Opinion ID: 793415
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: longline fishing and the reopening of the swordfish fishery

Text: 8 This dispute concerns the longline fishing of swordfish and its impact on endangered sea turtles and two species of migratory seabird, the black-footed and Laysan albatross. Longline fishing involves the use of vessels that trail mainlines up to sixty miles long. These mainlines are set horizontally near the water's surface and generally contain over a thousand baited hooks. In the course of fishing for swordfish, other species, including sea turtles and seabirds, can become hooked or incidentally caught. This method of fishing swordfish has been particularly controversial because it results in more incidental catches than other types of longline fishing because of the specific gear and techniques used, the shallower depth at which the longlines are set, and the time of day the fishing takes place. 9 On April 2, 2004, NMFS promulgated a final rule (2004 Regulations) implementing a Fishery Management Plan amendment recommended by the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Western Pacific Council), which is responsible for fisheries in Hawaii. 16 U.S.C. § 1852(a)(1)(H). The 2004 Regulations reopened the swordfish fishery, which had been closed by previous regulations. See Fisheries Off West Coast States and in the Western Pacific, 69 Fed.Reg. at 17,330. The 2004 Regulations also restricted the types of bait and hooks that could be used for swordfish fishing to minimize the adverse impacts on sea turtles. Id. 10 Regulation of the longline fishing of swordfish has been the subject of extensive litigation. In fact, the 2004 Regulations were adopted after previous regulations, which prohibited the longline fishing of swordfish (the 2002 Regulations), and the related biological opinion were vacated and remanded to NMFS by court order. See Hawaii Longline Ass'n v. Nat'l Marine Fisheries Serv., 281 F.Supp.2d 1, 38 (D.D.C.2003). 1 The 2002 Regulations prohibited the longline fishing of swordfish due to its impact on endangered sea turtles. Following the 2003 court order, NMFS commenced the formal rulemaking process that led to the current regulations. 2 11 NMFS had first published a Notice of Intent in December 2003 announcing an accelerated management action schedule [that] is necessary to avoid a lapse in sea turtle conservation measures after the June 12, 2002 final rule is vacated on April 1, 2004. Under this accelerated schedule, NMFS would issue two separate supplemental Environmental Impact Statements (SEISs) — one addressing the fishery's potential impact on threatened sea turtle populations, to be completed first, and another addressing issues . . . such as seabird interactions, to be completed later. Notice of Intent, 68 Fed.Reg. 67,640, 67,641 (Dec. 3, 2003). 12 Upon the recommendation of the Western Pacific Council, in January 2004, NMFS published a proposed rule that would eliminate the prohibition on longline fishing . . . during April and May, and require the use of certain bait and hook combinations to reduce sea turtle interactions. See Fisheries Off West Coast States and in the Western Pacific, 69 Fed.Reg. 4098, 4098 (proposed Jan. 28, 2004). The proposed rule announced that the consultation process mandated by Section 7 of the ESA was currently underway, and that the rule itself might be revised, as necessary, to comport with . . . the biological opinion. In addition, the proposed rule indicated that in accordance with NEPA, the [Western Pacific] Council and NMFS prepared a draft [SEIS] . . . for this regulatory amendment . . . scheduled to be filed . . . in mid-January 2004 for comments. Id. at 4101. The Western Pacific Council held a public hearing in February 2004 to receive comments regarding the draft SEIS, Notice of Public Hearing on Draft SEIS, 69 Fed.Reg. 7188, 7188 (Feb. 13, 2004), and another public hearing in March 2004 regarding the Fishery Management Plan amendment, Notice of Public Meetings, 69 Fed.Reg. 11,361, 11,361 (Mar. 10, 2004). 13 NMFS issued a biological opinion in February 2004, which concluded that reopening the swordfish fishery to allow a limited number of sets per year would not likely jeopardize the continued existence of any ESA listed species, provided that certain bait and hook combinations were used. The biological opinion also included an Incidental Take Statement authorizing the fishery to take up to sixteen leatherback and seventeen loggerhead sea turtles. See Fisheries Off West Coast States and in the Western Pacific, 69 Fed.Reg. at 17,331. 14 In early March 2004, the Western Pacific Council issued a Regulatory Amendment to the Fishery Management Plan and a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Final SEIS), which supplemented the earlier 2001 EIS (issued before the 2002 Regulations) and assessed various alternatives. The Western Pacific Council recommended that NMFS allow 2,120 swordfish sets to be made annually and require the use of certain types of hooks and other new technologies shown to reduce and mitigate interactions with sea turtles. 15 The Final SEIS focused primarily on the impact of renewed swordfish fishing on endangered sea turtles and said relatively little about the potential impact on seabirds. 3 This approach was apparently deliberate, as NMFS was motivated by the need to implement new regulations by the court-imposed deadline of April 1, 2004. See Notice of Intent, 68 Fed.Reg. at 67,641. 16 On March 30, 2004, NMFS signed a Record of Decision authorizing the reopening of the swordfish fishery: The main element of this action is to establish a swordfish fishery of limited scale that will permit environmentally responsible shallow-set swordfish longlining while minimizing impacts on protected species of sea turtles in the Pacific Ocean. The seabird SEIS was not issued until May 2005, after Turtle Island commenced this suit. See Seabird Interaction Mitigation Methods, 70 Fed.Reg. 24,037, 24,038 (May 6, 2005). 4 17 Turtle Island participated in the formal rulemaking process before the 2004 Regulations were issued. In a detailed comment letter submitted in February 2004, Turtle Island opined that the proposed regulations are completely unlawful. Substantively, they violate the ESA . . . [and] MBTA . . . while procedurally the [draft EIS] is inadequate under NEPA. 18