an increasing need for management action, the consequence of such changes need to be examined in order to mitigate the negative impacts experienced by the populations concerned.
Social impacts are generally the consequences to human populations that follow from some type of public or private action. Those consequences may include alterations to the ways in which people live, work or play, relate to one another, and organize to meet their needs. In addition, cultural impacts which may involve changes in values and beliefs which affect people's way of identifying themselves within their occupation, communities, and society in general are included under this interpretation. Social impact analyses help determine the consequences of policy action in advance by comparing the status quo with the projected impacts. Although public hearings and scoping meetings provide input from those concerned with a particular action, they do not constitute a full overview of the fishery.
Pending the collection of quantitative information concerning the views of pelagic fishermen, qualitative data can be used to provide a rough estimate of some impacts. Section 9 provides a description of the social impacts of the final actions. Additional information regarding the social impacts of each alternative can be found in Section 7.
NMFS recognizes that the final regulations contained in this document could have substantial economic and social impacts. The final actions for time/area closures, in particular, may harm commercial fishing communities found near the closed areas. In response, NMFS has tried to identify possible sources of economic relief for affected individuals, businesses, and communities. Some government agencies such as the Small Businesses Administration, the Economic Development Administration, the Farm Credit System, the U.S. Department of Labor's Economic Dislocation and Worker Adjustment Assistance Act, and the Fishing Vessel Obligation Guarantee Program may provide fishing industry participants with loans, training for new jobs, and/or grants for economically stressed communities. A summary of these options can be found in Section 3 of this document.
NMFS has also tried to minimize impacts by delaying the implementation of some of the final actions. This will allow fishermen, dealers, and other related industries to relocate both business interests and family.
Additionally, Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice) requires agencies to identify and address disproportionately high and adverse environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. NMFS has tried to identify and address these concerns in these regulations, consistent with Environmental Justice. Descriptions can be found throughout the alternatives in Section 7 and in Section 9 of this document.
3.0 ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS 3-1
3.1 Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act 3-2
3.2 Executive Order 12866 3-2
3.3 Net Economic Benefit 3-3
3.4 Economic Impact 3-3
3.5 Consumer Surplus and Angler's Willingness-to-Pay 3-3
3.6 Producer Surplus and Income to Captain and Crew 3-4
3.7 Non-Market Valuation 3-5
3.8 Net National Benefits 3-5
3.9 Theoretical and Empirical Studies of Fishing Behavior 3-6
3.10 A Summary of Vessel Buyback Programs 3-7
3.11 Other Options for Economic Relief 3-9
4.0 SOCIAL CONSIDERATIONS 4-1
5.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Pelagic longline fishermen encounter many species of fish; some of those captured are marketable and thus are retained, others are discarded for economic or regulatory reasons. Species frequently encountered are swordfish, tunas, and sharks, as well as billfish, dolphin, wahoo, king mackerel, and other finfish species. Sometimes pelagic longline fishermen also hook sea turtles, marine mammals, and sea birds, known collectively as "protected" species. All of these species are federally managed, and NMFS seeks to control the mortality that results from fishing effort. Detailed descriptions of the life histories and population status of those species are given in the HMS FMP and are not provided here. Management of declining fish populations requires reductions in fishing mortality from both directed and incidental fishing. The status of the stocks of concern is summarized below.
Atlantic swordfish (Xiphias gladius), also known as broadbill, are large migratory predators that range from Canada to Argentina in the West Atlantic Ocean. Swordfish live to be more than 25 years old, and reach a maximum size of about 902 lb dw. Females mature between ages 2 and 8 with 50 percent mature at age 5 at a weight of about 113 lb dw. Males mature between ages 2 and 6 with 50 percent mature at age 3 at a weight of about 53 lb dw (Arocha, 1997). Large swordfish are usually females; males seldom exceed 150 lb dw. Swordfish are distributed globally in tropical and subtropical marine waters. Their broad distribution, large spawning area, and prolific nature have contributed to the resilience of the species in spite of the heavy fishing pressure being exerted on it by many nations. During their annual migration, North Atlantic swordfish follow the major currents which circle the North Atlantic Ocean (including the Gulf Stream, Canary and North Equatorial Currents) and the currents of the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico. The primary habitat in the western North Atlantic is the Gulf Stream, which flows northeasterly along the U.S. coast, then turns eastward across the Grand Banks. In U.S. waters, young swordfish predominate year-round in pelagic longline catches off Florida's "panhandle" (Apalachicola Bay) and off the south and east coasts of Florida.
In 1999, scientists of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) conducted a stock assessment on North Atlantic swordfish. The biomass of the North Atlantic stock is estimated to be 65 percent of the level needed to produce maximum sustainable yield (SCRS, 1999). It appears as though quota decreases and possibly minimum size restrictions, may have protected undersized swordfish over the last three years. In 1999, ICCAT nations agreed to a ten-year rebuilding program. Quotas must be strictly monitored, as overages can result in penalties, including quota reductions and trade sanctions, under ICCAT's compliance recommendations.
Blue marlin (Makaira nigricans), white marlin (Tetrapturus albidus) and sailfish (Istiophorus platypterus) are highly migratory billfish that are widely distributed over the Atlantic Ocean (including the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico). They are opportunistic feeders, feeding primarily on fish and squid. Marlins, in addition to sailfish and longbill spearfish, are bycatch in the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery. Billfish FMP Amendment provides more detailed background regarding the life history strategies of Atlantic billfish, including, age and growth, reproduction, movement pattern, influences of physical oceanographic features, essential fish habitat and other information.
Results of the most recent stock assessment for Atlantic blue marlin and Atlantic white marlin (SCRS, 1996) indicate that Atlantic-wide biomass levels have been below the level necessary to produce maximum sustainable yield (BMSY) for about three decades under both total Atlantic and north Atlantic stock hypotheses (SCRS, 1998). The Atlantic Billfish FMP amendment includes a 10-year rebuilding plan for blue and white marlin as a foundation for the negotiations at the 2000 ICCAT meetings.
Tunas are highly migratory fish found in many of the world's tropical, subtropical, and temperate ocean regions. Bluefin (Thunnus thynnus), bigeye (Thunnus obesus), and albacore (Thunnus alalunga) tunas are widely distributed throughout the Atlantic, while yellowfin tuna are considered to be a subtropical species. Bluefin tuna mature at approximately age 8 or later (60 inches CFL), while yellowfin, bigeye, and albacore tunas mature at a smaller size (40 inches CFL). Smaller yellowfin tuna form mixed schools with skipjack tuna and juvenile bigeye tuna and are mainly limited to surface waters, while larger yellowfin tuna are found in surface and sub-surface waters. Bigeye tuna inhabit waters deeper than those of any other tuna species and undertake extensive vertical movements. Albacore tuna tend to inhabit deeper waters, except when young. Many of these tunas are opportunistic feeders, eating mainly fish and squid (SCRS, 1999b). Commercial and recreational fishermen from numerous countries participate in fisheries for several species of Atlantic tuna.
5.4 Large Coastal and Pelagic Sharks
Large coastal sharks (LCS) are comprised of several species. Many of these species make extensive migrations along the U.S. Atlantic coast. Several LCS are caught by pelagic longline gear, including silky, dusky, sandbar, and hammerhead sharks. Pelagic sharks commonly taken in the pelagic longline fishery include shortfin mako, porbeagle, common thresher, and blue; longfin mako, sixgill, bigeye sixgill, and sevengill are occasionally or rarely taken. Trans-Atlantic migrations of these pelagic sharks are common; they are taken in several international fisheries outside the U.S. EEZ.
Compared to other finfish, sharks have low reproductive rates which make them especially vulnerable to overfishing. Because LCS are overfished and the status of pelagic sharks is unknown at this time (but in 1993 were found to be fully fished), NMFS seeks to minimize interactions between these species and pelagic longline gear.
Dolphin (Coryphaena hippurus) are fast-swimming, pelagic, migratory, and predatory fish found in tropical and subtropical waters throughout the world. They are short-lived and fast growing, traits that allow the stock to support high fishing mortality rates. Also referred to as mahi-mahi, these fish are sold by commercial fishermen (driftnet and pelagic longline) and are targeted by recreational fishermen along the U.S. southeastern Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts. Dolphin was one of the top ten recreationally harvested species in 1998 (NMFS, 1999a).
Wahoo (Acanthocybium solanderia) are large pelagic fish found throughout the tropical and subtropical waters of the Atlantic Ocean. The life history of wahoo is largely unknown, although they are a fast-growing species similar to dolphin. These fish are also landed both recreationally and commercially, although encounter rates are generally lower than those for dolphin.
A summary of the status of the major highly migratory species stocks caught on pelagic longlines is provided in Table 5.1. SCRS conducted a stock assessment for North and South Atlantic swordfish in 1999 based on international catch and catch per unit effort data through 1998. Tuna and billfish assessments took place in 1997, using data through 1996. These SCRS assessments are based on international catch and effort data that are submitted to ICCAT. Shark status is evaluated through a group of scientists convened by NMFS using U.S. catch and effort data only (in 1998, estimates of Mexican landings of blacktip sharks were provided). The group of pelagic sharks is comprised of less than 10 species and currently the status of this group is unknown. In 1993, this species group was identified as fully fished. Available information on catch, landings, and catch rates is insufficient to accurately determine the status of this species grouping, although there is concern particularly regarding porbeagle sharks, and the level of blue shark discards from pelagic longline fisheries. NMFS has listed north Atlantic swordfish, bluefin tuna, bigeye tuna, northern albacore, blue and white marlin, sailfish, and large coastal sharks as overfished, because the fishing mortality rate is higher than that required to keep a population at maximum sustainable yield (MSY) or because biomass is below the level that would support MSY (or both). Further details about stock status, minimum biomass thresholds, and maximum fishing mortality levels can be found in the HMS FMP and the Billfish FMP amendment.
Table 5.1. Status of Highly Migratory Species Stocks in the Atlantic Ocean. Source: SCRS,1999; NMFS 1999b, c.
| Species | Current Relative Biomass Level | Minimum Stock Size Threshold | Current Fishing Mortality
Rate
(Threshold is FMSY) |
Outlook |
| N. Atlantic Swordfish | B1999/BMSY= 0.65
(0.5 to 1.05) |
0.8BMSY | F1998/FMSY= 1.34
(0.84 to 2.05) |
Overfished; rebuilding plan in place |
| S. Atlantic Swordfish | B1999/BMSY= 0.1.10 (0.84to 1.40) | 0.8BMSY | F1998/FMSY= 1.34
(0.81 to 2.54) |
Overfishing may be occurring |
| W. Atlantic Bluefin Tuna | SSB1997/SSBMSY (two
line)=0.48
SSB1997/SSBMSY (Beverton-Holt) =0.071 SSB1997/SSB75 =0.14-0.17 |
0.86BMSY | F1997/FMSY (two-line) = 1.73
F1997/FMSY (Beverton-Holt) = 4.10 |
Overfished; rebuilding plan in place |
| Atlantic Bigeye Tuna | SSB1998/BMSY=
0.57 to 0.63 |
0.6BMSY
(age 2+) |
F1998/FMSY=
1.5 to 1.82 |
Borderline overfished; Overfishing is occurring |
| Atlantic Yellowfin
Tuna |
B1997/BMSY=
0.92 to 1.35 |
0.5BMSY
(age 2+) |
F1997/FMSY= variable > 1.0 | Stock not overfished;
Fishing mortality is probably greater than what would produce MSY |
| N. Atlantic Albacore Tuna | B1997/BMSY= 0.47 (0.34 to
0.63)
B90-94/B75-80= 0.72 |
0.7BMSY | F1997/FMSY= 1.39
(uncertain) F1997/FMAX= 0.91 F1997/F0.1= 1.60 |
Overfished; Overfishing is occurring; SCRS notes stock stock is at or above full exploitation |
| W. Atlantic Skipjack Tuna | unknown | unknown | unknown | unknown |
| Atlantic Blue Marlin | B1996/BMSY= 0.236 | 0.9BMSY | F1995/FMSY= 2.87
(1.45 to 3.41) |
Overfished; overfishing is occurring |
| Atlantic White Marlin | B1996/BMSY= 0.226 | 0.85BMSY | F1995/FMSY= 1.96
(1.33 to 2.91) |
Overfished; overfishing is occurring |
| West Atlantic Sailfish | B1992-96/BMSY= 0.62 | 0.75BMSY | F91-95/FMSY= 1.4 | Overfished; overfishing is occurring |
| Large Coastal Sharks (all species) | N1998/NMSY= 0.30
(baseline) N1998/NMSY= 0.36 (alternative) |
0.9BMSY | F1997/FMSY= 6.34
(baseline) F1997/FMSY= 6.03 (alternative) |
Overfished; overfishing is occurring |
| Small Coastal Sharks | B1991/BMSY= 1.12 | 0.9BMSY | F86-91/FMSY= 0.89 | Fully fished; Overfishing is not occuring |
| Pelagic Sharks | unknown | unknown | unknown | unknown |
Pelagic longline fishermen have been observed over the period from 1993 through 1997 to encounter short and long-finned pilot whales, spotted and bottlenose dolphins, Risso's dolphin, a Clymene dolphin, and a killer whale. The most recent annual estimate indicates that the U.S. Atlantic pelagic longline fleet caught 39 marine mammals in 1997; all were released alive. Most of the marine mammals were encountered in the U.S. EEZ between South Carolina and Cape Cod.
NMFS is most concerned about the impact of pelagic longline fishing on the pilot whales that prey on longline-hooked tunas. Two species of pilot whales (Globicephala melas and G. macrorhynchus) are distributed principally along the continental shelf edge in the winter and spring off the northeast U.S. coast. In late spring, pilot whales move onto Georges Bank and into the Gulf of Maine and more northern waters. They remain there through the autumn. In general, pilot whales tend to occupy habitats with complex bottom structure. The stock structure of the North Atlantic population is currently unknown, however several genetic studies are underway. Sightings of these animals in U.S. waters occur primarily within the Gulf Stream, and primarily along the continental shelf and slope in the northern Gulf of Mexico.
Loggerhead and leatherback turtles are the species predominantly caught in the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery. Turtles are caught throughout the range of the fishery (Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean, Florida to Maine) but the sets with the most turtles occur in the Northeast Distant area (see Figure 6.2). Many sea turtle populations are especially slow to recover from increased fishing mortality because their reproductive potential is low (late sexual maturation, low juvenile survival). General information about the biology and status of sea turtles can be found in the Recovery Plans for each species (available through the Office of Protected Resources, NMFS); the status of sea turtle populations is provided in Table 5.2. Most turtles are released alive from pelagic longline entanglements. However, NMFS is concerned about serious injury and mortality of turtles once they are released.
Table 5.2. Status of Atlantic sea turtle populations: Species taken in the pelagic longline fishery 1992-1997. Source: NMFS, 1999d.
| Species/Stock | Status: trend in U.S. nesting population |
| Loggerhead: Northern Sub-population | Threatened: declining through mid-1980s, no trend detected since that time |
| Leatherback | Endangered: loss of some nesting populations, otherwise stable |
| Green | Endangered: increasing |
| Kemp's Ridley | Endangered: thought to be increasing |
| Hawksbill | Endangered: unknown if there is a recent trend |
5.8.1 Background Information for Biological Opinion for the Atlantic Pelagic Longline Fishery
The Office of Sustainable Fisheries (OSF) requested a re-initiation of consultation under section 7 of the ESA of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), on November 19, 1999, based on preliminary reports that observed incidental take of loggerhead sea turtles by the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery during 1999 had exceeded levels anticipated in the April 23, 1999, Biological Opinion (BO) for the pelagic longline component of HMS fisheries. Specifically, the Incidental Take Statement (ITS) of the April 23, 1999, BO allowed the following levels of incidental take:
(a) 690 leatherback sea turtles (Dermochelys coriacea), entangled or hooked (annual estimated number) of which no more than 11 are observed hooked by ingestion or moribund when released.
(b) 1541 loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) entangled or hooked (annual estimated number); of which no more than 23 may be hooked by ingestion or observed moribund when released.
A draft BO was provided to OSF in early June 2000; a final BO is scheduled to be completed by late June 2000. It is not anticipated that the final BO will differ significantly from the draft BO in regard to the Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs), Reasonable and Prudent Measures (RPMs), and Terms and Conditions (TCs) of the draft BO. The draft BO also addressed the shark drift gillnet fishery and HMS purse seine fisheries; however, the following discussion addresses only issues in the BO that apply specifically to the pelagic longline fishery.
In recent years, NMFS has undertaken several ESA section 7 consultations to address the effects of vessel operations and gear associated with Federally-permitted fisheries on threatened and endangered species in the action area. Each of those consultations sought to develop ways of reducing the probability of adverse effects of the action on large whales and sea turtles. Similarly, NMFS has undertaken recovery actions under both MMPA and ESA to address the problem of take of whales in the fishing and shipping industries. Incidental take levels anticipated under the ITSs associated with these existing BOs, not including those for the pelagic longline fishery, are summarized in Table 5.3 below, followed by a brief discussion of each action on which there is consultation.
Table 5.3. Summary of incidental take levels anticipated under the incidental take statements associated with NMFS existing BOs in the US Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. Note: This table does not including the anticipated takes for the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery. Source: NMFS, 2000b.
|
Federal Action |
Anticipated Incidental Take Level (lethal or non) | ||||
| Loggerhead | Leatherback | Green | Kemp's | Hawksbill | |
| Coast Guard Vessel Operation | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 |
| Navy - SE Ops Area | 84 | 12 | 121 | 121 | 0 |
| Shipshock - Seawolf | 50 | 6 | 41 | 41 | 41 |
| COE Dredging - S. Atlantic | 35 | 0 | 7 | 7 | 2 |
| COE Dredging - N & W Gulf of Mexico | 30 | 0 | 8 | 14 | 2 |
| COE Dredging - E Gulf of Mexico | 2 + 82 | 0 + 52 | 1 + 52 | 1 + 52 | 1 + 52 |
| COE Rig Removal, Gulf of Mexico | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 |
| MMS Rig Removal, Gulf of Mexico | 103 | 53 | 53 | 53 | 53 |
| NE Multispecies Sink Gillnet Fishery | 1004 | 104 | 104 | 104 | 104 |
| ASMFC Lobster Plan | 05 | 05 | 05 | 05 | 05 |
| Monkfish Fishery | 6 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Dogfish Fishery | 6 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Summer Flounder, Scup & Black Sea Bass | 15 | 31 | 31 | 31 | 31 |
| Shrimp Fishery | 35501 | 650 | 35501 | 35501 | 35501 |
| NRC - St. Lucie, FL | 5 | 1 | 10 | 1 | 1 |
| NRC - Brunswick, NC | 501 (6) | 501 (0) | 501 (3) | 501 (2) | 501 (0) |
| NRC - Crystal River, FL | 551 (1) | 551 (1) | 551 (1) | 551 (1) | 551 (1) |
| Total (maximum anticipated6) | 4008 | 801 | 3724 | 3721 | 3690 |
1Up to this amount for these species, in combination. In most cases, it is expected that takes of turtle species other than loggerheads will be minimal. Parentheses indicate expected mortalities, where provided in the BO. Other numbers represent "takes", including non-lethal captures.
2Up to 8 turtles total, of which, no more than 5 may be leatherbacks, greens, Kemp's or hawksbill, in combination.
3Not to exceed 25 turtles, in total.
4As part of the 1989 BO on the Issuance of Exemptions for Commercial Fishing Operations under MMPA Section 114.
5Included in totals noted above.
6Maximum values given for non-loggerhead hardshell turtles are extreme, due to lumping of anticipated takes across species under ITSs.
Sea turtle bycatch estimates based on observations of takes in the pelagic longline component of the swordfish/tuna/shark fishery number in the thousands. The incidental take estimates anticipated in Scott and Brown (1997), used in the April 23, 1999, BO, were revised and updated by estimates provided in Johnson et al. (1999) and Yeung (1999). The estimated numbers for all species of sea turtles caught on pelagic longline gear are provided in Table 5.4. below. These estimates are similar to those used in developing the April 23, 1999, BO, and are provided as background in understanding the magnitude of take occurring in the fishery. However, subsequent to the analyses noted above, the Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) developed an improved method (Brown et al., 2000) for estimating swordfish catch which pooled across quarters, years and areas rather than the previously used method (also followed for protected species bycatch estimation) that assumed zero catch in areas not sampled. The SEFSC then followed with revised estimates of protected species bycatch (Yeung and Epperly, in prep.) following the Brown et al. (2000) method but with pooling priorities selected as appropriate for these species. Although peer review and refinement of the manuscript is not yet complete, NMFS believes this methodology is more accurate and appropriate than that used in previous analyses of these data, as the failure to account effort in unobserved areas would result in negative bias in the estimates. The Yeung and Epperly (in prep.) data, although preliminary, are reported below (see Table 5.5).
Table 5.4. Estimated Sea Turtle Takes Recorded in the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Pelagic Longline Fishery for Swordfish, Tuna and Sharks, 1992 - 1998. Source: Johnson et al., 1999, Yeung, 1999b, NMFS, 2000b.
| Species | Loggerhead | Leatherback | Green | Hawksbill | Kemp's | Sum Total** | |||||
| Year | Total | Dead* | Total | Dead* | Total | Dead* | Total | Dead* | Total | Dead* | |
| 1992 | 247 | 18 | 871 | 87 | 129 | 18 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1295 |
| 1993 | 374 | 9 | 889 | 12 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1315 |
| 1994 | 1279 | 12 | 700 | 12 | 24 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 0 | 2047 |
| 1995 | 2169 | 0 | 925 | 0 | 31 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3290 |
| 1996 | 410 | 0 | 674 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1084 |
| 1997 | 329 | 0 | 357 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 0 | 23 | 0 | 765 |
| 1998 | 472 | 0 | 169 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 77 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 718 |
* Does not account for death that may occur after release, which several studies have shown to be 29-33 percent
**Totals include unidentified turtles not listed in the table.
The previous estimated take for all species combined (pooled within areas) was 728 (337-1824, 95 percent CI) in 1998, with a high of 3,136 (2,325-4,260, 95 percent CI) in 1995. Of these, the estimated number in the bycatch that were released dead ranged from 0 in 1995-1997 to 60 (11-307, 95 percent CI) in 1992 (note: this does not account for death that may occur after the release). These totals include unidentified turtles not listed in the table. Most marine turtles were caught from the Grand Banks (NED) fishing area, outside of the US EEZ. These estimates include the loggerhead, leatherback, Kemp's ridley, hawksbill and green sea turtles (see Appendix III). However, the records of the Kemp's ridley and green captures may have been misidentifications and should be re-evaluated (see Hoey, 1998; Witzell 1999).
For 1998, Yeung (1999) provided estimates for the number of sea turtles "seriously injured" (i.e., those not expected to survive). Pooling across species but stratified by area, an estimated total of 730 sea turtles were taken. Of these, Yeung (1999) estimates that all but 10 were seriously injured. This is a much greater predicted mortality rate than that reported by Aguilar et al. (1992). Yeung's (1999) criteria for determining serious injury were based on criteria developed for marine mammals (Angliss and DeMaster,1998) and may be overly conservative for sea turtles. These values still use the "old" methods of estimation (i.e., data were not pooled across quarters, years or areas).
Table 5.5. Comparison of the estimates of total bycatch by species and year among the pooling treatment of zero observer effort strata using two different pooling orders. Note: qyn and yqn stand for q=quarter, y=year, n= NAREA (the order from left to right represents the pooling priority) and two different minimums for observed sets: 5 and 30 (qyn5 is used in the Yeung and Epperly (in prep.) as it requires less pooling from more distantly related samples). Estimates using the omission treatment (omit, i.e., estimate assigns zero values to areas not sampled) used in Johnson et al. (1999) Table 10 and in Yeung (1999) Table 5 are also listed. Source: NMFS, 2000b.
| Species | Year | qyn5 | qyn30 | yqn5 | yqn30 | Omit |
| Unid. turtle
|
92 | 30 | 30 | 37 | 34 | |
| 93 | 27 | 30 | 27 | 27 | 28 | |
| 94 | 33 | 20 | 33 | 21 | 19 | |
| 95 | 135 | 79 | 135 | 80 | ||
| 96 | 7 | 25 | 7 | 26 | ||
| 97 | 41 | 58 | 41 | 62 | 19 | |
| 98 | 4 | 23 | 2 | 30 | ||
| Total | 277 | 265 | 282 | 280 | 66 | |
| Green
|
92 | 90 | 67 | 78 | 56 | 37 |
| 93 | 29 | 38 | 29 | 48 | 32 | |
| 94 | 29 | 36 | 27 | 51 | 25 | |
| 95 | 35 | 8 | 34 | 23 | ||
| 96 | 19 | 27 | 27 | 35 | ||
| 97 | 4 | 10 | 1 | 5 | ||
| 98 | 14 | 23 | 12 | 18 | ||
| Total | 220 | 209 | 208 | 236 | 94 | |
| Hawksbill
|
92 | 26 | 23 | 20 | 20 | 15 |
| 93 | ||||||
| 94 | 3 | |||||
| 95 | 2 | 1 | ||||
| 96 | 3 | 8 | 1 | 3 | ||
| 97 | 13 | 4 | 13 | 5 | 13 | |
| 98 | 13 | 4 | 13 | 7 | 13 | |
|
Total |
55 | 41 | 47 | 39 | 41 | |
| Kemp's ridley
|
92 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 4 | |
| 93 | ||||||
| 94 | 23 | 24 | 23 | 24 | 19 | |
| 95 | 3 | |||||
| 96 | 3 | 6 | 1 | 6 | ||
| 97 | 18 | 20 | 18 | 18 | 17 | |
| 98 | 1 | 3 | 2 | |||
| Total | 46 | 60 | 43 | 54 | 36 | |
| Leatherback
|
92 | 941 | 811 | 764 | 925 | 350 |
| 93 | 992 | 945 | 993 | 880 | 876 | |
| 94 | 763 | 755 | 774 | 693 | 477 | |
| 95 | 874 | 953 | 877 | 959 | 880 | |
| 96 | 726 | 747 | 782 | 815 | 36 | |
| 97 | 313 | 405 | 319 | 453 | 51 | |
| 98 | 394 | 532 | 435 | 609 | 181 | |
| Total | 5003 | 5148 | 4944 | 5334 | 2851 | |
| Loggerhead
|
92 | 215 | 790 | 188 | 932 | 88 |
| 93 | 392 | 635 | 389 | 483 | 388 | |
| 94 | 1299 | 1460 | 1274 | 1296 | 346 | |
| 95 | 2233 | 2124 | 2231 | 2005 | 1418 | |
| 96 | 957 | 933 | 986 | 965 | 118 | |
| 97 | 461 | 534 | 417 | 500 | 201 | |
| 98 | 987 | 902 | 1018 | 954 | 516 | |
| Total | 6544 | 7378 | 6503 | 7135 | 3075 |
Preliminary information from observer data for 1999 indicates that 45 leatherbacks, 64 loggerheads and 3 unidentified turtles were observed taken; 1 of the loggerheads was dead when boated (NMFS, unpublished data). The location of the hook was not always recorded (N=60) and thus it is assumed that all animals for which this information was not recorded were seriously injured. Thus, 19 of 45 (42 percent) leatherbacks, 50 of 64 (78 percent) loggerheads and 1 of 3 (33 percent) unidentified turtles were assumed to have ingested the hook and were seriously injured or dead. In addition, many animals were released with line still attached, which may also contribute to subsequent mortality.
Observed take levels documented in 1999 indicate that, of all the turtles taken, up to 50 loggerheads and 19 leatherbacks were observed "hooked by ingestion" or moribund upon release (Table 5.6). However, only about 3 percent observer coverage was obtained (G. Scott, pers. comm.). The anticipated take levels were based on 5 percent observer coverage. Thus, the observed levels of take would have been considerably higher had the required 5 percent coverage level been achieved (as represented by the higher numbers). If the 5 percent observer coverage had been acheived, NMFS preliminarily expects that up to 83 loggerheads and 32 leatherbacks would have been observed "hooked by ingestion" or moribund in 1999.
Table 5.6. Observed Levels of Loggerhead and Leatherback Sea Turtles Taken Incidental to Commercial Pelagic Longlining for Swordfish and Tuna in the U.S. Atlantic Fleet in 1999. Source: NMFS, 2000b.
| Species | Total Observed Takes | Anticipated Take by Hook or Ingestion | Actual no. Observed Dead or Taken by Hook or Ingestion1 | No. taken if Scaled2 to 5% Effort Level | Estimated3 no. Taken by Hook or Ingestion, Extrapolated2 to 5% Coverage Level | Amount ITS Exceeded Actual and (Estimated) |
| Loggerhead | 64 | 23 | 50 | 83 | 32 | 60 (9) |
| Leatherback | 45 | 11 | 19 | 32 | 22 | 13 (11) |
1Observer logs in most cases were not detailed enough to determine whether or not a mouth hooked animal was "hooked by ingestion"; thus to be conservative, cases which were unclear were considered as "hooked by ingestion."
2Number observed * 5 percent level desired/3 percent achieved.
3Based on 29 percent of Total Observed Takes (per post-release mortality estimates provided by Aguilar et al., 1992)
While a determination of whether an animal meets the criteria of "hooked by ingestion or moribund when released" is in some cases somewhat subjective due to the limited detail regarding entanglements provided on observer forms, in most cases the animal's status is very clear (e.g. comments indicating "hooked in gullet") or would be clear if a higher level of detail is provided by the observer. Additionally, where enough detail is not provided, NMFS takes the risk averse approach and assumes the injury may be serious enough to eventually incur death.
For the loggerhead turtle and for all sea turtle species, juvenile survivorship to maturity and adult longevity are critical to population growth. For the loggerhead turtle with an especially long pelagic stage, a reduction in mortality over the 7-12 years of the pelagic stage, during which it is vulnerable to incidental take by this fishery, is especially critical (Heppell et al., in prep).
Witzell (1999) summarized turtle catch from logbook data (1992 - 1995) for sets targeting swordfish and tuna, or both. The Northeast Distant Area accounted for 70 percent of the loggerhead and 47 percent of the leatherback captures that were reported north of the mid-Atlantic Bight. June through November were the peak months for reported captures. A review of observer reports for sets targeting all species between 1990 - 1996 yielded similar results (Hoey, 1998). The Northeast Distant accounted for 75 percent of the loggerhead and 40 percent of the leatherback captures for all sampling areas. The Northeast Distant Area also was the only area where interactions of four or more turtles occurred on a single set. July through November were the predominant months for turtle captures (Hoey, 1998).
It has been suggested that the use of lightsticks is associated with the incidental take of sea turtles in pelagic longline fisheries (Witzell and Cramer, 1995; Price, 1995). Examination of logbook data indicated that CPUE for leatherbacks and loggerheads doubled with the use of lightsticks (Witzell and Cramer, 1995). However, Hoey's 1998 analysis of Atlantic pelagic longline observer data from 1990 - 1996 indicated that lightstick use had little bearing on levels of sea turtle bycatch. For the Hawaii longline fishery, Skillman and Kleiber (1998) were unable to predict turtle capture based on lightstick use. The use of lightsticks was associated with a number of other more significant predictor variables (e.g. latitude and fishing for swordfish) (Skillman and Kleiber, 1998). Preliminary results of a study on the response of post-hatchling loggerheads to lightsticks indicate that the turtles were strongly attracted to glowing green lightsticks and were weakly attracted to glowing yellow Coghlan lightsticks; methodology developed for testing these animals needs to be applied to older animals (Wang et al., 2000).
NMFS held a workshop in Miami on August 31- September 1, 1999, to discuss monitoring the number of turtles taken and killed in the pelagic longline fisheries and to discuss steps that could be taken to reduce the takes. The report (Kleiber et al., in prep.) lists recommendations for data collection. The Atlantic recommendations were: 1) the color of the lightsticks should be recorded; 2) the position of takes in relation to floats and lightsticks must be recorded; and 3) an estimate of the length of line remaining on the turtle when released should be made. To date only the third recommendation has been implemented in the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery. The report further recommends prioritized avenues of research to both reduce turtle takes in the longline fisheries and improve the survival of turtles taken. Recommendations to reduce takes included targeted closures to selectively achieve a reduction in effort where takes were particularly high, setting hooks deeper in the water column, restrictions on time of day that the lines soaked and were fished, experiments/analyses to determine takes relative to floats or lightsticks and to determine vulnerability relative to time of day, some hook testing, and research on turtle deterrents (e.g., dyed bait). Recommendations to improve survival included changes in the hooks used (circle vs. J and highly corrodible), increase in gangion line length, removal of all line from turtle before release, shortened soak times, and improved handling guidelines.
There are few sources of information on the level of mortality caused by pelagic longlines. In the Spanish pelagic longline fishery, the minimum mortality due to ingestion/internal hooking (84 percent of the loggerheads captured had ingested the hook) was estimated to be 29 percent (Aguilar et al., 1992) in addition to the mortality associated with drowning while hooked (4 of 1098 animals). Post-hooking mortality studies in both the Atlantic and Pacific, based on satellite-tag transmissions of deeply (ingested) and lightly (mouth or foul hooked) hooked turtles of all species (mostly loggerheads), indicate that 29 percent (11 of 38) died (Balazs, pers. comm.; Polovina et al., in press; Bjorndal et al., 1999); 11 of 25 (44 percent) deeply hooked animals failed to transmit signals from their satellite transmitters after being released; the assumption is that they died and remained submerged. The deeply hooked animals tracked by Balaz had all lines removed and were dehooked where possible prior to released; thus 44 percent is likely an underestimate of mortality for deeply hooked animals. The transmissions of the remaining 14 were no different from the transmissions of 13 lightly hooked (in mouth, beak, or flipper) and thus it is assumed that all lived. Sea turtle mortality reported due to drowning in the Mexican tuna longline fishery in the Gulf of Mexico was 33 percent (Ulloa Ramirez and Gonzáles Ania, in press) and there is no estimate of post-hooking mortality in that fishery. Therefore, based on the total estimated catch and a 29 percent mortality rate, 593 and 954 turtles may have died in 1994 and 1995, respectively in the pelagic longline fishery. This is likely a low estimate.
The numbers under the "actual number observed dead or hooked by ingestion" column in Table 5.6 above, minus the one mortality (i.e. the deeply hooked animals) represent 62.5 percent of the total observed takes. Multiplying this by the 44 percent mortality estimate observed by Balaz (pers. comm.) for deeply hooked animals yields an overall estimate of 27.5 percent mortality for this fishery, thus reinforcing the 29 percent figure reported by Aguilar et al. (1992) as a solid, conservative estimate of minimum mortality.
Requiring fishermen to move after an interaction with not only a marine mammal, as recommended by the AOCTRT, but following an interaction with a sea turtle as well (as now required in the HMS FMP), is intended to mitigate against the contagious distribution of marine mammal and sea turtle takes noted in the observer data set. If fishermen comply with this provision, according to industry representatives familiar with the observer data set, there could be up to a 40 percent reduction in levels of serious injury and mortality of strategic stocks of marine mammals. Hoey (1998) noted that for the Northeast Distant fishing area, 68.1 percent of all loggerheads observed entangled in pelagic longline gear were caught on sets with other loggerheads. For leatherbacks, 31.7 percent were caught on sets with other leatherbacks. Thus, HMS' adoption of this measure in the April 1999 HMS FMP could substantially decrease incidental take levels of both marine mammals and sea turtles. However, as OSF notes in the HMS FMP, this measure is extremely difficult, if not impossible to enforce. Given this difficultly, NMFS is hopeful that, provided with education, fishermen will comply. NMFS also hopes that with the continued promotion of protected species conservation affected via the educational outreach/workshop efforts discussed below, an increased level of compliance with this requirement may be achieved. However, without having an observer onboard there is no way to fully ascertain that fishermen will comply with this provision.
5.8.2 Conclusion of Biological Opinion
After reviewing the current status of the northern right whale, the humpback, fin and sperm whales, and leatherback, loggerhead, green, hawksbill, and Kemp's ridley sea turtles, the environmental baseline for the action area, the effects of implementation of the proposed Amendment to the Atlantic HMS FMP, the record of compliance with requirements of previous BOs on HMS fisheries, and probable cumulative effects, it is NMFS' BO that continued operation of the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of loggerhead sea turtles. It is possible, pending additional analysis, that the final BO will also include a jeopardy finding for the pelagic longline fishery for leatherback sea turtles. If this happens, NMFS expects that similar RPAs would be required.
5.8.3 Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Regulations (50 CFR §402.02) implementing section 7 of the ESA define RPAs as alternative actions, identified during formal consultation, that: 1) can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended purpose of the action; 2) can be implemented consistent with the scope of the action agency's legal authority and jurisdiction; 3) are economically and technologically feasible; and 4) would, NMFS believes, avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the continued existence of listed species or resulting in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
The draft BO concluded that the Atlantic pelagic longline fisheries for swordfish, tunas, and sharks are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of loggerhead sea turtles. The clause "jeopardize the continued existence of" means "to engage in an action that reasonably would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species" (CFR §402.02).
Federal fisheries threaten loggerhead sea turtles primarily by capturing them in differing types of gear, injuring turtles caught in fishing gear, harming turtles that manage to escape by leaving gear trailing from their mouths or body parts, drowning turtles that are caught in gear, or some combination of these effects. According to the draft BO, to avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the continued existence of loggerhead sea turtles, OSF must implement fishery management measures to reduce the number of loggerhead sea turtles that are incidentally captured, injured, killed by gear associated federally-managed fisheries by at least 75 percent from current (that is, a reduction in the number of loggerhead sea turtles captured, injured, or killed compared with a running average of the number captured, injured, or killed during the period 1993 to 1999) levels.
The draft BO requires OSF to lessen the impact of the pelagic longline fishery upon loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles, and ensure takes decrease in future years because:
(1) of the current status of the loggerhead population;
(2) the levels of incidental take of the April 28, 1999, BO were exceeded for this species;
(3) the SEFSC's revised estimates of incidental take levels for sea turtles indicates that takes in this fishery over the years have actually been much higher than previously believed;
(4) the time/area closures included in the final actions this document could increase incidental take levels for sea turtles; and,
(5) the largely unquantifiable nature of most of these potential changes.
As more information becomes available regarding the status of these populations, it may be necessary to implement additional restrictions to further reduce incidental takes.
Under the terms of the draft BO, the reduction in the number of loggerhead sea turtles that are incidentally captured, injured, or killed in gear can be accomplished directly by gear modifications or it can be accomplished indirectly by changing the method by which gear is deployed. Indirect modifications can include:
(a) Managing fisheries that use harmful gear over time and space to eliminate the likelihood of interactions between loggerhead sea turtles and gear (proportional to the threat posed by specific gear);
(b) Managing fisheries to eliminate the likelihood that loggerhead sea turtles captured by gear would drown before they can be released (such as keeping soak times to less than 30 to 45 minutes);
(c) Excluding gear from areas that, based on available data, appear to be important for loggerhead sea turtles; or,
(d) Any combination of these changes that reduce the number of loggerhead sea turtles that are incidentally captured, injured, and killed by gear associated with federally-managed fisheries by at least 75 percent from current levels.
According to the draft BO, if OSF cannot develop and implement management measures that reduce the number of loggerhead sea turtles that are incidentally captured, injured, and killed by gear associated federally-managed fisheries by at least 75 percent from current levels, OSF must implement the following RPAs, which has three elements:
(1a) Modifications in Fishing Method (e.g. limiting fishing activity to certain temperatures and time regimes); or,
(1b) Gear Modifications (e.g. allowing the use of only corrodible hooks);
(2) Exclusion Zones (e.g. temporally and spatially restricting pelagic longline effort in the Grand Banks area); and,
(3) Enhanced Monitoring.
If the final BO includes a jeopardy finding for leatherback sea turtles, similar or the same RPAs could also apply to this species.
5.8.4 Incidental Take Statement
Section 9 of ESA and Federal regulation pursuant to section 4(d) of ESA prohibit the take of endangered and threatened species, respectively, without special exemption. Take is defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct. Incidental take is defined as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Under the terms of section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to and not intended as part of the agency action is not a prohibited taking under ESA, provided that such taking is in compliance with the RPMs and TCs of the ITS.
Section 7(b)(4)(c) of the ESA specifies that in order to provide an ITS for an endangered or threatened species of marine mammal, the taking must be authorized under section 101(a)(5) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA). Since no incidental take has been authorized under section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA, no statement on incidental take of endangered whales is provided and no take is authorized. Nevertheless, OSF must immediately (within 24 hours) notify the nearest NMFS Office of Protected Resources should a take occur.
Regarding anticipated incidental take for the pelagic longline fishery for swordfish, tunas, and sharks, it is hoped that the final actions to reduce bycatch in the pelagic longline fishery, which may slightly increase take levels of sea turtles, will be more than offset by additional requirements to reduce take and that estimates of incidental takes of sea turtles in this fishery, which are approximately double previously available estimates, will be substantially minimized by the RPAs and RPMs required under the draft BO.
5.8.5 Reasonable and Prudent Measures
Section 7(b)(4) of the ESA requires that when an agency action is found to comply with section 7(a)(2) of the ESA and the proposed action may incidentally take individuals of listed species, NMFS will issue a statement specifying the impact of any incidental taking. It also states that RPMs necessary to minimize impacts, and TCs to implement those measures must be provided and followed to minimize those impacts. Only incidental taking by the Federal agency that complies with the specified TCs is authorized.
The RPMs and TCs are specified as required by 50 CFR § 402.14 (i)(1)(ii) and (iv) to document the incidental take by HMS fisheries and to minimize the impact of that take on sea turtles. These measures and TCs are non-discretionary, and must be implemented by OSF, in order for the protection of section 7(o)(2) to apply. OSF has a continuing duty to regulate the activity covered by this ITS. If the agency fails to require OSF to adhere to the TCs of the ITS through enforceable terms, and/or fails to retain oversight to ensure compliance with these TCs, the protective coverage of section 7(o)(2) may lapse. In order to monitor the impact of the incidental take, OSF must report the progress of the action and its impact on the species to NMFS as specified in the ITS [50 CFR 402.14(i)(3)].
The draft BO states that the RPMs that are necessary and appropriate to minimize take of listed species include an effective monitoring and reporting system to document take, educating fishermen to reduce the potential for serious injury or mortality of hooked turtles, and assessments of current data to look for trends that may indicate management measures to reduce the number of protected species interactions.
Terms and Conditions
In order to be exempt from the take prohibitions of section 9 of ESA, the early June 2000 draft BO requires OSF to comply with the following TCs, which implement the RPMs described above and outline required reporting/monitoring requirements. These TCs would be non-discretionary:
1) Observer coverage;
2) Record information on the condition of sea turtles and marine mammals when released;
3) Require the presence and use of dipnets and cutting devices on all longline vessels;
4) Review the Azore's study when it is completed and review other related studies;
5) Provide financial support to genetic research with the ultimate goal of quantifying the various segments of the sea turtle populations;
6) Determine and report on the level of reduction that lightsticks could achieve while allowing the fishery to continue;
7) As an alternative to the observed experimental fishery to modify gear and fishing techniques to reduce sea turtle takes, investigate use of these options via other means (e.g. providing support to various studies, performing data analyses, conducting follow-up activities on various information, etc.); and,
8) Analyze the effects on marine mammal and sea turtle bycatch of limiting the length of pelagic longline gear in the Mid-Atlantic Bight area to 24 nm.
Sea bird species hooked by Atlantic pelagic longlines include gannets, gulls, and storm petrels. Sea birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act; endangered sea birds are further protected under the Endangered Species Act. The United States is developing a National Plan of Action in response to the FAO Plan of Action to reduce incidental seabird takes. Many seabird populations are especially slow to recover from mortality because their reproductive potential is low (one egg per year and late sexual maturation). They forage on the surface but also pursue prey fish at shallow depths making them somewhat susceptible to driftnet and pelagic longline gear. They are possibly at the highest risk during the process of setting and hauling while the gear is at or near the surface.
Incidental take data for seabirds observed entangled in pelagic longlines are summarized in Appendix B. In 1990-1997, 34 seabirds were hooked by pelagic longlines; 9 were released alive. Seabirds are more often hooked on pelagic longlines as the gear is being set. The birds eat the bait and then become hooked on the line. The line sinks and the birds are subsequently drowned. Anecdotal information suggests that other fisherman also encounter sea birds while fishing for Atlantic HMS.
NMFS has not identified a need to implement gear modifications to reduce takes of sea birds in the pelagic longline fisheries; takes of sea birds are minimal in this fishery in the Atlantic, probably due to night setting of the longlines or fishing in areas where there are not significant numbers of birds. Alexander et al. (1997) provides a for additional possibilities of mitigating measures for sea bird mortality in longline fisheries.
5.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 5-1
5.1 Swordfish 5-1
5.2 Atlantic Billfish 5-1
5.3 Atlantic Tunas 5-2
5.4 Large Coastal and Pelagic Sharks 5-2
5.5 Other Finfish 5-3
5.6 Status of the Stocks 5-3
5.7 Marine Mammals 5-4
5.8 Sea Turtles 5-5
5.8.1 Background Information for Biological Opinion for the Atlantic Pelagic Longline Fishery 5-5
5.8.2 Conclusion of Biological Opinion 5-12
5.8.3 Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives 5-12
5.8.4 Incidental Take Statement 5-14
5.8.5 Reasonable and Prudent Measures 5-15
5.9. Sea Birds 5-16
Table 5.1. Status of Highly Migratory Species Stocks in the Atlantic Ocean. 5-3
Table 5.2. Status of Atlantic sea turtle populations: Species taken in the pelagic longline fishery 1992-1997. 5-5
Table 5.3. Summary of incidental take levels anticipated under the incidental take statements associated with NMFS existing BOs in the US Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. 5-6
Table 5.4. Estimated Sea Turtle Takes Recorded in the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Pelagic Longline Fishery for Swordfish, Tuna and Sharks, 1992 - 1998. 5-7
Table 5.5. Comparison of the estimates of total bycatch by species and year among the pooling treatment of zero
observer effort strata using two different pooling orders.
5-8
Table 5.6. Observed Levels of Loggerhead and Leatherback Sea Turtles Taken Incidental to Commercial Pelagic Longlining for Swordfish and Tuna in the U.S. Atlantic Fleet in 1999. 5-10
1. In the DSEIS, NMFS used data that were available at that time (through 1997). Since the publication date of the proposed rule, 1998 logbook data have been made available to fishery managers. Therefore, this FSEIS document considers the impacts of the alternatives based on data through the 1998 calendar year.