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

9.0 SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and NEPA, NOAA Fisheries is required to analyze the social impacts of fishing regulations on HMS fishing communities. A fishing community, as defined under NS 8, is

"...a community that is substantially dependent upon or substantially engaged in the harvest or processing of fishery resources to meet social and economic needs, and includes fishing vessel owners, operators, crew, and fish processors that are based in such communities."

Often, it is the economic impacts (described in Sections 7 and 8 of this document) which drive the changes in fishing communities. However, social impacts can occur without any associated economic impacts. While NOAA Fisheries collects fishing and economic data through observers and mandatory reporting requirements, these data provide information only on when, where, and how HMS vessels fish and the productivity of their fishing trips. These data do not provide information on the socio-economic aspects of the HMS fisheries. Additionally, because some HMS fishing vessels and their crew are "migratory," following the fish up and down the coast, and others and their crew generally stay in one location (e.g., some of the smaller vessels), it is difficult to estimate the impacts of some of these measures on fishing communities. At this time, the best available information regarding HMS fishing communities is summarized in the HMS FMP and updates are provided in the annual SAFE reports. For these reasons, the social impacts of the alternatives on fishing communities are discussed qualitatively, not quantitatively.

In order to increase its understanding of HMS fishing communities, NOAA Fisheries has recently provided funding for additional research regarding HMS fishing regulations on HMS communities. However, this research is not expected to be done this year. Additionally, NOAA Fisheries continues to work with fishing and environmental representatives through organizations (e.g., Blue Water Fishermen's Association), the HMS and Billfish APs, and public hearings in order to improve its understanding of all HMS fishing communities and the impacts of fishing regulations on these communities.

This section analyzes the social impacts of the final actions in this document on fishing communities. Additional social impacts are discussed in Section 7.

9.1 Community Profiles

Chapter 9 of the HMS FMP contains a full description of many fishing communities that participate in HMS fisheries. These descriptions include the population, level of education, sources of employment, per capita income, and the fishing sectors in the community. The communities described include Gloucester, MA; New Bedford, MA; Barnegat Light, NJ; Brielle, NJ; Hatteras, NC; Wanchese, NC; Islamorada, FL; Pompano Beach, FL; Madeira Beach, FL; Panama City, FL; Dulac, LA; and Venice, LA.

Of these communities, the HMS FMP points out that New Bedford, Barnegat Light, Wanchese, Islamorada, Pompano Beach, Madeira Beach, Panama City, Dulac, and Venice have sectors that rely on fishing with pelagic longline gear. Wilson et al. (1998) found that all pelagic longline fishermen that land HMS are vessels that fish in the NED area and that many of these vessels fish in the Caribbean in the winter months or have moved to the Pacific Ocean. Additionally, the families of fishermen on these vessels are isolated from each other and feel the strain of long fishing trips. According to Wilson et al. (1998), some vessels in Barnegat Light are trying to convert to other fishing gears. Wilson et al. (1998) also found that many pelagic longline fishermen in Wanchese had already switched out of fishing and moved into other employment such as carpentry, building, and charter/headboat fishing. It is possible that this trend could continue as a result of the preferred alternatives if fishermen feel that the regulations are becoming too restrictive. In Islamorada, Wilson et al. (1998) found that vessels had a limited range and that some captains were already seeking employment in the Bahamas, South Africa, and South America. As with Islamorada, Pompano Beach is experiencing an increasing number of recreational fishing vessels that compete with pelagic longline vessels. The pelagic longline fishing community at Madeira Beach is composed of vessels that have multiple permits including tunas, grouper, and shark. Wilson et al. (1998) found that alternative employment, such as in the oil industry and agriculture, does exist for unemployed pelagic longline fishermen in Dulac and Venice.

In the past shark gillnet fishermen listed their home ports as Fort Pierce, Port Salerno, Melbourne Beach, and Stuart, FL. Shark gillnet fishermen are located in Florida (home addresses are in Palm City, Port Alerno, Stuart, and Fort Pierce) and many fish for other species besides sharks (e.g., mackerel) and may be employed in non-fishing jobs currently. If fishermen exit this fishery due to prohibitive costs associated with these regulations, it is unlikely there would be significant impacts on the social structure of fishing communities. The dealers that buy fish caught in the shark gillnet fishery are also located in Florida and are likely to buy and sell other species besides sharks. If fishermen exit this fishery due to prohibitive costs associated with these regulations, it is unlikely these dealers would be significantly affected due to the small volume of fish landed by shark gillnet fishermen annually relative to landings of other fisheries and the likelihood that sharks would be landed by other gear types (and sold to local dealers) since they are managed under a restrictive quota. There is not expected to be any limitation on the availability of shark in the marketplace if gillnet fishermen were to exit the fishery.

9.2 Possible Social Impacts of the NED Area Closure

In 2000, there were 13 pelagic longline vessels that fished in the NED area, which was an increase from 10 that fished there in 1999. After the NED area was closed in the July 13, 2001 (66 FR 36711), emergency rule, there were 8 vessels that participated in the 2001 pelagic longline experimental fishery in the NED closed area. These vessels were allowed to retain and sell their catch in addition to being compensated $4,150 per set for their participation. In total, NOAA Fisheries compensated the participating vessels $769,825 to offset any loss of target catch attributable to the experimental fishing parameters. The 2001 BiOp stipulates that the NED area is to be closed and that an experimental fishery should be conducted for no more than three years to examine the possibility of developing modified fishing practices to avoid the incidental take of sea turtles. If measures can be developed to reduce the capture or mortality of sea turtles by 55 percent, then the NED area can be reopened. NOAA Fisheries feels that the NED area experimental fishery offers the affected vessels an opportunity to avoid significant social and economic impacts from the closed area, if they participate. Because of the availability of the experimental fishery, NOAA Fisheries does not expect any significant social or community impacts to result from the closure in the short-term. If vessels do not participate or are not eligible to participate in the experimental fishery, they may experience economic and social impacts. However, there are other areas, perhaps not as lucrative, available to fishing activities. Thus, the closure could have three immediate impacts on the fishing communities in the northeast: 1) fishermen could spend more time away from home and their families, 2) fishermen could move from a community adjacent to the closed area to a community closer to open areas, or 3) fishermen could leave the fishery. Any of these choices could have large social impacts on communities, such as New Bedford, that provide support services to these vessels.

Dealers could also be affected by the NED area closure. Wilson et al. (1998) found that dealers that buy fish from the NED area vessels in New Bedford, annually buy approximately 60 percent swordfish, 15 percent tunas, 10 percent lobster, and 15 percent other fish such as sharks. Thus, closing the NED could have a large impact on those dealers. Unlike fishermen, dealers are not as mobile. Thus, without the experimental fishery or if the experimental fishing results in reduced catches, these dealers would either have to switch their reliance to other species of fish or go out of business. Because dealers and fishermen often form a type of business bond, it could be difficult for these dealers to integrate themselves into other fisheries. Thus, in the short-term the communities that rely on the dealers could be affected but in the long-term, NOAA Fisheries expects that most dealers would be able to forge new relationships and continue to be an important part of the fishing community.

NOAA Fisheries has little available information on equipment suppliers (e.g., tackle shops, large equipment suppliers, welders, boat-builders, machine shops, etc.). Therefore, it is difficult to estimate what the impacts of the NED area closure may be on this sector. All play important roles in outfitting pelagic longline vessels for commercial fishing. These businesses may employ many or few people in a particular town. If the impacts of the time/area closure on fishermen and dealers are large, there could be similar large social and economic impacts on this sector in the northeast. If these companies are large or supply a large and diverse number of fishing vessels throughout the Atlantic basin, any impacts are likely to be reduced.

To the extent that the public perceives U.S. pelagic longline fishermen as helping sea turtles, some fishing communities dependent on pelagic longline fishing may notice some benefits if demand for domestic seafood increases.

9.3 Possible Social Impacts of the Pelagic Longline Gear Modifications

The HMS pelagic longline fishery gear modifications required by NOAA Fisheries in this regulation include requiring the length of any gangion to be 110 percent of the length of any floatline in sets where the total length of any gangion and any floatline is less than 100 meters and requiring the use of corrodible hooks. The gangion length requirement was made effective in the 2001 BiOp emergency rule (July13, 2001 66 FR 64378) so the affected fishermen should have already altered their usual fishing behavior/gear to comply with the regulation. The corrodible hook requirement will have a delayed effective date which should allow the impacted fishermen to spread the cost of purchasing hooks over a few months.

Requiring the gangion lengths to be 110 percent of the floatline length in sets that are 100 meters or less in depth only affects those fishermen deploying shallow gear which is usually targeting swordfish. NOAA Fisheries does not expect this action to have large impacts on fishermen or their communities. To comply with this regulation, fishermen could lengthen their gangions. This option will require fishermen to buy additional monofilament and replace existing gangions. Alternatively, fishermen could shorten their floatlines. Both options will require additional labor in the short-term to adjust the length of the existing gear. Related businesses are not likely to be affected.

Regarding corrodible hooks, NOAA Fisheries is defining a corrodible hook as a hook that is non-stainless steel. As many fishermen already use these hooks, NOAA Fisheries does not expect this regulation to have large social impacts. However, NOAA Fisheries is conducting research into other specifications or definitions of corrodible hooks. Any impacts of the other definitions is unknown at this time. Those vessels that are currently rigged with stainless steel hooks will have increased direct costs of replacement hooks and crew time to re-rig the gear. This action could affect suppliers as they would have to ensure an adequate supply of non-stainless steel hooks and they may not be able to sell the stainless steel hooks already in stock.

To the extent that the public perceives U.S. pelagic longline fishermen as helping sea turtles, some fishing communities dependent on pelagic longline fishing may notice some benefits if demand for domestic seafood increases.

9.4 Possible Social Impacts of the Mortality Reduction Measures

The required measures to reduce the post release mortality of sea turtles by vessels fishing for HMS should not have a significant social impact on fishing communities. Several of them do not require any additional equipment. Instead, they slightly modify the behavior of the fisherman in an effort to improve the protection and knowledge of protected species. In some cases, fishing communities may notice benefits if the public perceives HMS fishermen as working to improve sea turtle and marine mammal survivorship (i.e., there could be some positive social impacts).

Under one of the final actions, NOAA Fisheries is requiring that the captain of a vessel using pelagic longline gear to target HMS report a lethal sea turtle take within 48 hours of returning to port. Under another final action, both the vessel operator and the observer of a shark gillnet vessel are responsible for sighting whales. The shark gillnet vessel operator is also responsible for contacting NOAA Fisheries in the event one is incidentally taken in this fishery. Both of these actions will allow NOAA Fisheries to gather more complete data concerning bycatch in these two fisheries. Because the fishing operators are not greatly affected, NOAA Fisheries expects few, if any, social impacts.

NOAA Fisheries is also requiring shark gillnet fishermen to conduct net checks every 0.5 to 2 hours to look for and remove any entangled sea turtles or marine mammals from the gear. Most shark gillnet fishermen already check the net so this action will have few impacts. However, for fishermen who do not, the use of fuel could increase and repeated checking of the net may reduce target catch particularly if a protected species is caught. It is unlikely that this alternative will affect fishing communities especially given the small number of vessels in the shark gillnet fishery.

9.5 Conclusion

Only one of the final actions for pelagic longline gear is expected to have social impacts. The NED closed area could have significant economic impacts upon the vessels that usually fish in that area of the Atlantic Ocean. However, the NED area experimental fishery that NOAA Fisheries is conducting in 2002 and 2003 (pending approval of a Section 10 permit under ESA) should allow vessels the opportunity to fish in the NED closed area using specific fishing gear or methods. This will mitigate some of the impacts of the closed area. The other final actions for pelagic longline gear are expected to have few, if any, social impacts.

The final actions for either the shark gillnet fishery or the other gear types are expected to have few, if any, social impacts on fishing communities.

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

The U.S. pelagic longline fleet in the Atlantic Ocean captures sea turtles at a rate estimated to average 986 loggerheads and 796 leatherbacks per year, based on observed takes and total reported effort from 1992 to 1999. Most of these takes occur on the high seas, rather than within the U.S. Economic Exclusive Zone (EEZ). The U.S. fleet is a small part of the international fleet that competes on the high seas for catches of tunas and swordfish. Although the U.S. fleet landed as much as 35 percent of the swordfish from the north Atlantic Ocean, north of 5oN. latitude in 1990, this proportion decreased to 25 percent by 1997. For tunas, the U.S. proportion of landings was 23 percent in 1990 decreasing to 16 percent by 1997. The U.S. fleet accounts for none or virtually none of the landings of swordfish and tuna from the Atlantic Ocean, south of 5oN. latitude, and does not operate at all in the Mediterranean Sea. Tuna and swordfish landings by foreign fleets operating in the tropical Atlantic and Mediterranean are greater than the catches from the north Atlantic area where the U.S. fleet operates. Even within the area where U.S. fleet operates, the U.S. portion of fishing effort, in numbers of hooks fished is less than 10 percent of the entire international fleet's effort, and likely less than that due to differences in reporting effort between ICCAT countries (NOAA Fisheries SEFSC, 2001). Since other ICCAT nations do not monitor incidental catches of sea turtles, an exact assessment of their impact is not possible. High absolute numbers of sea turtle catches in the foreign fleets have been reported from other sources, however (NOAA Fisheries SEFSC, 2001). If the sea turtle catch rates of foreign fleets, per hook, or even per pound of swordfish landed, are similar to the catch rates of the American fleet, then the American fleet may represent less than one-tenth and certainly no more than one-third of the total catch and mortality of sea turtles in North Atlantic longline fisheries.

Many sources of anthropogenic mortality of sea turtles are outside of U.S. jurisdiction and control. Mortality in the domestic and foreign longline fisheries is just one of the numerous factors affecting sea turtle populations in the Atlantic Ocean. There is a concern that reduced U.S. catch of Atlantic swordfish in the NED area could result in increased sea turtle interactions with foreign longline vessels in that same area. Vessels fishing the NED area have landed approximately 20 percent of the U.S. swordfish quota in recent years. Thus, closing the NED area could result in reduced U.S. swordfish catch than in past years (although with the experimental fishery, this would be unlikely to occur in the near future). A reduction in U.S. fishing effort could eventually result in a reduced allocation for U.S. vessels under the ICCAT catch allocation scheme and could make the implementation of international conservation efforts more difficult if the U.S. role in swordfish management is diminished. A reduced presence in the fishery might also eliminate the option of gear or other experimentation with the U.S. longline fleet, thus making it difficult to find take reduction solutions which could be transferred to other longlining nations to effect a global reduction in sea turtle takes by pelagic longline gear. NOAA Fisheries is not aware of any foreign fleets that are currently using any conservation measures, and in the absence of a domestic fishing fleet subject to turtle conservation measures, foreign vessels would likely increase their fishing effort in the NED area and it is likely that overall turtle mortality would increase.

U.S. fishermen could be directly disadvantaged by the preferred alternatives compared to foreign competitors in the fact that they will not be able to fish in the NED area while foreign competitors could. This area is a traditional swordfish fishing area and provides much of the U.S. domestically-caught swordfish. Additionally, U.S. fishermen would have other regulations modifying their gear and their methods of fishing while foreign competitors would not. However, NOAA Fisheries hopes that the gear modifications will prove to be effective at reducing sea turtle interactions, that other nations will adopt these modifications, and that the reduced U.S. sea turtle takes will allow U.S. fishermen to fish in the NED, thereby eliminating any competitive disadvantage.

10.1.2 Provide U.S. Fishing Vessels Reasonable Opportunity to Harvest Quota

The final actions would not prevent U.S. commercial fishermen from the opportunity to land the quotas allocated to them. The final actions would close the NED area to fishermen fishing with pelagic longline gear. Fishermen who wish to continue to fish with this gear may still do so outside the closed area or during the experimental fishery NOAA Fisheries is conducting in the NED area. Participation in this experiment would allow vessels that would otherwise be displaced by the closure to fish in the NED and land their catch. NOAA Fisheries would also compensate the participating vessels to mitigate the economic losses due to complying with the experimental parameters. Regardless of the level of participation in the NED experiment, NOAA Fisheries expects that U.S. vessels would continue to fish for swordfish under quota allocated to the United States. It is possible, although the quota has not been taken in recent years, that active vessels could take the quota by fishing in open areas or using other gears.

In October 2001, there were approximately 208 fishermen with a directed swordfish limited access permit and 112 fishermen with an incidental swordfish limited access permit. In other words, in October 2001, there were approximately 320 fishermen who could use pelagic longline gear to fish for HMS. Only a few of these fishermen actually report fishing with pelagic longline gear in logbooks (considered "active"). In 2000, 171 fishermen reported fishing for HMS with pelagic longline in both the pelagic logbook and in weigh-out slips. These data indicate that there is still an opportunity for fishermen with permits to increase effort in HMS fisheries and thus fully land the quotas allocated to U.S. fishermen.

10.1.3 Pursue Comparable International Fishery Management Measures

Section 202(h) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act calls for the Secretary of State, in cooperation with the Secretary of Commerce, to seek international agreements to establish standards and measures for bycatch reduction that are comparable to the standards and measures applicable to U.S. fishermen if they conclude that it is necessary and appropriate. On September 18, 2000, NOAA Fisheries determined that seeking international agreements with foreign nations conducting pelagic longline fishing operations for Atlantic and Pacific highly migratory species was necessary to protect endangered and threatened sea turtles. Furthermore, the June 14, 2001, BiOp requires NOAA Fisheries to pursue bilateral or multilateral agreements for the protection and conservation of sea turtles with other nations and to translate the sea turtle handling and release guidelines into several languages for distribution throughout the Atlantic and Mediterranean.

Dominant fisheries in the Atlantic include Brazil, Canada, Japan, Portugal, Spain, Taiwan, the United States, Uruguay and the nations of the Caribbean. The United States is at the forefront of conservation on this issue. In addition to establishing domestic time/area closures to minimize turtle interactions, NOAA Fisheries also requires U.S. longliners to cut away the line as close to the hook as possible on any sea turtle that is caught during fishing operations. Removing the gear from the turtle may increase its chances of survival after being released. The United States hopes to transfer some of these techniques and fishing methods to other countries with longline fleets that incidentally capture sea turtles. To support this goal, the United States intends to support a workshop in 2002 consisting of technical experts on sea turtle biology and longline fishery operations from interested nations in order to share information and discuss possible solutions to reduce incidental capture of marine turtles in these fisheries.

Additionally, the Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles ("Inter-American Convention") was concluded on September 5, 1996, in Salvador, Brazil, and entered into force in May 2001. This is the first international agreement devoted solely to the protection of sea turtles. The Inter-American Convention calls for the Parties to establish national sea turtle conservation programs. Each party will agree to implement broad measures for the conservation of sea turtles, including the use of turtle excluder devices in commercial shrimp trawl vessels and the mitigation of impacts on sea turtles from other fisheries.

10.1.4 Consider Traditional Fishing Patterns and the Operating Requirements of the Fisheries

In the late 1800s, commercial fishermen in New England were pursuing swordfish, primarily with harpoons and targeting the large swordfish then available in surface waters. Pelagic longline fishing, both domestic and international, began in earnest in the North Atlantic Ocean in the early 1960s. The introduction of this gear enabled access to swordfish in deeper waters and opened new fishing areas. U.S. pelagic longline vessels follow the fish throughout their migratory range along the East Coast of the United States and up to the Grand Banks, and now catch approximately 98 percent of the U.S. Atlantic swordfish landings. To the extent that the NED area closure will prevent the distant water fishermen who use pelagic longline gear from fishing in the Grand Banks, the final actions would alter traditional fishing patterns. However, NOAA Fisheries is conducting the experimental fishery in an effort to develop fishing methods and behaviors that will reduce the interactions with and post-release mortality of sea turtles. If these efforts are successful, the NED area could be reopened to fishing as indicated in the June 14, 2001, BiOp. The other final actions are not expected to affect traditional fishing patterns or disrupt the operations of the HMS fisheries.

10.1.5 National Standards

The analyses in this document are consistent with the national standard guidelines set forth in the 50 CFR part 600 regulations. The final actions will enhance the recovery of some protected species by reducing the incidental capture and post-release mortality of sea turtles and marine mammals. NOAA Fisheries continues to work in the international community to protect highly migratory species in the Atlantic Ocean throughout their range, while also implementing domestic measures that are consistent with domestic legislation. This rule would be consistent with NS 1 in that it would maintain optimal yield while maintaining current rebuilding plans. The analyses contained in the final rule are based on the best scientific information available (NS 2), including self-reported, observer, and stock assessment data which provide for the management of these species throughout their ranges (NS 3) . With respect to NS 4, the NED area closure could disadvantage fishermen living in the northeast United States, but this closure would be justified under NS 4 as a conservation measure with no discriminatory intent. In the NED area, approximately 8 percent of the active vessels in the pelagic longline fleet take approximately 75 percent of the loggerhead and 63 percent of the leatherback sea turtles. The final actions would require a combination of an area closure and gear modifications in an attempt to maintain fishing efficiency while providing increased protection to sea turtles and marine mammals (NS 5). The NED area closure could reduce the efficiency of the distant water fleet because they may move to less familiar fishing grounds and it may take longer to catch significant amounts of target species. NOAA Fisheries does not believe that the other final gear measures would affect fishing efficiency. With regard to NS 6, the final actions should be flexible enough to be changed under the FMP framework to accommodate biological, social, and economic variability. NOAA Fisheries will continue data collection programs with respect to these fisheries in order to assess the effectiveness of the final actions. NOAA Fisheries also considered the costs and benefits of this rulemaking in Sections 7, 8, and 9 of the FSEIS and concluded that the benefits of these regulations should be real and substantial relative to the added administrative, research, and enforcement costs, and the compliance costs to the industry (NS 7). Social impacts are discussed in Section 9 of the FSEIS. Consistent with NS 8, NOAA Fisheries has considered the impacts of these actions on fishing communities. This rulemaking specifically addresses NS 9 and would minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality in the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery as described in Section 1. In terms of NS 10, the final actions would not require fishermen to fish in an unsafe manner.

10.1.6 Coastal Zone Management Act

NOAA Fisheries has determined that these regulations will be implemented in a manner consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of those coastal states in the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean that have approved coastal zone management programs. Eleven of the 12 states that replied to the letter regarding compliance of the proposed rule with the Coastal Zone Management Act found NOAA Fisheries' proposed actions to be consistent with their coastal zone management programs. The State of Georgia objects to the consistency determination due to the continuing operation of the shark gillnet fishery in Federal waters impacting resources shared by adjacent state waters. NOAA Fisheries shares the State of Georgia's concern regarding the impact of the shark gillnet fishery on sea turtles, marine mammals, and sport fish. However, data currently available do not indicate high bycatch and bycatch mortality of protected species and other finfish in this fishery. Because the incidental capture of endangered species in the shark gillnet fishery is regulated under the ESA and the BiOp did not conclude that continuation of the shark gillnet fishery would jeopardize any endangered or threatened resources, NOAA Fisheries is not prohibiting the use of this gear at this time. This finding is consistent with national standard 2 which requires that management measures be based on the best scientific information available and with the conclusions of the BiOp. Thus, NOAA Fisheries finds that the final regulations promulgated in this rulemaking are consistent with Georgia's Coastal Zone Management Program to the maximum extent practicable.

10.2 Mitigating Measures

Most of the HMS vessels that would be affected by these regulations are likely to continue to derive their income predominantly from commercial fishing activities. Some vessel owners, however, might choose to exit all commercial fisheries as a result of this action, and might seek to be compensated for the residual value of their gear by selling their vessels and limited access permits. It is likely that participants could sell their swordfish, shark, and tuna longline category limited access permits to other interested fishermen (predominantly those fishermen in other geographic areas). Those fishermen with suitable vessels might shift to participate in recreational fisheries by converting to charter/headboat operations. As mentioned previously in this document, NOAA Fisheries is planning on conducting an experimental fishery in the NED in 2002 and possibly 2003. Similar to how it was conducted in 2001, NOAA Fisheries could compensate fishing vessels for testing gear modifications and fishing techniques in the NED closed area. This compensation and the ability to retain and sell the catch during the experiment should mitigate the economic effects of the closure in the short term.

The other gear modification measures being implemented are not expected to have significant impacts upon the affected fishermen, so mitigation measures are not necessary.

10.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

The reasons for the final actions are outlined in the previous sections of this document and the DSEIS. The NS Guidelines provide a list of factors that should be considered in determining whether a bycatch reduction measure is practicable:

1. Population effects for the incidental catch species;
2. Ecological effects due to changes in the incidental catch of the species (effects on other species in the ecosystem);
3. Changes in the incidental catch of other species of fish and the resulting population and ecosystem effects;
4. Effects on marine mammals and birds;
5. Changes in fishing, processing, disposal, and marketing costs;
6. Changes in fishing practices and behavior of fishermen;
7. Changes in research, administration, and management effectiveness;
8. Changes in the economic, social, or cultural value of fishing activities and non- consumptive uses of fishery resources;
9. Changes in the distribution of benefits and costs; and,
10. Social effects.

NOAA Fisheries considered all of these factors for each alternative and has determined that the final actions are indeed practicable. The final actions are expected to result in bycatch and incidental catch reduction. They are selected because they would meet the objectives of this rulemaking and mitigate to the extent possible the impacts on fishermen and communities.

10.4 List of Agencies and Persons Consulted

Discussions relevant to the formulation of the final actions involved input from several scientific and stakeholder groups: NOAA Fisheries Southeast Fisheries Science Center, NOAA Fisheries Office of Science and Technology, NOAA Fisheries Office of Protected Resources, and the HMS and Billfish APs which include representatives from the commercial fishing industries, recreational fishing industries, environmental organizations, state representatives, and fishery management councils. Members of the public submitted relevant comments during seven scoping hearings held in 2000 concerning an emergency rule to implement the June 30, 2000, BiOp. Members of the public also had ample opportunity to provide comments during the comment period on the emergency rule published on October 13, 2000 (65 FR 60889), during the comment period on the emergency rule published on July 13, 2001 (66 FR 36711), and on the draft Biological Opinion released in April 2001.

Members of the public also had an opportunity to comment on these measures during the public comment period for the proposed rule (April 10, 2002, 67 FR 17349) and its accompanying DSEIS. During this public comment period, four public hearings were held in Panama City, FL; Barnegat Light, NJ; Riverhead, NY; and Silver Spring, MD (April 29, 2002, 67 FR 2944). The comment period on this proposed rule ended on May 20, 2002. During the public comment period, copies of the DSEIS and the proposed rule were sent to current Billfish and HMS Advisory Panel (AP) members, HMS Consulting Parties, the U.S. Coast Guard, the Department of State, the ICCAT Advisory Committee chairman, and ICCAT Commissioners.

All documents associated with the proposed and final rules can be obtained from the Highly Migratory Species Management Division, 1315 East-West Highway, F/SF1, Silver Spring, MD 20910 or by calling (301) 713-2347.

10.5 List of Preparers

This document was prepared by individuals from the Office of Sustainable Fisheries, Highly Migratory Species Management Division.

Karyl Brewster-Geisz, M.S. (Fishery Management Specialist)
Tyson Kade, M.E.M. (Fisheries Management Consultant)
Christopher Rogers, Ph.D. (Fishery Biologist)
Margo Schulze-Haugen, M.S. (Fishery Biologist)

This division also received help from other Offices including the Office of Science and Technology, the Office of Protected Resources, the Southeast Regional Office, the Southeast Fisheries Science Center, and the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration's General Counsel for Fisheries.

10.6 Finding

NOAA Fisheries has determined that final action to close the NED to pelagic longline gear would have a significant impact on the human environment. This determination was made through consideration of the following questions (NOAA Administrative order 216-6):

1. Are the final actions expected to jeopardize the sustainability of any target or non-target species that may be affected by the action? Or will the final actions have any cumulative adverse effects on target or non-target species?

As described in Section 1 of the FSEIS, the objectives of these final actions include reducing incidental catch of marine mammals and sea turtles, reducing post-release mortality, and improving the collection of protected species data. Thus, NOAA Fisheries does not believe that the final actions in these regulations will jeopardize the sustainability of any target or non-target species nor will the final actions have any cumulative adverse effects on target or non-target species.

2. Will the final actions cause substantial damage to the ocean and coastal habitats and/or essential fish habitat as defined under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and identified in FMPs?

The final actions include an area closure and gear modifications for fishing with pelagic longline gear. The final actions also includes modifying fishing behavior for the shark gillnet fishery. To the extent that these gear types may have harmed any habitats or marine life, these regulations will prevent further harm from occurring.

3. Will the final actions cause substantial adverse impact on public health or safety?

To the extent that some fishermen may decide, as a result of the NED area closure, to fish beyond the safety limitations of their vessel or experience, there could be some safety implications of these regulations. However, these regulations do not require fishermen to fish in an unsafe manner.

4. Will the final actions adversely affect endangered or threatened species, marine mammals, or critical habitat of these species?

The final actions are a result of the RPAs and TCs in the June 14, 2001, BiOp and are not expected to adversely affect endangered or threatened species, marine mammals, or critical habitat of these species.

5. Will the final actions have a substantial impact on biodiversity and ecosystem function within the affected area?

The final actions are expected to enhance rebuilding of protected species, and to the extent that the swordfish quota is not fully taken, may aid in swordfish rebuilding. To the extent that overfishing may have had an impact on ecosystem function and biodiversity, these regulations could help to repair any damage caused by the fishery.