Fishery management plan for the spiny lobster fishery of puerto rico and the u. S. Virgin islands
Download 2 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- 6.8 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources
- 6.9 Any Other Disclosures
6.6 Unavoidable Adverse EffectsEnvironmental impacts identified in sections 6.1, 6.2, and 6.5 did not identify any adverse effects. 6.7 Relationship Between Short-Term Uses and Long-Term ProductivityThe intent of implementing minimum conservation standards is to increase long-term potential yield and increase the spawning stock biomass. The loss of short-term uses is negligible in comparison to the long-term benefits expected from the implementation of actions in this amendment/EIS. In fact, the short-term uses lost through the actions in this amendment/EIS will only be on the scale of a few days to a few weeks (Matthews, pers. Comm.). However, long-term productivity is expected to increase dramatically (see discussion in section 6.1.1 on reproduction at size). 6.8 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of ResourcesThere are no irreversible or irretrievable commitments of agency resources proposed herein. The actions to impose minimum conservation standards are readily changeable by the Councils in the future. There may be some loss of immediate income (irretrievable in the context of an individual not being able to benefit from compounded value over time) to some sectors from the implementation of minimum conservation standards. 6.9 Any Other DisclosuresThere are no additional disclosures regarding the proposed actions. 6.10 Evaluation of Significance FactorsThe Council on Environmental Quality regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act and NOAA’s Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6 require that decision-makers take into account both context and intensity when evaluating the significance of impacts resulting from a major federal action (40 CFR §1508.27; NAO 216-6, Section 6.01(b)). Evaluating significance with respect to context requires consideration of the local, regional, national, and/or global impacts of the action. Intensity refers to the severity of the impact, and is to be evaluated using specific criteria outlined at 40 CFR § 1508.27(b) and at NAO 216-6, Section 6.01(b). The key findings of the implementation of minimum conservation standards related to the significance of the impacts associated with the enhancement of the pan-Caribbean spiny lobster population follow. The findings are organized under the intensity criteria and include a consideration of the context in which the impacts occur. 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 (40 CFR § 1508.27(b)(1); NAO 216-6, Section 6.01(b)(1)). Implementing these minimum conservation standards will create an incentive for foreign nations harvesting spiny lobster to adhere to meet these standards in order to continue importing lobsters into their largest market, the U.S. In meeting these minimum conservation standards, nations throughout the Caribbean will be fostering the recovery and growth of the spiny lobster population (see Section 6.1.1 for a discussion of fecundity at size). This in turn will lead to a long-term increase in potential yield and the continued existence and possible expansion of the spiny lobster fishery throughout the Caribbean. Therefore, the impacts are beneficial to both the biological environment of spiny lobster and from producers (fishermen) to consumers in the human environment. 2. The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety (40 CFR § 1508.27(b)(2); NAO 216-6, Section 6.01(b)(2)). The proposed actions are not likely to affect public health and safety. The implementation of minimum conservation standards will not affect public safety. The actions are designed to increase the spawning stock size and increase potential long-term yield in the fishery. 3. Unique characteristics of the geographic area, such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas (40 CFR § 1508.27(b)(3); NAO 216-6, Section 6.01(b)(3)). This action effects the fisheries for spiny lobster throughout its range in the Caribbean and western Atlantic. Although there are a number of unique characteristics to the Caribbean basin, no effects on these areas is expected from the implementation of minimum conservation standards. 4. The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial (40 CFR § 1508.27(b)(4); NAO 216-6, Section 6.01(b)(4)). The implementation of minimum conservation standards for spiny lobster products is not expected to be highly controversial. A number of foreign nations and representatives from industry have asked for such a law to protect the spiny lobster population and are in full support of this action. 5. The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks (40 CFR § 1508.2 7(b)(5); NAO 216-6, Section 6.01(b)(5)). Minimum conservation standards such as size limits and animal condition restrictions have been used throughout the world in fisheries management. Therefore, there effect on the human environment are well known, and are not expected to involve any unique or unknown risks in this case. 6. The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration (40 CFR § 508.27(b)(6); NAO 216-6, Section 6.01(b)(6)). The use of minimum conservation standards have been used for many years in a variety of fisheries throughout the world. Restrictions on imported products have also been in existence for many years. Therefore, this action does not present any new or unusual issues for future consideration. 7. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts. Significance exists if it is reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively significant impact on the environment. Significance cannot be avoided by terming an action temporary or by breaking it down into small component parts (40 CFR § 1508.27(b)(7); NAO 216-6, Section 6.01(b)(7)). This action is not expected to have a cumulative impact on the environment as discussed in section 6.6. 8. The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources (40 CFR § 1508.27(b)(8); NAO 216-6, Section 6.01(b)(8)). The implementation of minimum conservation standards is not expected to have any effect on districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, or cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources. 9. The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (40 CFR § 1508.27(b)(9); NAO 216-6, Section 6.01(b)(9)). The effects on endangered or threatened species or their habitat has been explored throughout the document (sections 5.2, 6.1.1, 6.2.1, 9.4, 9.13.5, and 9.14). No adverse effect was found for endangered or threatened species in the analysis performed for these sections. 10. Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment (40 CFR § 1508.27(b)(10); NAO 216-6, Section 6.01(b)(10)). All actions proposed under the Magnuson Stevens fishery Conservation and Management Act must abide by federal, state, and local regulations imposed to protect the environment. 11. Whether the action may result in the introduction or spread of a non-indigenous species (NAO 216-6, Section 6.01(b)(11)). The implementation of minimum conservation standards on an indigenous species will neither introduce nor spread non-indigenous species. Even if “market replacements” are brought in to supplement any reduction in spiny lobster imports, those replacements will be frozen, processed animals. Directory: Beta -> GMFMCWeb -> downloads -> BB%202008-06 downloads -> Ulf of mexico fishery management council activity report for mississippi department of marine resources downloads -> Ulf of mexico fishery management council activity report for mississippi department of marine resources downloads -> Goliath Grouper Data Workshop Report downloads -> Tab B, No. 7 Outline for Development of a State-Federal Cooperative Research Program for Goliath Grouper in Florida Report to the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management downloads -> Tab c, no. 4 Rick sounds good to me. I would suggest using the most recent tor wording provided by sedar and making any necessary modifications to that wording. Then we will address at our March 2008 meeting. Gregg From downloads -> Ulf of mexico fishery management council activity report for mississippi department of marine resources downloads -> Gulf of mexico fishery management council activity report for mississippi department of marine resources BB%202008-06 -> Fishery management plan for the spiny lobster fishery of puerto rico and the u. S. Virgin islands Download 2 Mb. Share with your friends:
|