Chapter 6 EIS Preparers, Scoping and · PDF fileChapter 6 EIS Preparers, Scoping and Review...

313

Chapter 6 EIS Preparers, Scoping and Review

6.1 Preparers of the EIS

This EIS was prepared under the supervision of NMFS PIRO with input from FisheryManagement Action Teams (FMAT) for seabirds and squid. Participating individuals are listedbelow:

NMFS Headquarters: Galen Tromble and William ChappellNMFS PIRO: Karla Gore, Tom Graham, Keith Schultz, Tom Swenarton, Anik Clemens, and

Marilyn LuipoldNMFS PIFSC: Christofer Boggs, Mike SekiNOAA-GC-SWR/PIR: Judson FederUSFWS: Holly FreifeldWPFMC: Tony Beeching; Paul Dalzell; Joshua DeMello; Marcia Hamilton, and Eric Kingma The authors and sections they provided are as follows:

Paul Bartram (B.A.) Cumulative ImpactsKathy Cousins ( M.Sc.) SeabirdsMike Downs (Ph.D.) Social ImpactsMarcus Hartley (M.S.) Economic ImpactsKim Holland (Ph.D.) Pelagic Environment and PMUSGeorge Krasnick (M.S.) Project Manager, Chapters 1,2,5, Portions of Affected Environment and

ImpactsDon Schug (Ph.D.) Social and Economic AnalysesRichard Young (Ph.D.) Squid

6.2 Scoping

6.2.1 The Scoping Process

Prior to conducting scoping meetings, current issues in pelagic fisheries in the region that mayrequire management action were identified by NMFS and WPFMC staff. Ongoing litigationregarding sea turtle interactions with the Hawaii-based longline fishery was the most immediateconcern, and preparation of a Pelagics SEIS and regulatory package to address that issue wasinitiated while scoping was being completed.

Scoping for the issue of seabird interactions in the Hawaii-based longline fishery effectivelybegan with comments received by NMFS after publication of the 2001 Pelagics FEIS (NMFS2001a). The American Bird Conservancy (ABC) expressed support for the closure of theshallow-set component of the fishery because it would eliminate seabird mortality in that fishery,and for requiring seabird avoidance measures for all longline vessels fishing above 23°N latitude.The ABC further recommended that paired streamer lines be mandatory rather than optional and

314

supported deployment of dedicated seabird observers in the fleet. They also noted the lack ofdiscussion of the sooty shearwater, one of which was previously observed taken in the fishery.

The USFWS also commented on the treatment of the longline-seabird interaction issue in the2001 Pelagics FEIS (NMFS 2001a), suggesting that a supplemental EIS clearly describemeasures that will be employed to reduce interactions between the experimental fisherydescribed therein (similar to the current model fishery) and protected species, including seabirds.They also had concerns about the potential introductions of alien species to NWRs fromgrounded vessels or unauthorized entry by fishermen.

The NOI to prepare a Pelagics SEIS (68 FR 59771) included a schedule of scoping meetings tobe held throughout the region. The scoping meeting schedule and numbers of attendees aredetailed in Table 6.2-1. A supplemental NOI (68 FR 67640) informed that because of thecompressed timing for SEIS production mandated by a court-ordered deadline, other issues inwestern Pacific Ocean pelagic fisheries that might require management action would beaddressed later in other NEPA documents. Thus, the scoping process provided input to more thanone NEPA document, the 2004 SEIS and this EIS. Additional NEPA document(s) addressingother issues in pelagic fisheries of the region will be prepared as these issues become ripe fordecision-making, i.e., when the Council begins deliberations leading to management actions.

Table 6.2-1 Scoping Meeting Schedule.

Date Location Number ofAttendees

10/21/03 Fisherman’s Wharf Restaurant, 1009 AlaMoana Blvd., Honolulu, Oahu, HI;

44

10/27/03 Chiefess Kamakahelei Middle School, 4431Nuhou St., Lihue, Kauai, HI

5

10/28/03 Maui Beach Hotel170 Kaahumanu Ave., Kahului, Maui, HI

4

10/29/03 University of Hawaii at Hilo Campus Center,Room 313, 200 W. Kawaili St., Hilo, Hawaii,HI

26

10/30/03 King Kamehameha Hotel, 75-5660 Palani Rd.,Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, HI

4

11/6/03 Dept of Marine Resources Conference Room,Pago Pago, American Samoa

12

12/3/03 Pedro P. Tenorio Multipurpose Bldg., Susupe,Saipan

6

12/4/03 Guam Fisherman’s Cooperative, Perez Marina,Hagatña, Guam.

40

315

6.2.2 Issues Ripe for Decision-making

Table 6.2-2 summarizes the issues raised in scoping and the evaluation of their appropriatenessfor inclusion in this NEPA document.

Table 6.2-2 Evaluation of Scoping Issues for Inclusion in this EIS.

Issue Rationale for Inclusion Rationale forExclusion

Ripe for Decision-making

Conclusion

Sea TurtleInteractions

Most contentious issue inpelagic fisheries in the Region.Measures to minimize turtletakes may also reduce seabirdinteractions.

Was addressed inseparate PelagicsSEIS.

Yes, a long-termmanagement plan wassubmitted to the Courtby April 1, 2004.

Was addressed in anotherNEPA document becauseof immediacy of need formanagement action.

SeabirdInteractions

Establishment of the Hawaii-based model swordfish fisheryraises the possibility of greatlyincreased seabird interactionrates for this sector of thefishery compared with thedeep-set tuna sector.

None. Yes, shallow-setswordfish fishing hasbeen reauthorized.

Management alternativesshould be addressed inthis EIS.

Distant-waterSquid JiggingFishery

Importance of squid as prey toPMUS and protected species,possibility of markedlyincreased efforts in NorthPacific Ocean, lack of NEPAassessment under the HSFCA.

Small level of currenteffort, lack of currenteffort in U.S. EEZ,lack of currentlandings in U.S. ports.

Yes, issuing of permitsfor this fishery under theHSFCA has beensuspended until allNEPA and ESArequirements have beenmet.

Management alternativesshould be addressed inthis EIS.

Blue Marlin andBig Eye TunaStock Condition

Blue marlin and big eye tunastocks may be nearingmaximum exploitation levels.If confirmed, the Council isobliged to consider possiblereduction of fishing mortality.

Fisheries operatingunder the PelagicsFMP take a very smallproportion of thesestocks and represent avery small percentageof fishing mortality.Recent SCTB stockassessments areambiguous for big eyetuna.

No, better stockassessments will beforthcoming. However,proactive developmentof frameworkmanagement measuresthat could rapidly be putinto place ifcircumstances warrantcould be appropriate.

Not an immediate priority,but the status of PMUSstocks should be carefullymonitored for evidence ofoverfishing or overfishedconditions. Council notyet ready to proposemanagement action.Should be addressed inanother NEPA documentwhen appropriate.

Private FADs Characterization of this fisheryis not possible with existingdata collection systems. Theecologic and economicinteractions with other pelagicfisheries are unknown.

Characterization ofthis fishery will betime consuming andrequire thecooperation ofparticipants. TheCouncil is not yetprepared torecommendmanagement action.

Yes, this may already bea major fishery inHawaii and coulddevelop elsewhere in theRegion. May affectresource base andeconomics of existingregulated fisheries.

The length of time neededto produce a baselinedescription of this fisherywould delay assessmentand implementation ofimproved seabirdinteraction avoidancemeasures in the longlinefleet. Should be addressedin another NEPAdocument whenappropriate.



Conclusion

316

Adequacy ofNon-CommercialSector Data

Good documentation of catchand effort are lacking. TheWCPTC may eventuallyallocate resources amongdocumented fisheries.

Various estimates areavailable for landingsin the Region. NMFSis finalizing itsstrategic plan forrecreational fisheries.

Yes, more and betterdata are needed for stockassessments. WCPTCmay require records oflandings for futureresource allocations.

Management actionshould reflect NMFS’finalized strategic plan forrecreational fisheries.Action likely will becontentious and coulddelay assessment andimplementation ofimproved seabirdinteraction avoidancemeasures in the longlinefleet. Should be addressedin another NEPAdocument whenappropriate.

Interactions of theHawaii-basedlongline fisherywith false killerwhales

Excessive marine mammalinteractions could result inreclassification of the fisheryunder the MMPA. (Sincescoping was completed, thefishery has been reclassified asa Category 1 fishery.)

Stock assessment dataare limited. Interactionavoidance methods arebeing researched, butare not yet available.

Yes, environmentalorganizations haveexpressed concerns, andlitigation has occurred.

Should be addressed inanother NEPA documentwhen appropriate.

Requirement forall persons aboarda commercialvessel to holdcommercialfishing licenses

None. This is a local issue inthe different islandgroups. Crew can be“non-reporting” inHawaii. Permits forPelagics FMP fisheriesare vessel, ownerand/or operatorspecific.

No, island governmentsmay have valid reasonsfor enumeratingcommercial fishermen.

Management alternativesshould not be assessed inthis NEPA document.

Development ofdomestic longlinefisheries in Guamand CNMI

Placement of observers andmonitoring of bycatch andprotected species interactionswould provide baseline data.

Would be coveredunder the GeneralLongline Permitsystem already inplace under thePelagics FMP.

No, these fisheries arenot yet operating.

Management alternativesshould not be assessed inthis NEPA document.

Re-define“commercial” toexclude“expense”fishermen

Completeness and accuracy ofcatch and effort data arecompromised by thoseavoiding commercialrequirements.

The issue is not withinthe jurisdiction ofNMFS or the Council.

Yes, it is an ongoingissue of concern to bothfishermen (because ofexpense implications)and fishery managers(because of dataimplications).

This NEPA documentwould not be theappropriate venue inwhich to evaluate thisissue.

Establish a zonearound CNMIclosed to largebottomfish fishingvessels

Proactive move to limitcompetition with small, localvessels.

Is already beingaddressed by theCouncil in proposedAmendment 9 to thePelagics FMP.

Yes, some catchcompetition has beenexperienced.

Is being addressed underthe Bottomfish andSeamount GroundfishFMP.

Marine Debris Some marine debris may begenerated by Pelagics FMPfisheries.

Issue is adequatelyaddressed in nationallegislation andinternationalconventions.

Yes, marine debris is anongoing problem,especially in the NWHI,but also in the NorthernIslands of the Marianasand elsewhere.

The issue is broader thanpelagics fisheries and ismore appropriatelyconsidered under otherauspices.



Conclusion

317

Illegal foreignfishing in the U.S.EEZ

Creates catch competition withPelagics FMP fisheries andpossible localized depletion ofstocks.

Enforcement byNMFS OLE and theUSCG followspromulgation ofregulations.Enforcement prioritiesare not established in aNEPA document.

Yes, this is an ongoingproblem, but budgetaryconstraints and relativepriorities may not allowperfect enforcement.

This NEPA documentwould not be anappropriate forum forestablishing enforcementpriorities.

Sales of bycatchby foreign vesselsin Guam andAmerican Samoa

Depresses prices for locally-caught fish, but also satisfies amarket demand for inexpensivefish.

This is a localgovernment issue inGuam and AmericanSamoa.

Yes, this complaint hasbeen heard for sometime, however, localgovernment policiessupporting delivery offoreign fish to canneriesor for transhipping maypreclude adoption ofpolicies more favorableto local fishermen.

This is a local governmentissue in Guam andAmerican Samoa, and notan appropriate issue forconsideration in thisNEPA document.

Potential AlienSpeciesIntroductions byVesselGroundings orUnauthorizedEntries to NWRs

Vessels fishing under thePelagics FMP could ground ina NWR and crew could accessrestricted lands.

Most NWRs areremote and aresurrounded by bufferzones prohibitingentry. Vessels fishingunder other FMPs(Bottomfish, CoralReefs) may be morelikely to ground orhave crew accessNWRs. The PelagicsFMP cannot set NWRpolicy.

Yes, but this issueshould be done in abroader forum thatconsiders potentialintroductions from all ofthe various sources, notjust vessels fishing underthe Pelagics FMP.

Regulations, requirementsand prohibitions areproperly established bythe USFWS for theNWRs. Consideration ofalien species introductionsshould be included inNEPA documentation andregulations for specificNWRs.

The conclusions arising from the scoping process are summarized as follows. While interactionsbetween the Hawaii-based longline fleet and threatened and endangered species of sea turtlescontinue to drive litigation and management regime changes in that fishery, several other issuesin pelagic fisheries of the region have emerged since the Pelagics FEIS (NMFS 2001a) that havevarying degrees of “ripeness for decision-making.” Alternative methods of seabird interactionavoidance have the potential to further reduce the consequences of interactions with longlines inthe Hawaii fishery. Scientists and fishermen around the world have been experimenting withtechniques and equipment to reduce interactions between longline gear and seabirds. Two ofthese approaches, side-setting and the underwater setting chute, have been used elsewhere, butonly recently have they been tested in Hawaii. The results have been promising, and the WPFMCinitiated an assessment of a broader range of potential seabird interaction avoidance measures fortheir effectiveness compared to currently required measures.

A second issue appropriate for inclusion in this EIS is development of an industrial-scale, highseas U.S. squid jigging fishery in central and western Pacific Ocean waters. An existingoperation consisting of four vessels has fished at least briefly within the EEZ around Hawaii andlanded product in Hawaii. As a result of a recent court decision (Turtle Island RestorationNetwork and Center for Biological Diversity v NMFS, D.C. No. CV-01-01706-VRW), it hasbeen determined that each specific fishery authorized under the HSFCA must be assessed underNEPA before further permits can be issued for that fishery. As the North Pacific high seas squid

318

jigging fishery has not been previously assessed under NEPA, inclusion of this issue here isappropriate and timely. The Council also believes it appropriate at this time to examinealternatives for management of this fishery, as it has the potential to expand. Furthermore, withNMFS' and the Council’s movement toward ecosystem-based fishery management, it is logicalto consider management of squid resources because of their importance as prey species forseabirds, marine mammals, tunas, and billfish, especially swordfish. Ecosystem considerationsalso provide the rationale to assess alternatives for managing the existing small-scale coastalsquid jig fisheries in Hawaii and those that may arise in other areas of the region.

6.2.3 Level of NEPA Analysis

The rationale for production of an EIS on these issues rather than an EA is as follows. UnderCEQ regulations (40 CFR 1501.4) federal agencies are charged with developing andimplementing procedures to supplement the CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1507.3). The agency’sprocedures should be consulted for guidance on whether to prepare an EA or an EIS. NOAA’sAdministrative Order 216-6, “Environmental Review Procedures for Implementing the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act,” provides this guidance for NOAA actions. Section 5.01.b.1(b) of theOrder requires the agency to “consider the nature and intensity of the potential environmentalconsequences of the action in relation to the criteria and guidance provided in this Order todetermine whether the action requires an EIS, EA, or CE.”

Section 6.01 states that “...EISs must be prepared for...“ major Federal actions” significantlyaffecting the quality of the human environment.” It goes on to state that “[a] significant effectincludes both beneficial and adverse effects.” The section further defines the key terms used indetermining significance:• “Major Federal action” includes actions with effects that may be major and which are

potentially subject to NOAA’s control and responsibility. “Actions include: ...new orrevised agency rules, regulations, plans, policies, or procedures....”

• “Significant” requires consideration of both context and intensity. Context means thatsignificance of an action must be analyzed with respect to society as a whole, the affectedregion and interests, and the locality. Both short- and long-term effects are relevant.Intensity refers to the severity of the impact. The following factors should be consideredin evaluating intensity (40 CFR 1508.27):1. Impacts may be both beneficial and adverse –a significant effect may exist even if

the Federal agency believes that on balance the effect will be beneficial;2. Degree to which public health or safety is affected;3. Unique characteristics of the geographic area;4. Degree to which effects on the human environment are likely to be highly

controversial;5. Degree to which effects are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks;6. Degree to which the action establishes a precedent for future actions with

significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a futureconsideration;

7. Individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts;8. Degree to which the action adversely affects entities listed in or eligible for listing

in the National Register of Historic Places, or may cause loss or destruction ofsignificant scientific, cultural, or historic resources;

319

9. Degree to which endangered or threatened species, or their critical habitat asdefined under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, are adversely affected;

10. Whether a violation of Federal, state, or local law for environmental protection isthreatened; and

11. Whether a Federal action may result in the introduction or spread of anonindigenous species.

• “Affecting” means will or may have an effect (40 CFR 1508.3). “Effects” include direct,indirect, or cumulative effects of an ecological, aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic,social, or health nature ( 40 CFR 1508.8).

• “Human environment” includes the relationship of people with the natural and physicalenvironment. Each EA, EIS, or SEIS must discuss interrelated economic, social, andnatural or physical environmental effects.

Section 6.02 provides guidance specific to fishery management actions. The guidance is in theform of a list of potential outcomes of a proposed action such that if none of the outcomes maybe reasonably expected to occur, then either an EA or CE is the appropriate level of NEPAdocumentation. The outcomes that trigger production of an EIS are as follows:1. The proposed action may be reasonably expected to jeopardize the sustainability of any

target species that may be affected by the action.2. The proposed action may be reasonably expected to jeopardize the sustainability of any

non-target species.3. The proposed action may be reasonably expected to 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.

4. The proposed action may be reasonably expected to have a substantial adverse impact onpublic health or safety.

5. The proposed action may be reasonably expected to adversely affect endangered orthreatened species, marine mammals, or critical habitat of these species.

6. The proposed action may be reasonably expected to result in cumulative adverse effectsthat could have a substantial effect on the target species or non-target species.

7. The proposed action may be expected to have a substantial impact on biodiversity andecosystem function within the affected area (e.g., benthic productivity, predator-preyrelationships, etc.).

8. If significant social or economic impacts are interrelated with significant natural orphysical environmental effects, then an EIS should discuss all of the effects on the humanenvironment.

Section 6.02.i adds a final factor to be considered in any determination of significance, that beingcontroversy. Although controversy alone does not create significance, it is to be weighed with theother factors in determining the appropriate level of NEPA review.

The appropriate level of NEPA documentation for the two issues under discussion, seabirdinteractions with pelagic fisheries of the Western Pacific Region and the pelagic squid jiggingfisheries was determined by evaluating preliminary assessments of environmental consequencesfor the action alternatives using the significance criteria found in NOAA Order 216-6. For eachalternative for each issue, possible impacts were evaluated in terms of context and intensity. The

320

evaluation of context does not vary with alternative for a given issue, but the evaluation ofintensity does vary with alternative. Table 6.2.-3 summarizes this analyses.

Table 6.2-3 Evaluation of the Effects of Possible Management Actions for the Seabird andSquid Actions Using the Criteria of NOAA Order 216-6.

Criteria Seabird/Longline Interactions Pelagic Squid Jig Fisheries

No Action AdditionalAvoidanceMeasures

No Action Monitoring/Management

Context

Value to Society High High High High

Value to Region Low Low Low Low

Value to Locality High High Low Low

Intensity

Beneficial orAdverse

Adverse - Low Beneficial - Low Adverse - Low Adverse - Low

Public Health andSafety

Low Low Low Low

UniqueCharacteristics ofGeographic Area

High High High High

Controversy High High Low Low

Uncertain orUnknown Risks

Low Low Low Low

Precedent forFuture Action

Low Low Low Low

CumulativelySignificant

Low Low High High

Historic Places, etc. Low Low Low Low

Endangered orThreatened Species

Low Low Low Low

ViolateEnvironmental Law

Low Low Low Low

Introduce or SpreadNon-indigenousSpecies

Low Low Low Low

In summary, both the seabird and squid resources are highly valuable to society as a whole, andthe seabird resources are valuable in Hawaii. The context of the alternative actions therefore

321

supports a conclusion of significance. The issue then becomes whether or not the intensity of apotential effect supports a conclusion of significance. With respect to seabirds, the potentialbeneficial effect of requiring additional interaction avoidance measures would be a statisticallysignificant reduction of interactions with the Hawaii-based longline fleet. On the other hand, itcould be argued that if the current level of interactions is not materially harming the status of thepopulations of the Laysan and black-footed albatrosses, then removing this source of mortality isnot a significant benefit in population terms.

The longline and squid jigging fisheries take place in geographic areas with unique ecologicalcharacteristics, and the longline fishery affects seabird resources that are an integral part of theecology of the NWHI. Again though, in judging significance, we must conclude that the impactsof these fisheries to those areas likely are lost in the noise of natural variability and impacts fromother sources.

The degree of potential controversy, although not strictly a trigger of significance in itself, can beused as a contributing factor in weighing the decision. In the present case, the squid fisheries donot appear to be controversial, but the longline-seabird interaction issue is controversial, asevidenced by the preparation of a series of BiOp’s on potential interactions of the Hawaii-basedlongline fleet with the endangered short-tailed albatross, imposition of a suite of seabird deterrentmeasures, and completion of several sea trials of seabird deterrent equipment and methodologies.In addition, in its letter commenting on the ROD for the Pelagics FEIS, the American BirdConservancy expressed a concern about the lack of assessment in that document of the effects ofthe Hawaii-based longline fishery on seabirds other than albatrosses, in particular the sootyshearwater.

Perhaps the criterion arguing most persuasively for a conclusion of significance of the potentialimpacts of the management actions under consideration is cumulative effects. Both the seabirdand the squid resources are affected by numerous natural and human-induced factors, includingmortality from a host of foreign fishing operations. It is the uncertainty of the magnitude of thesecumulative effects that inhibits us from putting the effects of our own fisheries into perspective.In the case of the seabird resources, if we can essentially remove the impacts of the Hawaii-basedlongline fleet on seabirds, we will accomplish the single most effective measure within ourpower to foster rebuilding of the Laysan and black-footed albatross populations, and we will alsocontribute to the restoration of natural ecosystems in the future NWHI National MarineSanctuary. In the case of the squid resources, collection of CPUE, bycatch and protected speciesinteraction data will improve our understanding of the ecological effects of the multinationalfishery and move fishery management in the western Pacific region toward NMFS’ goal of beingecosystem-based. For these reasons it was concluded that an EIS rather than an EA was theappropriate level of NEPA documentation to address the seabird interaction and squid fisheryissues in the western Pacific region.

6.2.4 Issues Not Ripe for Decision-making

In addition to the longline-seabird interaction and squid fisheries management issues, there areseveral issues that were identified in scoping or are otherwise of interest to the Council that arenot as urgent as these, but nevertheless may soon require assessment of management alternatives.These issues include deployment of PFADs around the Hawaiian Islands, better monitoring of

322

recreational catch and effort throughout the region, and the Pacific Ocean-wide condition ofcertain PMUS stocks. These three issues appear to be considerably more contentious than theseabird interaction avoidance or squid fishery management issues, and the Council would like tomove forward more deliberately in development of management alternatives, giving stakeholdersadditional time in which to participate in the Council process. For this reason, these three issueswere not addressed in this EIS, but will be the subjects of other NEPA documentation, asappropriate, if and when the Council decides to take action on them. With regard to longlineinteractions with false killer whales and the recent reclassification of the Hawaii-based longlinefishery, the Council has not proposed any management action yet. Management actions toaddress this issue may require NEPA analysis in the near future. Development of the domesticlongline fishery in the Mariana Islands may require management action at some future date, butthe fishery does not exist at present, despite there being two General Longline Permits issued in2003 (PIRO unpub. data). None of the other issues identified in scoping appear appropriate forNEPA analysis and management action under the Pelagics FMP at this time.

6.3 Distribution of the DEIS

Individuals, agencies and organizations listed below were provided copies of the DEIS. Personssubmitting written comments on the DEIS are identified below with a single asterisk (*), andthose providing oral testimony at a Public Hearing are identified below with a double asterisk(**).

Last Name First Name AffiliationAasted Bryan Black Magic LLCAasted Donald C. (trustee living trust)Achitoff Paul Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund,

Mid-Pacific RegionAdams Tim Marine Resources Division,

Secretariat of the PacificCommunity BPD5

Administrator Department of Land & NaturalResources

Administrator Office of Hawaiian AffairsAgard LouisAgcioe JosephAguiar DennisAila WilliamAitaoto Fini Site Coordinator, American

SamoaAlig FrankAllen Laurie K. NMFS, Office of Protected

ResourcesAlofaituli LetalitonuAlvarez Dale Civil ServiceAmesbury Judith Micronesian Archeological

Research ServicesAnderson JamesAnjo AnthonyApril VictorianoArakaki EdwardArboleda Juliana

Last Name First Name Affiliation

323

Artero Victor GFCAAtualevao AsifoaB Alohilani RCUHBakic Preston M.Balton David Director Off. Mar. Con., U.S.

Department of State, Bureau ofEnvironmental & ScientificAffairs

Barcenilla Roland Co-opBarefoot JordonBarja James APBarrows Scott Fishrite Inc.Bartram Paul Akala Products Inc.Bartram Paul Hawaii Seafood DistributorsBasargin Natalia and KirilBass Jamie Dept. of Agriculture (DAWR)Bator BommieBauer Jennifer Westpac APBeals GaryBean Michael J. Chair, Wildlife Program,

Environmental DefenseBecker Elizabeth TECBeebe BillBeeching Tony Western Pacific Regional Fishery

Management CouncilBell Eric Co-opBirkeland Charles Hawaii Cooperative Fishery

Research UnitBlaine Davis Office of Planning DBEBTBoggs Christofer NMFS Pacific Islands Fisheries

Science CenterBorja JamesBorresen Yvonne Defenders of WildlifeBradford William APBrandt G Lyons, Brandt, Cook, &

HiramatsuBright Jody Tropidilla Productions, Honolulu

HIBroadway MeganBrock Richard University of Hawaii Sea GrantBrown Steve Co-opBucehard JohnBuck Mike KHVHBurgess PuananiBurney David U.S. Tuna FoundationCabos RobertCabrera JesusCabreza RobertoCaldwell HamiltonCallaghan Paul University of GuamCalvo John Guam On-site CoordinatorCamacho ClaudineCamhi MerryCampbell Laura UHH MOP Program/JIMAR Sea

Turtle Strandings Response


324

Carlson Jr. Lester L. Business Development Director,Guam Economic DevelopmentAuthority

Carvalho ClaytonChaloupka Milani Ecological Modelling Services Pty

LtdChamberlin Mark Co-opChandler Heather UHH MOP Sea Turtle Recovery

TeamChapman GordonChappell William NMFSChargualaf Edward W. Co-opChase Lida WesPac Ecosystem Sub-advisoryChoi Yoo Hai Ohana Fishing LLCChristensen RossChu Princess K Fishing Corp.Clark Dolores NOAA/National Weather Service

NOAA Public Affairs**Cook James President, Pacific Ocean

ProducersCrabtree Frank Crabtree, Frank & MichelleCraig Peter National Park of American SamoaCrain EdCrivello III Frank Crivello Fishing LLCCrook MichaelCrowder Larry Professor of Nicholas School of

the Environment, Duke UniversityMarine Laboratory

Cruz Al Co-opCruz AlfanacioCruz John Co-op*Cummings Brendan Attorney, Center for Biological

DiversityCummisky Margaret Office of Senator InouyeCurren FlinnDacanay Mike Co-opDahl ChristopherDang Minh H. Dang Fishery Inc.Dang Minh H. Pacific Fishing & SupplyDang Sidney Lady Ann Margaret Inc.DaRosa LarryDaxboeck Charles BioDax Consulting, TahitiDebeyorse Ray Co-opDeCosta GilbertDela Cruz WarrenDeleon Allen MCN.COR. KAIBU IIIDeleon Guerrero Edward Northern Islands Mayor's OfficeDenolfo Louie Fisheries CouncilDeRego MikeDeriso Rick Tuna-Billfish Program

Inter-American Tropical TunaCommission

Devick William Administrator, Hawaii Division ofAquatic Resources

Dewenter David


325

Dick Shawn President, Aquatic ReleaseConservation

Director Department of Business,Economic Development, &Tourism

Director Office of Environmental QualityControl

Director Waikiki AquariumDirector Fish and Wildlife ServiceDirector State Department of HealthDivine Rusty TEC InfodexDo QuanDonnelly Marydele Scientist and Sierra B. Weaver,

Program Counsel, The OceanConservancy

Donohue Mary University of Hawaii Sea GrantDowns Michael EDAWDraheim Shanna W U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 9Driscoll John Co-opDriscoll Mike Co-opDuenas Chris Duenas Manny Guam Fishermans CooperativeDuenas Michael P. Co-opDuong AlanDutton Peter NMFS, Southwest Fisheries

Science CenterDye Charles A.Eads John Co-opEasley AmandaEbisui EdwinEckert Scott Senior Res.Biol., Hubbs-Sea

World Research InstituteEdwards Dana Guam LegislatureEldridge GaryEndreson RobertEngebretson MonicaEnvironment HawaiiEnvironmental CenterEnviroWatch, Inc.Eseroma LefanogaEverett William Endangered Species Recovery

CouncilFaasau Andrew Samoa NewsFalig Mariano F/V II Sin HoFarm Jr. Frank Administrator, Hyperbaric

Treatment CenterFarrell Timothy O'Connor, Berman, Dotts, and

BanesFeder Judson General Counsel, NOAA General

CounselFee David Star Polaris Fisheries IncFeliciano RalphFiero Jack Astara Co. LLCFiliaga Judy


326

Fisk Shirely Office of Senator AkakaFithian PeterFleming MichaelFlint Beth Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife ServiceFlores Julian Co-opFlores Jr. Tom Dept. of Agriculture (DAWR)Flournoy Peter International Law Offices of San

DiegoFogarty Judith Special Agent in Charge, NMFS

Office of Law EnforcementFontana ChristinaFranulovich Tony and LornaFreedman Carl Blue Ocean Preservation SocietyFreifeld Holly U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceFriedlander Alan The Oceanic InstituteFriesma Paul Environmental Policy ProgramFunderburg Clint Bethel Inc.Furuno Alan Congressman Abercrombie's

OfficeGaffney Rick Rick Gaffney & AssociatesGales Rosemary Nature Conservation Branch,

DPIWEGallimore Captain Richard Finest Kind Marine Distributors,

IncGallimore Richard J. Aquanut Co. Inc.Garrido JoseGawel Mike Administrator, Guam Bureau of

Statistics and PlansGhigliotty David and Dianna Seeker Fisheries Inc.Gibbons-Fly William U.S. Dept. of State, Bureau of

Oceans & International,Environment & Scientific Affairs

Gibbs JohnGilman EricGilmartin William Hawaii Wildlife FundGoto Frank General Manager, United Fishing

AgencyGourley JohnGovindan Jay S. U.S. Dept. of Justice, -

ENRD/WMRSGraessle Ward Offshore Marine SurveyorsGrasso Tam World Wildlife FundGray Tim Kuu HuapalaGreenpeace Foundation of HawaiiGrigg Richard University of Hawaii Institute of

Marine BiologyGuam National Wildlife RefugeGuerrero Miki LeonGumataotao Agustin Co-op/Westpac APGushiken JohnGuthertz Judith University of Guam College of

Business & Public AdministrationHale TimHaleck Stephen


327

Hall John D. Zephyr Fisheries LLCHamblin-Catnick Claudia Hawaii Conservation AllianceHamm David WPacFIN NMFS Honolulu

LaboratoryHamnett Mike University of Hawaii Social

Science Research InstituteHampton John Secretariat of the Pacific

Community*Hanf Lisa B. Manager, U.S. Environmental

Protection AgencyHansel John NMFS, NEPA HQHanson Richard L. Hanson Fishing Co.Harp IssacHarris Dot Department of Commerce, Gov.

of GuamHarrison Craig S. Vice Chair for Conservation,

Pacific Seabird GroupHartley Marcus Northern EconomicsHawaii State Department ofHealthHaworth Arthur and BarbaraHee UiHeikkila WayneHeppell Selina NHEERL Postdoc. Fellow, U.S.

Environmental Protection AgencyNHEERL Western EcologyDivision

Hiura HarrisHo Bryan Y.Y. Pacific Seafoods Inc.Hoang AndyHoang Anthony U.S. Department of JusticeHoang Dennis High-Sea Hawaii Fishing SupplyHoang Tina Nguyen, Ho Son/Hoang, TinaHolland KimHollister WilliamHolzman GregHonolulu Star BulletinHouse Resources Subcommitte on Fisheries Conservation,Wildlife and OceansHouse Resources Subcommitte on Fisheries Conservation,Wildlife and OceansHubberd Lela M.Hudson Charlotte Gray Marine Wildlife Scientist, and

Eric A. Bilsky, Senior Attorney,Oceana

Huynh Calvin Queen Diamond Inc.Huynh Tuan Capt. Millions III, Inc.Hwang James W. DukSung Fishing Inc.Hwang Justin Jong Ik Fishing Co. Inc.Inakoshi KazuInouye Jed Seafood HawaiiItibus PedroJackson PhillipJackson Bay Co. F/V PACIFICAJacobs Lyn U.S. Department of Justice


328

James Frank W. Pacific Sun Marine Inc.Janchez Joe JM & AssociatesJang Jade C. KMC & PCC Inc.Janisse ChuckJessop AaronJin c/o Charlene Moon, Kil ChoJohnson Bruce Fresh Island FishJohnson DamonJohnson Dane Island GirlJones AndrewJong Han Blue Sky Fishing ProducerKajihiro KuleKalthoff David Aikane 49Kamezaki Naoki Sea Turtle Assoc. of Japan Dept.

of Ecosystem Studies Unv. OfTokyo

Kamikawa DennisKaneko John Pacific Management Resources,

IncKanemoto NeilKanuha Clement Reef Advisory BoardKaufman Gregory President, Pacific Whale

FoundationKeaulani BruceKelly MarionKillian Brenday Executive Director, Earth Island

Institute/International MonitoringProgram

Kim Chan SonKim Hwa DeogKim James Chan Song Ulheelani Corp.Kim Kyong DokKim Kyung Sook Aegis Fishing Inc.King WilliamKira GraceKitazaki Garret Diamond Head Seafood

Wholesale, Inc.Kokkinakis Steve NOAA/Ofc Strategic PlanningKraft TomKrasnick George TECKrown StevenKusano Jean UH-Hamilton Library Gifts and

Exchange DeptLaGrange John Trans World Marine Inc.Laolagi TuleleLau Ernest Water Resource ManagementLau HamselyLau HenryLauilefue FilemoniLaura Sarti Martinez Adriana SEMARNATLawrence Pam NOAA/HQ/GCLeberer Trina Chief, Guam Division of Aquatic

& Wildlife ResourcesLee Jonathan U.S. Fishing CorporationLee Kwang Tae Kwang Myong Co. Inc.


329

Lee Shin Soo L.S. Fishing Inc.Lent Rebecca NMFSLeong Don Wing Sing Seafood, Inc.Limpus Colin Queensland Parks and Wildlife

ServiceLindenbaum TerryLindgren Peter Lindgren-Pitman, Inc.

Loftesnes Michael VP, Pago Pago Dive Club

Longnecker Andrew Sylvan Seafoods Inc.

Louis Henry

Lu Kim RBKL Inc.

Lu Liet An Lu, Liet An /Do, Mai Thi

Ludwig Sabina

Lugo Martin

Lujan Isabel Department of Commerce

Lujan Rufo Acting Chairman, Organization ofPeople for Indigenous People

Lures Afoa

Lutu Alvina & Christina Afoa Lures Tatai O Samoa FishingAssociation

Luuwai Robert

*Lynch James Attorney for Hawaii LonglineAssociation

Mafnas Ramon

Malama O Puna

Mamani Eliseo

Manglona Manases Coastal Resources ManagementOffice-Rota Island

Maragos James U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Mareck Jeff

Marsh Carl Maui Divers of Hawaii

Marsh Jan Office Assistant, West HawaiiFishermans Council

Martin Patrick L. Amak River Legacy

Martin Sean Pacific Ocean Producers

Martin Tim Martin Noel Inc.

Martin Sean President, Hawaii LonglineAssociation

Maselino Ioane

Maslowe Julie

Masumu Wesley

Mathers D.T. Commander, U.S. Coast Guard

Mawae James Keliipio

Maxwell Charles

McCarron Donna

McCoy Frank Harbor Refuse & EnvironmentalServices, Inc.

McCoy Mike

McGuire James IGFA Representative

McIntosh Naomi Acting Manager, HawaiianIslands Humpback Whale


330

National Marine Sanctuary

Meadows Dwayne Pacific Whale Foundation

Medeiro Frank

Meeker T U.S. Department of Justice

Menard Theresa University of Hawaii at ManoaDept. of Zoology

Mendiola Brian

Mikulina Jeff Director, Sierra Club, HawaiiChapter

Miller Austin

Miller Francis L. Golden Sable Fisheries Inc.

Misa Tagialisi

Misitano Nolan

*Mitchell Elizabeth

Miyamoto Stewart

MJA

Mokoma Elvin "Eo"

Mokoma Taamila & Ale

Molina Michael Environmental ReviewCoordinator, U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, Pacific Islands

Moniz Gary Chief, Hawaii Div. ofConservation & ResourcesEnforcement

Morioka Roy Pacific Ocean ResearchFoundation

Mossman William

Muffet William Carroll Defenders of Wildlife

Murakawe Wesley HMRFS

Murray Jackie

Myking John Viking V Inc.

Nakagawa Sheila

Namu'o Clyde W. Administrator, Office of HawaiianAffairs

Naughton Maura Regional Seabird Biologist,Migratory Birds and HabitatPrograms - Pacific Region, U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service

Nelson Michael E.

Nelson Mike Marketing Director, Ko OlinaResort Association

New Carl

Nguyen Duoc

Nguyen Hanh Thi H and M Fishery Inc.

Nguyen Hanh Thi N. Pac. Fishery Inc.

Nguyen Ho Son Davis B Inc.

Nguyen Jimmy Capt. Washington I Inc.

Nguyen Jimmy Vui Vui II Inc.

Nguyen Kim Thi

Nguyen Long Thanh Sea Dragon II Inc.

Nguyen Nancy


331

Nguyen Quang

Nguyen Reagan

Nguyen Steven

Nguyen Thoai Van

Nguyen Tuan

Nguyen Xuan

Nicholls D.G. Chisholm Institute

Niles Dennis

O'Brian Jerry

O'Brien Marie Teresa Univ. of Guam

Office of Rep. Case

Ogumoro Joaquin T CNMI On-site Coordinator

Ohai Leo

Ok Chun Lee Dongwon Marine Inc.

Okazaki Lynne Nguyen, Scotty

Oldenburg Leland

Oliver Chuck SWFSC

O'Neill Heather Turner Original Production

Ortiz Paul NOAA General Counsel,Enforcement and Litigation

Oshiro Ryan

Ostendorp Michael Nguyen, Si Tan/Ostendorp,Michael

Otaguro S Lyons, Brandt, Cook, &Hiramatsu

Oyama Mark

Pacific Fishing & Supply

Pai Mahealani

Paik John Il Paik Fishing Inc.

Painter Gary L. Coldwater Fisheries Inc.

Palawski Don Fish & Wildlife Srvc./RemoteRefuges HI & Pac.Isle NWRComples

Pangelinan Benny

Pangelinan Tom Acting Secretary, CNMI Dept. ofNatural Resources

Parr Lisa UHH Marine Science

Parrish Dr. James Hawaii Coop. Fishery ResearchUnit University of Hawaii

Paul Linda Executive Director of Aquatics,Hawaii Audubon Society

Peacock Robert C. Carleta LLC

Peelman David USCG

Pelekai Henry Honolulu Fire Department

Pelensky Zonia

Perez Ben Co-op

Perez Jerry

Perry Matt D.A.R.

Pham Nick Van

Phan Stephan Sea Flower Inc.

Phillips Richard Phillips Sales Company, Inc.


332

Picton Bruce

Pittman David

Plummer Pete

Pola Faamausili

Polovina Jeff NMFS Pacific Islands FisheriesScience Center

Pooley Samuel Director, NMFS Pacific IslandsFisheries Science Center

*Port Patricia Sanderson Regional Environmental Officer,U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Officeof the Secretary, Office of theEnvironmental Policy andCompliance

Porter Brian

Porter Mary Jane

Press Laura

Pride Christopher

Pringle Robert & Dorothy

Pulu Michael J.

Quitigia Raymond

Radovich Anake Kupuna Daniel Paleka

Randall Howard Jackson Bay Co.

Raney Dave Chair-Coral Reef Group &Habitat Committee, Sierra ClubNational Marine Wildlife

Rappoport Solan Senate Commerce Subcommitteeon Oceans and Fisheries

Reyz Jesse

Rezentes Cynthia

Ridlow Daniel Co-op

Ripine Aleni

Rivera Kim NMFS Alaska Regional Office

Robertson Richard E. Amanda K Inc.

Romero April Mid-Pacific Hawaii Fishery Inc.F/V Lea Lea, Iolani

Rose Jenna

Ross Glynn Hawaii Seafood

Royal Order of Kamehameha

Rudeen Amber

Ryder Kawehi

S. Mitchell

S.T. Richard

Sablan Benigno Wespac

Sagapolutele Telefoni

Samiere Wayne President, Honolulu Fish, Co.

Samuelu Silo

Sanafea Fatima

Sanchez Carlos

Sangil Domingo Co-op

Satele Sasauli Sea Grant


333

Scanlan Charles

Scanlan Floyd

Schroeder Tom JIMAR University of Hawaii

Schug Donald M.

Schultz Gina Asst. Field Supervisor forEndangered Species, U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service

Seaton Paul (Trustee)

Seki Michael NMFS Pacific Islands FisheriesScience Center

Seman Richard Director, CNMI Division of Fish& Wildlife

Sesepasara Henry Executive Director,Developmental Disability Council

Seui Edwin DMWR

Severance Craig J. University of Hawaii: Hilo

Severs Lee

Shallout Omar

Shallout Jamil

Shimomaye Literon

Shin Kyung Nok Mini Corp.

Siebert John Manager JIMAR, University ofHawaii Pelagic Fisheries ResearchProgram

Silva David

Silvers Rodger

Simmons Stu Seafood Connection

Simomaye Literon

*Simonds Kitty Executive Director, WPFMC

Simpson Van

Sismar Paul D.

Skahill Andrea

Smith Jeffery D. Sierra Fisheries Inc.

Smith Robert Reserve Coordinator, NWHICREReserve

Solaita Richard

Sorba Frank

Spotila James R. Drexel University

Spring Margaret Senate Commerce Subcommitteeon Oceans and Fisheries

Sprtel Frank NMFS, HQ

State Historic Preservation Officer Historic Preservation Office

Steiner Todd Sea Turtle Restoration Project

Stephen

Stephenson John USCG

Stevenson Paul South Pacific Resources

Stimson John University of Hawaii at ManoaDept. of Zoology

Stone Richard B.Suezaki LarrySunia AitofeleSword Will WPFC Advisor


334

Sword WilliamT. Richard S.Taisacan EstanislaoTaman JerryTamashiko GuyTamashiro RichardTanner CJTanoue Glen President, Tropic Fish &

Vegetable CenterTaube Vanesa Taula PhillipTaylor CaseyTaylor LarryTedtaotao MelissaTenorio Dr. Joaquin Department of Natural ResourcesTerlaiea AnthonyThomas Bill Manager, National Ocean Service

Pacific Region HeadquartersThompson PaulTiapula MataioTimoney SeanTimoney TimmTimoteo UeleseTinkham Stetson U.S. Department of StateTom Allen Pacific Regional Coordinator

National Marine SanctuaryProgram

Tomita GuyTorricer Leonard West Hawaii Fisheries CouncilTran ChristineTran KimTran TonyTromble Galen NMFSTruong Quy ThanhTulafono Raymond Director, DMWR-American

Samoa GovtTummons Pat Environment HawaiiUm Howard Hawaii Fishing Co.Vaiagae JimmyVaiau SteveVaivai TaufuiavaVan Kevin Sea Diamond II Inc.Van Lan ThiVan Dear Veur JenniferVawter WilliamVillagomez Joaquin

Vinson Sherry Pacboat LLCVunisea Aliti S.P.C.Waldon Gary Mid Pac FisheriesWalsh CecileWalsten ArlinWanley Tom Office of Rep AbercrombieWatson EllenWeaver Gene


335

Webster PeterWebster ThomasWheeler Steve Aikane 49Whitcraft Sam Ocean Resource Manager,

Kahoolawe Island ReserveCommission

White RickWiding Leland Gunn, Daniel; Widing, WilliamWiding Leland Gunn Pacific ReflectionWilliams William C. Bayshore Mgmt. Inc.Wills KatieWilson Bob U.S. Coast Guard Law

Enforcement & IntelligenceWiltse Wendy EPA/PICO

*Winegrad Gerald W. Vice President for Policy;Caroline Kennedy, SpeciesConservation, American BirdConservancy

Winter Kawika UH Environmental Action GroupWittshiebe ClaireWorth Katie PDNWurster Charles D. USCG 14th DistrictWynhoff Bill State of Hawaii/Department of the

Attorney GeneralYamaguchi Roy Reid DistributorYamasaki Gordon NMFSYamauchi KevenYee WadsworthYi RoyYoung Peter Hawaii Dept. of Land & Natural

ResourcesYoung RichardZiegler Majorie Executive Director, Conservation

Council for HawaiiZiegler Majorie Program

Assistant/Communications,KAHEA

StephanieStephen

Adelita Fishing LLCAiga Ma Uo LLCAmerican Workboats Inc.Amko Fishing Co. Inc.Ao Shibi Inc.Arrow Inc.Awahnee Oceanics Inc.B-52 Inc.Barbara H Inc.Faivaimoana Fishing Co LtFeli Fisheries Inc.Firebird Fishing Corp.Gunn Sea Venture LLCH & Lee Inc.Harbor Refuse & EnvironmHawaiian Fishing Inc. Ltd


336

Heola Inc.Independence Inc.Island Tuna Mgmt. Inc.Ji Hyun Inc.K.A. Fishing Co. Inc.Ka'upu Ltd.Kim Fishing Co.Konam Fishing Co., Inc.Kuku Fishing Inc.KYL Inc.Le, Nga VanLe, Tom The VanLetalitonu AlofaituliLongline Services inc.M.S. Honolulu Inc.Maria J Fishing IncMee Won Inc.Miss Lisa Inc.Native Resources DeveloperOcean Associates Corp.Offshore Adventures Inc.Pacific Jennings Inc.Palmer Pedersen FisheriesPort Lynch Inc.Quality Tuna Co.Samoa Enterprises Inc.Sea Flower Inc.Silva Fishing Inc.Song Fishing Corp.THK Fishing Inc.Tracey C Fishing LLCTuna Ventures Inc.Two Bulls Inc.Universal Fishing Co.Wearefish Inc.Wynne Inc.

6.4 Comments on the DEIS

The availability of the DEIS was noticed in the Federal Register on August 27, 2004 (69 FR52668). Comments received and responses thereto are summarized in the following table. Copiesof the letters received may be found in Appendix E.

337

Table 6.3-1 Responses to Comments on the DEIS.

Comment # Date From Issue # Issue Response

1 10/8/204 Kitty Simonds,Western

Pacific FisheryManagement

Council

a Albatross population trends Sections 3.6.1.1.2 and 3.6.1.1.3 on the population trends forBlackfooted (BFAL) and Laysan (LAAL) albatrosses containthe same egregious errors resulting from the inappropriate useof regression analyses for nesting abundance data for boththese seabirds in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI).Information on time series of estimates are presentedseparately for breeding pairs of BFAL at French FrigateShoals (FFS), Midway Atoll and Laysan Island in Figure3.6.1-2 and then combined in Figure 3.6.1-3, to which aregression line is fitted. The same type of analysis isconducted for LAAL in figures 3.6.1-4 and 3.6.1-5.

As noted in the figures the individual time series were derivedby different methods, direct counts for Midway and FFS andextrapolated plot counts of eggs for Laysan Island. As thefigure for BFAL at Laysan Island time series shows, there arewide confidence intervals around these estimates, particularlyin the early part of the time series which, being the largestnumbers of birds, drives any trend in the data. The Councilbelieves it is statistically and scientifically invalid to simplycombine these data and then fit a non-significant regressionline (p > 0, 1) from which a spurious conclusion is drawnabout a putative 1% declining trend in the nesting population.

The regression analyses were deleted andreplaced with qualitative analysis ofpopulation trends for Laysan and black-footedalbatross. These analyses were supplementedwith additional observational data from otherareas of the Pacific Ocean. There is currentlysome controversy about the populationtrajectories for these species. Several studiesare currently underway that may clarify thissituation.



Council

b Moreover, there appears no attempt to synthesize theseobservations with those for the short-tail albatross which isclearly showing explosive exponential growth, despite thefact that its chief nesting site is located within an area of theNorth Pacific fished intensively by longline and squid vessels.Moreover, the short-tailed albatross population increaseoverlaps with the growth of longline fishing in the PacificOcean, which has clearly has not had no retarding effect onthis albatross.

Additional short-tailed albatross populationand distribution information has been added,as has a discussion of the population increasein relation to multinational longlining effortacross its range.


c It should also be noted that although several efforts to modelboth the LAAL and BF AL populations are currently

None of the current modeling efforts alludedto have published any results to date. The


338


Council

underway (supported by the University of Hawaii's PelagicFisheries Research Program), no reference is made to thesenor any preliminary results incorporated. Moreover, referenceto a recent paper on the impacts of longline fishing on BFALis missing entirely. (Rebecca L. Lewison and Larry B.Crowder, Estimating Fishery Bycatch and Effects on aVulnerable Seabird Population, Ecological Applications13(3); fig. 6 at 750 (2003)).

investigators were contacted to determine ifany preliminary results could be released, butnone were. A discussion of the Lewison andCrowder paper was added.



Council

d Impacts of the alternatives

The best that can be said about Section 4.5, Impacts toSeabirds, is that it does at least make an attempt at gaugingthe likely numbers of seabirds that might be caught usingdifferent mitigation measures and area of application. Thatsaid, there are some serious problems with the analyses, inparticular, some numbers appear to be plucked out of the air,while other are not computed when they should be. Page 212presents interaction rates with both albatrosses combined forshallow and deep sets made by Hawaii longline (HLL) vesselsbetween 1994 and 1999. On page 213 the DEIS provides aworked example to show how with 2,120 shallow swordfishsets, a base line total of 1,300 seabirds would be expected tobe caught. The text then goes on to show the impact of night-setting on the interactions resulting in a 73-98 % reduction or26- 321 albatrosses. Our calculations show the range to be 26-351 albatrosses, why is there a discrepancy in the upperbound (1300 x 0.27 = 351)?

A subcommittee of the Fishery ManagementAction Team (FMAT), which included severalmembers of the Council staff, extensivelyrevised Section 4.5, including addition of aquantitative comparison of the potentialnumbers of seabirds hooked under givenassumptions for each alternative. In addition,interaction rates for shallow and deep setsboth north and south of 23°N were generatedby PIFSC staff, and used in the quantitativeanalyses.


339

Moreover, why is there not a worked example to establish abaseline total for deep tuna sets? Such a figure could bereadily computed by subtracting 2,120 sets from the recentannual set total for the HLL fishery (14,200 sets), yieldingabout 12,000 sets, times the interactions rate = 144 takes.

No such estimate is made, and instead we are presented in thelast paragraph on page 213 with a scenario where it isassumed that none of the current, highly effective methodsthat are in place actually work, resulting in 1,300 birdscaptured by shallow swordfish sets and 500 birds by tuna sets.Where does this 500 bird figure come from? The text givesthe impression it was simply plucked out of the air. Thefollowing sections attempt to provide impacts of the variousmitigation measure combinations. However, they continue torepeat the canard that in the event that current measureswould serve no purpose, almost 2,000 albatross would becaptured each year, should no additional measure such as sidesetting be introduced. This is a very poor piece of work. Quiteapart from the sloppy arithmetic and unfounded assumptions,there is no attempt to look at interactions as they occur above23 deg N latitude as compared to all areas fished by the HLLfleet, as differentiated in virtually all of the DEIS alternatives.Such an analysis is crucial to reaching a cost-effectivesolution balancing the needs for seabird conservation versusthe costs to the HLL fleet, yet it is absent from this DEIS.



Council

e Conclusions NMFS should not publish a final EIS until these issues havebeen addressed. At present the Council believes that thesections referred to above require a substantial overhaul andre-draft to make them acceptable for publication.

The sections above have been substantiallyrevised, as noted above.

2 10/11/2004 Elizabeth AnnMitchell

a I'm dismayed that the final day for comments regarding thisDEIS comes only two days before the Western PacificRegional Fishery Management Council (WPRFMC) takesfinal action at the October 12-15 Council meeting on theseabird regulations. I would normally be encouraged at theswift action but the Council's preferred alternative for seabirdmitigation in this DEIS is ineffective, as it allows vessels to

The Council took preliminary action at itsprevious meeting where the alternatives werediscussed. The comment period for the DEISwas coordinated with the Council schedule toensure that the Council had all publiccomments in hand before its finaldeliberations. The public comment period was


340

revert back to the current measures. NMFS' annual seabirdreport (2003) acknowledges that, "the suspension ofswordfish vessels operating north of the Equator and/or othercharacteristics associated with swordfish style fishing may bethe primary influence on low interaction rates of albatrosseswith the Hawaii-based pelagic longline fishery and not therequired deterrent measures." Key industry representativesco-authored a successful mitigation study (Gilman et al 2003)involving the use of side-setting, which, when used withadequate line weighting (60 g per branch line) and a "birdcurtain", can reduce albatross takes by as much as 100%. As atax payer funding this study, I am appalled that, even whenequipped with multi-year research conclusions, the Council ispreferring to ignore it's own science and allow vessels torevert back to prior ineffective, unenforceable measures.What is the point of mitigation research if we're not going toemploy the results?

not shortened to accommodate the Councilschedule. After thoroughly considering allcomments received from the public as well asthose from the FMAT, the Council’s SSC andother sources, the Council developed a newPreferred Alternative which represents asignificant revision of its PreliminaryPreferred Alternative, which appeared in theDEIS. The intent of the new alternative is toactively encourage the use of side-setting byrequiring additional interaction avoidancemeasures over and above those included incurrent measures, if an operator chooses notto side-set. It should be clarified that thecurrently required interaction avoidancemeasures are neither ineffective norunenforceable.


b NMFS and the Councils have encouraged the movement ofthe U.S. longline fishery from the Atlantic to Hawaii, fromHawaii to California and back to Hawaii without coordinatingCouncil jurisdictional implementation of CMs. When closureswere implemented for "Hawaii-based" longliners under theWPRFMC jurisdiction (NMFS 2000), NMFS allowed thesame vessels to fish the newly closed areas off the U.S. westcoast under PFMC jurisdiction without any regulations. Thishad the effect of cancelling out any CM benefits implementedby the closures/monitoring requirements.

NMFS and the Councils have developed andcontinue to develop plans and regulations asnecessary to minimize the effects of fishingactivities on protected species. Interactions ofLaysan and black-footed albatross with U.S.pelagic longline vessels are most numerousnear the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, andthus Hawaii-based vessels are subject to themost stringent regulatory requirements for useof seabird interaction avoidance measures. Itis expected that these requirements will beincreased, in effectiveness if not in number, asa result of the proposed action. It should alsobe noted that the Western Pacific and thePacific Councils have begun planning forbetter coordination through joint Council andSSC meetings.


c When an observer program was finally mandated for"California-based" swordfish longliners, high albatross andturtle bycatch was documented, just as it was in Hawaii. Still,there were delays for the closure of the California-basedlongline fishery until the expiration of the Hawaii-based

General permitted longliners currently fishfrom American Samoa, but not from eitherGuam or the Northern Mariana Islands. Thescoping process for this document identifiedno problems with protected species


341

swordfish longline closure (NMFS 2004a, NMFS 2004b),now allowing them to move back to Hawaii. Meanwhilegeneral permitted U.S. longline fishermen are operating inother areas of the Pacific under WPRFMC jurisdiction(including the Territory of American Samoa, Territory ofGuam, Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands and theU.S. possessions of Johnston and Midway Atolls, KingmanReef and Palmyra, Jarvis, Howland, Baker and Wake Islands)without any monitoring of their impacts on endangeredspecies.

interactions in fisheries in the region exceptfor the Hawaii-based longline fishery. Limitedobserver coverage in the American Samoa-based fleet has not documented interactionswith protected species. Planning is underwayfor a permanent observer program inAmerican Samoa.


d NMFS has been very busy in the last 5 years dealing withlawsuites (4 in Hawaii and 1 in California) being forced intocomplying with environmental laws surrounding themanagement of the "Hawaii-based" and "California-based"swordfish and tuna longline fisheries. The litigation resultedfrom significant delays in recognizing the damaging impactson protected species as revealed in five years of observerdata, primarily in the swordfish fleet. Public funding directedtoward this relatively insignificant fishery have amounted tomillions of dollars, not including the public funds involved inthe collaboration of NMFS, the Councils and other nationsregarding the development of pelagic longline fisheriesoutside U.S. waters.

Most of the attention in regulation of these fisheries haveconcerned sea turtle takes. Since there has never been anEnvironmental Impact Statement completed for the impactsof these fisheries on seabirds and since prior activity of thesevessels in both Council jurisdictions have resulted in highalbatross takes, NMFS should not reopen the Hawaii-basedswordfish fishery until the EIS process is complete andeffective seabird mitigation measures are required. The EISshould also include the impacts of the Hawaii-based tunafishery and general permitted longline fishing of all U.S.longline fleets operatiing under both Council jurisdictions.

A proposed action analyzed in this EIS isfurther regulation of the Hawaii-basedlongline fleet to minimize interactions withseabirds. The action and its alternatives wereproposed by the Western Pacific Council,which does not have authority overCalifornia-based vessels. Since 2000, theHawaii-based fleet has been subject toregulations promulgated to implement theTerms and Conditions of a series ofBiological Opinions of the USFWS. TheseBiological Opinions addressed the impact ofthe fleet on the short-tailed albatross, but dueto the similarities in distribution and feedingecology with the Laysan and black-footedalbatross, regulations intended to protect theshort-tailed albatross also protect the otheralbatross species. Terms and Conditionsincluded in a Biological Opinion are non-discretionary actions required to beimplemented by regulation, and thus have theforce of law. While NEPA documents supportdecision-making by analyzing alternatives toan action, they have no intrinsic regulatoryforce. Please note that potential seabirdinteractions in the reauthorized swordfishfishery were assessed in the 2004 SEIS andappropriate seabird interaction avoidancemeasures identified previously for the fleet,


342

were instituted for the model swordfishfishery.


e Three research studies have tested the effectiveness of blue-dyed bait, night-setting, setting with an underwater chute,strategic offal discharge, side setting and setting with a line-shooter (Boggs 2001, McNamara et al 1999, Gilman et al2003). The single most effective measure found for both tunaand swordfish vessels was the use of side setting (Gilman et al2003). Yet the Council's "preferred alternative" onlyimplements this measure as an option, allowing vessels toreturn to the current measures, which are no more than whatthe fleet has historically practiced (with the exception of offaldischarge and blue-dyed bait, which are unenforceable.

The Preferred Alternative in the FEIS wouldrequire use of more interaction avoidancemeasures than did the Preliminary PreferredAlternative in the DEIS, unless an operatoropted to use side-setting. This is intended toencourage the use of side-setting. TheUSFWS’s 2004 Biological Opinion for theshallow-set sector of the fishery requires thephasing in of side-setting or of measures equalor greater in effectiveness in deterringinteractions in the Hawaii-based fleet. Notethat this sector of the fleet, which historicallyhad higher levels of seabird interactions thanthe deep-set sector, will have 100% observercoverage. While observers are not agents ofenforcement per se, their post-trip reports arereviewed by enforcement agents and triggerfollow up investigations when required.


f Strategic Offal Discharge Strategic offal has not been proven to be effective as anoverall deterrent and there are some continuous studies thatcorrelate the presence of offal with increased seabirdabundance and have inferred that this may be directly relatedto an increase in seabird bycatch (Gilman, et al 2003; C.J.R.Robertson et al 2003, 2004).

NMFS and the Council are aware of this, andthat other jurisdictions discourage offaldiscard for these reasons. The USFWSbelieves strategic offal discard to have seabirdinteraction avoidance properties, but that itshould be employed only when birds arealready present. The Preferred Alternative inthis FEIS has been modified from that in theDEIS to reflect the USFWS position.


g Swordfish fishing effort is often times concentrated duringthe full moon, which, unless there is complete cloudcoverage, can increase visibility and access of seabirds tobaited hooks. Even in dark skies, swordfish fishing employsthe use of light sticks which could possibly be a visual cue toalbatrosses. In addition, the current regulations stipulate that night-setting begin no earlier than one hour after sunset andfinish by sunrise. Yet the USFWS 2000 short-tailed albatrossBiological Opinion (USFWS 2000) stipulates that vessels

Night setting has been shown to have highefficacy in reducing longline-seabirdinteractions. The 2004 Biological Opinion ofthe USFWS for the shallow set sector of theHawaii-based fishery requires that setting becompleted before sunrise.


343

finish setting one hour before sunrise. Albatrosses exhibitincreased foraging and feeding activity during twilight hours,so night-sets should finish at least one hour before sunrise.


h Line Weighting In both studies by Boggs (2001) and Gilman, et al (2003), 60g weights were attached to branch lines. Yet the currentmeasures insist on 45 g weights just because it's what the fleetis already using and therefore isn't really a mitigationmeasure. While it has been acknowledged that tuna fishinggenerally has less bycatch than swordfish fishing based on thedramatic drop in bycatch after the elimination of swordfishsets in the data, one should consider that the bycatch ratesmay be underestimated for both fisheries because of drop-offs, predation or the observer not watching every hook.

According to industry representatives, about70% of the fleet now uses 60 g weights. Thespecifications for side-setting outlined in theUSFWS’s 2004 Biological Opinion and usedin this EIS include use of 60 g weights. Asside-setting is phased in, use of 45 g weightswill disappear.


i Current Bycatch Rates are UnderestimatedMyself and other observers in the HLOP raised this concernwith supervisory staff in 1994 but the discussion went nofurther. I have subsequently questioned observer programstaff about this and, to my knowledge, crew members are notyet required to stop hauling the line during observer breaks orwhile the observer is on deck obtaining biological samples. Inaddition, seabird bycatch is recorded in three categories-live,dead and injured, with bycatch rates only reflecting the deadspecimens. There is no estimate for the survival of injuredbirds. Most certainly if a wing is broken during hauling thebird will not survive. For these reasons, the bycatch rates inboth the tuna and swordfish fisheries could be substantiallyhigher than reported.

NMFS and the Council are aware of this. TheBiological Opinion for the reopenedswordfish fishery (USFWS 2004a) provides arevised procedure for making seabirdabundance and interaction estimates, andencourages continuation of research into suchissues as survivability of injured birds and thedrop-off rate of hooked birds.


j Consider overall impacts of this decision Pacific wide While swordfish fishing as currently practiced has beenshown to be highly destructive to seabirds, tuna fishing ismore widespread throughout the Pacific and the overallimpacts, even with a low bycatch rate per vessel, couldactually have substantial impacts Pacific-wide. For thisreason, we should strive to implement the most effectivemeasure. Key Council members have high financial stakesboth in the swordfish and tuna longline fisheries throughoutthe Pacific, both nationally and internationally, either throughdirect fishing activity or in longline gear manufacture and

The Biological Opinion for the reopenedswordfish fishery (USFWS 2004a) encouragesNMFS to continue its outreach to Japan,Korea, Taiwan and other distant-water fishingnations regarding seabird bycatch rates andinteraction avoidance measures. If theoperational benefits of side-setting can beclearly demonstrated in the Hawaii fleet,foreign fleets will be much more likely toadopt this measure in their own fleets.


344

supply. They have also co-authored the latest study on sidesetting (Gilman et al 2003) so are highly equipped to have apositive influence on other nations' pelagic longline practices. Since NMFS already has fishery advisory relations with otherswordfish fishing nations, such as Mexico, Thailand, Japanand Korea, NMFS and the Council have not only anopportunity but a moral obligation to set an example for thesefishing nations by implementing proven effective methods(i.e. side setting), making it a requirement wherever thesevessels fish.

3 10/11/2004 BrendanCummings,

Staff Attorney,Center forBiologicalDiversity

a Seabird Interactions We are pleased that NMFS is finally carrying out a legallyrequired NEPA analysis of the impacts of the management oflongline fisheries under the FMP for Pelagic Fisheries of theWestern Pacific Region on seabirds. However, the primaryproblem with this analysis is in its timing. NEPA’sfundamental purposes are to guarantee that: (1) agencies takea “hard look” at the environmental consequences of theiractions before these actions occur by ensuring that the agencyhas, and carefully considers, detailed information concerningsignificant environmental impacts; and (2) agencies make therelevant information available to the public so that it may alsoplay a role in both the decision making process and theimplementation of that decision. See, e.g. 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1.

In this instance, NMFS has completely reversed this process.NMFS approved the reopening of the swordfish fishery underthe FMP in April, 2004 but only released the DEIS in August,2004. As NMFS has obviously not yet finalized the DEIS, itcannot in any credible way claim that it has complied withNEPA before taking action. As such, NMFS mustimmediately suspend the swordfish fishery until and unless itcompletes a lawful NEPA process on the impacts of thefishery on seabirds.

The re-opening of the shallow-set sector ofthe Hawaii-based longline fishery wasassessed under NEPA in the 2004 SEIS(WPRFMC 2004b). Impacts to all potentiallyaffected environmental resources, includingseabirds, were analyzed in that document. Theobjective of the present seabird action isfurther reduction of the effects of fleetoperations on seabirds. To that end, a broadrange of alternatives are analyzedincorporating seabird interaction avoidancemeasures and combinations of those measuresthat have the potential to increase seabirdinteraction avoidance efficacy over theeffective current measures, which have beenshown to reduce interactions by an order ofmagnitude.


Staff Attorney,Center forBiological

b The DEIS describes the Council’s preferred alternatives butnowhere in the DEIS is there any clear indication that this isalso NMFS’s preferred alternative. NMFS’s failure to identifya preferred alternative violates NEPA and the CEQregulations. Assuming the Council’s preferred alternative is

The Council, in preliminary actiondocuments, proposed an action and identifiedalternatives. Their role in the fisherymanagement process is to initiate actions suchas this. The Council's Preliminary Preferred


345

Diversity also NMFS’s preferred alternative (likely a valid presumptionas NMFS seems entirely beholden to the council andincapable of independently managing the longline fishery soas to comply with its various legal mandates),

We believe that if NMFS adopts this alternative the agencywill violate not only NEPA, but also the MBTA(16 U.S.C. §706 et seq.).

The preferred alternative does little if anything to reduceseabird mortality. In fact, all it seems to do is eliminate therequirement for using thawed blue-dyed bait. We believe that NMFS must reject the Council’s preferredalternative and instead adopt the most effective combinationof measures to reduce seabird mortality. The DEISacknowledges that the single most effective measure foundfor both tuna and swordfish vessels was the use of sidesetting.

Alternative, as indicated in the DEIS, was not,in fact, NMFS' Preferred Alternative. NMFSdid not have one at that time, and DEISs arenot required to identify Preferred Alternatives.Identification of the Council's PreliminaryPreferred Alternative in the DEIS was for thepurpose of explaining clearly the history andstatus of the proposed action at that time.

The MBTA only applies in nearshore waters,seaward to three nm from the shoreline.Because the pelagic longline fishery isprohibited from fishing within 25 or 75 nm ofthe Hawaiian Islands (depending on time ofyear), the MBTA does not apply tointeractions in this fishery off Hawaii.Furthermore, the FMP does not regulatefishing in State waters, which extend seaward3 nm from the coasts of Hawaii, AmericanSamoa and Guam.

The objective of the present seabird action iscost-effective further reduction of the effectsof fleet operations on seabirds, To that end, abroad range of alternatives are analyzedincorporating seabird interaction avoidancemeasures and combinations of those measuresthat have the potential to increase seabirdinteraction avoidance efficacy over theeffective current measures. The PreferredAlternative encourages the use of side-setting.While side-setting has been shown to be veryeffective in limited experimental situations, itsefficacy in practice has yet to be established.It seems prudent at this time to proceedcautiously until adequate experience in thefleet confirms its efficacy and operationalbenefits.


346

Side setting at night appears to be even more effective. Yetthe DEIS does not even include as an alternative therequirement to use side setting at night for all vessels in thefishery. While, regulations designed to reduce sea turtlemortality require the swordfish fleet to set only at night, nosuch requirement is in place for the tuna fleet. The failure toeven include what NMFS considers the most effectivecombination of measures as an alternative renders the DEISfatally deficient under NEPA. Of the alternatives consideredin the DEIS, Alternative SB8B, “Use current mitigationmeasures plus side-setting in all areas” appears to be the mostlikely to reduce seabird mortality. We suggest that NMFS addthe requirement that such fishing only be done at night to thisalternative and adopt it via regulations immediately.

While night-setting is an effective seabirdinteraction avoidance measure, its efficacy islessened under full moon or other brightconditions. Further, if side-setting proves aseffective as limited trials indicate, nightsetting will add little to the combined efficacyof the measures. The deep-set sector of thefishery sets lines during daylight because thathas proven to be the most effective style offishing for their target species. Most of thiseffort is south of 23/N where seabirdinteractions are relatively rare. The analysesin this EIS do not suggest a need foradditional controls on the deep-set tunafishery operating south of 23°N.



c As mentioned above, we believe that the fishery as currentlyauthorized is violating the MBTA. Section 2 of the MBTAprovides that “it shall be unlawful at any time, by any meansor in any manner,” to, among many other prohibited actions,“pursue, hunt, take, capture, [or] kill” any migratory birdincluded in the terms of the treaties. 16 U.S.C. § 703(emphasis added). The term “take” is defined as to “pursue,hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect.” 50 C.F.R. §10.12 (1997). The Laysan and black-footed albatross, as wellas the various shearwaters and boobies likely killed by thefishery are included in the list of migratory birds protected bythe MBTA. See 50 C.F.R. § 10.13 (list of protected migratorybirds). The MBTA imposes strict liability for killingmigratory birds, without regard to whether the harm wasintended. Its scope extends to harm occurring “by any meansor in any manner,” and is not limited to, for example,poaching. See e.g., U.S. v. Moon Lake Electric Association,45 F.

Supp. 2d 1070 (1999) and cases cited therein. Indeed, thefederal government itself has successfully prosecuted underthe MBTA’s criminal provisions those who haveunintentionally killed migratory birds. E.g., U.S. v. CorbinFarm Service, 444 F. Supp. 510, 532-534 (E. D. Cal.),

The MBTA only applies in nearshore waters,seaward to three nm from the shoreline.Because the pelagic longline fishery isprohibited from fishing within 25 or 75 nm ofthe Hawaiian Islands (depending on time ofyear), the MBTA does not apply tointeractions in the Hawaii-based longlinefishery, and therefore, no take authorization isrequired.

NMFS declines to comment on CBD'sattorney's interpretation of case law, pendingresolution of the litigation TIRN v. NMFS.


347

affirmed, 578 F.2d 259 (9th Cir. 1978); U.S. v. FMC Corp.,572 F.2d 902 (2nd Cir. 1978). The MBTA applies to federalagencies such as NMFS as well as private persons. SeeHumane Society v. Glickman, No. 98-1510, 1999 U.S. Dist.LEXIS 19759 (D.D.C. July 6, 1999)), affirmed, HumaneSociety v. Glickman, 217 F.3d 882, 885 (D.C. Cir.2000)(“There is no exemption in § 703 for farmers, or golfcourse superintendents, or ornithologists, or airport officials,or state officers, or federal agencies.”). Following Glickman,FWS issued Director’s Order No. 131, confirming that it isFWS’s position that the MBTA applies equally to federal andnon-federal entities, and that “take of migratory birds byFederal agencies is prohibited unless authorized pursuant toregulations promulgated under the MBTA.” MBTA Section 3authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to “determine when, towhat extent, if at all, and by what means, it is compatible withthe terms of the conventions to allow hunting, take, capture,[or] killing . . . of any such bird.” 16 U.S.C. § 704. FWS mayissue a permit allowing the take of migratory birds ifconsistent with the treaties, statute and FWS regulations.NMFS however has not obtained, much less applied for sucha permit authorizing any take by the longline fishery.

NMFS cannot dispute that the longline fisheries under theFishery Management Plan for Pelagic Fisheries of theWestern Pacific Region kill birds protected under the MBTA.We believe that until such take is permitted, NMFS cannotlawfully allow any fishing that is likely to result in death ofsuch species. At a minimum, NMFS must immediatelyrequire the use of the best available mitigation measures, suchas side setting at night for all longline fishing under the FMP(swordfish or tuna, Hawaii or American Samoa-based) so asto minimize the likelihood of the fisheries killing migratorybirds.


Staff Attorney,Center forBiological

d In previous comment letters to NMFS and the Pacific andWest Pacific Fishery Management Councils we explainedhow we believe that NMFS’s authorization of any pelagiclongline fishing in the Pacific violates NMFS’s obligationunder the ESA to avoid jeopardizing listed species such as the

The re-opening of the shallow-set sector ofthe Hawaii-based longline fishery wasassessed under NEPA in the 2004 SEIS(WPRFMC 2004b). Impacts to all potentiallyaffected environmental resources, including


348

Diversity critically endangered leatherback sea turtle and theloggerhead sea turtle. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2). We maintainthat position. Additionally, as described above, since longlinefishing as currently practiced also kills numerous seabirds,and is likely driving the black-footed albatross towardseventual extinction, we believe that no pelagic longlining canbe legally authorized until and unless NMFS develops andimplements measures that are proven to eliminate bycatch ofthese and other imperiled species. Such an approach is alsoconsistent with the call put out by over 400 scientists and 100NGOs from 25 nations calling on the U.N. to institute animmediate moratorium on pelagic longline fishing in thePacific until measures can be put in place that eliminate suchbycatch. See www.seaturtles.org.

resources listed under the ESA, were analyzedin that document. Consultation with theUSFWS on the effects of the fishery on short-tailed albatross resulted in a no-jeopardyconclusion. That population is growing at 7-8% per year near areas of concentratedlonglining. Recent reports and press releasesfrom the USFWS, the agency with trusteeresponsibility over the black-footed albatrossand Laysan albatross, indicate stable nestingpopulations of these species. The proposedseabird action will benefit those populationsin the NWHI and perhaps albatrosspopulations elsewhere through technologytransfer to other longline fleets.



e Squid Fishery We believe that the DEIS suffers from some of the sameflaws with regard to its treatment of the squid fishery as itdoes with regards to the longline fishery. First and foremost,NMFS is allowing vessels to fish in the high seas pursuant topermits issued under the High Seas Fishing Compliance Actof 1995 (“HSFCA”)(16 U.S.C.§ 5501 et seq.), prior tocompleting the required analysis under NEPA and the ESA.While we agree with NMFS that any future permits requiresuch analysis, all current permits also require such analysisand must be suspended until and unless NMFS complies withthese statutes. As for the actual management measuresproposed in the DEIS, we are fine with the Council’spreferred alternative of including the squid fishery in theexisting Pelagics FMP. As squid are used as bait by otherfisheries under the FMP, as well as comprise an importantprey source for target and bycatch species of these fisheries,managing the squid fishery within the Pelagics FMP wouldallow for a better ecosystem-based management regime forthe FMP as a whole. Additionally, until and unless the squidfishery is brought under an FMP, we believe that NMFSshould adopt Alternative SQB.2 and cease issuing HSFCApermits for such fishery.

NMFS is taking the necessary actions to bringhigh seas fishing activities, including pelagicsquid jig fishing, into compliance with allESA, MMPA and NEPA requirements. Untilthose requirements are met with respect topelagic squid jig fishing, pelagic squid jigfishing will not be authorized under anyHSFCA permits issued after the date ofFebruary 23, 2004 (this is the date thatHSFCA permit holders were advised byNMFS of the August 21, 2003, court rulingand NMFS' subsequent evaluation of allknown fishing activities conducted by vesselsfor which HSFCA permits had been issued inthe past to determine the level of compliancewith the requirements of the ESA, the MMPAand the NEPA). NMFS allowed the continuedauthorization of high seas pelagic squid jigfishing activities under HSFCA permits issuedprior to February 23, 2004, but only until theexpiration date of the permit, the owner orname of the vessel changes, the vessel is nolonger eligible for U.S. documentation, such


349

documentation is revoked or denied, or thevessel is deleted from such documentation

4 10/11/2004 Gerald W.Winegrad, Vice

President forPolicy,

American BirdConservancy

a I. FINAL EIS AND NOAA/NMFS SHOULD ADOPTMANDATORY EFFECTIVE MITIGATIONMEASURES FOR THE HAWAII-BASED LonglineFISHERY. A. Recommended Measures.We would urge that the final EIS support, and thatNOAA/NMFS adopt, mandatory mitigation measures ofproven efficacy that would require the following for allHawaii-based longline vessels, wherever they may fish(above or below 23 degrees N):1. Use of all current mitigation measures, except that the useof blue-dyed bait be eliminated and the requirement forstrategic offal discharge during line-setting and haul beeliminated. The requirement for thawed bait should becontinued. 2. That discharge of offal be prohibited during line-setting.3. That all vessels employ side setting unless both NMFS andthe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service inspect the vessel with theowner and determine in writing that the vessel istechnologically incapable of side setting without significantcosts. If a vessel cannot feasibly side set as determined herein,the vessel would have to use an underwater setting chute orpaired streamer lines at all times, plus at least 60 g of weightsat least one meter from each hook, in addition to the othermitigation measures required of all vessels. 4. The side setting be accompanied by requirements for atleast 60 g of weights at least one meter from each hook andfor a bird scaring curtain. Our recommended action is closest to Alternative SB10B inthe DEIS, but with significant modifications. The key currentrequirements that should be kept are the provisions forshallow sets to be made at night, one hour after sunset tosunrise, and to deploy lines by a line-setting machine. Ofcourse, the requirements for removing, treating, and reportinghooked birds and for captain and crew to attend a protectedspecies workshop should be continued.

The Preferred Alternative encourages the useof side-setting by adding an additionaldeterrent requirement (tori lines) to theprevious suite of required interactionavoidance measures. The Biological Opinionfor the reopened swordfish fishery (USFWS2004a) requires NMFS to develop a timetablefor implementation of side-setting or anothermeasure or combination of measures of equalor greater efficacy.

4 10/11/2004 Gerald W. b B. Council Choice Maintains Status Quo; 1,800 Albatrosses


350

Winegrad, VicePresident for

Policy,American BirdConservancy

Could be Killed Annually. The DEIS notes that under any alternative continuing thestatus quo of seabird mitigation measures, 1,800 seabirds,nearly all albatrosses, could be killed annually. Even underSB7C, the Council’s preference, 1,800 seabirds could betaken if vessels do not voluntarily choose to use side settingor underwater setting chutes. The DEIS suggests that 1,300seabirds would be killed in the shallow setting fishery; 500more in the deep set fishery. This mortality is reduced to 10-20 birds with mandated side-setting. Thus, it is imperativethat NOAA/NMFS and the final EIS adopt more effectivemeasures as outlined in our recommendations above.

The DEIS notes that it “....is intended to reduce interactionswith seabirds in the Hawaii-based longline fishery....theoverarching goal is to reduce the potentially harmful effectsof fishing by Hawaii-based longline vessels on all seabirds.” Our recommendation will come closest to accomplishing thegoal of the DEIS to reduce impacts to seabirds, but mostimportantly to attaining NOAA’s goal on bycatchminimization. Also, our recommendation comes closest tocomplying with Article 7.6.9 of the FAO Code of Conduct forResponsible Fisheries, adopted by all member nations,including the U.S. It provides that states should takeappropriate measures to minimize catch of non_target species(both fish and non_fish species) and negative impact onassociated or dependent species, in particular endangeredspecies. It further provides that states and regional fisheriesmanagement organizations should promote, to the extentpracticable, the development and use of selective,environmentally safe and cost effective gear and techniques.

We urge NOAA/NMFS to include in the final EIS provisionsfor seabird mitigation that will not simply maintain the statusquo. Unfortunately, the Western Pacific FisheriesManagement Council has supported Alternative SB7C whichwould eliminate the blue-dyed bait and offal provisions fromcurrent regulations, thus keeping the status quo (minus theseprovisions) and simply allow longline vessels to voluntarily

The calculation of potential interactions undereach alternative has been revised from theDEIS with newer information and morerigorous quantification. The 1,800 interactionsestimate would only be reached if allinteraction avoidance measures wereeliminated, a scenario that will not occurunder any of the alternatives considered here.


351

use much more effective measures. These vessels can choosemore effective measures now. The adoption of measures thatmaintain the status quo and simply allow longline vesselowners to choose more effective measures at their leisure,violates the intent and purpose of NOAA to minimizebycatch, the FAO Code of Conduct, the DEIS intent andpurpose, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the EndangeredSpecies Act.




c C: Re-opening Shallow Setting Fishery Requires BetterConservation Measures.The DEIS notes that the prohibition on Hawaii-based longlinevessels and general longline vessels using longline gear totarget swordfish (“shallow-setting'') north of the equator waslifted by NMFS by rule on April 2, 2004. As noted in theDEIS, this fishery “....historically had more than an order ofmagnitude greater seabird interaction rate than the deep-settuna sector.” The NMFS BA for the proposed rule re-openingthe shallow setting fishery noted at page 139 that “Datacollected by NMFS observers show that when Hawaii-basedlongline vessels targeted swordfish the incidental catch ofseabirds was far higher than when vessels target tuna (Table39).” The table indicates a rate that is 51 times greater forvessels targeting swordfish than for tuna vessels. This isattributable to these vessels fishing where the albatrossesforage, particularly for squid. And yet, the new regulationsfailed to adequately address this 51-fold increased potentialfor seabird mortality and simply continued the inadequateavoidance measures for seabirds that were adopted before theswordfish fishery was closed.

The DEIS finds no evidence to indicate whether therequirements to avoid sea turtle take–the use of a circle hooksize 18/0 or larger with a 10 degree offset, combined withmackerel-type bait–will prevent any avian mortality. Seabirdmortality could rise to the level that existed before restrictionson the shallow set fishery were imposed in 2000.

Past information on interactions of seabirdswith the shallow-set sector of the fishery isbased on operations before implementation ofcurrently required interaction avoidancemeasures. The reauthorized fishery hasimplemented measures specified by theUSFWS to minimize risks to short-tailedalbatross and those measures have beenshown to effectively limit interactions withother albatross species as well. Further, themodel fishery will not exceed 50% of theprevious effort level.

Measures currently in place in the fishery areeffective in keeping birds from the hooks. The2004 SEIS (WPRFMC 2004b) analyzed thehooks now required in the shallow-set fisheryand concluded that their size andconfiguration may have benefits in terms ofreducing the consequences of hooking.


352

The re-opening of this fishery with 2,120 sets allowed, hasvery serious consequences for albatrosses and potentiallyother seabirds. The DEIS notes that 2/3 of 164 Hawaii-basedlongline permitees applied for these shallow setting permitsbefore the May 1, 2004 deadline. ABC and many of ourpartner organizations had been urging the continued closureof this shallow-setting swordfish fishery to prevent the killingof albatrosses and other seabirds in the Hawaiian longlinefishery. In addition, we and our colleagues in nationalconservation organizations have met with three consecutiveDirectors of NMFS, various other NOAA/NMFS officials,and sent repeated letters and made repeated phone calls toWestern Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Councilmembers and NMFS’ Regional PIAO Director about the needfor effective regulations in Hawaiian waters to end the killingof albatrosses.

In re-opening the shallow setting fishery for swordfish,NMFS adopted new measures exclusively to deal with seaturtles and refused to adopt more effective seabird avoidancemeasures to prevent the mortality of albatrosses andshearwaters. The current regulatory regime continued thestatus quo before the closure of the shallow setting fishery.The U.S. FWS BiOp for short-tailed albatross issuedNovember 28, 2000 required night-setting, just as undercurrent regulations, for the shallow setting fishery. All of theother seabird mitigation measures stayed the same from theprevious BiOp: 45 g of weight and line-setting machines forthe deep set fishery, thawed, blue dyed bait and strategic offaldischarge for all vessels. As the DEIS notes, even most ofthese measures simply continued the status quo for thesefisheries as most all deep setting vessels used at least 45 g ofweights on lines and used line-setting machines. Theswordfish fishery typically set at night, although not alwaysone hour after sunset.

Because listed sea turtles spawned the successful litigationthat led to the swordfish closure, seabirds were given littlefocus in re-opening the shallow setting fishery, including an

The reauthorized fishery has implementedmeasures specified by the USFWS tominimize risks to short-tailed albatross andthose measures have been shown to veryeffectively limit interactions with otheralbatross species as well. Further, the modelfishery will not exceed 50% of the previouseffort level.

Reauthorization of the fishery wasaccompanied by implementation of measuresspecified by the USFWS to minimize risks toshort-tailed albatross and those measures havebeen shown to very effectively limitinteractions with other albatross species aswell. Further, the model fishery will notexceed 50% of the previous effort level.

There has never been a take of an ESA-listedseabird species in the Hawaii-based longlinefishery, and the proposed action is intended to


353

ESA-listed species, thus subjecting seabirds to illegal takeunder both the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and theMBTA.

NMFS has begun consultation under section 7 of the ESAwith the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to obtain anew Biological Opinion on the effect of this action on theESA-listed endangered Short-tailed Albatross.

The final EIS and NOAA/NMFS should adopt measures forseabird mitigation that will not simply maintain the statusquo, but that require side setting and other effectivemitigation measures that can virtually eliminate albatrossmortality if deployed properly.

make it even less likely that such an event willoccur. As explained above, the MBTA doesnot apply to interactions with this fishery, andtherefore, no take authorization is required.Prior interactions have not violated the ESAor the MBTA.

That consultation is now complete and theUSFWS has concluded that the reauthorizedfishery will not jeopardize the continuedexistence of the short-tailed albatross. Therehas never been a reported interaction of thisfishery with a short-tailed albatross.

The measures currently in place have beenshown to be very effective in minimizingseabird interactions, and the PreferredAlternative has the potential to further reducethe effects of the fishery on seabirds. ThePreferred Alternative encourages the use ofside-setting. While side-setting has beenshown to be very effective in limitedexperimental situations, its efficacy in practicehas yet to be established. It seems prudent atthis time to proceed cautiously until adequateexperience in the fleet confirms its efficacyand operational benefits.




d II. SIDE-SETTING SHOULD BE REQUIRED ON ALLHAWAII LONGLINERS. Now that the shallow-setting swordfish fishery has been re-opened as a “model” fishery, it is critical that effectiveseabird avoidance measures be required. The recent researchon board Hawaiian longliners documenting the effectivenessof side setting with at least 60 g of weight at least one meterfrom each hook, and using a bird scaring curtain is noted inthe DEIS.

Albatross and other seabird take can be nearly eliminatedwith these safe, inexpensive measures without deceasing

The USFWS’s 2004 Biological Opinion forthe shallow-set sector of the fishery requiresthe phasing in of side-setting or of measuresequal or greater in effectiveness in deterringseabirds in the Hawaii-based fleet.


354

fishing efficiency. Blue-dyed bait is ruled out as an effective,enforceable deterrent. See Gilman, E. et al., PerformanceAssessment of Underwater Setting Chutes, Side Setting, andBlue-Dyed bait to Minimize Seabird Mortality in HawaiiLongline Tuna and Swordfish Fisheries, Final Report,Honolulu, HI (August 2003). Also see Melvin et al., Solutionsto Seabird Bycatch in Alaska’s Demersal Longline Fisheries(October 2000), which conclusively demonstrated that pairedstreamer lines, when properly deployed, can eliminate allalbatross and nearly all other seabird mortality. Theresearchers in their Report recommended that all Alaskanlongliners deploy these paired streamer lines. Indeed, theDEIS clearly details the benefits of side setting. The DEISfinds that “Side setting has been shown to virtually eliminatebird capture. Gilman et al. (2003).” The DEIS rates sidesetting at night as the best possible seabirdmitigation/avoidance measures and side setting with line-shooters as number 2. Thus, both shallow setting and deepsetting fisheries would be able to nearly eliminate allmortality with these two simple measures. The DEIS givesside setting the highest of all Operational ratings and thehighest of all Compliance Enforcement ratings of allmitigation measures examined. See Table 2.1-2 at page 53.

The DEIS notes that side setting may benefit both seabirdpopulations and fishing efficiency and can be accomplishedwith small costs up front and zero additional costs after initialchanges are made and while fishing. Loss bait is minimizedand more targeted fish can be caught. Further, several vesselshave already voluntarily begun to use side setting and 70% ofvessels already deploy 60 g weights, the rest 45 g weights.

We support the elimination of the use of blue-dyed bait andthe requirement for strategic offal discharge during line-setting and haul, but only if the requirement for thawed bait iscontinued and the discharge of offal is prohibited during line-setting. Thawed bait sinks quicker and should be required asit is under current U.S. regulations for CCAMLR waters.Eliminating offal discharge while line-setting should


355

minimize the attraction of albatrosses and other seabirds tolongline vessels during the critical line-setting time. Othernations, including Australia, have adopted such a prohibition.Blue-dyed bait is not an effective deterrent, especially whenused on fish. Both the NMFS BA on the re-opening of theshallow setting fishery and the recent research done on boardHawaii longline vessels document this and challenge itsefficacy and the ease and practicality of use. See Gilman, E.et al. (2003).

We also support the continuation of the requirements for100% observer coverage for the shallow setting longlinefishery and at least 20% for the deep setting fishery, providedthat at least 5% coverage is dedicated primarily to seabirdbycatch, as required under the current U.S. FWS BiOp.

The DEIS and NMFS have rejected time and area closures tobetter protect seabirds. The previous closures of fishing areaswere lifted under the new regulations of April 2, 2004. Thismakes the adoption of the recommended mitigation measuresabove all the more important. In fact, the DEIS rejects timeand area closures because of the effectiveness of availablemitigation measures. The final EIS and NMFS should requirethe adoption of these measures and not simply maintain thestatus quo.




e III. FINAL EIS AND SEABIRD MITIGATIONMEASURES NEED TO ADDRESS KILLING OF 10,098BLACK-FOOTED AND 8,561 LAYSAN ALBATROSSES NMFS data documents that Hawaii-based longliners killed10,098 Black-footed Albatrosses from 1994-2003 and 8,561Laysan Albatrosses. Very few other birds were killed. Sincethe closure of the shallow-set swordfish fishery, the numbersof albatrosses killed declined to 65 Black-footed Albatrossesand 51 Laysan Albatrosses (116 total) in 2002, despite anincreased numbers of hooks being set in 2002 (27 millionhooks set). Observer coverage increased to 25% of hooks setin 2002. Unfortunately, in 2003 the take of albatrossesincreased to 111 Black-footed Albatrosses and 114 Laysan

The historic figures for seabird interactions inthe fishery represent operations beforerequirement of current interaction avoidancemeasures. The level of interactions undercurrently required measures are not expectedto adversely affect populations of albatrosses,but will be further reduced under the terms ofthe Biological Opinion for the reopenedswordfish fishery (USFWS 2004a). TheBiological Opinion further recommends


356

Albatrosses (225 total) taken. A record 29.3 million hookswere set from 110 vessels with observer coverage of 22.2%.This increase occurred prior to the re-opening of the shallowsetting swordfish fishery and is cause for concern.

Further, the mortality data from NMFS does not include anyadjustments upwards for birds hooked but not counted. In anexperiment to test the efficacy of an underwater line chuteconducted in the Hawaii-based fishery in March, 2002,Gilman et al. (2002) found that 34% of birds observed to behooked during the set were not found on the line when thegear was hauled in. In the August 2003 Final Report fromGilman et al., a finding of 28% of birds observed hooked butnot recovered was documented. The DEIS does note thatNMFS albatross mortality data does not include increasedmortality to chicks from a parent’s death, or suppressedbreeding when one adult dies.

The DEIS should note and address this additional mortality,and the prevention of such mortality needs to be aggressivelyaddressed in adopting final plans for mitigation measures, asrecommended above.

NMFS to continue research into the drop-offissue.




f IV. DOCUMENTATION OF SERIOUS DECLINES INLAYSAN ALBATROSSES AND FOCUS ON GLOBALLISTING OF ALL THREE ALBATROSSES. The DEIS contains some analyses of the northern hemispherealbatross species affected or potentially affected by Hawaii-based longline. All three species of these albatross are now atsome risk of extinction and longline mortality is the gravestthreat to at least two of these species. The three albatrossspecies are all at risk of mortality from the Hawaii-basedlongline fisheries, primarily the shallow-setting swordfishfishery. According to the DEIS, over 95% of the world’sbreeding population of Black-footed Albatross and over 99%of Laysan Albatross breed in the NW Hawaiian Islands andforage in and around the core areas of Hawaiian longlinevessels, particularly the swordfish vessels. This makes themeven more vulnerable to Hawaii-based longline fisheries.

Consultation with the USFWS on the effectsof the reauthorized swordfish fishery on short-tailed albatross resulted in a no-jeopardyconclusion (USFWS 2004a). That populationis increasing at 7-8% per year near areas ofconcentrated longlining. Recent reports andpress releases from the USFWS, the agencywith trustee responsibility over the black-footed albatross and Laysan albatross, indicatestable nesting populations of these species.The proposed seabird action will benefit thosepopulations in the NWHI and perhapsalbatross populations elsewhere through


357

The DEIS fails to mention the serious population declines inLaysan Albatross, likely due to longline mortality, and thispopulation decline leading to this species being listed asVulnerable to extinction under the 2003 IUCN Red List ofThreatened Species. (see www.redbook.org). In fact, theanalyses is totally devoid of the best population data. Underthe IUCN listing as Vulnerable to extinction, this recentanalyses appears in Threatened Birds of the World 2004. CD-ROM. BirdLife International, Cambridge, U.K. (Accessibleon the web):

A. Laysan Albatross Population Declines by 32% Over aDecade. “This species is being listed as threatened for the firsttime. It is classified as Vulnerable on the basis of a >30%decline over three generations (84 years). The reason for thisdecline has been attributed to the effects of longline fishing inthe North Pacific. Preliminary data suggest that the rate ofdecline could be more rapid and that therefore this speciescould warrant a more serious threatened status. This threat isongoing and is therefore projected into the future.

Range & Population. Phoebastria immutabilis is known tobreed at 16 sites (nine with populations of greater than 100pairs), mostly in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (USA)with fewer than 500 nests in small colonies in Japan andMexico. The population is estimated to be c.437,000 breedingpairs. The largest colony is at Midway Atoll where 286,662active nests were counted in 2001. The second largest colonyis at Laysan Island where 103,689 pairs were estimated in2001. Population sizes at monitored colonies increasedbetween 1980 and 1995 but have never reached the densitiesobserved prior to large-scale harvests for feathers in the early1900s. Recent information has shown a 32% decline during1992-2002 (3.2% per annum) of birds breeding on theNorthwestern Hawaiian Islands where 90% of the globalpopulation is found.

technology transfer to other longline fleets.

As explained above, the USFWS, with trusteeresponsibility over the Black-footed albatrossand Laysan albatross, terms the status of thesepopulations "stable." Major sources ofmortality to these populations, including driftnets and military operations on Midway, havebeen removed within the life span of a singlealbatross generation, and population effects ofthose changes may be ongoing. Mortalityfrom the Hawaii longline fishery has beengreatly reduced and the present action isintended to further reduce those effects. Inaddition, technology transfer of effectiveseabird interaction avoidance measuresproven in this fishery to have operationalbenefits to other longline fleets could improvethe population status of other seabirds.

The USFWS terms the status of thesepopulations "stable" because the current statusof the Laysan and black-footed albatrosspopulations is uncertain, i.e., not clearlyincreasing or decreasing. Ongoing modelingefforts may improve our understanding of thisissue. The USFWS is responsible formonitoring these populations, and they arecurrently undertaking population statusassessments for these two species. Theseassessments are due to be completed byDecember 31, 2005, and will provide theUSFWS and NMFS with additionalinformation with which to assess thepopulation trajectories.


358

Threats. The species is killed in pelagic and demersal longlinefisheries in the North Pacific as well as in illegal high seasdriftnet operations. Preliminary analyses suggest that pelagiclongliners in the North Pacific may kill c.10,000 birds (of thisspecies) each year, while demersal longline operations in theBering and Alaskan Sea kill c.700 birds per year.

Targets. *Continue monitoring population trends anddemographic parameters. *Conduct further analysis of longterm trends to see if a more serious threat status is justified.*Continue satellite-tracking studies to assess temporal andspatial overlap with longline fisheries. *Adopt best-practicemitigating measures in all longline fisheries within thespecies's range. *Continue and enhance awarenessprogrammes in all longline fleets.”

Further supporting this data is a January 8, 2004 FWS-PacificIslands Office Press Release. While noting a large increase in2004 breeding Laysan Albatrosses on Midway Island, theFWS notes that: “The Service conducts complete counts ofthis species at Midway when possible, and counts or sampledensities of nesting birds are taken at French Frigate Shoalsand Laysan Island every year. These monitoring sites accountfor 93 percent of the worldwide breeding population of thisspecies. Between 1992 and 2002, the number of breedingpairs at all three sites combined has declined at an averagerate of 3.2 percent per year. This rate represented acumulative decline in annual breeding attempts of 32 percentover a ten-year period.” The Laysan Albatross is on the 2002 FWS Birds ofConservation Concern List. This means that withoutadditional conservation actions, the birds are likely to becomecandidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act. TheBirds of Conservation Concern list is mandated by Congressunder 1988 amendments to the Fish and WildlifeConservation Act. The North American WaterbirdConservation Plan lists this species as of High ConservationConcern. These latter two listings should be addressed in afinal EIS.


359

B. Black-footed Albatross Population Declines by 1% a YearOver a Decade. This species has been recently changed to the next to highestinternational category of Endangered under the 2003 IUCNRed Book. The 2003 IUCN Red List of Threatened Speciesprovides: “This species has been upgraded to Endangered onthe basis of a projected future decline of more than 60% overthe next three generations (56 years), taking account ofpresent rates of incidental mortality in longline fisheries in thenorth Pacific Ocean.”

According to the January 8, 2004 FWS Press Release citedabove: “ Black-footed Albatrosses currently breed at 12 sitesand are estimated to have a world population of about 57,000breeding pairs. Since 1998, at least 75 percent of the world’sbreeding population is counted less frequently, but all sitesexcept one have been surveyed at least once since 1991. AtMidway, Laysan Island, and French Frigate Shoals, the threesites where the Service conducts annual complete counts ofnesting pairs, a 9.8 percent decline in the breeding populationwas recorded between 1996 and 2001.”




g V. DEIS FAILS TO DISCUSS NECESSITY OF ESACONSULTATION AND A NEW BIOP BEFORESHALLOW SET FISHERY RE-OPENED. The FWS issued a new BiOp in November 2002 after theclosure of the swordfish fishery and the adoption of seabirdavoidance measures. The BiOp for the tuna longline fisherystill noted that: “The expected, adverse effect of the proposedaction is mortality of short-tailed Albatrosses…. With respectto the short-tailed albatross, the most important change to thefishery resulting from the sea turtle mitigation measures isthis suspension of all swordfish-target or shallow-set longlineoperations by Hawaii longliners….We have determined thatshort-tailed albatrosses are at risk of injury or mortality fromHawaii longline fishing operations …We estimate that one (1)short-tailed albatross per year may be taken in the Hawaii-based longline fishery, or a total of four over the remainingfour-year duration of this consultation.”

The Biological Opinion for the reopenedswordfish fishery (USFWS 2004a) has beenissued.


360

The FWS noted that: “This revised estimate for the fishery issubstantially less than the incidental take of 2.2 short-tailedalbatross per year estimated in the November 2000 Opinionfor a fishery that included shallow- as well as deep-setoperations.” This is because of the much higher rate ofseabird take in the shallow-setting swordfish fishery,estimated by NMFS at 51 times greater for vessels targetingswordfish than for tuna vessels. The Short-tailed Albatross isbeing exposed to even more potential mortality than beforewith zero changes in seabird mitigation measures. ESA regulations at 50 CFR §402.16 required reinitiating offormal consultation with the FWS under ESA Section 7BEFORE re-opening the swordfish fishery. The DEIS fails tomention this, although consultation has now begun. It is nowcritical that effective seabird avoidance measures be requirednow that the shallow-setting swordfish fishery has re-openedand that the final EIS include effective measures as thechosen action to be taken. See our recommendations forspecific measures above.




h VI. NMFS RE-OPENING THE SWORDFISH FISHERYVIOLATES THE MBTA. Any killing of a migratory bird constitutes a taking under theMBTA, even if inadvertent and unintentional. See U.S. v.Moon Lake Electric Association, 45 FSupp 2d 1070 (1999),decided in the U.S. District Court for Colorado and the casescited therein. As the Court of Appeals for the District ofColumbia Circuit (with jurisdiction over NMFS) made clear,this prohibition not only applies to private individuals andcorporations but also “prohibits federal agencies from killingor taking migratory birds without a permit from the Interiordepartment.” Humane Society of the U.S. v. Glickman, 217F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2000).

On July 21, 1998, the Director of the USFWS requested theInterior Solicitor for his opinion on the application of theMBTA to the high seas. On January 19, 2001, the Departmentof Interior issued a Solicitor’s Opinion that the MBTA clearlyapplies to the full 200-mile EEZ and to U.S. citizens andvessels wherever they may be on the high seas. The Opinion

The MBTA only applies in nearshore waters,seaward to three nm from the shoreline.Because the pelagic longline fishery isprohibited from fishing within 25 or 75 nm ofthe Hawaiian Islands (depending on time ofyear) or 50 nm off the NWHI, the MBTAdoes not apply to interactions with thisfishery, and therefore, no take authorization isrequired.


361

was cited as being “final”, was cleared by Justice, but itsimplementation by the FWS has been delayed. Nonetheless,NMFS is under a statutory duty to prevent the take of anymigratory seabird, including the Laysan, Black-footed, andShort-tailed Albatrosses.

The DEIS acknowledges that under any alternative continuingthe status quo of seabird mitigation measures, 1,800 seabirds,nearly all albatrosses, could be killed annually. Even underSB7C, the Council’s preference, 1,800 seabirds could betaken if vessels do not voluntarily choose to use side settingor underwater setting chutes. The U.S., including NMFS andthe Council, have a statutory duty under the MBTA to assurethat longline fisheries they license and permit do not result inthe take of migratory seabirds. In Hawaii, as the DEIS notes,this can be achieved best by requiring side-setting, coupledwith the other measures recommended above.

The final EIS should fully discuss the MBTA, its prohibitionsagainst take, and the necessity for the adoption of mandatoryside-setting and other mitigation measures to meet itsprohibitions on the take of migratory birds.




i In conclusion, we urge that the final EIS and NOAA/NMFSadopt effective mitigation measures that include side-settingfor all Hawaii-based longliners with a bird-scaring curtain, 60g weights within one meter of each hook, in addition to night-setting and line-setting machines. Offal dischargeduring line-setting should be prohibited. The strict mandatesagainst unpermitted take of migratory birds under the MBTAshould be adhered to, as should compliance with the ESA,and the FAO Code of Conduct and NOAA’s policy forminimizing bycatch. This can only be accomplished throughthe adoption and enforcement of mandatory avoidancemeasures mentioned above.

The Preferred Alternative analyzed in theFEIS would require use of more interactionavoidance measures than are currentlyrequired, unless an operator opted to use side-setting. This is intended to encourage the useof side-setting. The USFWS’s 2004Biological Opinion for the shallow-set sectorof the fishery requires the phasing in of side-setting or of measures equal or greater ineffectiveness in deterring seabirds in theHawaii-based fleet. This will allow time toresolve present uncertainties regarding itsimplementation. The Council is investigatingthe offal discard issue further and may in thenear future propose to delete this measurefrom the suite of currently required measures.Take of Laysan or black-footed albatross by


362

the Hawaii-based longline fishery violatesneither the ESA nor the MBTA.

5 10/11/2004 James M.Lynch,

Attorney forHLA

a I. Purpose and Need for Action The DEIS mischaracterizes the purpose and need for actionby stating that in 2001, the shallow set component of thefishery "was closed due to excessive takes of endangered andthreatened sea turtles." HLA strongly disagrees with thecharacterization that the swordfish fishery was closed for anylegitimate, scientifically defensible reason. This point isevidenced by the fact that NMFS' regulations closing thiscomponent of the longline fishery, as well as the underlyingbiological opinion for the fishery, were overturned by theDistrict Court of Washington D.C. as arbitrary and capricious,and not in accordance with law. See HLA v. NMFS, 288F.Supp 2d 7 (D.D.C. 2003). In response to this litigation, theCouncil adopted a new proposed action that adopted a suite ofsea turtle mitigation measures, and provided for restored tunaand swordfish fisheries. NMFS subsequently consulted overthis new proposed action, determined the action would notjeopardize listed turtle species, and enacted new fisheryregulations which are currently in place. HLA recommends that NMFS revise discussions contained inthe Purpose and Need Statement and other sections of theDEIS to more accurately explain the background and eventsleading up to the current proposed action.

The Purpose and Need section has beenreworded to eliminate reference to takes ofsea turtles.


Attorney forHLA

b II. Status of Seabird Populations The DEIS paints a picture that BFAL and LAL populations inthe vicinity of the Hawaiian Islands are declining atsignificant levels. Regarding the status of BFAL population,the DEIS states that analyses of breeding pair counts atMidway Atoll, Layasan Island, and French Frigate Shoalssuggest that BF AL populations are declining at the rate ofabout 1 percent annually. DEIS at 101. This statement is notsupported by any scientific data contained in the DEIS.

First, as the time series for BF AL population at LaysanIslands shows, wide confidence intervals exist aroundavailable breeding pair estimates, particularly in the early partof the time series containing the largest number of birds.

The population analyses have been revised topoint out the uncertainty in current estimatesof trajectories.


363

These broad confidence intervals suggest a high degree ofuncertainty regarding breeding pair counts. Second, breedingpair estimates from Laysan Island were extrapolated from eggcounts, whereas counts from French Frigate Shoals andMidway Atoll are based on direct bird observations.These data were then pooled for purposes of determiningpopulation trends over time. Pooling such data introduces anumber of biases and uncertainties that should be more fullydiscussed in the DEIS; presently the DEIS does not indicatethe potential problems associated with combining arguablyunrelated data sets to perform a regression analysis. Finally,regression estimates concerning BFAL breeding paircorrelations provided in Figure 3.6.1-3 are not statisticallysignificant, and instead indicate a relatively stable trend innesting pairs. DEIS at 103. The DEIS fails to discuss thestatistical significance of regression results, and merely statesthat such data "seem to indicate" a reduction in nesting pairabundance over time. The statistical analysis contained in theDEIS should be revised, and subjected to review by NMFSscientists or members of the Council's Scientific andStatistical Subcommittee ("SSC").


Attorney forHLA

c The same biases and improper extrapolations occur in sectionof the DEIS addressing the status of LAL populations;however, these biases are exacerbated by the fact that onlyfive data points exist for breeding pair counts at MidwayAtoll (Figure 3.6.1-4), and thus, when these and other datapoints are combined from Laysan Island and French FrigateShoals, an even less reliable population trend exists (Figure3.6.1-5). As with the BF AL breeding pair correlation, LALcorrelations are likewise statistically not significant; however,the DEIS fails to discuss this fact in any detail. Time seriesdata presented in Figure 3.5.1-4 contradicts the regressionanalysis, and shows an increasing or stable trend in LALabundance, particularly when one considers recent date fromMidway Atoll where breeding pairs in 2003 were equivalentto those observed in 1992 (about 40,000). DEIS at 105.Again, statistical analyses contained in the DEIS should bereviewed by NMFS scientists or the Council's SSC.

The population analyses have been revised topoint out the uncertainty in current estimatesof trajectories. The increase of the short-tailedalbatross population in the face ofconsiderable longlining pressure has beennoted.


364

The DEIS fails to discuss how recent increases in short-tailedalbatross populations, a species whose primary nesting rangeoverlaps with BF AL and LAL, comport with purporteddeclines with BFAL and LAL populations. Short-tailedalbatross experience many of the same environmentalpressures; however, these federally-listed species have beenincreasing in abundance over the past several years. TheDEIS should discuss the significance of this increase, andanalyze whether this increase may provide some indication ofpopulation status or trends for BF AL and LAL species.


Attorney forHLA

d III. Effects of Alternatives on Seabird SpeciesUnder the No Action alternative, and subsequent alternatives,the DEIS reaches the conclusion that seabird deterrentscurrently required by regulation are not effective, and that thetotal incidental capture of seabirds in the longline fishery willbe about 1,800 per year. The DEIS makes no attempt toassess the potential additive benefits of multiple seabirddeterrents, nor does the DEIS explain why it is reasonable toassume that currently-required measures are not effectivewhen existing information indicates the contrary.

The conclusions and assumptions contained in the DEISregarding potential seabird interactions in the longline fisheryignore a variety of relevant scientific data, including dataregarding the efficacy of night-setting in the swordfishfishery -data used by FWS to estimate potential take of short-tailed albatross in its biological opinion. Further, the DEISignores existing information from the tuna fishery thatindicates that existing seabird deterrents have been about 73percent effective in reducing take of seabirds in this fishery.See WESPAC and HLA, Biological Assessment of thePelagics New Technology Regulatory Amendment (May,2004). The DEIS likewise ignores available scientific studiesthat support currently-employed seabird deterrents, insteadfocusing on one study of limited scope and duration thatsuggests side-setting may reduce seabird interactions further.

The highly biased and unsupported discussion of existingseabird deterrents does not reflect a reasonable or rationale

Current interaction avoidance measures arenot ineffective, but other methods orcombinations of methods may be even better.The estimates of efficacy have been revised inthe FEIS.


365

assessment of environmental impacts. The No ActionAlternative and related sections of the DEIS should be revisedto include an evaluation of the scientific merits of eachindividual seabird deterrent both currently required byregulation, and those that may potentially be adopted, such asside-setting. The DEIS should likewise evaluate theindividual and additive benefits of currently-required seabirddeterrents, and estimate seabird interactions in the fisherybased upon available scientific information. Failing to do sowill result in a highly biased and inaccurate assessment ofalternatives.


Attorney forHLA

e IV. Conclusions As indicated above, HLA believes that the DEIS suffers froma number of defects, including (I) a biased and unsupportedanalysis of the status of albatross populations; (2) a lack ofdetailed analysis regarding the efficacy of existing seabirddeterrents; and (3) a lack of any detailed analysis regardingthe amount of seabird bycatch likely to occur in the longlinefishery as a result of implementing one or more requiredseabird deterrents. The DEIS' failure to provide a detailed,scientifically- supported assessment of these key issuesviolates NMFS , obligation under the NEPA to take a "hardlook" at the potential environmental effects of various seabirdmitigation alternatives. Discussions contained in the DEISlikewise undermine the considerable progress made by theCouncil and HLA to proactively address seabird issues in thelongline fishery in collaboration with environmental groupsand the Services.

The deficiencies noted have been rectified inthe FEIS. See Section 3.6.1 for revisions tothe descriptions of the status of albatrosspopulations. In addition, Section 4.5, wasextensively revised, including addition of aquantitative comparison of the potentialnumbers of seabirds hooked under givenassumptions for each alternative (Section4.5.26).


Attorney forHLA

f HLA recommends that NMFS convene a workgroupconsisting of Council staff and HLA representatives todiscuss these comments and related information in greaterdetail. Council staff possess considerable expertise regardingissues raised in this comment letter, and NMFS should workclosely with Council staff to insure the DEIS is revised in amanner to comport with all applicable legal requirements.

The analyses in the FEIS benefitted from thework of individuals on a Fishery ManagementAction Team, which included Council staffand which guided and reviewed the finalanalyses.

6 10/12/2004 Summer Allen,Region 9, U.S.Environmental

a Seabird Interaction Mitigation Measures Alternatives EPA recognizes the lack of available information regardingshort-tailed albatrosses and notes that no observations were

Calculations of seabird interactions under thevarious alternatives have been revised in the


366

ProtectionAgency (EPA)

made specifically for this species. However, we also note thesuccess rate of methods such as side-setting to reduce impactsto seabirds when compared to other mitigation measures. Forexample, the Draft EIS estimates that if all vessels in theHawaii longline fishery switched to the side-setting seabirddeterrent method, 10-20 birds might be captured per year.However if all fishermen used an underwater setting chute,about 338 birds per year would be captured, and 1,743 birdsfor shallow-setting vessels. Current measures could lead tothe catch of 1,800 birds per year (page 216). Due to theseresults, it seems appropriate to consider an alternative withpotential for environmental impacts.

The Preferred Alternative for swordfish vessels incorporatescurrent mitigation measures (with the exception of thawedblue-dyed bait) or one of the following: side-setting,underwater setting chute, or a tori line. For implementation otune vessels, it incorporates the same measures when fishingnorth of 23/ N latitude. While all of these measures haveutility, the decision to abandon the use of blue-dyed bait isnot discussed in detail.

Recommendations: As the purpose of this action is to reduce the adverse effectson interactions with seabirds in the Hawaii-based longlinefishery (Executive Summary, page 1), NMFS should consideran alternative that would require mitigation measures with ahigher success rate, such as mandatory side–setting, whenfeasible (Alternative SB10). The final EIS should discuss thediscontinuation of the use of blue-dyed bait if discontinuationis part of the alternative that is carried forward. In particular,this should be discussed in light of the fact that blue-dyed baitwas a mitigation commitment in the Pelagic Fisheries FMPRecord of Decision (ROD).

FEIS, as has the Preferred Alternative. ThePreferred Alternative in the FEIS wouldrequire use of more interaction avoidancemeasures than did the Preliminary PreferredAlternative in the DEIS, unless an operatoropted to use side-setting. This is intended toencourage the use of side-setting. TheUSFWS’s 2004 Biological Opinion for theshallow-set sector of the fishery requires thephasing in of side-setting or of measures equalor greater in effectiveness in deterringseabirds in the Hawaii-based fleet.



b U.S. Squid Fishery ContextEPA recognizes that the squid fishery is a developing area ofthe economy in the U.S. EEZ. However, we would like to seemore information regarding the effects of this fishery on theeffected resources. While there is some discussion of the

There are few direct data on the effects on thesquid fishery on protected resources, butexisting logbook data show no protectedspecies interactions. Limited information also


367

impacts of the proposed action on marine mammals andseabirds, supporting data is not included. The discussion ofthe management plan and associated alternatives for the squidfishery is confusing and the specific implementation of thesemeasures is not clear. The feasibility of implementing manyof these alternatives should be assessed. In particular,alternatives including international monitoring should beevaluated in the context of multiple, fragmented forums thatexist for fisheries management in the Pacific. In addition, it isnot apparent whether there has been an experimental fisheryto determine effects on the target species and protectedspecies, or if this is planned for the near future.

Recommendations: The Final EIS should include an easy-to-read description ofthe proposed management of the squid fishery, thebackground, and the context of the associated fisheries.NMFS should consider incorporating an experimental fisheryinto the proposed plan to determine target and protectedspecies impacts, before implementing the project as proposed.If an experimental fishery is not feasible, the justificationshould be included in the Final ElS as well as data collectionmeasures that would allow population and environmentalmonitoring on a consistent basis. This is particularlyimportant in that the shallow-set swordfish fishery wasestablished in 2003 and the effects of sea turtle mitigationmeasures on seabirds, has not been assessed (Draft EIS.Executive Summary page i.) Additional commitments may beneeded to protect this fishery once it is well- established.

exists from other fisheries and that has beenincluded. An experimental fishery is notfeasible. There are only four U.S. vesselswhich are appropriately outfitted and haveparticipated in this fishery, and they arecurrently fishing in the southern hemisphere.

The description of the squid fisheryalternatives has been improved.Implementation of an experimental fisherywould delay rulemaking, which would allowNMFS to place observers on domestic squidjigging vessels.



c Associated Plans As stated previously, this document follows a series ofFishery Management Plans (FMPs), Amendments, andEndangered Species Act consultations. While the Draft ElS'describes the current mitigation measures that areincorporated into the most recent alternatives there is noinformation regarding the applicability of previousrequirements from the Record of Decision (ROD) for thePelagic Fisheries FMP .The Draft EIS acknowledges that

The focus of the 2001 FEIS was reduction ofsea turtle interactions. The ROD reviewed thethen current status of seabird interactionavoidance measures. That discussion is nowoutdated. Final rules concerning seabirdinteraction avoidance measures in the deep-setsector of the fishery have been in use forseveral years. The USFWS Biological


368

other NEPA documentation will follow for related issues inthe fishery. Amendment may need to be considered if theresults of PMUS stock assessment show population declines.EPA notes that NMFS expects a more recent BiologicalOpinion for short- tailed albatrosses with the next week.

Recommendations: The Final EIS should include information regarding thefeasibility of including additional mitigation measures thatwere evaluated in the 2001 Pelagic Fisheries FMP ROD. TheFinal EIS should document and assure compliance with allterms of the Short-tailed Albatross Biological Opinion issuedby FWS in November 2002 for the tuna sector of the Hawaii-based longline fishery and associated amendments. When theforthcoming Biological Opinion on the effects of theswordfish sector of the fishery on short-tailed albatrosses isissued, it should be incorporated into the alternative selectedin the Final EIS as well as the mitigation measure~ includedin the ROD.

Opinion on the effects of the shallow-setsector of the fishery has been issued, and itsTerms and Conditions will be implemented byNMFS.

7(Comment

letter dated andreceived afterthe comment

period hadelapsed.

10/15/2004 PatriciaSanderson

Port, RegionalEnvironmentalOfficer, U.S.

Department ofthe Interior

a GENERAL COMMENTSThe DEIS contains a considerable amount of informationrelative to the first action concerning seabird deterrentstrategies, and the Department concurs that the proposedaction is well described and the alternatives analysis isthorough. However, we believe the DEIS is deficient in itsdescription of the high seas squid fishery that is proposed tooperate within the vicinity of the Hawaiian archipelago.

We believe the DEIS does not adequately assess potentialsquid fishery bycatch-related impacts to protected species(e.g., sea turtles, marine mammals, and seabirds).

Therefore, we recommend the DEIS be revised in the FEIS toinclude: (1) a more complete discussion of the squid fisheryproposed to occur within the vicinity of the Hawaiianarchipelago, (2) an impact assessment based on acommitment to avoid and minimize project-related impacts,and (3) proposed mitigation measures that minimize

The high seas squid fishery existed brieflyseveral years ago. There is no additionalinformation available about that fishery or itsbycatch. Information from bycatch in otherpelagic squid jigging fisheries has beenincluded in the FEIS.


369

unavoidable impacts and compensate for significantunavoidable impacts.

7 10/15/2004 PatriciaSanderson



b The objective of the seabird management action analyzed inthe DEIS is stated to be “the cost-effective further reductionof the potentially harmful effects of fishing by Hawaii-basedlongline vessels on the short-tailed albatross, but theoverarching goal is to reduce the potentially harmful effectsof fishing by Hawaii-based longline vessels on all seabirds”(DEIS p. v). The Department’s comments on the analysis ofthis management action are framed in the context of thisstated goal.

The Fishery Council’s preliminary preferred alternative(SB7C): We do not support this alternative, which includes amenu listing four seabird deterrent options for the shallow-setfishery wherever it operates and four deterrent options for thetuna fishery when operating north of 23 degrees Northlatitude (23ºN).

Each of these lists includes the use of tori lines and theunderwater setting chute, which are seabird deterrentsdetermined by the analysis to: (1) be less effective than eitherthe current required measures or the deployment of fishinglines by side-setting, and/or (2) have significant operationaldrawbacks and/or are expensive, unenforceable, or not easilyavailable. We are also concerned that neither list includes theuse of thawed, blue-dyed bait or strategic offal discard.

For the short-tailed albatross, therefore, these lists of optionsdo not meet the terms and conditions of current biologicalopinions (USFWS 2000 and USFWS 2001) on the effects ofthe Hawaii-based longline fishery on this endangered species.We suggest that you consult with the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService (Service) Honolulu field office to correct thisdeficiency in the analysis.

The Preferred Alternative in the FEIS wouldrequire use of more interaction avoidancemeasures than did the Preliminary PreferredAlternative in the DEIS, unless an operatoropted to use side-setting. This is intended toencourage the use of side-setting. TheUSFWS’s 2004 Biological Opinion for theshallow-set sector of the fishery requires thephasing in of side-setting or of measures equalor greater in effectiveness in deterringseabirds in the Hawaii-based fleet. Thespecifications for side-setting outlined in thisEIs and in the USFWS’s 2004 BiologicalOpinion include use of 60 g weights.


370

10/15/2004 PatriciaSanderson



c Side-setting and Alternative SB10B: Based on available information, and as described in the DEIS(e.g., see pp. iii, 49-50, 59, 214, 228-229), deployment offishing lines by side-setting is the most promising deterrentthat has been tested in the Hawaii-based longline fishery, andthis measure meets other important criteria as well aseffectiveness.

It appears from this information that it is relatively easy todeploy lines by side-setting, and it requires only a relativelysmall, one-time investment to refit a vessel for side-setting. Deployment of line by side-setting is less dependent on crewbehavior than most other deterrents, increases efficiency bymoving gear deployment to the same location on the boatwhere gear retrieval takes place, and allows complianceenforcement to take place dockside, because vessels arehighly unlikely to refit for stern-setting while at sea.

The primary concern expressed about side-setting is that theuse of 60 g weights on monofilament line poses an element ofdanger to crew (if, for example, the leader snaps).Nevertheless, as stated on page 49 of the DEIS, “it isestimated that about 70 percent of the vessels currentlyfishing in Hawaii already use 60 g weighted swivels[,]” andso this aspect of the side-setting specifications is not new orunusual.

The Department finds that deployment of fishing lines byside-setting may be (1) a reasonable and prudent means ofminimizing the risk of incidental take of the short-tailedalbatross and a potential replacement for some or all of thecurrently required deterrent measures, and (2) an efficientmeans of reducing injury and mortality of other seabirds,notably the black-footed and Laysan albatrosses, in theoperations of the Hawaii-based longline fishery.

The Preferred Alternative in the FEIS wouldrequire use of more interaction avoidancemeasures than did the preliminary PreferredAlternative in the DEIS, unless an operatoropted to use side-setting. This is intended toencourage the use of side-setting. TheUSFWS’s 2004 Biological Opinion for theshallow-set sector of the fishery requires thephasing in of side-setting or of measures equalor greater in effectiveness in deterringseabirds in the Hawaii-based fleet.


371

We understand that side-setting may be physically impossibleon a few vessels in the Hawaii-based longline fleet, becauseof the boats’ designs, although we do not know whetherNMFS has determined how many vessels fall into thiscategory. In these cases, under Alternative SB10B, the currentsuite of required seabird deterrents would remain in place,perhaps with some modifications (e.g., for strategic offaldiscards, as described below under SPECIFIC COMMENTS).




d Available information about effectiveness of seabirddeterrents in Hawaii-based longline fishery is based almostentirely on five experimental studies that varied greatly insample sizes, methodology, and the deterrents tested.

Therefore, we recommend that a side-setting requirement asdescribed under Alternative SB10B, employing specificationsdescribed in Gilman et al. (2003), be implemented for one ortwo seasons and monitored in detail in an adaptivemanagement component to answer questions including, butnot restricted to, the following:• Do albatrosses learn to approach longline vessels

broadside while they are underway and while fishinglines are being deployed by side-setting?

• Do a vessel’s heading and speed with respect to winddirection and speed influence the ability of birds toapproach and make attempts to grab bait during side-setting?

• Is side-setting consistently effective with variationsin gear type, bird abundance, location, and season?

We hope that deployment of lines by side-setting will prove

The USFWS’s 2004 Biological Opinionrequired NMFS to further investigate andreport on the effectiveness of side-setting.Vessels that have voluntarily converted toside-setting are being monitored throughNMFS' Hawaii Longline Observer Program,including 100% coverage of shallow-settingvessels. Optimization of the technique isexpected to result as experience is gained.Observers are expected to note changes inseabird behavior with respect to approachingthe hull to take bait.


372

to be a highly effective means of reducing seabird interactionwith the Hawaii-based longline fishery over time and acrossthe fishery, with or without modifications based on lessonslearned during initial implementation.




e Limiting required use of seabird deterrents north of 23ºN: We do not know of any biological justification for limitingrequired use of seabird deterrents (and hence the effort toreduce seabird takes) in the Hawaii-based longline fishery toa particular geographic subset of the area where the fisheryoperates.

Data collected at sea by NMFS observers aboard Hawaii-based longline vessels indicate that Laysan and black-footedalbatrosses do occur south of 23ºN (see maps on DEIS p. 120)and that fishery interactions with albatrosses occur south of23ºN (see maps on DEIS p. 126 and 130-131).

In addition, the DEIS does not offer any specific rationale forthe alternatives that limit required deterrent use to north of23ºN other than that albatrosses are “concentrated” to thenorth (e.g., DEIS p. 210).

We agree that observer data indicate that albatross abundanceattenuates with decreasing latitude in the area where thefishery operates, and we agree that the short-tailed albatrosshas not been observed in Hawaii south of Kauai. In 2000,Both NMFS and the Fishery Council accepted thesouthernmost sighting of the short-tailed albatross as a logicallimit for terms and conditions in the Service’s 2000 biologicalopinion, to minimize the incidental take of this endangeredspecies.

The same logic should apply here. Given the goal of thismanagement action is “to reduce the potentially harmfuleffects of fishing by Hawaii-based longline vessels on allseabirds” (DEIS p. v), and Laysan and black-footedalbatrosses are the species that most commonly interact withHawaii-based longline operations, the use of seabirddeterrents should be required as far south as the southernmost

The rationale for this limitation is furtheraddressed in Section 2.1.6 of the FEIS.Interactions below 23/N are expected toremain inconsequential to albatrosspopulations. Under the Preferred Alternative,vessels electing to shallow-set would berequired to employ interaction avoidancemeasures wherever they fish. Vessels deep-setting would be required to deploy a tori linein addition to the currently required suite ofinteraction avoidance measures when fishingnorth of 23°N..


373

observation of albatrosses.

The Department understands that quantitative comparisons ofalbatross interaction rates with latitude are forthcoming fromNMFS, but such analyses will not make self-evident anyreasons for not mitigating seabird interactions south of 23ºN –especially when no seabird deterrent method is known to be100 percent effective under normal fishery conditions. Inlight of NMFS’ stated overarching goal for the seabirdmanagement action under analysis, and because NMFSdocuments interactions between the fishery and albatrossessouth of 23ºN, we cannot support any of the alternatives thatinclude this geographic limitation.



Department of the Interior

f SPECIFIC COMMENTS p. v. – Issues to be Resolved, third paragraph: “Adequate abundance data for nonbreeding and subadultseabirds is lacking, inhibiting conclusions about long-termpopulation trends.”

The Department does not believe that resolving the long-termpopulation trend questions of the species’ biology wouldchange the necessity of reducing or eliminating incidentaltake of albatrosses in commercial fisheries. We do agree,though, that the revised FEIS should discuss alternativeswhich include data acquisition and which will improve ourunderstanding of the demography and population trends inLaysan and black-footed albatrosses (and several dataanalysis and modeling efforts are currently underway toaddress this need);

As noted in Section 3.6.1.1.2, there areseveral population modeling effortsunderway, but unfortunately results are notyet available. The status of seabirdpopulations does not effect the analysis ofalternatives for the seabird action.




g p. v. – Areas of Controversy, second paragraph: “Use of the black-footed albatross as a proxy in modeling theshort-tailed albatross population has been criticized in thescientific literature as inappropriate.”

The short-tailed albatross population has been modeled usingdata on short-tailed albatrosses (e.g., Sievert 2004), not black-footed albatrosses. However, the Service has used data onblack-footed albatross takes in the fishery and the total black-footed albatross population in our biological opinions as

The issue has been deleted.


374

proxy information for estimating the incidental take of theshort-tailed albatross by the fishery. The Endangered SpeciesAct (ESA) Section 7 Consultation Handbook recommends thepractice of using documented effects of an action onappropriate surrogate species to estimate the effects on alisted species that is rare or on which the effect of the actionis otherwise difficult to detect (Service and NMFS 1998).

The Department believes that the black-footed albatross is anappropriate surrogate species to use for estimating the effectsof the longline fishery on the rare and endangered short-tailedalbatross.




h p.1. – 1.1, Statement of Purpose and Need for the Action,Paragraph 4, Sentence 1: The DEIS states: “Two disparate actions with unrelatedobjectives affecting two fisheries currently prosecuted underdifferent authorities are assessed in this document.” Pleaseclarify this sentence by using deliberate statements. Wesuggest this type of clarification: “The DEIS evaluates twoproposed actions relative to the Pelagics FMP. The first actionpertains to seabird interactions with the Hawaii long-linefleet; the second action pertains to the management of thehigh seas squid fishery.” We recommend the DEIS be revisedto clearly state the proposed actions.

The description has been reworded.




i p.3. – 1.2, Pelagic Fisheries Management in the Region,Paragraph 4, Sentence 1: The DEIS states: “The Pelagics FMP establishes policies forfisheries for PMUS within or landing catches in ports in theEEZ of the U.S. surrounding the State of Hawaii, theTerritories of American Samoa and Guam, CNMI, andseveral islands and atolls that are U.S. possessions underdirect Federal jurisdiction (collectively referred to as thePacific Remote Island Areas, or PRIAs).” These possessionsinclude Howland Island National Wildlife Refuge (NWR),Baker Island NWR, Jarvis Island NWR, Palmyra IslandNWR, Kingman Reef NWR, and Johnston Island NWR. TheDepartment recommends the DEIS identify these possessionsas NWRs, under the jurisdiction of the Department’s U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service. Wake Atoll is jointly administered

The status of these possessions as NWRs hasbeen added.


375

by the Department of the Interior’s Office of Insular Affairsand the Department of Defense.




j p. 5. – Paragraphs 1 & 2. Please insert a line between the first and second paragraphs. The line has been added.




k p. 5. – 1.2.2., The Magnuson-Stevens Act and The FisheryManagement Council, Paragraph 2, Sentence 1: The DEIS states: “Using the tools provided by the MSA,NOAA Fisheries assesses and predicts the status of fishstocks, ensures compliance with fisheries regulations andworks to reduce wasteful fishing practices.” Due to variabilityin the current science of fisheries stock assessments, werecommend this sentence in the DEIS be revised to: “Usingthe tools provided by the MSA, NOAA Fisheries assesses andattempts to predict the status of fish stocks, ensurescompliance with fisheries regulations and works to reducewasteful fishing practices.”

The recommendation has been noted.




l p.12. – 1.2.4.3, ESA Section 7 Requirements, Paragraph 2,Sentence 3: The DEIS states: “For sea turtles, NOAA Fisheries must beconsulted; for seabirds, the USFWS [Service] is the leadagency.” To clarify, NOAA Fisheries and the Service sharedual responsibility for consultations on sea turtles undersection 7 of the ESA. Therefore, we recommend the FEISstate “For sea turtles, NOAA Fisheries should be contactedwhen the action affects sea turtles in the ocean and theUSFWS should be contacted when the action affects seaturtles on land (i.e., nests); for seabirds, the USFWS is thelead agency.”

The clarification has been added.



Department of

m p. 13. - 1.2.4.3, ESA Section 7 Requirements, Paragraph 3,Sentence 1: The DEIS states: “In recent years, consultations betweenNMFS and the USFWS pursuant to section 7 of the ESA haveproduced BiOps that have shaped the management regime forfisheries conducted under the Pelagics FMP.” The

The NMFS is the official name of the agency.NOAA Fisheries is a common name intendedto strengthen the linkage with the parentagency. The formal name of the agency has


376

the Interior interchangeable use of “NOAA Fisheries” and “NMFS” isvery confusing for the reader. Please revise the FEIS usingone name and acronym for this agency throughout thedocument for consistency purposes.

been used throughout the FEIS.




n p. 44-50. – 2.1.1., Potential Methods to Reduce Longline-Seabird Interactions and Their Consequences: TheDepartment generally agrees with the evaluation of individualdeterrent methods presented in this section (see exceptions inthe comments below), and summarized in Table 2.1-2 on p.53. Unfortunately we do not believe this reasoned evaluationis translated accordingly in the preliminary preferredalternative, which includes as options deterrents that have theleast favorable ratings for effectiveness, operationalefficiency, cost, and compliance enforcement.

We recommend that the least environmentally practicablealternative currently identified in the DEIS be selected as thepreliminary preferred alternative in the FEIS, based on theresults of the evaluation presented in the DEIS.

We are not sure why you prefer the leastenvironmentally practicable alternative. Inany event, the Preferred Alternative in theFEIS replaces the Preliminary PreferredAlternative in the DEIS.




o p.44. – 2.1.1.1, Blue-dyed and Thawed Bait: The relativemerits of thawed bait were not considered in this section oranywhere in the DEIS. We agree that the scant data on theeffectiveness of blue-dyed fin fish bait in the Hawaii-basedfishery is equivocal (see McNamara et al. 1999 and Gilman etal. 2003). Furthermore, dye trials in New Zealand indicatedthat pilchards and sanma, both of which fall under thedefinition of “mackerel-type baits” that are or may be used inthe Hawaii-based fishery, hold dye less well than squid bait(G. Lydon, New Zealand SeaFIC, pers. comm. 2004), whichnow is prohibited in this fishery. Thawed bait, however,probably has some deterrent effect in that it sinks faster thanfrozen bait (E. Gilman, Blue Ocean Institute, pers. comm.2004).

Given the likely positive deterrent effect of thawed bait, andthe unclear but perhaps neutral or positive deterrent effect ofblue dye, the Department does not support dispensing withthe “thawed, blue-dyed bait” in the Hawaii-based longlinefishery, unless a demonstrably more effective deterrent, such

We have no data on the efficacy of thawedbait. We do know it reduces bait retention andtherefore fishing efficiency. The PreferredAlternative in the FEIS would require use ofmore interaction avoidance measures(including thawed, blue-dyed bait) than didthe Preliminary Preferred Alternative in theDEIS, unless an operator opted to use side-setting. This is intended to encourage the useof side-setting. The USFWS’s 2004Biological Opinion for the shallow-set sectorof the fishery requires the phasing in of side-setting or of measures equal or greater ineffectiveness in deterring seabirds in theHawaii-based fleet.


377

as side-setting, is required in its place. We recommend in theFEIS, as in Alternative SB10B, thawed bait be retained as auseful seabird deterrent in the Hawaii-based fishery and thatblue-dyed bait be retained as a seabird deterrent as well, atleast until more definitive information about the effectivenessof blue-dyed fin-fish bait in this fishery is obtained.




p p.44-45. – 2.1.1.2, Strategic Offal Discard: The DEIS suggests here and elsewhere that a potentialliability of this method is that it may attract seabirds thatotherwise would not approach longline vessels, and seabirdsmay thus become habituated to seeking food at specificvessels that discard offal. Swordfish caught by Hawaii-basedlongline vessels are gutted and have their heads and tailsremoved on deck prior to being frozen, and blood and bits offlesh are washed into the ocean (Sean Martin, HawaiiLongline Association, pers. comm. 2004).

Swordfish-target vessels thus attract albatrosses, which have awell-developed sense of smell, regardless of whether strategicoffal discard is practiced or not, and probably attract them at agreater rate than tuna-target vessels (tuna are only minimallydressed prior to freezing). Swordfish longline fishingtypically takes place farther north than most tuna longlinefishing, in areas where concentrations of albatrosses aregreatest, but tuna-target vessels also do encounter and interactwith seabirds. Therefore, strategic offal discard may be animportant seabird deterrent for swordfish vessels, and to alesser extent for tuna vessels, when seabirds are present.

The Department does not support dispensing with thisdeterrent in the Hawaii-based longline fishery unless anothermore effective deterrent is put in its place, but suggest that therequirement be modified such that strategic offal discard bepracticed when seabirds are present during the setting orhaulback of longline gear.

The Preferred Alternative in the FEIS wouldrequire use of more interaction avoidancemeasures (including strategic offal discardwhen birds are present) than did thepreliminary Preferred Alternative in the DEIS,unless an operator opted to use side-setting.This is intended to encourage the use of side-setting. The USFWS’s 2004 BiologicalOpinion for the shallow-set sector of thefishery requires the phasing in of side-settingor of measures equal or greater ineffectiveness in deterring seabirds in theHawaii-based fleet.


Port, RegionalEnvironmental

q p.47. – 2.1.1.6, Towed Deterrent: Tori lines (paired or single streamer lines) have beendetermined to be a highly effective seabird deterrent inAlaska-based hook-and-line fisheries, and use of tori lines is

The Preferred Alternative in the FEIS wouldrequire use of tori lines in addition to all ofthe currently required seabird interaction


378

Officer, U.S.Department of

the Interior

required on most vessels in those fisheries (USFWS 2003).The effectiveness of tori lines varies among fisheries,however, and is dependent on fishery-specific research and onprecise design specifications and implementation (e.g., seeMelvin et al., in press; Kim Rivera, NMFS, personalcommunication, 2004). The results of experimental tests inthe Hawaii-based fishery indicated that tori lines were not aseffective as other seabird deterrent measures (McNamara etal. 1999, Boggs 2001; see DEIS Table 2.1-1, p. 51), and thesestudies did not lead to consideration of tori lines for inclusionin the terms and conditions of the first Service biologicalopinion to minimize the incidental take of the endangeredshort-tailed albatross by the Hawaii-based longline fishery(USFWS 2000).

Therefore, the Department recommends that tori lines not beincluded as an optional seabird deterrent in the Hawaii-basedlongline fishery (as indicated for shallow-setting vessels inAlternative SB7C), unless they are used in addition to othermore effective deterrents such as night-setting, and/or a lineshooting machine with weighted branchlines.

avoidance measures unless an operator optedto use side-setting. This is intended toencourage the use of side-setting. TheUSFWS’s 2004 Biological Opinion for theshallow-set sector of the fishery requires thephasing in of side-setting or of measures equalor greater in effectiveness in deterringseabirds in the Hawaii-based fleet.




r p.48. – 2.1.1.7, Night-Setting: We agree that data from experiments indicate night-setting isan effective deterrent, but caution that its effectiveness ishighly variable and may be influenced by the amount of decklighting used, the ambient light (e.g., as affected by moonphase, cloud cover, and timing of the set with respect tosunset), and perhaps by the use of light sticks. Experimentaltests of night-setting have not been controlled for lightvariables (other than sunset) and, similar to most otherdeterrents, night-setting implemented in the fishery have notbeen monitored long enough to yield data with which toassess its performance over time and in response to a range ofnormal fishing conditions.

Therefore, the Department recommends the discussion ofoperational characteristics in the FEIS acknowledge thesedeficiencies in our knowledge about the effectiveness of night-setting.

Night-setting will add to the effectiveness ofother measures required of the shallow-setsector of the fishery, but it will not be reliedupon as the primary measure in anycombination. Reinitiation of the shallow-setsector of the fishery will be done with 100%observer coverage, which will allow muchbetter documentation of the efficacy ofinteraction avoidance measures in actualfishing situations than has been possible in thepast.


379

The DEIS (p. 48) cites a 93 percent reduction in albatrosscontacts with gear during night-setting when compared withsetting during the day, without deterrents, and a 98 percentreduction in captures of albatrosses when night-setting. Thereduction rates cited here and in Table 2.1-1 for night-settingapparently are for Boggs’ data as “normalized for birdabundance” by Gilman et al. (2003), a process for which nomethods or formulae are provided or cited either in the DEISor in Gilman et al. (2003). The citation in the DEIS for thenight-setting reduction rates of Boggs’ 2002 experiments is“Boggs 2003,” but there is no corresponding reference in the“Literature Cited” list, or any other reference for theseexperiments.

The citation for these “normalized” rates probably should be“Gilman et al. 2003.” The reduction in contact rates(compared with the daytime setting control) found by Boggs(2002) for night-setting without blue-dyed squid bait were 84percent (black-footed albatross) and 83 percent (Laysanalbatross). The Department recommends these original databe used and cited in the FEIS.

Chapter 7, Literature Cited, has been revised.A discussion of normalization for birdabundance has been added.




s p.54. – 2.1.2, Combinations of Methods for Reduction ofLongline-Seabird Interactions, Combination 1: Blue-dyed andthawed bait with strategic offal discard: The blue-dye trials were conducted by Greg Lydon of theNew Zealand Seafood Industry, and the appropriate citationfor this work is: “Greg Lydon, New Zealand SeaFIC, personalcommunication, 2004.”

The suggested change has been made.




t p.58. – 2.1.2, Combinations of Methods for Reduction ofLongline-Seabird Interactions, Summary: It is stated that, “[i]n general, combinations involving side-setting faired [sic] best, but every combination had liabilitiesof one sort or another.” We note that none of the liabilitiesrelate to side-setting per se, but instead relate to the othermethods in the combination, or to conflicts presented by thecombination itself, and we recommend that the statementquoted above be qualified accordingly in the FEIS.

The suggested change has been made.


380




u p. 59-69. – 2.1.2, Combinations of Methods for Reduction ofLongline-Seabird Interactions, Summary, and 2.1.3,Alternatives for Reduction of Seabird Interactions in theHawaii-based Longline Fishery Including a PreliminaryPreferred Alternative: Three general conclusions about thepossible deterrent combinations are offered on p. 59: (1) side-setting appears to be the single best deterrent measure, (2) thecurrently required measures provide a good default packageof deterrents for vessels that are physically not able to deployline by side-setting, and (3) blue-dyed bait and strategic offaldiscards should be eliminated from the currently requireddeterrents.

We strongly agree with the first conclusion and agreegenerally with the second conclusion, based on the availabledata. The Department does not agree with the thirdconclusion (as described above, under “Blue-dyed andThawed Bait” and “Strategic Offal Discard”). The first twoconclusions lead logically to Alternative SB10B, and notAlternative SB7C, the preliminary preferred alternative.

The longline fishery based in Hawaii has hosted ground-breaking research on seabird deterrents. The informationgenerated by this research can lead to the testing and adoptionof effective seabird deterrent methods by non-U.S. longlinefisheries operating in the North Pacific. In order for this tohappen, however, fishery managers need to apply the resultsof this research and help to facilitate the use of thesedeterrents in the Hawaii-based fishery.

We also recommend that logbooks be required to recordinteractions with protected species. Therefore, taking intoconsideration the comments offered above under Side settingand Alternative SB10B (DEIS), the Department recommendsthe adoption of Alternative SB10B as the preferredalternative.

The Preferred Alternative in the FEIS wouldrequire use of tori lines in addition to all ofthe currently required measures unless anoperator opted to use side-setting. This isintended to encourage the use of side-setting.The USFWS’s 2004 Biological Opinion forthe shallow-set sector of the fishery requiresthe phasing in of side-setting or of measuresequal or greater in effectiveness in deterringseabirds in the Hawaii-based fleet. Logbooksare required in the fishery.


Port, Regional

v Pg 72. – 2.2.1, Alternatives for Management of the SquidJigging Fishery under the MSA, Paragraph 2, Sentence 2: The DEIS states “Replace HSFCA logbooks currently used Logbooks currently are required under the


381

EnvironmentalOfficer, U.S.


with logbooks specifically designed for squid harvesting, andrequire operators of squid vessels permitted under the HSFCAto also include any EEZ fishing activities in this logbook.” Itis unclear whether the proposed action would require fishersto use logbooks in international waters, as well as the EEZ.

Also, it is not clear whether the logbooks are designed torecord accidental impacts to protected species (e.g., seabirds,sea turtles or marine mammals) as a result of squid fishing-related operations. We recommend the FEIS discuss efforts todocument bycatch events, should squid fishery operationsresult in injuries or mortalities to protected species, within theEEZ and in international waters.

HSFCA and would continue to be requiredunder any of the squid fishing alternatives.The content of the logbooks would beimproved to include information aboutprotected species interactions.




w Pg.91. – 3.4.5, Bycatch in the Squid Jigging Fishery,Paragraph 3, Sentence 6: The DEIS states: “Because of the bright lights used on thevessels, there have been concerns about birds becomingdisoriented.” This statement is not preceded with a thoroughdescription of the squid fishery, proposed to occur within thevicinity of the Hawaiian archipelago. Therefore, it isproblematic for the Department to evaluate the degree towhich lighting, or other sources of disturbance couldnegatively impact protected species. We recommend theFEIS discuss potential squid fishing-related lightingdisturbances and affects to seabirds.

An additional section has been added toaddress this issue.




x Pg.173. – Jigging: A description of squid fishing techniquesand gear types would assist the reader to better understand thealternatives analyses discussion and we recommend that agood description of these techniques and gear types beincluded in Chapter One of the FEIS.

This description appears in Chapter 3.




y SUMMARY COMMENTS In summary, the Department believes the DEIS is deficient inits analyses of potential squid fishing-related impacts toprotected species (e.g., sea turtles, marine mammals, andseabirds). The FEIS should be revised to provide improvedanalyses of alternatives and potential impacts, and be basedon a clear commitment to avoid unnecessary impacts,

There are few data available on the impact ofU.S. squid jigging vessels on protectedspecies. We have included what informationis available from their logbooks andinformation from similar operations in otherfisheries, but there is no reason to expect


382

minimize unavoidable impacts, and compensate forsignificant unavoidable impacts.

interactions with protected species based onthe type of gear used.




z The results of the analyses of potential seabird deterrents andcombinations of deterrents for use in the Hawaii-basedlongline fishery as presented in the DEIS indicate that side-setting is the most effective and practicable deterrent.

The Department is concerned that the preliminary preferredalternative does not reflect this conclusion. Moreover, thisalternative includes two deterrents, tori lines and theunderwater setting chute, that are shown by the analysis to beless effective and/or less practicable than side-setting, and itincludes a geographic limitation on the required use ofseabird deterrents in the tuna fishery.

The preliminary preferred alternative does not correspondwith NMFS’ stated overarching goal for this managementaction. We recommend that the preferred alternative reflectNMFS’ stated goals and the results of the analysis in theFEIS. Please address our comments to the FEIS accordingly.

The measures currently in place have beenshown to be effective in minimizing seabirdinteractions, and the Preferred Alternative hasthe potential to further reduce the effects ofthe fishery on seabirds. The PreferredAlternative encourages the use of side-setting.While side-setting has been shown to beeffective in limited experimental situations, itsefficacy in practice has yet to be established.It seems prudent at this time to proceedcautiously until adequate experience in thefleet confirms its efficacy and operationalbenefits.

The Preferred Alternative in the FEIS wouldrequire use of tori lines in addition to all ofthe currently required measures unless anoperator opted to use side-setting. Underwatersetting chutes are not an option in thisalternative. The existing geographic limitationon the requirement for deep-set tuna vessels touse seabird interaction avoidance measuressouth of 23°N is maintained. Interactions inthe deep-set fishery south of 23°N arerelatively rare, on the order of one interactionper vessel per year. The analyses in this EISdo not suggest a need for additional controlson the deep-set tuna fishery operating south of23°N.

The alternatives in the FEIS were evaluatedaccording to a set of qualitative andquantitative criteria designed to supportNMFS' preferred strategy of minimizing thelongline-seabird interaction rate in the Hawaiilongline fishery to achieve the actionobjective.

383

6.5 Changes to the DEIS

A great number of people contributed to preparation of this document. In particular, FisheryManagement Action Teams (FMAT) were formed for the seabird and squid actions consisting ofNMFS staff from California and Washington D.C., as well as Honolulu staff from PIRO, PIFSC,WPFMC, USFWS and consultants. After review of the draft document by the FMAT, a numberof changes were suggested and made to improve the document that were not precipitated byspecific public review comments. These changes are listed below.

1. Miscellaneous corrections, clarifications and updates were made throughout.2. The meanings of terms deterrent, mitigation and avoidance measure were clarified.3. The Preferred Alternative for the seabird action was modified from that in the DEIS to

reflect the position of the USFWS with respect to use of thawed, blue-dyed bait andstrategic offal discard, and to add tori lines to the suite of required current measures.

4. The definitions of the squid action alternatives were amended to include placement ofobservers on high seas jigging vessels.

5. Text was clarified to indicate that two small coastal squid jig fisheries are included in thesquid fishery management action.

6. References to the seabird action objective were clarified for consistency.7. Consideration of the Data Quality Act was added to Section 1.2.2.8. A description of the USFWS October 8 2004 BiOp for the shallow-set sector of the fishery

was added to Section 1.2.4.4 and Table 1.2-3.9. Section 1.6 (Scoping Process) was moved to Chapter 6 (Section 6.2) and a subsection

added to provide the rationale for EIS production.10. An introductory section was added (2.1.1) to describe the possible strategies to accomplish

the seabird action objective and clarify the strategy adopted.11. Section 2.1.2 was added to introduce the criteria used to evaluate the seabird alternatives.

Figures 2.1-1 and 2.1-2 were deleted in favor of a qualtitave discussion of trends.12. The discussion of seabird handling techniques and the protected species workshop were

moved out of "potential measures" as they are unaffected by the present action.13. Subsections of Section 2.1.3 were reorganized and supplemented to reflect the four

evaluation criteria.14. Figures showing tori line components and side-setting were added.15. A complete description of the current regulatory requirements for use of seabird

interaction avoidance measures was added to the description of Alternative SB1 (NoAction).

16. A discussion was added of the appropriateness of using 23°N as a boundary for theapplication of seabird deterrent measures.

17. Section 2.1.6 (alternatives considered but rejected for seabirds) was expanded to betterdiscuss the rationale for not proposing time or area closures.

18. The most recent and complete information on seabird take rates for deep, shallow, northand south categories.

19. A new section was added to explain how quantitative seabird deterrent efficacy valueswere calculated for use in projecting seabird captures when measures were combined inthe alternatives.

20. A table was added summarizing projected seabird captures under each alternative.21. Summaries of the status of some PMUS stocks were updated with information presented

384

at SCTB 17.22. The regression analyses used to project the population trajectories for black-footed and

Laysan albatrosses in the DEIS (Sections 3.6.1.1.2 and 3.6.1.1.3) were deleted in favor ofa qualitative discussion of the uncertainty of those trends.

23. Population size estimates for Laysan and black-footed albatross were updated with thelatest USFWS numbers.

24. Figure 3.6.1-5 was added to graphically illustrate the estimated seabird captures by thefleet since initiation of the observer program.

25. Section 3.4.5 was augmented with information from bycatch in other squid jig fisheries.26. Information about marine mammals was reduced in scope.27. A summary of the historical observations of interactions of the longline fleet with marine

mammals was added.28. The introduction to the discussion of the impacts of the seabird action alternatives (Section

4.5) was augmented to include a discussion of factors that could either increase ordecrease seabird captures from those projected.

29. Quantitative estimates of seabird interactions under each alternative were either added orrevised in Section 4.5.

30. A section (4.5.27) was added to discuss the impacts of squid fishing on seabirds.31. Sections 4.8.1.1 to 4.8.1.25 were revised to provide quantitative estimates of the economic

impacts of each seabird alternative.32. Section 4.11 (Cumulative Impacts) was revised to more obviously reflect the stepwise

methodology employed.33. A section (4.12) was added to summarize the impacts of the seabird and squid fishery

management alternatives.34. This section summarizing changes between the DEIS and FEIS was added.35. Extensive corrections were made to the literature cited (Chapter 7).36. Appendix D on the distribution of fishing effort in the longline fleet was added.37. Appendix E was added containing all comment letters received on the DEIS38. Appendix F was added.39. Index was added.

Date post:	14-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	vanthuy
View:	223 times
Download:	1 times

Chapter 6 EIS Preparers, Scoping and · PDF fileChapter 6 EIS Preparers, Scoping and Review...

Documents