FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
AND
REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW
FOR A
FINAL RULE
TO IMPLEMENT QUOTA RECOMMENDATIONS FROM
THE 2000 MEETING OF THE
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION FOR THE CONSERVATION
OF ATLANTIC TUNAS
AND
TO RE-ESTABLISH PROHIBITIONS REGARDING POSSESSION OF FISH IN VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL
REGULATIONS
October 2002
United States Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service
Office of Sustainable Fisheries
Highly Migratory Species Management Division
1315 East-West Highway
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910
Final Rule to Implement Recommendations from the 2000
Meeting of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas
and to Reestablish Prohibitions Regarding Possession of Fish in Violation
of International Regulations
Framework Adjustment to the Fishery Management
Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Sharks, and Swordfish
Final Actions: Establish a reserve quota for North Atlantic
swordfish, implement trade restrictions for Atlantic bigeye tuna, prohibit possession
of fish caught in violation of international regulations, clarify authorized
fishing areas for U.S. Atlantic highly migratory species fishermen.
Type of Statement: Final Documents: Environmental Assessment
and Regulatory Impact Review
Lead Agency: National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries
For Further Information: Tyson Kade
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 United States is obligated under the Atlantic
Tunas Convention Act (ATCA) to implement conservation and management recommendations
that have been adopted by the International Commission for the Conservation
of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). These regulations establish a reserve quota for North
Atlantic swordfish starting with the 2001 fishing year, clarify allowable fishing
areas for U.S. vessels fishing for highly migratory species (HMS) in the east
Atlantic Ocean, maintain the status quo South Atlantic swordfish quota for 2001,
implement Atlantic bigeye tuna trade restrictions, and re-establish prohibitions
relating to possession of fish taken in violation of international regulations.
These actions are necessary to ensure continued progress toward the conservation
goals of ICCAT for Atlantic HMS. Short-term economic impacts resulting from
these actions are expected to be minimal. However, conservation benefits are
likely to increase due to international cooperation and compliance with ICCAT
recommendations.
Table of Contents
1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 1
1.1 Need for Establishing a Reserve Quota Category for North
Atlantic Swordfish 1
1.2 Need for Reinstating Regulations Regarding Possession of
Fish Taken in Violation of Existing International Regulations and Recommendations
1
1.3 Need for Clarifying Authorized Fishing Areas 1
1.4 Need for Implementing Trade Restrictions for Atlantic Bigeye
Tuna 2
1.5 Other Recommendations Adopted by ICCAT in 2000 2
1.6 Other Amendments to Existing Regulations 3
2.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTIONS 5
2.1 Alternatives for North Atlantic Swordfish Management
5
2.2 Alternatives for South Atlantic Swordfish Catch Limits
5
2.3 Alternatives for Reinstating Prohibitions Regarding Possession
of Fish in Violation of International Regulations/Recommendations 5
2.4 Alternatives for Authorized Fishing Areas 6
2.5 Alternatives for North Atlantic Albacore Catch Limits
6
2.6 Alternatives for South Atlantic Albacore Catch Limits
6
2.7 Alternatives for Restricting and Monitoring Trade of Atlantic
Bigeye Tuna 7
2.8 Conclusion 7
3.0 ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS 8
3.1 Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act
8
3.2 Executive Order 12866 8
4.0 SOCIAL CONSIDERATIONS 10
5.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 11
5.1 Status of the Target Finfish Stocks 11
5.2 Status of Non-Target Finfish and Protected Species 11
5.3 Fisheries for Atlantic Swordfish, Atlantic Bigeye Tuna,
and Atlantic Albacore 12
5.3.1 International HMS Fisheries 12
5.3.2 U.S. Pelagic Longline Fishery 13
5.3.3 Other U.S. Fisheries for Atlantic Swordfish, Bigeye Tuna,
and Albacore 13
6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES 14
6.1 Alternatives for North Atlantic Swordfish Management
14
6.2 Alternatives for South Atlantic Swordfish Catch Limits
16
6.3 Alternatives for Reinstating Prohibition Regarding Possession
of Fish in Violation of International Regulations/Recommendations 18
6.4 Alternatives for Authorized Fishing Areas 19
6.5 Alternatives for North Atlantic Albacore Catch Limits
21
6.6 Alternatives for South Atlantic Albacore Catch Limits
22
6.7 Alternatives for Restricting and Monitoring Trade of Atlantic
Bigeye Tuna 24
6.8 Other Amendments to Existing Regulations 26
6.9 Cumulative Impacts 27
7.0 REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW AND ECONOMIC ANALYSES 28
7.1 Evaluation of Economic Impacts 28
7.2 Regulatory Impact Review 31
7.2.1 Description of the management objectives 31
7.2.2 Description of the fishery 31
7.2.3 Statement of the problem 31
7.2.4 Description of each alternative 31
7.2.5 Economic analysis of expected effects of each alternative
relative to the baseline 32
7.2.6 Summary 33
8.0 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 34
9.0 LIST OF AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED IN FORMULATING THE
FINAL RULE 39
10.0 LIST OF PREPARERS 39
11.0 REFERENCES 40
APPENDIX A COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 41
List of Tables
Table 6.1 Landings of North Atlantic Albacore by U.S. Vessels
21
Table 7.1 The number of vessels that reported fishing with
pelagic longline gear in the pelagic logbook. 29
Table 7.2 Average ex-vessel prices per lb dw for Atlantic HMS
in 2000. 29
Table 7.3 The species composition of landings in the pelagic
longline fleet in 2000. 30
Table 7.4 Summary of benefits and costs for each
alternative. 32
1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
1.1 Need for Establishing a Reserve Quota Category for North Atlantic Swordfish
North Atlantic swordfish are classified as overfished. In 1999, ICCAT adopted
a recommendation to establish an international rebuilding program for North Atlantic
swordfish and to reduce the total allowable catch (TAC) for all countries fishing
on that stock. Although the stock is showing signs of stabilization and some improvement,
the Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS) has warned that the rebuilding
program is very sensitive to any overharvests. At the 2000 meeting of ICCAT, it
became apparent that Japan had seriously exceeded its North Atlantic swordfish
quota for several years in a row, despite efforts to address this problem. Swordfish
are a non-target species taken in Japan's bigeye tuna fishery. Japan has exceeded
its landings quota for swordfish and has been discarding swordfish for some time.
Because of concerns for the integrity of the 10-year swordfish rebuilding program,
the United States agreed to assist Japan in addressing its swordfish overharvest.
A measure was adopted that, among other things, will allow Japan access to 400
metric ton (mt) whole weight (ww) (300.8 mt dressed weight (dw)) of unused U.S.
quota for 2001 only. While the 2001 fishing year has concluded, it still is necessary
to comply with ICCAT recommendations regarding quota allocations. This one-time
quota transfer will be applied to Japan's discards, in order to account for that
mortality in the TAC. Therefore, NOAA Fisheries is establishing a reserve quota
for North Atlantic swordfish.
1.2 Need for Reinstating Regulations Regarding Possession of Fish Taken in Violation
of Existing International Regulations and Recommendations
Regulatory text that existed prior to publication and implementation of the Fishery
Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks (HMS FMP), which consolidated
existing HMS regulations, prohibited persons and vessels subject to the jurisdiction
of the United States from possessing fish taken in violation of ICCAT recommendations
or from violating another country's fisheries regulations pertaining to species
managed by ICCAT. These provisions reflected the intent of the Lacey Act. While
those specific prohibitions were included in the initial, proposed consolidated
HMS regulations (61 FR 57361, November 6, 1996), they were inadvertently excluded
when the consolidated regulations were re-proposed to implement the new requirements
of the HMS FMP (64 FR 3486, January 20, 1999). Given that the regulatory consolidation
was not intended to make substantive changes to existing regulations, other than
those specifically noted as necessary to achieve consistency or to implement new
requirements of the HMS FMP, the exclusion of those prohibitions was a drafting
error and requires correction. Therefore, NOAA Fisheries is re-establishing prohibitions
regarding possession of fish taken in violation of ICCAT recommendations or in
violation of another country's regulations.
1.3 Need for Clarifying Authorized Fishing Areas
At the 2000 ICCAT meeting, the United States received notification from the European
Community that a U.S. vessel has been landing Atlantic bluefin tuna caught in
the Mediterranean Sea. This fishing activity is not consistent with the terms
of the rebuilding program for west Atlantic bluefin tuna, which directs all parties
to take measures to prohibit any transfer of fishing effort from the west Atlantic
to the east Atlantic Ocean and vice versa. The Mediterranean Sea is considered
part of the east Atlantic Ocean, and the United States does not have an allocation
of east Atlantic bluefin tuna quota. Therefore, NOAA Fisheries is clarifying the
authorized fishing areas for U.S. fishermen targeting HMS in the Convention Area,
i.e., the Atlantic Ocean and adjacent seas, by prohibiting U.S. vessels from fishing
for bluefin tuna in the Mediterranean Sea.
1.4 Need for Implementing Trade Restrictions for Atlantic Bigeye Tuna
Atlantic bigeye tuna are classified as overfished. At its 2000 meeting, ICCAT
recommended that trade restrictions be implemented to address the unreported and
unregulated catches of tuna by large-scale longline vessels in the Convention
Area. The Commission identified Contracting Parties and non-Contracting parties/entities
whose large-scale longline vessels have been fishing for bigeye tuna in a manner
that diminishes the effectiveness of ICCAT measures. Those entities were notified
and given the opportunity to rectify the situation. Belize, Cambodia, Equatorial
Guinea, Honduras, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines were identified as such entities;
they are fishing in the Atlantic Ocean and have bigeye tuna as their primary target.
Designation of illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) entities and implementation
of these trade restrictions parallels the procedures established in the bluefin
tuna and swordfish action plans that ensure the effectiveness of the conservation
programs for these species (action plans are available at www.iccat.es). Therefore,
NOAA Fisheries is banning the import of Atlantic bigeye tuna caught by vessels
of Belize, Cambodia, Equatorial Guinea, Honduras, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines.
1.5 Other Recommendations Adopted by ICCAT in 2000
Regarding South Atlantic swordfish, ICCAT adopted a status quo target TAC for
2001 of 14,620 mt ww. Parties agreed to establish unilateral catch limits for
2001, which were submitted to ICCAT in December 2000. The United States informed
ICCAT of its intention to stay within its prior annual catch limit of 384 mt ww
(289 mt dw). Current regulations specify an annual U.S. quota for the South Atlantic
swordfish fishery in accordance with the recommendation adopted by ICCAT in November
2000. No changes to the current regulations are being implemented at this time.
A recommendation was adopted by ICCAT relative to South Atlantic albacore which
establishes a TAC and specifies that countries having caught less than 100 mt
of South Atlantic albacore per year during 1992-96 are subject to an annual catch
limit of 100 mt. This provision applies to the United States, which reported no
more than 1 mt in each of the specified reference years. No changes to the current
regulations are being implemented at this time since the United States does not
have a directed fishery for South Atlantic albacore, and annual landings are well
below the 100 mt limit.
At the 2000 ICCAT meeting, a recommendation was adopted to establish a TAC level
for North Atlantic albacore. The United States supported this recommendation as
the first step toward the development of a rebuilding program for the stock. While
effort controls are already in place for this fishery, this was the first catch
limit to be set by ICCAT for the North Atlantic albacore stock. The United States
was allocated a landings quota of 607 mt ww for the 2001 fishing year, which is
a level consistent with average landings for the United States over the past ten
years. This recommendation applies for one year only. Given
the minor share of U.S. mortality in this fishery (< 2 percent), and given
that the ICCAT recommendation provides for the adjustment of next year's catch
level in the case of overharvest or underharvest, NOAA Fisheries is not implementing
any new regulations for this fishery. The recommendation provides that overages/underage
of this annual catch limit be deducted from, or added to, the catch limit established
for the year 2002 and/or 2003. Since average recent harvests of North Atlantic
albacore have not exceeded this level, no new regulations are being implemented
at this time.
At its 2000 meeting, ICCAT also recommended that statistical document programs
be developed by July 1, 2002, for bigeye tuna in order to track trade of these
species. NOAA Fisheries is exploring options for this issue and will propose a
statistical document program for these species in the future, after evaluating
discussions at an international technical workshop on monitoring.
Finally in 2000, ICCAT recommended measures to address rebuilding of blue and
white marlin stocks. NOAA Fisheries is currently considering how to implement
this recommendation and is addressing that issue in a separate rulemaking. On
September 4, 2001, NOAA Fisheries received a petition to list the Atlantic white
marlin as threatened or endangered throughout its range and to designate critical
habitat under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). NOAA Fisheries staff presented
information on the petition during 11 public scoping meetings and received comments
regarding the status of the Atlantic white marlin and the applicability of listing
this species. On September 3, 2002, the status review team concluded that the
white marlin will not be designated as a threatened species, but will be placed
on the ESA candidate species list.
1.6 Other Amendments to Existing Regulations
NOAA Fisheries published a final rule on December 12, 2000 (65 FR 77527), to implement
trade restrictions for Atlantic swordfish that were recommended by ICCAT in 1999.
NOAA Fisheries inadvertently omitted the word "Atlantic" in the regulatory text
which results in an interpretation of the regulations that is inconsistent with
both the preamble to the final rule and the ICCAT recommendation. ICCAT intended
that imports of only Atlantic swordfish (not Pacific or Indian) should be prohibited
from Belize and Honduras. NOAA Fisheries also inadvertently applied an incorrect
date to the dead discard allowance for 2002. The fishing year begins June 1, 2002.
The regulations erroneously state that the North Atlantic swordfish dead discard
allowance of 160 mt ww should apply to the fishing year beginning May 1, 2001.
In this rule, NOAA Fisheries corrects the omission of "Atlantic" and also corrects
the dates applied to dead discard allowances of swordfish.In addition, NOAA Fisheries
inadvertently omitted a prohibition on swordfish imports. Prohibitions are a portion
of Federal regulations that succinctly summarize the regulations and are utilized
often by enforcement personnel. NOAA Fisheries corrects this omission in this
rulemaking.
2.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTIONS
2.1 Alternatives for North Atlantic Swordfish Management
Final Action: Establish a Reserve Quota Category for North Atlantic Swordfish
NOAA Fisheries will use unharvested 2000 and 2001 North Atlantic swordfish quota
to establish a reserve quota category. The reserve quota category will be established
by this final rule and the allocation of at least 400 mt ww (300.8 mt dw) to this
category will occur through publication of an in-season notice.
Not Selected at this Time: No Action
This alternative would maintain the status quo quota arrangement and would not
establish a reserve quota category, from which the United States would transfer
400 mt ww (300.8 mt dw) of swordfish quota to Japan.
2.2 Alternatives for South Atlantic Swordfish Catch Limits
Final Action: No Action
The United States will maintain its regulations which specify that the annual
landings quota for the South Atlantic swordfish fishery is 384 mt ww (289 mt dw).
Not Selected at this Time: Apply Unused South Atlantic Swordfish Quota
from 2000 to the 2001 Fishing year
Under this alternative, unused South Atlantic landings quota from the 2000 fishing
year would be added to the U.S. landings quota for 2001.
2.3 Alternatives for Reinstating Prohibitions Regarding Possession of
Fish in Violation of International Regulations/Recommendations
Final Action: Reinstating Previously Published Regulations
NOAA Fisheries prohibits persons and vessels subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States from possessing fish taken in violation of ICCAT recommendations
or from violating another country's fisheries regulations pertaining to species
managed by ICCAT.
Not Selected at this Time: No Action
This alternative would prevent the prosecution of vessels that are currently fishing
inconsistent with the fishery conservation and management regulations of other
countries pertaining to species managed by ICCAT.
2.4 Alternatives for Authorized Fishing Areas
Final Action: Clarify Authorized Fishing Areas for Atlantic HMS
No person aboard a U.S. fishing vessel shall fish for bluefin tuna in the Mediterranean
Sea or possess on board a bluefin tuna taken from the Mediterranean Sea.
Not Selected at this Time: No Action
The no action alternative would not be consistent with the intentions that the
United States expressed in response to concerns voiced by other members of ICCAT.
2.5 Alternatives for North Atlantic Albacore Catch Limits
Final Action: No Action
There is not currently a quota for U.S. fishermen landing North Atlantic albacore
as our participation in this fishery is minimal. The United States does not catch
albacore at levels approaching the TAC allocated by ICCAT.
Not Selected at this Time: Establish a Quota with In-Season Monitoring
for North Atlantic Albacore
Under this alternative, NOAA Fisheries would implement the one-time quota of 607
mt ww through regulations that provide for real-time monitoring of the North Atlantic
albacore fishery and provide for the fisheries to be closed in the event that
the quota was reached.
2.6 Alternatives for South Atlantic Albacore Catch Limits
Final Action: No Action
There is not currently a quota for U.S. fishermen landing South Atlantic albacore
because our participation in the fishery is minimal. If landings were to increase,
there is no mechanism to limit landings during the fishing year.
Not Selected at this Time: Establish a Quota with In-Season Monitoring
for South Atlantic Albacore
Under this alternative, NOAA Fisheries would amend the regulations to establish
a 100 mt ww (75 mt dw) landings quota for South Atlantic albacore.
2.7 Alternatives for Restricting and Monitoring Trade of Atlantic Bigeye Tuna
Final Action: Implement Trade Restrictions
Consistent with a 2000 ICCAT recommendation, this alternative bans the imports
of bigeye tuna from the following countries: Belize, Cambodia, Equatorial Guinea,
Honduras, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines.
Not Selected at this Time: Implement a Certificate of Eligibility to Monitor
Bigeye Tuna Trade Restrictions
This alternative would require all bigeye tuna imports to be accompanied by a
Certificate of Eligibility (COE) that indicates the flag of harvesting vessel,
ocean of origin, and certification that the fish was not caught by a vessel included
in the trade restrictions above.
Not Selected at this Time: No Action
This alternative would not implement trade restrictions on the imports of Atlantic
bigeye tuna and would not implement measures recommended by ICCAT in 2000.
2.8 Conclusion
NOAA Fisheries is required to implement ICCAT recommendations under ATCA, if the
United States accepts those recommendations. The final actions discussed above
would satisfy the United States' obligation to implement the binding conservation
and management measures that have been adopted by ICCAT. The final actions are
also consistent with the goals of the HMS FMP, specifically, to prevent overfishing
and rebuild overfished fisheries. The environmental and economic consequences
of these preferred alternatives are described below in Sections 6.0 and 7.0, but
in general, these impacts are likely to support environmental and economic management
objectives of the agency. Alternatives that would not be consistent with U.S.
obligations to ICCAT and the goals of the HMS FMP were considered during this
rulemaking process, but are not selected at this time.
3.0 ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
Before implementing management measures, NOAA Fisheries must consider the economic
impacts in accordance with two pieces of legislation: the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (RFA) and Executive Order 12866 (E.O. 12866). Both the RFA and E.O. 12866
require a description of the need for the action, the management objectives, and
a description of the expected economic impacts. They also require an analysis
of each alternative, the expected effects, and a description of the reasons why
an action is being taken. The main difference between the RFA and E.O. 12866 is
the focus of the analysis. While the RFA focuses on individual businesses, E.O.
12866 focuses on the entire fishery.
The analyses required for E.O. 12866 and under the RFA are included in Sections
6.0 and 7.0 of this document, and the economic impacts of the proposed measures
are discussed throughout this document. Additional information about the RFA,
E.O. 12866, and economic impacts can be found in Chapter 7 of the HMS FMP (NMFS,
1999).
3.1 Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act of 1996 amended the
RFA and made compliance with sections of the RFA subject to judicial review.
The RFA requires agencies to assess impacts of their final 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 RFA 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.
The focus of a regulatory flexibility analysis is 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 the meaning
of the RFA. The definition of a "small entity" includes small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. The Small Business Administration
(SBA) considers a small finfish fishing or other marine fishing business as
a firm with annual receipts averaging over three years up to $3.5 million annually
(67 FR 3041, January 23, 2002). For fresh and seafood markets, a small business
is one that has receipts averaging $6.0 million annually (67 FR 3041, January
23, 2002). A small organization is defined as any non-profit enterprise that
is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. NOAA Fisheries
believes that all participants in HMS fisheries, including processors, can be
defined as small entities under SBA guidelines.
3.2 Executive Order 12866
In compliance with Executive Order 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 Fishery Management Plan 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 regulatory
actions. Thus, the focus of the RIR is on the net economic benefit from the entire
fishery, not the net economic benefit accruing 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.
4.0 SOCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
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 consequences of these actions
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. They may include alterations to the
ways 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 that 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 affected constituents. An assessment
of the impacts of the rulemaking is presented in sections 6.0 and 7.0. For a description
of possible social impacts associated with recent regulations, see the HMS Stock
Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Report 2002, Chapter 6 (NMFS, 2002b).
5.0 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 in the pelagic
longline fishery are swordfish, tunas, and sharks, as well as billfish, dolphin,
wahoo, king mackerel, and other finfish species. Sometimes pelagic longline
fishermen inadvertently catch protected species, which include sea turtles,
marine mammals, or sea birds. All of these species are federally managed, and
NOAA Fisheries seeks to control the mortality that results
from fishing effort.
5.1 Status of the Target Finfish Stocks
North Atlantic swordfish, Atlantic bigeye tuna, and North Atlantic albacore are
considered overfished. South Atlantic swordfish are considered fully fished and
overfishing may be occurring. South Atlantic albacore are not considered overfished
and overfishing is not occurring. Rebuilding plans are in place for North Atlantic
swordfish and Atlantic bigeye tuna and NOAA Fisheries is developing rebuilding
programs for albacore. In 1999, assessments of the North Atlantic swordfish stock
indicated that the decline in stock biomass had been slowed or arrested (SCRS,
1999). ICCAT noted positive signs from the fishery in terms of catch rates, and
concluded that the observed high recruitment of age one fish in 1997 and 1998
should allow for increases in spawning stock biomass in the future, if these year
classes are not heavily harvested. A new stock assessment for North Atlantic swordfish
is scheduled for September 2002.
Detailed descriptions of the life histories and population status of the species
managed by the HMS Division are given in the HMS FMP, and are not repeated here.
The status of Atlantic swordfish, Atlantic billfish, Atlantic tunas, large coastal
and pelagic sharks, other finfish, marine mammals, and seabirds is summarized
in chapter 5 of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the
Final Rule to Reduce Sea Turtle Bycatch and Bycatch Mortality in HMS Fisheries
(FSEIS) (NMFS, 2002a), and is not repeated here. Detailed information on catch
and bycatch of HMS by fishery is also provided in the 2002 SAFE Report (NMFS,
2002b).
5.2 Status of Non-Target Finfish and Protected Species
This rulemaking affects tuna and swordfish longline vessels predominantly. Wahoo,
king mackerel, some species of sharks (some of which are overfished) and rays,
and other finfish, are caught incidental to the swordfish and tuna longline operations
in the Atlantic Ocean. The incidence of non-target finfish caught in the longline
fishery and in other fisheries is discussed in the 2002 SAFE Report (NMFS, 2002b).
Many of these species are marketed along with the target catch of swordfish and
tunas, however, others are discarded for personal, economic, or regulatory reasons.
Additional details on these non-target finfish can be found in the HMS FMP and
the FSEIS (NMFS, 1999 and NMFS, 2002a). The most recent longline bycatch data
are available from the 2001 U.S. National Report to ICCAT, the FSEIS (NMFS, 2002a),
and the 2002 SAFE Report (NMFS, 2002b).
In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act, NOAA Fisheries published
draft stock assessment reports for Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico marine mammals.
The status of endangered and threatened marine mammals and sea turtles taken by
the pelagic longline fishery is provided in a Biological Opinion (BiOp) issued
on June 14, 2001, regarding the interaction of the pelagic longline fishery with
protected species. Sea turtles, marine mammals, and seabirds are protected by
legislation (Magnuson-Stevens Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, Migratory Bird
Treaty Act) and many of the individual species are protected under the Endangered
Species Act.
5.3 Fisheries for Atlantic Swordfish, Atlantic Bigeye Tuna, and Atlantic Albacore
Additional information about the operation of U.S. HMS fisheries can be found
in the 2002 SAFE Report (NMFS, 2002b).
5.3.1 International HMS Fisheries
Swordfish are harvested throughout the Atlantic Ocean in tuna and swordfish longline
fisheries. Within the North Atlantic, major harvesting nations include Japan,
Spain, the United States, Canada, and Portugal. The U.S. quota is 29 percent of
the total North Atlantic quota. Numerous other countries, both members and non-members
of ICCAT, harvest lesser amounts of swordfish. In the South Atlantic, vessels
fishing for swordfish are primarily from Brazil, Spain, Japan, and Uruguay. Vessels
from the United States landed less than 2 percent of total South Atlantic landings
in 1999. Japanese vessels catch swordfish incidental to tuna longline operations
throughout the Atlantic Ocean. In November 1999, ICCAT adopted a rebuilding program
that accounts for dead discards as a source of mortality and reduces the TAC to
a level that has a 50 percent probability of rebuilding the stock within 10 years.
The rebuilding trajectory assumes that all ICCAT nations maintain their landings
at or below quotas, and that those countries which do not have a specific quota
do not exceed the quota set aside for "others" on a collective basis. In the past,
reported swordfish landings have exceeded the TAC by about 10 percent per year.
In addition, there are countries and vessels that are fishing illegally, are unregulated,
and are not reporting their harvests to ICCAT.
At the 1997 ICCAT meeting, the TAC of South Atlantic swordfish was established
at 14,620 mt ww per year, for 1998, 1999 and 2000. This recommendation is still
in effect and includes the United States as a minor harvesting nation that shares
in 5.5 percent of the total South Atlantic quota. The United States received 384
mt ww (289 mt dw) of the annual allocation for the three years covered by the
ICCAT recommendation, based on "recent levels." The U.S. swordfish quotas are
applied to a fishing year, beginning June 1 and ending May 31 of each calendar
year.
Bigeye tuna are fished in the Atlantic Ocean and by several nations, using three
major gears to harvest this Atlantic-wide stock (longline, baitboat, and purse
seine). Baitboat fisheries operate predominantly in the eastern Atlantic, purse
seine vessels operate in the tropical Atlantic, and longline vessels are operated
throughout by many countries, including the United States. The two major longline
fisheries targeting bigeye tuna are operated by Japan and Taiwan. Japanese import
statistics indicate that IUU catches of bigeye tuna have been increasing and were
at about 25,000 MT in 1999 (SCRS, 2000).
The primary nations targeting albacore tuna in the North Atlantic include Spain,
France, and Taiwan. The U.S. share of the North Atlantic albacore landings is
typically 2 to 3 percent. The historical surface fisheries for North Atlantic
albacore tuna include Spanish trolling in the Bay of Biscay as well as baitboats
in the Bay of Biscay and near the Azores. Vessels from Taiwan target large albacore
tuna with longline vessels in deeper waters of the central and western North Atlantic.
Smaller albacore tuna are caught primarily by surface fishing gears such as driftnets
and pelagic pair trawls. Major harvesters of South Atlantic albacore include Brazil,
Taiwan, Spain, Japan, Namibia, and South Africa. In a typical year, U.S. vessels
land less than 1 percent of the total South Atlantic landings. For additional
information on this topic, see the 2002 SAFE Report (NMFS, 2002b).
5.3.2 U.S. Pelagic Longline Fishery
Pelagic longline vessels accounted for almost all U.S. commercial swordfish landings
and most of U.S. bigeye tuna landings in 2000 (NMFS, 2002b). The U.S. longline
fishery is a multi-species fishery that depends on harvesting several primary
marketable target species including a variety of tunas and sharks, in addition
to swordfish. On average, over the past five years, pelagic longline vessels have
accounted for approximately a third of North Atlantic albacore landings. The longline
fishery is responsible for all U.S. landings of swordfish and albacore in the
South Atlantic. U.S. pelagic longline fishermen are subject to quotas, time and
area closures, and target catch requirements. Bycatch in the Atlantic pelagic
longline fisheries is commonly managed through the use of gear modifications,
target catch requirements, and closed areas. Bycatch is particularly high in the
U.S. Atlantic longline fishery due to regulatory discards. U.S. fishermen are
required to throw back (alive or dead) undersized swordfish and tunas, bluefin
tuna (if they do not meet target catch requirements), billfish, and sharks (if
they are out of season). Additional information on management of U.S. HMS fisheries
can be found in the HMS FMP (NMFS, 1999) and 2002 SAFE Report (NMFS, 2002b).
5.3.3 Other U.S. Fisheries for Atlantic Swordfish, Bigeye Tuna, and Albacore
Minor U.S. commercial swordfish landings are made by otter trawl vessels fishing
for squid, mackerel and butterfish (primary prey species sought by swordfish)
and harpoon, rod and reel, and handline (hand gear). Minor commercial landings
of bigeye and albacore tuna are made by rod and reel and handline. Albacore are
also caught in coastal gillnet fisheries.
Recreational fishermen pursue each of these species, predominantly using rod and
reel. Their landings are estimated using various dockside and phone surveys. For
additional information regarding these fisheries or the monitoring scheme, refer
to the 2002 SAFE Report (NMFS, 2002b).
6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES
NOAA Fisheries is required to implement ICCAT recommendations under ATCA, if the
United States accepts those recommendations. The final actions discussed below
would satisfy the United States' obligation to implement the binding conservation
and management measures that have been adopted by ICCAT. The final actions are
also consistent with the goals of the HMS FMP, specifically, to prevent overfishing
and rebuild overfished fisheries. The environmental and economic consequences
of these preferred alternatives are described below in Sections 6.0 and 7.0, but
in general, these impacts are likely to support environmental and economic management
objectives of the agency.
6.1 Alternatives for North Atlantic Swordfish Management
Final Action: Establish a Reserve Quota Category for North Atlantic Swordfish
NOAA Fisheries will use unharvested 2000 and 2001 North Atlantic swordfish quota
to establish a reserve quota category. The reserve quota category will be established
by this final rule and the allocation of at least 400 mt ww (300.8 mt dw) to this
category will occur through publication of an in-season notice.
Ecological Impacts
The conservation benefits of establishing a reserve quota are considerable. Transferring
400 mt ww (300.8 mt dw) of swordfish quota to Japan will help to ensure that Japanese
bycatch of swordfish does not jeopardize the 10-year rebuilding program. It will
enable all countries fishing in the North Atlantic to remain within the TAC that
was established by ICCAT based on the best available scientific information. The
SCRS warned that the rebuilding projections are sensitive to any level of overharvest.
This regulation is designed to implement an international agreement that will
keep the rebuilding program on track. At this time, the reserve will be available
only to Japan. However, the reserve quota category that is established could also
be utilized to collect any future quota underharvests and transfer it to a different
U.S. quota category or to account for dead discard overages. It could provide
a measure of insurance that the U.S. does not exceed its quota level as any overage
that occurs could be compensated with quota from the reserve category.
There are differences between Japanese and American longline sets, but establishing
a reserve quota category is not expected to increase the take of marine mammals,
sea turtles, seabirds, or other non-target species in either fishery. The U.S.
Atlantic pelagic longline fishery is considered a Category I fishery under the
Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and vessels occasionally interact with marine
mammals. In addition, the June 14, 2001, BiOp found that the U.S. pelagic longline
fleet jeopardized the continued existence of loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles.
A final rule promulgated on July 9, 2002, implemented the recommendations required
by the BiOp. Although this fishery impacts these species, this final action is
not expected to have a significant impact, because the transfer of unused quota
to Japan is meant to cover their overharvests in the past, which will not effect
the future take of protected species. Takes of seabirds have been minimal in this
fishery, most likely due to the setting of longlines at night and/or fishing in
areas where birds are largely absent.
Economic and Social Impacts
Establishing a reserve quota for North Atlantic swordfish would have reduced the
landings available to U.S. fishermen during the 2001 fishing year and could reduce
the potential landings available in the 2002 fishing year. However, it is unlikely
that the U.S. fishermen will be able to catch an additional 300.8 mt dw of swordfish,
in addition to the unused 1999 quota (540.8 mt dw). The 1999 underharvest was
addressed in an in-season action (66 FR 46401, September 5, 2001) and the quota
was made available to the directed fishery for the 2001 fishing year. NOAA Fisheries
is currently working on an in-season action that would transfer quota underages
from the 2000 and 2001 fishing years to the 2002 fishing year. This rulemaking
action would also serve to transfer the 400 mt ww (300.8 mt dw) to the reserve
quota category. Based on the underages that have occurred the past few years,
NOAA Fisheries anticipates that the U.S. pelagic longline fishery will have sufficient
quota available to support the current level of effort. In fact, effort may decline
during the 2002 fishing year, given that several time and area closures have recently
been implemented for the U.S. pelagic longline fleet.
The gross ex-vessel revenue from 300.8 mt dw would be $2.3 million ($3.51 per
pound for 661,410 lbs [300.8 mt dw * 2204.6 lbs/mt dw ]). However, NOAA Fisheries
and the pelagic longline industry representatives agree that the current U.S.
pelagic longline fleet operating in the Atlantic Ocean is not likely to be able
to harvest the 400 mt ww (300.8 mt dw) that would be allocated to the reserve
quota category, in addition to the underharvest from the 2000 and 2001 fishing
years. Therefore, the set-aside of 400 mt ww (300.8 mt dw) from the U.S. landings
quota is not expected to have significant economic impacts on U.S. fishermen.
Instead, using U.S. quota to support conservation efforts could result in a long-term
economic gain, albeit one that is unquantifiable. Social benefits may increase
over the long-term if the establishment of a reserve quota allows the North Atlantic
Swordfish stock to rebuild over the next decade. In the long-term, the economic
impacts of the quota transfer will not be significant, since the availability
of future U.S. quota will not be affected. Also, NOAA Fisheries does not expect
the creation of a reserve quota category to negatively impact the incidental and
recreation swordfish catches.
Conclusion
This action is selected because of the need to preserve the international agreement to reduce
swordfish mortality. Creating a reserve quota category and transferring 400 mt ww (300.8 mt
dw) to Japan will have a negligible impact on U.S. fisheries while it increases the potential for
the North Atlantic swordfish stock to rebuild.
Not Selected at this Time: No Action
This alternative would maintain the status quo quota arrangement and would not establish a
reserve quota category, from which the United States would transfer of 400 mt ww (300.8 mt dw)
of swordfish quota to Japan.
Ecological Impacts
The no action alternative would not significantly change the impact of the U.S.
swordfish fisheries on target, non-target, and protected species. However, it
could contribute to a harmful impact on the North Atlantic swordfish stock if
the ICCAT rebuilding plan is not maintained by all the participating nations.
Transferring quota to Japan would allow their fishery to remain in compliance
with the ICCAT plan.
Economic and Social Impacts
Short-term economic impacts would probably not be significant, since U.S. vessels
have not harvested the full amount of landings quota for the past several years.
However, in the mid-term or long-term, the no action alternative could have negative
economic and social impacts, because the North Atlantic swordfish population might
not continue its recovery. If the fishery does not attain and maintain the maximum
sustainable yield, the fishery would experience negative economic impacts and
related impacts to fishermen, communities, and others who rely upon the fishery.
ConclusionThis alternative would not be expected to improve the condition
of North Atlantic swordfish or any other non-target or protected species. Conversely,
it could have a negative effect if participating countries do not make an effort
to comply with the ICCAT rebuilding plan.
6.2 Alternatives for South Atlantic Swordfish Catch Limits
Final Action: No Action/Status Quo
The United States will maintain its regulations which specify that the annual
landings quota for the South Atlantic swordfish fishery is 384 mt ww (289 mt dw).
Ecological Impacts
The United States expressed some concern with the international agreement on South
Atlantic swordfish quotas, since the lack of country-specific allocations could
allow for overfishing to occur. However, the stock is not currently considered
overfished. In addition, this problem could not be avoided by a unilateral reduction
in U.S. landings, given that the United States is responsible for only a small
share of the mortality on this stock. The environmental impacts resulting from
the status quo for the South Atlantic swordfish fishery are not expected to be
significant. Landings in 1999, 2000, and 2001 were below the U.S. annual landings
quota. NOAA Fisheries anticipates no adverse effects on sea turtles, marine mammals,
or seabirds, because the quota is to remain the same and this final action does
not cause any changes to fishing practices.
Economic and Social Impacts
No adverse economic impacts are expected from establishing the status quo South
Atlantic swordfish quota, as U.S. fishermen landed only 51 mt ww of South Atlantic
swordfish during the 1999 fishing year. While landings were somewhat higher in
2001 (71.2 mt ww), due to displacement of effort resulting from time and area
closures for pelagic longline vessels in the North Atlantic, only a limited number
of vessels are expected to shift their effort toward the South Atlantic. The 384
mt ww quota is not unduly restrictive for the U.S. fishery at this time. Establishing
a higher quota, however, may have long-term economic impacts if the TAC from the
stock is not sustainable.
Conclusion
This alternative is selected because it complies with the recommendation made
by ICCAT.
Not Selected at this Time: Apply Unused South Atlantic Swordfish Quota
from 2000 to the 2001 Fishing year
Under this alternative, unused South Atlantic landings quota from the 2000 fishing
year would be added to the U.S. landings quota for 2001.
Ecological Impacts
The alternative to roll-over unused South Atlantic swordfish quota from 2000 into
2001 would have a negative environmental impact, since it would authorize an increase
in U.S. landings even though the United States has already expressed concern that
overfishing may occur in this fishery. The United States remains concerned that,
without a well-defined allocation for each country, overfishing may cause the
target TAC to be exceeded.
Economic and Social Impacts
While there would be no short-term, negative economic impacts to the fleet in
rolling-over unused South Atlantic quota from 2000 to 2001, this action could
shape the nature of the fishery by encouraging a future shift in effort from the
North Atlantic to the South Atlantic, and promoting overfishing of the stock,
contrary to the goals of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Conclusion
The applicable ICCAT recommendations do not specifically authorize a carryover
of any underharvest of the U.S. South Atlantic swordfish quota. The United States
has taken the position that it would not be appropriate for any countries in the
"others" category to roll over unused catch in this fishery. The ICCAT recommendation
adopted in 2000 calls for countries to hold catches of South Atlantic swordfish
to recent levels and does not specify country-specific quotas. The United States
does not believe this to be an oversight. Adopting regulations to apply underage
rules in this case would not be consistent with the U.S. position relative to
compliance with ICCAT's recommendation.
6.3 Alternatives for Reinstating Prohibition Regarding Possession of Fish in Violation
of International Regulations/Recommendations
Final Action: Reinstating Previously Published Regulations
NOAA Fisheries prohibits persons and vessels subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States from possessing fish taken in violation of ICCAT recommendations
or from violating another country's fisheries regulations pertaining to species
managed by ICCAT.
Ecological Impacts
The prohibition on possession of fish taken in violation of an ICCAT recommendation
or an international regulation will have positive ecological benefits to species,
if it discourages fishermen from operating illegally and contrary to conservation
measures. NOAA Fisheries does not expect this action to impact marine mammals,
sea turtles, or seabirds.
Economic and Social Impacts
The economic and social impacts of this action are expected to be minimal as this
regulation was in effect previously and was removed inadvertently. In the case
of the re-establishment of the prohibition on possession of fish taken in violation
of ICCAT recommendations, if fishermen are not made aware of or do not understand
ICCAT recommendations, they may inadvertently violate such recommendations. However,
ICCAT recommendations are available on the ICCAT website, and NOAA Fisheries tries
to clarify those recommendations that may be confusing.
Conclusion
This alternative is implemented to promulgate the regulations that were inadvertently
left out of the consolidated regulations when the final HMS FMP was published
in 1999.
Not Selected at this Time: No Action
This alternative would prevent the prosecution of vessels that are currently fishing
inconsistent with the fishery conservation and management regulations of other
countries pertaining to species managed by ICCAT.
Ecological Impacts
The ICCAT rebuilding plans and management of quota usage could be undermined if
the status quo is adopted. Fishermen would not have to abide by ICCAT recommendations
or regulations, which could lead to harmful impacts to target, non-target, protected,
and seabird species.
Economic and Social Impacts
There would be minimal economic and social impacts from this alternative, because
fishermen could fish in a manner contrary to ICCAT regulations without being prosecuted
for enforcement violations. However, there could be harmful future impacts if
rebuilding efforts for particular species are hampered.
Conclusion
This alternative is not selected because it is necessary to ensure that U.S. fishermen
and vessels comply with ICCAT requirements.
6.4 Alternatives for Authorized Fishing Areas
Final Action: Clarify Authorized Fishing Areas for Atlantic HMS
No person aboard a U.S. fishing vessel shall fish for bluefin tuna in the Mediterranean
Sea or possess on board a bluefin tuna taken from the Mediterranean Sea.
For clarification purposes, this alternative
was modified from the draft environmental assessment. To discourage unauthorized
fishing, while trying to minimize dead discards, the proposed prohibition on the
retention of bluefin tuna from the east Atlantic Ocean has been modified to prohibit
the retention of bluefin tuna from the Mediterranean Sea. This modification is
consistent with ICCAT agreements to prevent transfer of fishing effort for bluefin
tuna from the west Atlantic to the east Atlantic, and vice versa, and is consistent
with HMS FMP objectives to reduce dead discards of bluefin tuna.
Ecological Impacts
ICCAT currently manages bluefin tuna
based on a two-stock hypothesis, with the two management units separated at 45
W above 10 N and at 25 W below the equator, with an eastward shift in the boundary
between those parallels. The 20-year rebuilding program for west Atlantic bluefin
tuna, adopted by ICCAT in November 1998, specifies that there shall be no transfer
of fishing effort from the west Atlantic to the east Atlantic or vice versa. Under
this action, NOAA Fisheries clarifies U.S. regulations to ensure that U.S. vessels
comply with this prohibition on the transfer of fishing effort.
This action is expected to have positive
environmental impacts for Atlantic bluefin tuna, because it prohibits the transfer
of any fishing effort from one stock to the other. Also, it prohibits fishing
for bluefin tuna in the Mediterranean Sea that is contrary to ICCAT agreements.
Currently, enforcement officers cannot enforce the prohibition on landing bluefin
tuna from these areas because the vessels only provide position reports. Vessel
monitoring systems (VMS), if required in the pelagic longline fishery in the future,
would provide NOAA Fisheries with information regarding which vessels are fishing
in the Mediterranean Sea. This alternative is not expected to impact marine mammals,
sea turtles, or seabirds.
Economic and Social Impacts
The regulations to clarify authorized
fishing areas for U.S. vessels targeting HMS are not expected to have significant
economic effects. Only one vessel was documented in 1999 fishing in the Mediterranean
Sea for bluefin tuna, and the value of that vessel's catch cannot be disclosed
for confidentiality reasons. The vessel has returned to the United States, therefore
there are not expected to be any short-term impacts. This final action may have
social and possibly, economic impacts, if other fishermen have been violating
international recommendations.
Conclusion
Authorized fishing areas are not included
in the existing U.S. regulations, although they exist implicitly in ICCAT recommendations.
This action is selected because it incorporates the areas into the U.S. regulations.
Not Selected at this Time:
No Action
The no action alternative would not
clarify authorized fishing areas and would not be consistent with the intentions
that have been expressed by the United States in response to concerns voiced by
other members of ICCAT.
Ecological Impacts
Without regulations that clarify allowable
fishing areas for U.S. fishermen targeting HMS, there is a risk that U.S. vessels
may transfer fishing effort to the east Atlantic. If this occurs, it could jeopardize
the management structure of the two bluefin tuna stocks. Also, it could encourage
nations fishing in the east Atlantic to transfer effort to the west Atlantic.
If this occurred, the conservation efforts undertaken in the west Atlantic to
rebuild the bluefin tuna stock could be jeopardized. This alternative would not
be expected to impact other fish species, marine mammals, sea turtles, or seabirds.
Economic and Social Impacts
NOAA Fisheries does not expect that
there would be any economic or social impacts from the implementation of this
alternative.
Conclusion
This alternative is not selected due
to the potential degradation of the recent conservation measures in place for
bluefin tuna.
6.5 Alternatives for North Atlantic Albacore Catch Limits
Final Action: No Action/Status
Quo
There is not currently a quota for
U.S. fishermen landing North Atlantic albacore as our participation in this
fishery is minimal. The United States does not catch albacore at levels approaching
the TAC allocated by ICCAT.
Ecological Impacts
No environmental impacts are expected
from maintaining the North Atlantic albacore fishery at the status quo level.
If the U.S. fishery exceeds the amount it is allowed by ICCAT, that overage
will be subtracted from the next year's allocation. This process ensures that
a sustainable amount of fish is harvested each year and minimizes the impact
to the environment. Implementing this alternative is not expected
to impact other fish species, marine mammals, sea turtles, or seabirds.
Table 6.1 Landings of North Atlantic Albacore by U.S. Vessels (mt ww)
Year |
Commercial Landings |
Recreational Landings |
U.S. Total Landings |
1997 |
241.3 mt |
269.5 mt |
510.8 mt |
1998 |
227.9 mt |
601.1 mt |
829 mt |
1999 |
225.5 mt |
90.1 mt |
315.6 mt |
2000 |
155.7 mt |
250.8 mt |
406.5 mt |
Average |
212.6 mt |
302.9 mt |
515.5 mt |
Economic and Social Impacts
This action is not expected to have
any economic effects, because it is the status quo and no changes in the fishery
are expected.
Conclusion
NOAA Fisheries is implementing this
action to maintain the status quo due to the low level of U.S. participation in
this fishery.
Not Selected at this Time:
Establish a Quota with In-Season Monitoring for North Atlantic Albacore
Under this alternative, NOAA Fisheries
would implement the one-time quota of 607 mt ww through regulations that provide
for real-time monitoring of the North Atlantic albacore fishery and provide for
the fisheries to be closed in the event that the quota was reached.
Ecological Impacts
Since 1997, U.S. landings of North
Atlantic albacore have been less than 607 mt on average (see Table 6.1). While
the commercial landings are fairly consistent from year to year, the level of
recreational landings is more variable. Albacore is usually encountered incidentally
in the U.S. longline and rod and reel fisheries; it is not often the primary target
species. This alternative would not be expected to impact other fish species,
marine mammals, sea turtles, or seabirds.
Economic and Social Impacts
This alternative would involve significant
administrative burden, since this fishery has never been managed based on a quota
in the past. Implementing this one-year quota through new regulations and in-season
monitoring would be an expensive endeavor for the agency. Given the relatively
minor level of U.S. landings and the administrative burden that would be involved
in managing the fishery on a real-time basis, this alternative is not selected
at this time.
Conclusion
This alternative is not selected because
the low level of U.S. participation does not warrant establishing a monitoring
and reporting management system at this time.
6.6 Alternatives for South Atlantic Albacore Catch Limits
Final Action: No Action/Status
Quo
This action maintains the status quo.
There is not currently a quota for U.S. fishermen landing South Atlantic albacore
because our participation in the fishery is minimal. If landings were to increase,
there is no mechanism to limit landings during the fishing year.
Ecological Impacts
No environmental impacts are expected
from maintaining the South Atlantic albacore fishery at the status quo level,
given the minimal level of U.S. involvement in this fishery. After the 2000 stock
assessment, the SCRS concluded that the recent level of South Atlantic albacore
landings can probably be maintained into the near future without causing a substantial
decline in spawning stock biomass. The management recommendation adopted by ICCAT
in November 2000 established a TAC of 29,200 mt, which is considered replacement
yield for the fishery. Furthermore, the recommendation specifies that parties
not fishing actively for South Atlantic albacore (i.e., having caught on average
less than 100 mt ww (75 mt dw) per year during the years 1992-96) be subject to
an annual catch limit of 100 mt ww (75 mt dw). This provision applies to the United
States, based on U.S. catch history. However, since less than 2 mt of South Atlantic
albacore were landed by U.S. vessels during 1999, and it is unlikely that U.S.
landings will exceed 100 mt ww in the near future, NOAA Fisheries is not implementing
a quota of 100 mt ww (75 mt dw) at this time. This action is not expected to impact
other fish species, marine mammals, sea turtles, or seabirds.
Economic and Social Impacts
Given the minimal participation by
U.S. fishermen in this fishery, this action, maintaining the status quo, is not
expected to have any economic or social impacts.
Conclusion
NOAA Fisheries is implementing this
alternative to maintain the status quo due to the low level of U.S. participation
in this fishery and the fact that U.S. landings are unlikely to exceed 100 mt
ww.
Not Selected at this Time:
Establish a Quota with In-Season Monitoring for South Atlantic Albacore
Under this alternative, NOAA Fisheries
would amend the regulations to establish a 100 mt ww (75 mt dw) landings quota
for South Atlantic albacore.
Ecological Impacts
Based on the low level of effort targeting
South Atlantic albacore, this alternative would not be expected to impact the
target species, other fish species, marine mammals, sea turtles, or seabirds.
Economic and Social Impacts
Establishing a quota with in-season
monitoring for South Atlantic albacore would not be expected to provide any economic
benefits or costs. Given the minimal level of U.S. involvement in this fishery
(less than 2 mt landed in 1999), this alternative would not be expected to have
any negative economic impacts on the fishery. However, selecting this alternative
would increase the administrative burden to NOAA Fisheries.
Conclusion
The alternative is not selected because
it is unnecessary given the recent level of South Atlantic albacore landings in
the U.S. fishery.
6.7 Alternatives for Restricting and Monitoring Trade of Atlantic Bigeye Tuna
Final Action: Implement Trade
Restrictions
Consistent with a 2000 ICCAT recommendation,
this alternative bans the imports of bigeye tuna from the following countries:
Belize, Cambodia, Equatorial Guinea, Honduras, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines.
Ecological Impacts
Implementing trade restrictions on
Atlantic bigeye tuna will likely benefit the stock as it will discourage IUU fishing
and aid SCRS in evaluating management measures in light of the need for rebuilding
this stock. This action could also have positive impacts on other HMS and protected
species if it reduces the level of IUU fishing. Longline vessels frequently catch
other species: sea turtles, seabirds, marine mammals, billfish, bluefin tuna,
and sharks. Large-scale illegal fishing is likely to have a negative impact on
many species; this impact, however, is not quantifiable at this time. ICCAT has
received correspondence from St. Vincent indicating a willingness to get involved
in ICCAT and comply with ICCAT measures, which would have a positive impact on
target and non-target species.
Economic and Social Impacts
There are not likely to be any economic
impacts on U.S. fishermen or importers due to the implementation of this action.
No bigeye tuna are currently being imported into the United States from the identified
countries so no direct impacts from the trade restrictions are anticipated.
Conclusion
In 2000, ICCAT recommended that an
import prohibition against Honduras be established, effective January 1, 2002,
unless ICCAT decides at its 2001 meeting that this measure would be unnecessary
based on documentary evidence. ICCAT did not come to consensus regarding not implementing
the import prohibition against Honduras in 2001. Accordingly, this action implements
the import prohibition of Atlantic bigeye tuna from Honduras.
This measure also implements regulations including a rebuttable presumption that
any imported bigeye tuna was harvested by a vessel of the exporting nation. In
this instance, the exporter, if exporting bigeye tuna from a country listed above,
would need to prove to U.S. Customs that the fish was harvested by a vessel flying
the flag of another nation.
Not Selected at this Time:
Implement a Certificate of Eligibility to Monitor Bigeye Tuna Trade Restrictions
This alternative would require all
bigeye tuna imports to be accompanied by a Certificate of Eligibility (COE) that
indicates the flag of harvesting vessel, ocean of origin, and certification that
the fish was not caught by a vessel included in the trade restrictions above.
Ecological Impacts
Without specific monitoring of trade
by the United States (flag of harvesting vessel and ocean of origin data), it
would be difficult for ICCAT to undertake a comprehensive analysis of the bigeye
tuna consumed. In 2001, ICCAT recommended the formation of a bigeye tuna statistical
document program. Currently, NOAA Fisheries is working to establish a bigeye tuna
trade monitoring program consistent with ICCAT recommendations regarding statistical
documentation schemes. The program will be implemented by NOAA Fisheries in a
future rulemaking. This alternative would not be expected to impact other fish
species, marine mammals, sea turtles, or seabirds.
Economic and Social Impacts
Importers would be responsible for
mailing these COE forms to NOAA Fisheries on a bi-weekly basis. Data would be
cross-checked with Customs data that NOAA Fisheries currently receives on a monthly
basis. Shipments of Atlantic bigeye tuna from these countries would not be approved
for entry by U.S. Customs. These impacts would not be expected to have significant
economic or social impacts on U.S. importers because no Atlantic bigeye are currently
imported into the United States from these countries.
Conclusion
This alternative is not selected because
NOAA Fisheries is working on a more comprehensive monitoring scheme, consistent
with the 2001 ICCAT recommendation. Until that scheme becomes effective, NOAA
Fisheries intends to monitor trade of bigeye tuna through a rebuttable presumption
that any bigeye that enters this country is assumed to be harvested by the exporting
country, unless proven otherwise. NOAA Fisheries will use data submitted on a
monthly basis by the U.S. Customs Service to check the origins of imports of bigeye
tuna.
Not Selected at this Time:
No Action
This alternative would not implement
trade restrictions on the imports of Atlantic bigeye tuna and would not implement
measures recommended by ICCAT in 2000.
Ecological Impacts
Not implementing such trade restrictions
would likely have negative impacts on Atlantic bigeye tuna because large-scale
tuna fishing could continue to occur unregulated and without reporting their catch.
It is necessary to control these IUU vessels in order to support rebuilding of
this overfished stock. Taking no action could allow for more illegal fishing which
could increase bycatch of non-target species such as marine mammals, sea turtles,
and seabirds.
Economic and Social Impacts
If the United States does not implement
trade restrictions, there could be an economic impact on U.S. fishermen in the
long term if bigeye tuna continue to be overfished. Stock size could reach dangerously
low levels which may cause ICCAT to recommend restrictive measures with potentially
negative impacts on U.S. fishermen.
Conclusion
It would not be possible for the United
States to comply with the ICCAT recommendation under this alternative. The United
States does not currently collect information to indicate the flag of the harvesting
vessel for imported bigeye tuna. Further, the United States would not be able
to prohibit imports of bigeye tuna under this alternative.
6.8 Other Amendments to Existing Regulations
NOAA Fisheries inadvertently applied
an incorrect date to the dead discard allowance for 2002. The fishing year starts
June 1, 2002. The regulations incorrectly state that the North Atlantic swordfish
dead discard allowance of 160 mt ww should apply to the fishing year beginning
May 1, 2001. Correcting the date to apply the swordfish dead discard allowance
to June 1, 2002, clarifies and reflects the intent of the relevant ICCAT recommendation.
This change would not have an economic impact since it neither changes the fishing
year nor the intent of the dead discard allowance that ICCAT recommended.
NOAA Fisheries published a final rule
in December 12, 2000 (65 FR 77527), to implement trade restrictions for Atlantic
swordfish that were recommended by ICCAT in 1999. NOAA Fisheries inadvertently
omitted the word "Atlantic" in the regulatory text which results in an interpretation
of the regulations that is inconsistent with both the preamble to the final rule
and the ICCAT recommendation. ICCAT intended that imports of only Atlantic swordfish
(not Pacific or Indian) should be prohibited from Belize and Honduras. The correction
lessens the impact on affected importers since it reduces the scope of the restrictions
to include only Atlantic swordfish, instead of applying to swordfish
from all ocean areas.
In addition, NOAA Fisheries inadvertently
omitted a prohibition on swordfish imports. Prohibitions are a portion of Federal
regulations that succinctly summarize the regulations and are utilized often by
enforcement personnel. Including a prohibition does not change the nature of the
regulatory requirements but adds support to prosecution of cases related to such
regulatory measures. Therefore, this amendment would not have any economic impact
on small entities.
6.9 Cumulative Impacts
The HMS FMP (NMFS, 1999) adopted final
actions to establish the foundation for developing ten-year rebuilding programs
for North Atlantic swordfish and bigeye tune. It concluded that the cumulative
long-term impact of these and other management measures would be to establish
sustainable fisheries for Atlantic tunas, swordfish, and sharks. As discussed
in Section 1 of the EA, ICCAT has adopted recommendations to establish a ten-year
rebuilding program for bigeye tuna. NOAA Fisheries currently is exploring options
for implementing the statistical document program.
In addition, in July 2002, NOAA Fisheries
published a final rule to implement the June 14, 2001, BiOp to address the need
to reduce sea turtle bycatch and bycatch mortality in HMS fisheries. Some measures
in the final rule are expected to have positive impacts on sea turtle populations.
Other measures, such as the closure of the northeast distant statistical reporting
area, are expected to have long-term, negative, social and economic impacts.
Taking the above into consideration,
the final actions in this EA are not expected to have any significant, adverse,
cumulative impacts on the human environment. Creating a reserve quota category,
reinstating prohibitions on possession of fish in violation of international recommendations
and regulations, clarifying authorized fishing areas, and implementing trade restrictions,
all of which are consistent with ICCAT recommendations, will have positive, cumulative
impacts on the environment with minimal to no adverse economic and social impacts.
Maintaining status quo catch limits for South Atlantic swordfish and South and
North Atlantic albacore are expected to have no adverse ecological, economic,
and social impacts, and consequently, no adverse, cumulative impacts.
7.0 REGULATORY IMPACT REVIEW AND ECONOMIC ANALYSES
An RIR provides analyses of the expected
economic benefits and costs of each alternative to the nation and to the fishery
as a whole. This section assesses the impacts of the alternatives presented in
this document. Certain elements required in an RIR are also required as part of
an environmental assessment. Thus, this section should only be considered a portion
of the RIR. The rest of the RIR can be found in other sections of this document.
Section 1.0 of this document describes the need for action and the objectives
of the regulations. The alternatives considered are described in section 6.0.
Based on the information described
below, NOAA Fisheries certified under RFA that the regulations described in this
document will not have a significant impact to a substantial number of small entities.
Accordingly, NOAA Fisheries did not complete an Initial or Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis. No comments were received during the public comment period on the proposed
rule and the draft Environmental Assessment and Regulatory Impact Review that
would alter the basis of the RFA certification.
7.1 Evaluation of Economic Impacts
North Atlantic Swordfish Quota
Reserve
This section primarily addresses the
economic impacts of establishing a reserve quota category for North Atlantic Swordfish.
The costs/benefits of the other alternatives cannot be easily quantified although
they are discussed qualitatively in Table 7.1. This analysis concentrates on the
commercial fishery because at this time the recreational fishery does not contribute
significantly to total swordfish landings (the recreational sector landed 15.6
mt ww of swordfish in 2000 compared with the 2,978.1 mt ww landed by the commercial
sector). NOAA Fisheries has been working on a strategy to enhance the monitoring
of recreational handgear-caught swordfish. A proposed rule was published (December
26, 2001; 66 FR 66386) that includes the mandatory reporting of recreationally-landed
swordfish via a toll-free call-in system. The final rule is expected to publish
in the near future to promulgate these measures.
The commercial fishery is composed
of fishermen who hold a swordfish directed, incidental, or handgear permit and
the related industries including processors, bait houses, and equipment suppliers,
all of which NOAA Fisheries considers to be small entities. In October 2001, there
were approximately 208 fishermen with a directed swordfish limited access permit,
112 fishermen with an incidental swordfish limited access permit, and 100 fishermen
with a handgear limited access permit for swordfish. As the commercial handgear
fishery (troll, handline, and harpoon) only landed 9.5 mt ww of swordfish in 2000,
NOAA Fisheries feels that they will not be effected by the reserve quota category
formation. Because the pelagic longline fishery contributes most of the effort
and catches most of the swordfish quota, the analyses in this section focus on
that fishery.
Table 7.1 The number of vessels that reported fishing with pelagic
longline gear in the pelagic logbook. Source: Cramer, 2001.
Year |
Number of active vessels |
Year |
Number of active vessels |
1990 |
416 |
1996 |
367 |
1991 |
333 |
1997 |
350 |
1992 |
337 |
1998 |
286 |
1993 |
434 |
1999 |
224 |
1994 |
501 |
2000 |
199 |
1995 |
489 |
- |
- |
The number of active pelagic longline
vessels has been decreasing since 1994, as shown in Table 7.1 which lists
the number of active vessels from 1990 to 2000. The gross revenues of pelagic
longline vessels vary greatly depending on the location and species targeted.
Using the weight of fish landed per trip as reported in 2000 weigh-out slips
and the average 2000 ex-vessel price for the fleet (Table 7.2), NOAA Fisheries
calculated the average gross revenues per trip and per vessel for pelagic
longline vessels. This information indicates that overall, the average pelagic
longline vessel has annual gross revenues of $168,114 (range of less than
$1,000 to almost $800,000) and that combined the 171 vessels reporting HMS
landings in both the pelagic logbook and the weigh-out slips in 2000 had total
annual gross revenues of almost $29 million. Most of these gross revenues
were derived from swordfish and yellowfin tuna landings (Table 7.3).
Table 7.2 Average ex-vessel prices per lb dw for Atlantic
HMS in 2000. Source: Dealer weigh-out slips from the Southeast Fisheries
Science Center and Northeast Fisheries Science Center, and bluefin tuna dealer
reports from the Northeast Regional Office.
Species |
Average ex-vessel price all regions |
Bigeye tuna |
$3.18 |
| Bluefin tuna |
$9.66 |
| Yellowfin tuna |
$2.46 |
| Other tunas |
$0.75 |
| Swordfish |
$3.51 |
Table 7.3 The species composition of landings in the
pelagic longline fleet in 2000. Source: Logbook and weigh-out data
maintained by the Southeast Fisheries Science Center.
Species |
% by number |
% by weight |
% by revenues |
| Swordfish |
37.34 |
43.71 |
51.93 |
| Yellowfin tuna |
42.68 |
41.21 |
34.31 |
| Bigeye tuna |
7.32 |
7.43 |
8.00 |
| Bluefin tuna |
0.14 |
0.95 |
3.09 |
| Other tunas |
5.69 |
2.35 |
0.60 |
| Pelagic sharks |
1.82 |
2.13 |
1.16 |
| Large coastal sharks |
5.00 |
2.22 |
0.91 |
The final action promulgated by NOAA
Fisheries establishes a reserve quota category that will be initially filled
with 400 mt ww (300.8 mt dw) of swordfish quota that is available due to underharvests
in the pelagic longline fishery in recent years. On September 5, 2001, NOAA
Fisheries published a Federal Register notice (66 FR 46401) that transferred
unused quota from the 1999 to the 2001 fishing year (249 mt dw to the 2001 directed
fishery quota and 300.8 mt dw to the 2001 incidental catch quota). NOAA Fisheries
is analyzing the data from the 2000 and 2001 fishing years to determine how
much quota remains from the underharvests in those years. Based on the amounts
of the recent quota underages, the impacts of recent management actions, and
the level of effort in the fishery, NOAA Fisheries feels that it is unlikely
that the pelagic longline fleet would catch the existing quota amount (including
quota roll-overs).
The average ex-vessel swordfish price
reported in 2000 on dealer weighout slips was $3.51 per pound dw (NMFS, 2002a).
Therefore, the 400 mt ww (300.8 mt dw) of quota to be transferred to Japan would
be worth approximately $2.33 million if it was caught in the U.S. fishery. Depending
on the fishing year and on ex-vessel prices, it could be worth more or less in
the future. It should be stressed that quota is not worth anything to fishermen
until the swordfish are landed and sold. As previously mentioned, it is unlikely
given the current level of effort that the amount to be transferred to Japan will
be caught now or in the near future. Thus, the current economic impact of establishing
a reserve quota category is negligible. In the future, by using quota to influence
other countries (as in the case of Japan) to support conservation efforts, U.S.
fishermen could effect a large long-term economic gain, albeit one that is unquantifiable.
In theory, fishermen may see increased landings revenues in the future if the
North Atlantic swordfish stock continues to rebuild.
South Atlantic Swordfish, North
Atlantic Albacore, and South Atlantic Albacore Quota
NOAA Fisheries is maintaining the quota
levels for these fisheries at the status quo level. In the case of South Atlantic
swordfish, the quota of 384 mt ww (289 mt dw) has not been harvested in recent
years. Thus, there will be no economic impacts from maintaining the quota at its
current level. Regarding North and South Atlantic albacore, NOAA Fisheries is
taking no action. Currently, there are no quota levels in effect for these fisheries
due to its small size in relation to international landings. The U.S. landings
of North Atlantic albacore have averaged 515.5 mt ww from 1997 to 2000. ICCAT
recommends that nations not fishing actively for South Atlantic albacore limit
their annual catch to 100 mt ww (75 mt dw). As the U.S. landed less than 2 mt
in 1999, NOAA Fisheries does not expect there to be any economic impact from maintaining
the 100 mt ww recommended by ICCAT.
Clarifying Authorized Fishing Areas,
Reinstating Previous Regulations, and Implementing Trade Restrictions
NOAA Fisheries does not expect these
measures to have significant impacts. Clarifying authorized fishing areas and
reinstating previous regulations serve to adjust fishing prohibitions. These will
not impact those vessels fishing legally and it will allow NOAA Fisheries to better
enforce current regulations. Banning the imports of bigeye tuna from selected
countries will likely not have economic impacts as the U.S. does not currently
import that species from the identified countries.
7.2 Regulatory Impact Review
7.2.1 Description of the management
objectives
Please see section 1 for a description
of the objectives of this rulemaking.
7.2.2 Description of the fishery
Please see section 5 for a description
of the fisheries that could be affected by this rulemaking.
7.2.3 Statement of the problem
Please see section 1 for a description
of the problem and need for this rulemaking.
7.2.4 Description of each alternative
Please see section
2 for a summary of each alternative and section 6 for a complete description of
each alternative and its expected ecological, social, and economic impacts.
7.2.5 Economic analysis of
expected effects of each alternative relative to the baseline
NOAA Fisheries does not believe that
the national net benefits and costs would change significantly in the long run
as a result of implementation of the preferred alternatives. For the 2002 fishing
year, the present value of gross and net revenues for the swordfish fishery at
the ex-vessel level could be reduced, depending on the extent to which fishermen
can catch the quota. In the long-term, the final actions should help rebuild the
overfished stocks of swordfish by reducing dead discards of Japanese-caught swordfish
and increase the benefit the nation receives from harvesting this species. Table
7.4 indicates possible changes as a result of each alternative.
Table 7.4 Summary of benefits and costs for each alternative.
Management Measure |
Net Economic Benefits |
Net Economic Costs |
North Atlantic Swordfish Management |
Establish a Conservation Reserve Quota for North
Atlantic Swordfish
FINAL ACTION |
Long-term: If reserve quota transfer encourages
Japanese fleet to conserve swordfish, it would increase stock size and
increase revenues to U.S. fishermen and related businesses in the long-term.
Short-term: Reserve category could ensure that U.S. fishermen
do not exceed quota level or dead discard allowance. |
Potential decrease in revenues to U.S. fishermen and related
businesses if season closes prematurely due to quota transfer. This is
unlikely due to the current level of underharvests in the fishery. |
No Action |
None. |
Minimal. |
South Atlantic Swordfish Catch Limits |
No Action
FINAL ACTION |
None, current level of landings by U.S. vessels is well
below the allowable level. |
None. |
Apply Unused South Atlantic Swordfish Quota from
2000 to the 2001 Fishing Year |
Would increase the quota available to U.S. vessels for
one year. If effort increased, could result in increased revenue. |
Could encourage overfishing, by allowing carryover for
parties that have not been allocated a specific quota share. Fish stocks
might decrease over time causing reduction in revenue to entire industry
and fishing communities. |
Reinstating Prohibition Regarding
Possession of Fish in Violation of International Regulations/Recommendations |
Reinstating Previously Published Regulations
FINAL ACTION |
Long-term benefits to all ICCAT species protected by ICCAT
recommendations. |
No change. |
No Action |
None. |
Could encourage overfishing on ICCAT managed species which
could decrease long-term revenues. |
Authorized Fishing Areas |
Clarify Authorized Fishing Areas
FINAL ACTION |
Prevents illegal fishing which could jeopardize the recovery
of bluefin tuna. |
None. |
| No Action |
None. |
None. |
North Atlantic Albacore Catch Limits |
No Action
FINAL ACTION |
None, current level of landings by U.S. vessels is below
the allowable level. |
None. |
Establish a Quota with In-Season Monitoring for
North Atlantic albacore |
Would ensure that the United States does not exceed its
North Atlantic albacore quota. |
None. |
South Atlantic Albacore Catch Limits |
No Action
FINAL ACTION |
None, current level of landings by U.S. vessels is well
below the allowable level. |
None. |
Establish a Quota with In-Season Monitoring for
South Atlantic albacore |
None, current level of landings by U.S. vessels is well
below the allowable level. |
None. |
Restricting and Monitoring Trade
of Atlantic Bigeye Tuna |
Implement Trade Restrictions
FINAL ACTION |
Reduces potential for IUU fishing and supports conservation
of overfished Atlantic bigeye tuna stock. |
Minimal, potential future costs to importers who would
like to develop trade relations with importers from prohibited countries. |
Implement a Certificate of Eligibility to Monitor
Trade Restrictions |
Increases enforcement of trade restrictions; allows U.S.
to contribute to international database on bigeye tuna trade which may
increase conservation. |
Potential costs if shipments are held back waiting for
documentation. |
No Action |
Less burden on importers/exporters of bigeye tuna. |
Continued IUU fishing on bigeye tuna with long-term conservation
costs. |
Under E.O. 12866 an action is considered
significant if the regulations result in a rule that may:
1. Have an annual effect on the economy
of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector
of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health
or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;
2. Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or
planned by another agency;
3. Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
4. Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's
priorities, or the principles set forth in E.O. 12866.
The final actions described in this
document and in the final rule do not meet the above criteria. Therefore, under
E.O. 12866, the final rule is not a significant regulatory action.
8.0 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
NOAA Fisheries published a proposed
rule (66 FR 57409) on November 15, 2001, under the authority of the HMS FMP. NOAA
Fisheries solicited comments on the subject issues and has considered those comments.
No comments were submitted to NOAA Fisheries regarding the draft Environmental
Assessment, Regulatory Impact Review, or the determination that an Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis was not needed. Copies of the final rule are available from
NOAA Fisheries at the following address:
Tyson Kade
National Marine Fisheries Service,
F/SF1
1315 East-West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910
The final rule establishes the following
actions:
- •Establishes North Atlantic swordfish
quota reserve,
- •Maintains status quo South Atlantic
swordfish quota,
- •Reinstates previous regulations
concerning the possession of fish in violation of international regulations
or recommendations,
- •Clarifies authorized fishing
areas,
- •Maintains status quo North Atlantic
albacore quota,
- •Maintains status quo South Atlantic
albacore quota, and
- •Establishes trade restrictions.
The EA considers information contained
in the 2002 SAFE Report, the 2002 FSEIS, and in ICCAT recommendations. Based
on the following summary of effects, I have determined that implementation of
the approved final regulatory measures will not have significant effect on the
human environment.
Summary of Effects - Rationale
- •Establishes North Atlantic swordfish
quota reserve
This final action establishes a
reserve quota for immediate use to transfer 400 mt ww (300.8 mt dw) of unused
U.S. catch quota to the Japanese, consistent with a 2000 ICCAT recommendation.
Taking no action would have resulted in Japanese swordfish mortality exceeding
those levels recommended in the international swordfish rebuilding plan.
There are no expected negative impacts
to the biological or physical environment from the final action. Benefits will
be derived from negotiating with the Japanese to allow for their catch under U.S.
unused quota. This also allows the United States to retain control over unused
quota. This measure does not have any economic impact on U.S. fishermen because
they would not likely catch this quota if it was allocated to the directed fishery,
rather than to the reserve category.
- •Maintains status quo South Atlantic
swordfish quota
This action is consistent with a
2000 ICCAT recommendation. Increasing the quota could have negative impacts
on the sustainable management of the stock. There are no expected negative impacts
to the biological or physical environment from the final action. Benefits will
be derived from continued involvement in the fishery and the continued ability
to negotiate measures at ICCAT that would protect the stock. There are no expected
negative economic and social impacts because there is no change to the current
fishing practices.
- •Reinstates previous regulations
concerning the possession of fish in violation of international regulations
or recommendations,
This action will prevent the possession
of fish taken in violation of an ICCAT recommendation or an international regulation.
If illegal fishing is reduced, the measure will have ecological benefits, and
NOAA Fisheries expects the economic and social costs to be minimal.
- •Clarifies authorized fishing
areas
At the 2000 ICCAT meeting, the U.S.
received notice from the European Community that a U.S. vessel had landed bluefin
tuna caught in the Mediterranean Sea. As this fishing activity is not consistent
with the terms of the rebuilding program for west Atlantic bluefin tuna, NOAA
Fisheries is acting to prohibit it in the future. There are no expected negative
impacts to the biological or physical environment and no negative economic and
social impacts from this final action. Benefits will be derived from compliance
with ICCAT recommendations.
- •Maintains status quo North Atlantic
albacore quota
While the U.S. does not currently
have a North Atlantic albacore quota, ICCAT recommends that the U.S. adhere
to a 607 mt ww catch limit. From 1997 to 2000, the average U.S. catch was 515.5
mt ww. As NOAA Fisheries considers it unlikely that the U.S. catch will exceed
the ICCAT catch limit, there is no need to establish a quota monitoring system.
This measure is not expected to have economic costs or benefits.
- •Maintains status quo South Atlantic
albacore quota
Currently, there is no U.S. quota
for South Atlantic albacore. ICCAT recommends that nations not actively fishing
for South Atlantic albacore (including the U.S.) be limited to catch limits
of 100 mt ww. In 1999, U.S. fishermen landed 2 mt ww of South Atlantic albacore.
Based on U.S. catch history, NOAA Fisheries does not expect to exceed the 100
mt limit required by ICCAT and is not acting to implement a catch limit and
quota monitoring system at this time. This measure is not expected to have economic
costs or benefits.
- •Establishes trade restrictions
This action is consistent with a
2000 ICCAT recommendation. By prohibiting the import of bigeye tuna from those
countries, ICCAT hopes to reduce instances of IUU fishing. If this measure is
successful, it will improve the conservation of bigeye tuna in the Atlantic
Ocean. NOAA Fisheries does not expect this measure to have significant economic
costs or benefits.
Conclusion
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Order 216-6 (revised May 20, 1999) provides nine criteria for determining significance
of the impacts of an action. These criteria, including considerations under 40
CFR § 1508.27, are discussed below:
(1) Can the action be reasonably
expected to jeopardize the sustainability of any target species that may be affected
by the action:
Implementation of the final rule will
not jeopardize the sustainability of any target species. Developing a reserve
quota category for North Atlantic swordfish to transfer 400 mt ww (300.8 mt dw)
to Japan and potentially guard against overharvests or an excess of dead discards
will assist the efforts to manage the species. Likewise, the other alternatives
are not expected to adversely impact sustainability. In most cases, they maintain
the status quo or clarify international and domestic requirements.
(2) Can the action be reasonably
expected to allow substantial damage to the ocean and coastal habitats and/or
EFH as defined under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and identified in FMPs?
Pelagic longline fishing occurs offshore
in areas of open ocean where there is no danger of damaging ocean and coastal
habitats or EFH. The fishery targets swordfish and tuna and primarily catches
blue sharks as bycatch. This regulatory action will not result in an increase
in interactions with target and non-target species.
(3) Can the action be reasonably
expected to have a substantial adverse impact on public health or safety?
Like all offshore fisheries, pelagic
longlining can be dangerous. Fishermen have pointed out that due to decreasing
profit margins, they may have to fish with less crew or less experienced crew
or may not have the time or money to complete necessary maintenance tasks. NOAA
Fisheries cannot influence the market to improve profits to fishermen, but rather
encourages fishermen to be responsible in fishing and maintenance activities.
Safety factors were considered in selecting the final actions, and NOAA Fisheries
has concluded that they are not likely to affect safety at sea.
(4) Can the action be reasonably
expected to have an adverse impact on endangered or threatened species, marine
mammals, or critical habitat of these species?
No irreversible or irretrievable commitments
of resources are expected from this final action as the measures implemented by
this final rule are not expected to harm or increase fishery interactions with
endangered species or their habitat.
(5) Can the action be reasonably
expected to result in cumulative adverse effects that could have a substantial
effect on the target species or non-target species?
The final rule is not expected to result
in cumulative adverse effects that could have a substantial effect on target or
non-target species. As stated in Section 6.0, the catch level of target and non-target
species will not be significantly impacted by this action.
(6) Can the action be reasonably
expected to jeopardize the sustainability of any non-target species?
The action is not expected to jeopardize
the sustainability of any non-target species. The impacts on protected and non-target
species are discussed in Section 6.0. NOAA Fisheries currently monitors the fisheries
related impacts on protected and non-target species and can adjust the management
of the fishery to maintain the sustainability of non-target species.
(7) Can the action be expected
to have a substantial impact on biodiversity and ecosystem function within the
affected area (e.g., benthic productivity, predatory-prey relationships, etc.)?
The action is not expected to have
a substantial impact on biodiversity and ecosystem function within the affected
area due to the scope of the measures and the degree of oversight in the action
area. In many cases, the rule maintains the status quo management measures which
have been decided by ICCAT. Section 6.0 discusses the impacts of all the measures
and examines their expected impacts.
(8) Are significant social or economical
impacts interrelated with significant natural or physical environmental effects?
NOAA Fisheries has conducted a Regulatory
Impact Review and determined that the economic impacts of these actions would
be minimal. While the value of the swordfish quota to be transferred to Japan
could be as high as $2.3 million, it is unlikely that the U.S. pelagic longline
fishery would be able to harvest all the currently available quota. As this would
have to happen to make the Japanese transfer that valuable, the real economic
impact of the quota transfer is very minor. From an environmental perspective,
NOAA Fisheries expects that there would be a positive, cumulative impact in the
long-term from the establishment of the reserve quota category. As the impacts
from the other final actions (establishing a reserve quota category; maintaining
the status quo South Atlantic swordfish, North Atlantic albacore, and South Atlantic
albacore quotas; clarifying fishing areas and regulations; and implementing trade
restrictions) are expected to be minor or none at all, the overall cumulative
effects of this final rule are not significant.
(9) To what degree are the effects
on the quality of the human environment expected to be highly controversial?
NOAA Fisheries does not believe that
the final rule will have controversial effects on the human environment. When
these alternatives were published as a proposed rule, public comments were solicited.
Based on the answers received, there were no strong objections to these measures.
The action with the greatest potential impact, establishing a reserve quota category,
was supported by the longline industry as beneficial for swordfish conservation.
The rest of the actions involve maintaining the status quo or clarifying existing
regulations, so no controversial effects are expected.
For the reasons stated above, implementation
of these final regulations will not significantly affect the quality of the human
environment, with specific reference to the criteria contained in Section 6.02
of NOAA Administrative Order 216-6, Environmental Review Procedures for Implementing
the National Environmental Policy Act. Accordingly, the preparation of an Environmental
Impact Statement on the final action is not necessary.
Approved: Rebecca Lent October 22,
2002
Assistant Administrator
for Fisheries Date
9.0 LIST OF AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED IN FORMULATING THE
FINAL RULE
Discussions pertinent to formulation
of the final action involved input from a variety of scientific and constituent
interest groups including the U.S. delegation to ICCAT (including commercial and
recreational fishermen, and environmental advocates), ICCAT's SCRS, ICCAT (27
member states), and staff from the International Fisheries Division of NOAA Fisheries
and the NOAA's General Counsel for Fisheries.
10.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
This document was prepared
by a team of individuals previously and currently employed by the Office of
Sustainable Fisheries of the National Marine Fisheries Service including Karyl
Brewster-Geisz, Rachel Husted, Tyson Kade, Christopher Rogers, Margo Schulze-Haugen,
and Jill Stevenson.
11.0 REFERENCES
Cramer, J. 2001. Large Pelagic Logbook
Newsletter-2000. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-471. 26 pp.
NMFS. 1999. Fishery Management Plan
for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks. April 1999. 3 Volumes.
NMFS. 2002a. Final Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement for the Final Rule to Reduce Sea Turtle Bycatch and Bycatch Mortality
in Highly Migratory Species Fisheries. July 2, 2002.
NMFS. 2002b. Stock Assessment and Fishery
Evaluation for Atlantic Highly Migratory Species. March 2002.
SCRS. 1999. Detailed Report for the
Swordfish Stock Assessment Session of the Standing Committee on Research and Statistics,
October 9, 1999.
SCRS. 2000. Report of the Standing
Committee on Research and Statistics, 12th Special Meeting of the Commission,
October 16-20, 1999.
APPENDIX A COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
NOAA Fisheries held three public hearings
in November and December 2001 in Fort Lauderdale, FL; Fairhaven, MA; and Barnegat
Light, NJ. Comments were received from fishery participants and other members
of the public regarding the proposed regulations. In addition, two written comments
were submitted to NOAA Fisheries during the 45-day comment period. The comments
are summarized here together with responses.
Reserve Quota
Comment
1: One commenter supports the 400 mt quota transfer as a one-time transfer
from the Incidental category to a reserve quota as a short-term solution for the
United States to retain its unharvested quota under U.S. authority. Several commenters
opposed the establishment of a reserve for under-harvested quota. One commenter
was disappointed that the quota to fill the new reserve would be unused directed
fishery quota instead of incidental quota which was agreed to by industry at the
2000 ICCAT meeting.
Response:
NOAA Fisheries will carry over unused directed and incidental quota as is currently
authorized in the regulations, except if a reserve quota is needed for a specific
reason. Recently, NOAA Fisheries carried over unused 1999 directed and incidental
quota and allocated it to the incidental quota for the 2001 fishing year. Because
the directed fishery is not harvesting its allocated quota, it will not affect
fishery participants to fill the reserve quota with unused directed quota from
the past.
Comment 2: We should not transfer quota free of charge for use by other ICCAT
countries. We should sell them quota, as is currently being done elsewhere.
Response:
As part of its allocation criteria, ICCAT prohibits participating countries from
trading or selling their quota allocation. Goodwill transfers such as this one
may result in increased research and cooperation with respect to all ICCAT-managed
species. Further, the environmental benefits are substantial because they facilitate
maintaining compliance with the ICCAT rebuilding plan.
Comment 3: The regulations need to clarify if establishing a reserve quota category is
intended to represent a one-time quota transfer or if the reserve category would be replenished in
the future by unused quota from other categories (e.g, unused incidental quota).
Response:
The reserve category is established permanently and could, but not necessarily,
be replenished in the future. This rule does not place a standard amount of quota
into that category annually.
Comment 4: Underharvests in the incidental catch quota category should be transferred to
the directed fishery quota.
Response:
NOAA Fisheries will consider the need for underharvests of the incidental catch
quota to be allocated to the directed fishery following each fishing year. Because
the directed fishery is currently not catching its quota allocation, transferring
unused quota to that category may only serve to increase the amount of quota left
unharvested. By transferring unharvested quota to the reserve quota category,
NOAA Fisheries could apply the unused quota to the incidental catch or directed
catch categories as necessary or for other purposes consistent with ICCAT recommendations
and objectives of the HMS FMP.
South Atlantic Swordfish
Comment
5: NOAA Fisheries should interpret ICCAT's recommendations in a manner
similar to the way other countries implement those recommendations. If underharvests
are being carried over by other countries, NOAA Fisheries should also utilize
such a process to benefit U.S. fishermen.
Response:
ICCAT authorizes quota to be carried over for North Atlantic swordfish, but fails
to mention any authorization with respect to carryover of South Atlantic swordfish.
NOAA Fisheries does not believe this to be an oversight and therefore interprets
the recommendation as stated: no carry over of unused South Atlantic swordfish
quota
Comment 6: NOAA Fisheries should clarify that U.S. fishermen may land their catch in
foreign ports and that these landings will be counted against the U.S. quota.
Response:
As required by ATCA, U.S. fishermen on U.S. vessels that offload in foreign ports
will have their landings count against the U.S. quota. NMFS adds that fishermen,
regardless of port of offloading must complete all logbooks within 48 hours of
completing that day's activities and, for a 1-day trip, before offloading. The
owner or operator of the vessel must submit the logbooks to NMFS within 7 days
of offloading, 50 CFR § 635.5(a)(1). Further, NMFS reminds fishermen that all
swordfish, sharks, and tunas must be sold to a U.S.-permitted dealer, 50 CFR §
635.31(d)(1), who is also required to report purchases from U.S. vessels on a
regular basis, 50 CFR § 635.5(b)(1).
Authorized Fishing Areas
Comment
7: NOAA Fisheries should clarify that vessels fishing under charter/contract
for another nation's quota must adhere to the contract nation's regulations.
Response:
U.S.-flagged vessels must comply with all U.S. regulations wherever they fish.
Vessels under contract may apply for an exempted fishing permit if they provide
NOAA Fisheries with information regarding specific regulations from which they
would like to be exempt. NOAA Fisheries will consider submitted information and
issue exempted fishing permits on a case-by-case basis. NOAA Fisheries cannot
exempt U.S. vessels from regulations which may be inconsistent with U.S. fishery
management goals.
Comment 8: One commenter strongly
opposes the measure to authorize fishing areas at this time. There is concern
that this action is not recommended by ICCAT.
Response:
This regulation serves to clarify the existing regulations concerning U.S. vessels
targeting eastern stock bluefin tuna. In the proposed rule, NOAA Fisheries proposed
to prohibit retention of bluefin tuna caught in the east Atlantic Ocean because
the United States has not been allocated quota for bluefin tuna in that area.
However, the United States has been allocated quota for North Atlantic swordfish
and bluefin tuna are caught incidentally to swordfish fishing. A retention prohibition
for bluefin tuna from the east Atlantic Ocean would likely result in increased
dead discards of bluefin tuna caught by U.S. vessels fishing for North Atlantic
swordfish, inconsistent with HMS FMP objectives. Accordingly, NOAA Fisheries has
modified the final rule to clarify allowable fishing areas for highly migratory
species (HMS) fisheries by prohibiting bluefin tuna fishing in the Mediterranean
Sea by U.S. vessels, consistent with the ICCAT agreement to prevent transfer of
fishing effort for bluefin tuna from the west Atlantic to the east Atlantic. NOAA
Fisheries will count all bluefin tuna caught incidentally to swordfish fishing
in the east Atlantic against the west Atlantic U.S. bluefin tuna quota to ensure
that those catches are monitored and appropriately accounted for. Furthermore,
bycatch in the east Atlantic bluefin tuna fishery may be discussed at ICCAT in
2002.
Comment
9: NOAA Fisheries should alter the method by which landings and discards
of bluefin tuna are submitted to ICCAT. These data should accurately report landings
of east Atlantic bluefin tuna to ICCAT which would reflect historical participation
in the fishery. This would allow for the United States to enter into quota negotiations.
Response:
NOAA Fisheries intends to evaluate the catch locations of bluefin tuna landings
in order to revisit the procedure by which these data are submitted to ICCAT.
Comment 10: NOAA Fisheries needs
to report U.S. historic catches of eastern bluefin, bigeye, yellowfin and albacore
tunas and sharks to ICCAT. Reporting forms need to be revised to specify eastern
versus western bluefin tuna and to include more space for recording latitude and
longitude.
Response:
NOAA Fisheries will examine the reporting forms and suggest alternatives as deemed
necessary.
Trade Restrictions/Trade Documentation Programs
Comment
11: NOAA Fisheries should extend the documentation program to include yellowfin
tuna and should unilaterally prohibit the importation of HMS that is non-compliant
with ICCAT recommendations.
Response:
NOAA Fisheries would propose extending statistical documentation requirements
to bigeye tuna, yellowfin tuna, and swordfish if ICCAT recommends such a program.
In 2001, ICCAT issued its recommendation concerning the ICCAT bigeye tuna statistical
document program.
Other Issues
Comment
12: No action should be taken to implement the temporary U.S. share allocated
by ICCAT for North Atlantic albacore.
Response:
NOAA Fisheries agrees and is not changing the regulations regarding this topic.
