FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT
REGULATORY ADJUSTMENT 2 TO THE
ATLANTIC TUNAS, SWORDFISH, AND SHARKS
FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN
FINAL RULE TO REDUCE SEA TURTLE BYCATCH AND BYCATCH MORTALITY IN HIGHLY MIGRATORY
SPECIES FISHERIES
(Includes Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement,
Regulatory Impact Review, and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and incorporates
Abbreviated Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement)
July 2, 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
Reduction of Sea Turtle Bycatch and Mortality in Highly Migratory Species Fisheries
Final Actions:
Pelagic Longline Fishery: close the Northeast Distant Statistical Reporting
Area, require any gangion length to be 110 percent of any floatline length if
the total length of any gangion plus the total length of any floatline is less
than 100 meters, require the possession and use of corrodible non-stainless
steel hooks, require that lethal sea turtle take be reported within 48 hours
of returning to port, post sea turtle handling and release guidelines in the
wheelhouse.
Bottom Longline Fishery: post sea turtle handling and release guidelines in
the wheelhouse.
Shark Gillnet Fishery: require that both the observer and vessel operator
are responsible for sighting whales and contacting the National Marine Fisheries
Service, require net checks every 0.5 to 2 hours and removal of any captured
sea turtles or marine mammals.
Type of Statement:
Final Documents: Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Social Impact
Assessment, Regulatory Impact Review, and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Lead Agency: National Marine Fisheries Service: Office of Sustainable
Fisheries
For Further Information:
Christopher Rogers
Attn.: Tyson Kade / Margo Schulze-Haugen
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 purpose of this action is to avoid jeopardy by implementing
most of the reasonable and prudent alternative (RPA) and the other measures
required by the June 14, 2001, Biological Opinion (BiOp) on the Atlantic Highly
Migratory Species (HMS) Management Plan and its Associated Fisheries to reduce
the incidental take and mortality of sea turtles and other protected species
in the fisheries for Atlantic tunas, swordfish, sharks, and billfish. These
measures affect U.S. fishermen who hold Federal permits for Atlantic tunas,
swordfish, and sharks and use pelagic and bottom longline and shark gillnet
gear in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea.
The final action closes the Northeast Distant Statistical Reporting (NED) Area
to pelagic longline fishing to reduce the bycatch of sea turtles. In addition
to the closure, this action requires that the Atlantic pelagic longline fleet
modify the manner in which they fish as follows: any gangion must be 10 percent
longer than any floatline if the total length of any gangion plus the total
length of any floatline is less than 100 meters and only corrodible non-stainless
steel hooks may be possessed when pelagic longline gear is on board. These measures
are necessary to reduce the bycatch and post-release mortality of marine mammals
and sea turtles. In addition to these gear modifications, the vessel operators
in the pelagic longline fleet must report lethal sea turtle takes within 48
hours of returning to port and must post sea turtle handling and release guidelines
in the wheelhouse.
Fishermen in the bottom longline fishery must post sea turtle handling and
release guidelines in the wheelhouse. This measure should decrease the level
of post-release mortality of sea turtles attributable to this fishery.
Fishermen in the shark gillnet fishery must conduct net checks every 0.5 to
2 hours and look for and remove any entangled sea turtles and marine mammals.
Also, this final action specifies that both the observer and vessel operator
are responsible for sighting whales and contacting the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NOAA Fisheries). These measures should decrease the levels of post-release
mortality attributable to this fishery.
NOAA Fisheries received numerous comments on the proposed rule issued on April
10, 2002, which are addressed in this document. Since the issuance of the proposed
rule, NOAA Fisheries has received information that one of the measures required
by the RPA, gangion placement, is not effective in reducing the incidental capture
of sea turtles. Based on this information, that preferred alternative is not
promulgated in this final action.
Table of Contents
1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Consultation History and Actions Relevant
to the Final Rule
1.3 June 14, 2001, Biological Opinion Incidental
Take Statement
1.4 Purpose and Scope
2.0 ALTERNATIVES
2.1 Alternatives for Analysis: Pelagic Longline
Fishery Requirements
2.2 Alternatives for Analysis: Shark Gillnet
Fishery Requirements
2.3 Alternatives for Analysis: General Requirements
(bycatch mortality measures for all gear types)
2.4 Alternatives Considered Previously but
not Further Analyzed
2.5 Changes From March 29, 2002, Draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement
3.0 ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
3.1 Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
and Fairness Act
3.2 Executive Order 12866
3.3 Common Economic Terms
3.3.1 Net Economic Benefit
3.3.2 Economic Impact
3.3.3 Consumer Surplus
3.3.4 Producer Surplus
3.3.5 Non-Market Valuation
3.3.6 Net National Benefits
4.0 SOCIAL IMPACT CONSIDERATIONS
5.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
5.1 Swordfish
5.2 Atlantic Billfish
5.3 Atlantic Tunas
5.4 Atlantic Sharks
5.5 Other Finfish
5.6 Marine Mammals
5.7 Sea Turtles
5.8 Seabirds
6.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE ATLANTIC HMS FISHERIES
6.1 Pelagic Longline Fishery
6.1.1 Pelagic Longline Catch and Discard Patterns
6.1.2 U.S. Catch in Relation to International
Catch of Atlantic Highly Migratory Species
6.1.3 Regional U.S. Pelagic Longline Fisheries
Description
6.1.4 Experimental Fishery
6.1.5 Management of the Fishery
6.2 Shark Bottom Longline Fishery
6.2.1 Bottom Longline Catch and Bycatch
6.2.2 Management of Fishery
6.3 Shark Gillnet Fishery Description
6.3.1 Drift Gillnet and Strikenet Catch and Bycatch
6.3.2 Management of the Fishery
6.4 Commercial Handgear Fishery
6.4.1 Most Recent Catch and Landings Data
6.4.2 Bycatch Issues and Data Associated with
the Fishery
6.4.3 Management of the Fishery
6.5 Recreational Handgear Fishery
6.5.1 Most Recent Catch and Landings Data
6.5.2 Bycatch Issues and Data Associated with
the Fishery
6.5.3 Management of the Fishery
7. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES
CONSIDERED
7.1 Alternatives for Analysis: Pelagic Longline
Requirements
7.2 Alternatives for Analysis: Shark Gillnet
Requirements
7.3 Alternatives for Analysis: General Requirements
(bycatch mortality measures for all gear types)
7.4 Summary of Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative
Impacts
8.0 ECONOMIC IMPACTS AND ANALYSES
8.1 Analysis of Economic Impacts
8.1.1 Expected economic impacts of the pelagic longline
alternatives
8.1.2 Expected economic impacts of the shark
gillnet fishery alternatives
8.1.3 Expected economic impacts of the general
alternatives
8.2 Regulatory Impact Review
8.2.1 Description of the management objectives
8.2.2 Description of the fishery
8.2.3 Statement of the problem
8.2.4 Description of each alternative
8.2.5 Economic analysis of expected effects of each alternative relative to
the baseline
8.2.6 Summary
8.3 Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
8.3.1 Statement of the need for and objectives of this rulemaking
8.3.3 Description and estimate of the number
of small entities to which the final rule will apply
8.3.4 Description of the projected reporting,
record-keeping, and other compliance requirements of the final rule, including
an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the
requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation
of the report or record
8.3.5 Description of the steps the agency has
taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities consistent
with the stated objectives of applicable statutes, including a statement of
the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted
in the final rule and the reason that each one of the other significant alternatives
to the rule considered by the agency which affect small entities was rejected
8.3.6 Summary
9.0 SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
9.1 Community Profiles
9.2 Possible Social Impacts of the NED Area
Closure
9.3 Possible Social Impacts of the Pelagic
Longline Gear Modifications
9.4 Possible Social Impacts of the Mortality
Reduction Measures
9.5 Conclusion
10.0 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
10.1 Consideration of Magnuson-Stevens Act
Section 304 (g) Measures and National Standards
10.1.1 Evaluation of Possible Disadvantage to U.S. Fishermen in Relation to
Foreign Competitors
10.1.2 Provide U.S. Fishing Vessels Reasonable
Opportunity to Harvest Quota
10.1.3 Pursue Comparable International Fishery
Management Measures
10.1.4 Consider Traditional Fishing Patterns
and the Operating Requirements of the Fisheries
10.1.5 National Standards
10.1.6 Coastal Zone Management Act
10.2 Mitigating Measures
10.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
10.4 List of Agencies and Persons Consulted
10.5 List of Preparers
10.6 Finding
11.0 REFERENCES
APPENDIX A COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
A.1 Biological Opinion
A.2 Pelagic Longline Fishery
A.3 Shark Gillnet Fishery
A.4 Enforcement
List of Tables
Table 1.1 The anticipated sea turtle take
levels for the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery.
Table 1.2 The anticipated sea turtle take
levels for the shark gillnet fishery.
Table 1.3 The anticipated level of observed
sea turtle takes in the bottom longline fishery.
Table 2.1 Comparison of Alternatives Preferred
in the DSEIS to the Final Actions in the FSEIS. Note: RPA - reasonable and prudent
alternative; TC - term and condition; pages in parentheses indicate page numbers
in the BiOp.
Table 5.1 Estimated U.S. vessel landings
in metric tons of tuna species in commercial and recreational HMS fisheries
in 2000.
Table 5.2. Status of Atlantic sea turtle
populations: Species taken in HMS fisheries 1992-1997.
Table 5.3 Annual estimates of total marine
turtle bycatch and the subset that were dead when released in the U.S. pelagic
longline fishery.
Table 5.4 Seabird Bycatch in the Atlantic
Pelagic Longline Fishery from 1992 to 2001.
Table 6.1 Average Number of Hooks per pelagic
longline set, 1995-2000.
Table 6.2 Reported catch of species caught
by U.S. Atlantic pelagic longlines, in number of fish 1995-2000.
Table 6.3 Estimated international longline
landings of HMS, other than sharks, for all countries in the Atlantic: 1996-2000
(mt ww)*
Table 6.4 Domestic landings for the commercial
handgear fishery, by species and gear, for 1997-2000 (mt ww).
Table 6.5 Estimated total trips targeting
large pelagic species from June 5 through November 5, 2000.
Table 6.6 Estimated total trips targeting
large pelagic species from June 4 through November 4, 2001.
Table 6.7 Updated domestic landings for the
Atlantic tunas, swordfish and billfish recreational rod and reel fishery: calendar
years 1996-2000 (mt ww)*.
Table 6.8 Final estimates of total recreational
harvest of Atlantic sharks: 1995-2000 (numbers of fish in thousands).
Table 6.9 Reported discards* of HMS in the
rod and reel fishery.
Table 7.1 The estimated percent reductions
of loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles interactions for the NED area closure
under the no effort redistribution and effort redistribution models.
Table 7.2 The number of swordfish and tunas
caught (kept and discarded) in 1998 and 1999.
Table 7.3 The estimated annual gross revenues
for vessels from swordfish landed from all areas for 1998 and 1999.
Table 7.4 The estimated annual gross revenues
for vessels from swordfish and bigeye tuna landed from the NED area for 1997-2000
using data specific to those vessels that fished in the NED area.
Table 7.5 Number of Sea Turtles Observed to
be Incidentally Captured in Shark Gillnet Fishery in 2000 and 2001.
Table 7.6 Number of Marine Mammals Observed
to be Incidentally Captured in Shark Gillnet Fishery in 2000 and 2001.
Table 7.7 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative
Impacts of Alternatives Considered.
Table 8.1 The number of vessels that reported
fishing with pelagic longline gear in the pelagic logbook.
Table 8.2 The number of vessels that reported
fishing with pelagic longline gear by area.
Table 8.3 Average ex-vessel prices per lb
dw for Atlantic HMS in 2000.
Table 8.4 Predicted gross revenues for the
pelagic longline fleet based on fishing reports for 2000.
Table 8.5 The species composition of landings
in the pelagic longline fleet in 2000.
Table 8.6 The species composition of landings
for pelagic longline trips conducted in the NED area in 2000.
Table 8.7 The number of trips in each area
in 2000.
Table 8.8 The species composition of landings
for pelagic longline trips conducted outside the NED area in 2000.
Table 8.9 The cost-earnings characteristics
of 1996 pelagic longline trips.
Table 8.10 Cost-earnings characteristics
of an average 1997 pelagic longline trip.
Table 8.11 Preliminary information regarding
the 2001 experimental fishery.
Table 8.12 The number of operating shark
gillnet vessels.
Table 8.13 The number of HMS permit holders.
Table 8.14 Estimates of the total ex-vessel
value gross revenues of Atlantic HMS fisheries as presented in the 2002 SAFE
report.
Table 8.14 Summary of net benefits and costs
for each alternative.
List of Figures
Figure 6.1 Typical U.S. pelagic longline
gear.
Figure 6.2 Different longline gear deployment
techniques.
Figure 6.3 Geographic areas used in summaries
of pelagic logbook data.
Figure 7.2 The number of turtle interactions
with respect to hook depth.
1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
1.1 Introduction
A major concern in the management of the Atlantic HMS fisheries is the incidental
take and mortality of threatened and endangered species, specifically loggerhead
and leatherback sea turtles. These animals are migratory and exist in many of
the oceanic locales targeted by U.S. vessels permitted to catch HMS. The sea turtles
are accidentally hooked or entangled in pelagic longline, drift gillnet, and other
gear that is meant to target primarily tunas, swordfish, and sharks.
The BiOp issued on June 8, 2001, (revised on June 14, 2001) by NOAA Fisheries
concluded that the continued operation of the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery
is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of loggerhead and leatherback
sea turtles. The clause "jeopardize the continued existence of" means "to engage
in an action that reasonably would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce
appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species
in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species"
(50 CFR ยง402.02). Accordingly, the BiOp provided a RPA to avoid jeopardy. The
BiOp found no jeopardy for other HMS fisheries but does require other management
measures to reduce sea turtle takes in these fisheries.
Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), NOAA Fisheries is required to implement
the elements of the RPA, reasonable and prudent measures (RPMs), and terms and
conditions (TCs) identified in the BiOp to prevent further jeopardizing sea turtle
populations due to takes and associated mortality in HMS fisheries. If the measures
recommended in the BiOp to relieve jeopardy are not adopted, the implicated fishery
can be closed due to the lack of compliance with the ESA.
1.2 Consultation History and Actions Relevant to the Final Rule
The ESA is the primary federal legislation governing interactions between fisheries
and species whose continued existence is threatened or endangered. Through a consultative
process, this law allows federal agencies to evaluate final actions in light of
the impacts they could have on these ESA-listed species. In the case of marine
fisheries, the NOAA Fisheries Office of Sustainable Fisheries consults with the
NOAA Fisheries Office of Protected Resources to determine what impacts fishery
management actions will have on endangered populations of marine species and what
actions can be taken to reduce or eliminate negative impacts. Under the consultative
process, NOAA Fisheries issues a BiOp which outlines expected impacts of the final
action and specifies terms and conditions which must be met to mitigate impacts
on ESA-listed species.
Several circumstances can create the need to reinitiate consultation: the regulated
action exceeds the level of take previously authorized in an existing incidental
take statement, the action changes in a way that was not previously considered,
or the population status of a listed species changes. On November 19, 1999, the
Office of Sustainable Fisheries requested reinitiation of consultation on HMS
fisheries based on preliminary information that the number of sea turtles incidentally
taken in the pelagic longline fishery had exceeded levels anticipated in the April
23, 1999, BiOp. The bycatch reduction rule (proposed December 15, 1999, 64 FR
69982; final August 1, 2000, 65 FR 47214), which constituted a major action that
may have affected the operation of the pelagic longline fishery in a manner not
considered in the April 23, 1999, BiOp, also triggered the need to reinitiate
consultation.
On June 30, 2000, a BiOp was issued that evaluated the current status of the loggerhead
and leatherback sea turtles and concluded that the actions of the pelagic longline
fishery jeopardized the continued existence of these species. This conclusion
was based on the status of the loggerhead and leatherback sea turtle populations
in the Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, and Gulf of Mexico, the status of the northern
subpopulation of loggerhead sea turtle, and the anticipated continuation of current
levels of injury and mortality of both species described in the environmental
baseline and cumulative effects section of the BiOp at that time. NOAA Fisheries
conducted a series of scoping hearings in July and August 2000 to present the
findings of the June 30, 2000, BiOp and to gather information and insights from
affected constituents. During this process, NOAA Fisheries concluded that further
analyses of observer data and additional population modeling of loggerhead sea
turtles were needed to determine more precisely the impact of the pelagic longline
fishery on sea turtles. Because of this, NOAA Fisheries reinitiated consultation
on the HMS fisheries on September 7, 2000.
To comply with national standard 9 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and comply with ESA section 7(a)(2)
as provided in the June 30, 2000, BiOp, NOAA Fisheries issued emergency regulations
on October 13, 2000, that closed a 55,970 square nautical mile L-shape portion
of the NED area from October 10, 2000, through April 9, 2001 (65 FR 60889). This
closure was expected to reduce the incidental capture of loggerhead and leatherback
sea turtles. The emergency regulations also required the use of dipnets and line
clippers meeting NOAA Fisheries design and specification criteria to remove entangling
fishing gear and reduce post-release mortality of captured sea turtles in the
pelagic longline fishery.
To prevent a lapse in sea turtle bycatch reduction measures, NOAA Fisheries published
an interim final rule on March 30, 2001 (66 FR 17370), which continued the requirement
to possess and use dipnets and line clippers on all vessels in the pelagic longline
fishery. The interim final rule also modified the definition of pelagic longline
gear so it would not include high-flyers and reduced the amount of observer coverage
required in the shark gillnet fishery outside right whale calving season. These
regulations remain in effect until a superceding final action is published.
In January 2001, NOAA Fisheries held a technical gear workshop in Silver Spring,
Maryland that was attended by scientists, fishermen, environmentalists, and other
interested parties. Additionally, the NOAA Fisheries Southeast Fisheries Science
Center (SEFSC) published the Stock Assessments of Loggerhead and Leatherback Sea
Turtles and an Assessment of the Impact of the Pelagic Longline Fishery on the
Loggerhead and Leatherback Sea Turtles of the Western North Atlantic in February
2001.
The June 14, 2001, BiOp incorporated the new information from the assessment report
and the gear workshop in its examination of the effect of the pelagic longline
fishery on sea turtles in the western Atlantic Ocean. The BiOp specified an RPA
that would avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the continued existence of these
turtles. The RPA included the following elements: closing the NED area effective
July 15, 2001; requiring gangions to be placed no closer than twice the average
gangion length from the suspending floatlines effective August 1, 2001; requiring
gangion lengths to be 110 percent of the length of the floatline in sets of 100
meters or less in depth effective August 1, 2001; and, requiring the use of corrodible
hooks effective August 1, 2001. Also, the BiOp included a TC for the incidental
take statement that requires NOAA Fisheries to issue a regulation requiring that
all vessels permitted for HMS fisheries, commercial and recreational, post the
sea turtle guidelines for safe handling and release following longline interactions
inside the wheelhouse by September 15, 2001. The requirement that all vessels
permitted for HMS fisheries post sea turtle handling and release guidelines was
modified to specify only bottom and pelagic longline vessels by an August 31,
2001, memorandum from the Office of Protected Resources.
On July 13, 2001, NOAA Fisheries published an emergency rule (66 FR 36711) to
implement several of the BiOp requirements. NOAA Fisheries published an amendment
to the emergency rule to incorporate the change in requirement for the handling
and release guidelines which was published in the Federal Register on September
24, 2001 (66 FR 48812). These requirements were effective for 180 days, through
January 9, 2002. On December 13, 2001 (66 FR 64378), NOAA Fisheries published
a Federal Register notice extending this emergency rule for another 180 days,
to July 8, 2002. On January 14, 2002 (67 FR 1688), NOAA Fisheries published an
amendment to the emergency rule extension clarifying the effective dates.
On April 10, 2002, NOAA Fisheries published a proposed rule in the Federal Register
(67 FR 17349) that would implement the RPA and several other measures required
by the BiOp. An accompanying Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
(DSEIS) finalized on March 29, 2002, analyzed the biological, economic, and social
impacts of the preferred and not selected alternatives, including no action, for
the proposed rule. A Federal Register notice published on April 29, 2002 (67 FR
20944), announced four public hearings in Panama City, FL; Barnegat Light, NJ;
Riverhead, NY; and Silver Spring, MD. NOAA Fisheries presented information concerning
this proposed rule and solicited comments on the proposed measures. The comment
period on the proposed rule and DSEIS ended on May 20, 2002.
On June 7, 2002, The Environmental Protection Agency published a notice of availability
of an abbreviated Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS). The
abbreviated FSEIS explains that the gangion placement measure of the RPA is not
being implemented because it evidently increases rather than decreases interactions
with leatherback turtles. The abbreviated FSEIS also provides a summary table
comparing the proposed measures to the final measures, contains a table summarizing
the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of all the alternatives examined
by NOAA Fisheries in this rulemaking process, and responds to the comments received
by mail, fax, and at the public hearings. Because there are only minor changes
from the DSEIS (rewording for clarification or to improve enforcement and removal
of one requirement), NOAA Fisheries prepared this FSEIS in an abbreviated format,
designed to be used with the March 29, 2002, DSEIS, in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act regulations at 40 CFR 1503.4(c). This FSEIS incorporates
the changes to the DSEIS described in the abbreviated FSEIS.
The final rule implements the RPA, with the exception of the gangion placement
measure, and other required measures in the BiOp and also finalizes measures that
would decrease impacts of other HMS fisheries on sea turtle and whale populations.
As noted above, NOAA Fisheries is not making final the gangion placement requirement
because it appeared to result in an unchanged number of interactions with loggerheads
and an apparent increase in interactions with leatherbacks. Preliminary logbook
data, which are inconclusive in the absence of analysis in conjunction with observer
data, indicate that the incidental take level of loggerheads is below that anticipated
in the incidental take statement of the BiOp. Preliminary logbook data, collected
during the time that the gangion placement measure was in effect, indicate that
the level of take of leatherbacks may or may not be exceeded. Accordingly, although
NOAA Fisheries will reevaluate this conclusion upon completion of the analysis
of incidental take based on both logbook and observer data, at this time NOAA
Fisheries determines that the fishery with the final rule is not likely to jeopardize
sea turtles.
1.3 June 14, 2001, Biological Opinion Incidental Take Statement
Under ESA, a "take" is defined as harassing, harming, pursuing, hunting, shooting,
wounding, killing, trapping, capturing, or collecting, or attempting to engage
in any such conduct. An incidental take is defined as take that is incidental
to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity.
The incidental take levels defined in the BiOp are based on an annual estimated
number derived from observed takes while considering the expected reductions from
the RPA requirements. Additionally, section 7(b)(4) of the ESA requires that when
the final action may incidentally take listed species, NOAA Fisheries will issue
a statement specifying the impact of any incidental taking. It also states that
RPMs necessary to minimize impacts and TCs to implement those measures be provided
and must be followed to minimize those impacts. Only incidental taking by the
federal agency or applicant that complies with the specified TCs is authorized.
The anticipated sea turtle take levels for the U.S. Atlantic
pelagic longline fishery are listed in Table 1.1.
Table 1.1 The anticipated sea turtle take
levels for the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery. Source: NOAA Fisheries,
2001a.
| Sea
turtle species |
Incidental
Take Level |
| Leatherback |
438 turtles estimated
captured per calendar year |
| Loggerhead |
402 turtles estimated
captured per calendar year |
| Green, Hawksbill, Kemp's Ridley (combined) |
35 turtles estimated
captured per calendar year |
The southeast U.S. shark gillnet fishery anticipated take levels are listed in
Table 1.2 (these numbers represent the number of total estimated sea turtle takes
anticipated for this fishery).
Table 1.2 The anticipated sea turtle
take levels for the shark gillnet fishery. Source: NOAA Fisheries,
2001a.
| Sea
turtle species |
Incidental
Take Level |
| Leatherback |
4 turtles per year, of which no more than
2 are lethal |
| Loggerhead |
20 turtles per year |
| Green |
2 turtles per year |
| Hawksbill |
2 turtles per year |
| Kemp's Ridley |
2 turtles per year |
NOAA Fisheries anticipates that continued operation of the bottom longline
fishery for sharks will result in the capture of the following number of sea
turtles (total effort levels in this fishery are unavailable so these limits
represent the number of total observed takes anticipated)
(Table 1.3).
Table 1.3 The anticipated level of observed
sea turtle takes in the bottom longline fishery. Source: NOAA Fisheries,
2001a.
| Sea
turtle species |
Incidental
Take Level |
| Leatherback |
2 turtles per year |
| Loggerhead |
12 turtles per year |
| Green |
2 turtles per year |
| Hawksbill |
2 turtles per year |
| Kemp's Ridley |
2 turtles per year |
1.4 Purpose and Scope
The purpose of this action is to avoid jeopardy by implementing the effective
measures of the RPA and the TCs identified in the June 2001 BiOp that will reduce
the incidental take and mortality of sea turtles and other protected species in
the HMS fisheries of the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea. This
action is needed because once the July 13, 2001, emergency rule and its December
13, 2001, extension expires on July 8, 2002, the pelagic longline fishery would
be jeopardizing the continued existence of sea turtles. Additionally, without
this action, all HMS fisheries would be out of compliance with the June 2001 BiOp.
This action would be accomplished by finalizing the March 30, 2001, interim final
rule (66 FR 17370)); adopting the measures implemented in the July 13, 2001, emergency
rule (66 FR 36711) and December 13, 2001, emergency rule extension (66 FR 64378);
and implementing several TCs required by the June 14, 2001, BiOp. The scope of
this action is to address protected species interactions, particularly sea turtles,
in the Atlantic HMS fisheries. As discussed above, NOAA Fisheries
is required to take these actions under the ESA.
2.0 ALTERNATIVES
The following alternatives represent the range of options NOAA Fisheries considered
to reduce the incidental catch and bycatch mortality of protected species in
all HMS fisheries. The alternatives range from no action to a total prohibition
of a gear type. Each alternative identifies potential regulatory mechanisms
for implementation. Alternatives are evaluated in Section 7.0 with respect to
existing data on target and incidentally caught species, as well as ecological,
social, and economic impacts.
2.1 Alternatives for Analysis: Pelagic Longline Fishery Requirements
Alternative 1 (Final Action) Close the NED area to fishing with pelagic longline
gear on board (BiOp Requirement)
This action closes the NED area (20 to 60o W, 35 to 55o
N) to all Federally permitted vessels, or those required to be permitted for HMS,
with pelagic longline gear on board. The need for a closure will be reevaluated
in spring 2004 following the completion of a three year experimental fishery that
began in 2001.
Alternative 2 (Not Selected) Prohibit vessel operators using pelagic longline
gear from setting gangions next to floatlines (must be two gangion lengths away)
(BiOp Requirement)
Implementing this alternative would prohibit fishermen on all Federally permitted
vessels, or those required to be permitted for HMS, engaged in pelagic longline
fishing for HMS from attaching gangions to the mainline within two gangion lengths
of the floatline attachment to the mainline. The 2001 NED experimental fishery
found that this alternative is not effective in reducing pelagic longline interactions
with loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles.
Alternative 3 (Final Action) Require vessels with pelagic longline gear on
board to have the length of any gangion be 10 percent longer than the length of
any floatline if the total length of any gangion plus the total length of any
floatline is less than 100 meters (BiOp Requirement)
Under this alternative, all Federally permitted vessels, or those required to
be permitted for HMS, with pelagic longline gear on board are required to deploy
gangions that are 10 percent longer than the floatlines, if the total length of
any gangion plus the length of any floatline is 100 meters or less. This alternative
allows incidentally captured sea turtles to reach the surface to breathe, reducing
mortality.
Alternative 4 (Final Action) Require vessels with pelagic longline gear on
board to possess and use only corrodible, non-stainless steel hooks (BiOp
Requirement)
Under this alternative, all Federally permitted vessels, or those required to
be permitted, for HMS with pelagic longline gear on board are required to possess
and use only corrodible hooks. It is expected that this measure will reduce the
post-release mortality of incidentally captured sea turtles.
Alternative 5 (Final Action) The vessel operator of all vessels with pelagic
longline gear on board must report lethal sea turtle takes within 48 hours of
returning to port (BiOp Requirement)
The vessel operator of all Federally permitted vessels, or vessels required
to be permitted, for HMS with pelagic longline gear on board are required to
report any turtles that are dead when captured or that die during capture to
the SEFSC Observer Program (at 800-858-0624) within 48 hours of returning to
port, in addition to filling out logbook forms.
Alternative 6 (Final Action) Require all vessels with bottom or pelagic longline
gear on board to have sea turtle handling and release guidelines posted in the
wheelhouse (BiOp Requirement)
This alternative requires all Federally permitted vessels, or vessels required
to be permitted, for HMS that have bottom or pelagic longline gear on board to
have posted in the wheelhouse sea turtle handling and release guidelines. This
alternative should reduce the post-release mortality of incidentally captured
sea turtles.
Alternative 7 (Not Selected) No action
This alternative would maintain the existing regulations regarding pelagic and
bottom longline gear and sea turtle interactions. The provisions implemented by
the July 13, 2001, emergency rule would remain in effect until July 8, 2002 (as
extended on December 13, 2001), at which time they would expire.
Alternative 8 (Not Selected) Require vessels with pelagic longline gear on
board to have a dehooking device on board; require vessel operators on such vessels
to use the dehooking device
Under this alternative, all Federally permitted vessels, or those required to
be permitted, for HMS with pelagic longline gear on board would be required to
have a dehooking device on board. Vessel operators aboard such vessels would be
required to use it to remove longline hooks from incidentally captured sea turtles.
Alternative 9 (Not Selected) Require vessel operators on vessels with pelagic
longline gear on board to rig the mainline so hooks are fished deeper in the water
column (tuna style fishing)
This alternative would require vessel operators aboard all Federally permitted
vessels, or those required to be permitted, for HMS with pelagic longline gear
on board to configure the gear to maintain the hooks deeper in the water column.
This configuration might minimize attracting sea turtles to baited hooks.
Alternative 10 (Not Selected) Require vessel operators on vessels with pelagic
longline gear on board to use only blue-dyed bait
Under this alternative, all Federally permitted vessels, or those required to
be permitted, for HMS with pelagic longline on board would be required to deploy
only blue-dyed bait. The 2001 NED experimental fishery found that this alternative
is not effective in reducing pelagic longline interactions with loggerhead and
leatherback sea turtles.
Alternative 11 (Not Selected) Require vessel operators on vessels with pelagic
longline gear on board to use only mackerel as bait
This alternative would require vessel operators aboard all Federally permitted
vessels, or those required to be permitted, for HMS with pelagic longline gear
on board to use mackerel exclusively as bait. NOAA Fisheries will analyze the
ability of this measure to reduce the incidental catch of sea turtles in the 2002
NED area experimental fishery.
Alternative 12 (Not Selected) Require vessels with pelagic longline gear on
board to utilize stealth gear (counter-shaded floats, dark colored lines, capped
LED lights, etc.)
This alternative would require all Federally permitted vessels, or those required
to be permitted, for HMS with pelagic longline gear on board to utilize some form
of stealth fishing gear such as counter-shaded floats, dulled or dark gear, and
capped lights. NOAA Fisheries is currently working to develop and test several
gear modifications that are expected to reduce the number of sea turtle
interactions.
2.2 Alternatives for Analysis: Shark Gillnet Fishery Requirements
Alternative 13 (Final Action) Both the observer and vessel operator are responsible
for sighting whales and the vessel operator must contact NOAA Fisheries Southeast
Regional Office (SERO) if a listed whale is taken (BiOp Requirement)
The vessel operator of all vessels issued Federal Atlantic shark limited access
permits and that fish for Atlantic sharks with a gillnet and, in cases where an
observer is on board, the observer, are responsible for sighting whales. The vessel
operator is responsible for contacting NOAA Fisheries SERO (at 305-862-2850) and
ceasing fishing in the event of a listed whale being taken in the gillnet gear
while fishing in either a drift gillnet or strikenet method.
Alternative 14 (Final Action) Shark gillnet fishermen are required to conduct
net checks every 0.5 to 2 hours to look for and remove any sea turtles or marine
mammals (BiOp Requirement)
In this fishery, it is customary for fishermen to inspect the entire length of
the net every 0.5 to 2 hours. If a protected species is caught in the net, the
fishermen are required to remove it in a manner that would not induce further
harm.
Alternative 15 (Not Selected) No action
This alternative would maintain the existing regulations regarding shark gillnet
gear.
Alternative 16 (Not Selected) Prohibit use of shark gillnet gear for HMS fisheries
This alternative would prohibit the use of shark gillnet used in either a drift
gillnet or strikenet method in Atlantic HMS fisheries year-round.
Alternative 17 (Not Selected) Require fishermen who hold a Federal shark permit
and use shark gillnets to use spotter planes for strikenetting
All Federally permitted vessels for using HMS shark gillnet gear to target sharks
would be required to utilize the assistance of a spotter plane when setting their
net and to fish in a strikenet fashion. This alternative would reduce the risk
of interactions with protected species.
2.3 Alternatives for Analysis: General Requirements (bycatch mortality
measures for all gear types)
Alternative 18 (Final Action) No action
This alternative maintains the existing regulations for all HMS gear types except
pelagic longline, bottom longline, and shark gillnet as described above.
Alternative 19 (Not Selected) Require all vessel operators on HMS permitted
vessels in each HMS fishery to post sea turtle handling guidelines specific to
interactions in that particular fishery
This alternative would require every vessel permitted to catch HMS to post in
the wheelhouse, or in an appropriate area not yet determined, sea turtle handling
and release guidelines specific to their gear type. This requirement would be
effective for each gear type individually as appropriate guidelines are developed.
Alternative 20 (Not Selected) Require all vessels with hook and line gear
on board, in addition to pelagic longline vessels, to carry on board line clippers
and dipnets
All Federally permitted vessels fishing for HMS species with any hook and line
gear type on board would be required to have a line clipper and a dipnet on board
that meets NOAA Fisheries design and performance standards. Vessel operators would
be required to use them to facilitate removal of gear from incidentally captured
sea turtles. This measure would help improve the post-release survival of incidentally
captured sea turtles.
Alternative 21 (Not Selected) Require all vessels with hook and line gear
on board to carry on board a dehooking device
All Federally permitted vessels with hook and line gear on board engaged in fishing
for HMS would be required to have a dehooking device on board. Vessel operators
would be required to use it to remove gear from incidentally captured sea turtles.
Alternative 22 (Not Selected) Require all vessels, in addition to pelagic
longline vessels, to move 1 nautical mile if a marine mammal or sea turtle is
hooked or entangled
This alternative would require all Federally permitted vessels engaged in fishing
for HMS to move 1 nautical mile following the entanglement or
hooking of a marine mammal or sea turtle.
2.4 Alternatives Considered Previously but not Further Analyzed
These alternatives are relevant to this Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement,
but NOAA Fisheries does not have enough new data to justify a full examination
in this document. However, these alternatives may be analyzed further in future
rulemaking documents, as appropriate.
Alternative 23 Prohibit use of pelagic longline gear by U.S.-flagged fishing
vessels in the Atlantic Ocean, including the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea
This alternative would prohibit the use of pelagic longline gear in Atlantic HMS
fisheries year-round. As this measure was examined in detail in Section 7 of the
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) to reduce bycatch, bycatch
mortality, and incidental catch in the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery (NOAA
Fisheries, 2000a) and the HMS FMP (NOAA Fisheries, 1999b), it is not analyzed
in depth in this document. Prohibiting the use of pelagic longline gear by U.S.
commercial fishing vessels would have immediate and significant economic and social
impacts on the longline vessel owners, vessel operator, and crew that would need
to re-rig their vessels to continue fishing for HMS, find alternative fisheries,
or discontinue fishing; dealers that purchase fish from pelagic longliners; families
that work, or own the fishing vessels that would either have to re-rig or discontinue
fishing; and indirect impacts in the local communities that support the pelagic
longline fishery. Also, landings of target species such as swordfish, as well
as interactions with bycatch and bycatch species such as sea turtles, would be
eliminated from the U.S. portion of the total Atlantic-wide longline fishery.
However, foreign longline fishing effort may increase in areas beyond the U.S.
EEZ, such as the NED area. While prohibiting the use of pelagic longline gear
by U.S. commercial fishing vessels would reduce sea turtle interactions and mortality
from U.S. vessels, this course of action is not justified at this time given the
availability of a RPA, the large social and economic impacts on fishermen and
fishing communities, and the possibility that removal of U.S. effort could increase
sea turtle interactions and mortality Atlantic-wide.
Alternative 24 Require use of circle hooks on all pelagic longline gear (No
possession of any hook but circle hook)
This alternative would require all Federally permitted vessels engaged in pelagic
longline fishing for HMS to use circle hooks. As this measure was examined in
detail in Section 7 of the FSEIS to reduce bycatch, bycatch mortality, and incidental
catch in the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery (NOAA Fisheries, 2000a) and the
HMS FMP (NOAA Fisheries, 1999b), it is not further analyzed in this document.
In the FSEIS, NOAA Fisheries concluded that additionally scientific information
is needed before circle hooks could be mandated. At the time of the FSEIS there
was little data available to NOAA Fisheries regarding the effects of circle hooks
on sea turtles but there was information suggesting that both incidental and swordfish
catch rates were reduced when circle hooks were used. Since that time, NOAA Fisheries
now has some preliminary information regarding circle hooks and sea turtles. Based
on these preliminary experiments, circle hooks have been found to reduce the instances
of deep hooking of incidentally captured sea turtles. While the initial experiments
with circle hooks (16/0) found that they significantly decreased the incidence
of throat hooking sea turtles, the circle hooks resulted in a significant reduction
in target catch. It appears that the cost of switching to circle hooks would increase
the cost of fishing in the short term, and could reduce revenues in the long term
if target catch rates are reduced. NOAA Fisheries is currently testing a hypothesis
that larger gauge circle hooks (18/0) may improve the retention of target species.
Alternative 25 Prohibit the setting of pelagic longline gear between 3 p.m.
and 9 p.m.
Under this alternative, all vessels fishing for HMS with pelagic longline gear
would be restricted from setting their gear between 3 p.m. and 9 p.m or other,
similar, times of the day. This measure would be expected to reduce the incidental
take of sea turtles by reducing their exposure to baited hooks during their prime
feeding time. As this measure was examined in detail in Section 7 of the FSEIS
to reduce bycatch, bycatch mortality, and incidental catch in the Atlantic pelagic
longline fishery (NOAA Fisheries, 2000a), it is not analyzed in depth in this
document. As described in the FSEIS, preliminary observer data analyses indicate
that the rate of sea turtle takes is higher in sets made in the evening before
9 p.m. Generally, this measure would not be expected to cause any significant
economic or social impacts unless the level of target catch is decreased. At this
time, NOAA Fisheries does not have any additional information
regarding this measure.
2.5 Changes From March 29, 2002, Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement
The FSEIS finalizes most of the measures identified as preferred alternatives
in the March 29, 2002, DSEIS and the April 10, 2002, proposed rule. Table 2.1,
below, compares the preferred alternatives analyzed in the DSEIS with the final
actions. The primary difference is that Alternative 2, prohibiting vessel operators
using pelagic longline gear from setting gangions next to floatlines (must be
two gangions lengths away), has been not selected. Results from the 2001 experimental
fishery in the NED area determined that this alternative is not effective in reducing
interactions with loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles. Because of this information,
the requirement to set gangions two gangion lengths from floatlines has been not
selected.
Table 2.1 Comparison of Alternatives
Preferred in the DSEIS to the Final Actions in the FSEIS. Note: RPA - reasonable
and prudent alternative; TC - term and condition; pages in parentheses indicate
page numbers in the BiOp.
| Preferred
Alternative in DSEIS |
Final
Action in FSEIS |
|
Pelagic
Longline Fishery
|
| Close the Northeast Distant area to fishing
with pelagic longline gear on board (RPA, page 116) |
Same |
| Prohibit vessel operators using pelagic
longline gear from setting gangions next to floatlines (must be two gangion
lengths away) (RPA, page 117) |
Not selected. Preliminary results from an
experimental fishery in the Northeast Distant area indicate that this measure
is ineffective at reducing loggerhead turtle bycatch and may increase leatherback
turtle bycatch. |
| Require vessels with pelagic longline gear
on board to have gangion length be 110 percent of floatline length in shallow
sets (100 meters or less) (RPA, page 117) |
Same,
rephrased for clarification as follows: "The length of any gangion on vessels
that have pelagic longline gear on board must be at least 10 percent longer
than any floatline length if the total length of any gangion plus the total
length of any floatline is less than 100 meters." |
| Require vessels with pelagic
longline gear on board to use only corrodible hooks and/or crimps, proposed
as non-stainless steel. (RPA, page 117) |
Same, modified to a possession
prohibition to improve enforcement as follows "Require vessels with pelagic
longline gear on board to possess only corrodible non-stainless steel hooks." |
| The vessel operator of all
vessels with pelagic longline gear on board must report lethal turtle takes
within 48 hours of returning to port (TC, page 122) |
Same |
| Require all vessels with bottom
or pelagic longline gear on board to have sea turtle handling and release
guidelines posted in the wheelhouse (TC, page 125, modified on 8/31/2001) |
Same
|
| Shark
Gillnet Fishery |
| Both the observer and vessel
operator are responsible for sighting whales and the vessel operator must
contact NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office if a listed whale is taken
(TC, page 122) |
Same |
| Shark gillnet fishermen are
required to conduct net checks every 0.5 to 2 hours to look for and remove
any sea turtles or marine mammals (TC, page 123) |
Same |
|
General
Requirements
|
| No Action |
Same |
3.0 ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
Before implementing management measures,
NOAA Fisheries must consider the economic impacts particularly in accordance
with two laws: the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Reg Flex Act) and Executive Order
12866 (E.O. 12866). Other laws, such as National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
and the Magnuson-Stevens Act, also require NOAA Fisheries to consider economic
impacts before implementing management measures. The requirements under E.O.
12866 and Reg Flex Act are similar. Both require a description of the need for
the action, the management objectives, and a description of the expected economic
impacts. Those requirements related to this final action are met in Sections
1 and 2. They also require an analysis of each alternative, the expected effects,
and a description of the reasons why an action is being taken (Sections 7 and
8). The main difference between the Reg Flex Act and E.O. 12866 is the focus
of the analysis. While the Reg Flex Act focuses on individual small entities
(e.g. businesses and individuals), E.O. 12866 focuses on the entire fishery.
NOAA Fisheries has worked with its
constituencies, including representatives of small businesses, fishermen, and
vessel owners, to identify alternatives, consider the economic impacts of these
alternatives, and to select preferred alternatives based on various factors, including
relative effects on small businesses. For this final action NOAA Fisheries has
worked with its constituents through the take reduction team process, public scoping
process, gear workshop, and comment periods on draft versions of BiOp itself and
the proposed rule.
In addition, NOAA Fisheries continues
to strive for improved collection and analyses of data pertaining to socio-economic
aspects of the fisheries. The recent re-authorization of the Reg Flex Act has
increased the focus on these analyses and NOAA Fisheries has recently revised
its own guidelines on how to comply with the Reg Flex Act. NOAA Fisheries believes
the goals of fishery management are consistent with those of the Reg Flex Act:
implement fishery management regulations to ensure a healthy resource that will
sustain viable fisheries for both commercial and recreational constituents and
the businesses associated with those fisheries.
The analyses required for E.O. 12866
and under the Reg Flex Act are included in Section 8, and additional economic
impacts are discussed throughout this document. Additional information about the
Reg Flex Act, E.O. 12866, and economic impacts can be found in Chapter 7 of the
Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks (NOAA Fisheries,
1999b).
3.1 Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement and Fairness Act
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
and Fairness Act of 1996 amended the Reg Flex Act and made compliance with sections
of the Reg Flex Act subject to judicial review. The Reg Flex Act 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, Reg Flex Act
requires agencies to perform an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)
during the proposed rule stage and, after considering public comment, a Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) during the final rule stage.
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 Reg Flex Act. 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.
3.3 Common Economic Terms
3.3.1 Net Economic Benefit
One type of measurement used in evaluating
the economic importance of a fishery is net economic benefit, also referred to
as economic value. Net economic benefit is the sum of producer and consumer surplus
associated with the fishery. For the commercial fishery, net economic benefit
includes profits (difference between total revenues and total costs) to producers
(vessel operators, suppliers, fish dealers, retailers, etc.) and the net benefits
to seafood consumers. In examining alternatives, these are often considered at
the margin, i.e., the change in net benefits in moving from no action to another
alternative.
Due to limited data on fishing costs,
and limited studies measuring consumer surplus for seafood products, net economic
benefits are difficult to measure in HMS commercial fisheries. Trip-level data
on fishing costs are collected on a voluntary basis in an add-on questionnaire
at the end of the pelagic longline trip summary form. Some cost data are also
available from previous surveys of the various highly migratory species fleets.
These may be used to generate partial estimates of net economic benefit, notably
producer surplus (revenues-costs).
3.3.2 Economic Impact
Another type of economic measurement
is economic impact. Economic impact is often what fishermen, commercial and recreational,
refer to in emphasizing the importance of their activities to local communities
and the national economy. Economic impact is a measure of the income, tax revenues,
and employment generated by an activity. In the commercial fishery, information
on expenditures (bait, tackle, labor, etc.) as well as the ex-vessel value of
landings are usually used to describe economic impacts. Non-consumptive uses of
a resource (e.g., whale watching) also generate economic activity. The relative
levels of economic impact allow cross-comparison of the effect of the measures
on the level of expenditures -- primarily fishing costs -- from both the recreational
and commercial fisheries. Expenditures may be examined in the format of an input-output
model, which traces the "ripple" effect of every dollar of expenditures in one
sector on other sectors, often referred to as secondary, and induced effects.
Expenditures can also be used to estimate the number of jobs generated or lost
due to various management measures. Economic impacts can be important to communities,
as employment levels, income, and a wider tax base are desirable
economic effects of fishing activities.
3.3.3 Consumer Surplus
Changes in consumer surplus can occur
due to changes in the price of seafood as well as changes in the availability
of recreational fishing opportunities, the latter known as angler consumer surplus.
Because a large percentage of swordfish consumed in the United States is imported,
it is assumed that regulations affecting the operation of the domestic fishery
(other than a complete closure) will not result in price changes at the consumer
level and therefore will not result in changes in consumer surplus. In contrast,
to the extent that restrictions on U.S. longlines may enhance recreational fisheries
for HMS, increased angler consumer surplus may be an additional
benefit for the alternatives considered herein.
3.3.4 Producer Surplus
Producer surplus is measured by the
economic rent (above normal profits) earned by the vessel owners, vessel operator
and crew. For the purposes of this analysis, profits will be used as a proxy for
economic rents earned by the vessel owners. Note that crew wages are generally
considered to be part of the variable costs of fishing to the vessel owner. Profits
are affected through changes in both revenue and costs which occur because of
the management action. For example, time/area closures likely affect fishing costs
due to greater distances to fishing grounds for affected vessels.
Profit to the vessel operator and
crew depends on the wages they receive. If the crew members are earning more
money longline fishing than they would earn in the next best alternative fishing
area and/or occupation available to them, their income is likely to decrease
as a result of a final action that reduces employment opportunities. It is assumed
that crew members would be able to find alternative employment because it is
possible they are capable of participating in another fishery (i.e., some may
possess a broad range of commercial fishing skills).
Initial losses in producer surplus
are typically estimated for year one only. Vessels might incur further losses
in future seasons, but will also have time to adjust their fishing practices so
as to minimize these losses. Labor will also adjust as some crew members
leave the industry or shift to vessels in other fisheries that are unaffected
by the new regulations.
3.3.5 Non-Market Valuation
Although marine mammals and other protected
species are not normally traded in economic markets, society still places a value
on protecting these species from human-induced mortality. Thus, those who place
a value on the survival of a species also benefit from the protection of these
species afforded by fisheries regulation. Contingent valuation techniques have
been used by economists to assess the value to society of such non-market goods
and services, and the techniques have been endorsed by a NOAA Blue Ribbon Panel
of independent experts. However, the use of contingent valuation techniques to
answer public policy questions is still considered controversial.
NOAA Fisheries does not have value
estimates for animals protected by the ESA or MMPA taken by gear used in HMS fisheries,
but studies indicate that society does value the existence of marine mammal species
encountered by other fishing gears (Strand, McConnell, and Bockstael, 1994). For
that reason, it is important to consider the value to society of protecting endangered
and threatened species. Due to lack of specific valuation data, no attempt has
been made to include such values in the analysis presented below. Rather, they
are mentioned to illustrate the high value the public places on eliminating human-induced
mortality of marine mammal and sea turtle stocks. Note that if a market situation
could be developed, (e.g., transferable quotas), societal values for marine mammal
and sea turtle protection could be expressed through trade such as a buyout
of swordfish permits, which would be subsequently taken out of the fishery.
3.3.6 Net National Benefits
Net national benefits are the benefits
minus the costs under the alternatives. Due to lack of cost data, only marginal
changes in gross revenues are evaluated. Because costs are likely changing as
well, these analyses are only a partial picture of the effect of the various alternatives.
The net economic benefits are measured as the change in consumer and producer
surplus brought about by the preferred management measures. As indicated above,
these net benefits are minimum estimates because they do not include non-market
benefits such as existence values or non-consumptive use values. These benefits
are difficult to calculate and are not generated in this document.
In practice, one of the most straightforward
methods of evaluating producer and consumer surplus is to allocate and allow the
sale of individual transferrable quotas (ITQs): for example, the price that might
be bid by an individual fisherman for the opportunity to harvest one swordfish
reflects either producer surplus (for a commercial fisherman) or angler consumer
surplus (for a recreational angler) or existence value (for a conservationist).
Although ITQs are not in place for the swordfish fishery, the limited access system
implemented in July, 1999, imparts a value to permits and may provide a proxy
for estimating this value in a few years. Preliminary information on transfers
of HMS limited access permits indicate sale/offer prices of $0 to $5,000 for all
swordfish or shark permits. NOAA Fisheries expects that permits for larger vessels
would be worth more than those for smaller vessels given the existing vessel upgrading
restrictions. These values reflect primarily the present value of expected net
revenues from swordfishing (subject to vessel restrictions) for the range of years
considered by parties to the transaction.