A Turtle Exclusionary Device (TED) allowing a Loggerhead sea turtle to escape a commercial fishing net.

Photograph Attribution: Loggerhead Escape, National Geographic <https://www.nationalgeographic.org/media/teds/>

Introduction

As marine reptiles, sea turtles spend most of their lives at sea, coming ashore only to lay eggs. They contribute to the health of seagrass beds and coral reefs, which in turn benefits economically relevant species such as shrimp seeking breeding grounds and refuge from predators. Despite their crucial role in marine ecosystems, six out of the seven species of sea turtles in the world are classified as vulnerable, endangered, or critically endangered, with the seventh species being data deficient. Threats to sea turtles are described as hunting, climate change, and incidental by-catch in nets used for commercial fishing. Devices known as Turtle Exclusionary Devices (TEDs) are a revolutionary innovation in commercial fishing which allows turtles caught in nets to be set free while retaining the target catch. The department of National Marine Fisheries Service within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has drafted an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that lists various potential methods to be implemented in order to reduce sea turtle by-catch and mortality in Southeastern U.S. shrimp fisheries. The EIS demonstrates the how the selected action is intended to comply with statutes such as the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

Comment Letter

December 16, 2019

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)

Southeast Regional Office Protected Resources Division

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

St. Petersburg, Florida

Re: Environmental Impact Statement to Reduce The Incidental By-catch and Mortality of Sea Turtles in the Southeastern US Shrimp Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration

To Whom It May Concern:

Environmental Review, Inc. has reviewed the document and has the following comments:

1. Table 82 from section 6.7 states from 2011-2014, roughly 9,711 vessels participated in the Southeastern US shrimp fisheries.  What is the approximate number of vessels under 40ft within the fleet of vessels used for shrimp harvesting in the Southeastern US?  If this information is difficult to obtain, what reporting requirements or communication strategies might be implemented to receive an accurate estimate of this figure?

2. The proposed regulation (alternative 8) would not require vessels under 40 ft to use TEDs.  Is there a point at which these vessels could potentially harm sea turtle populations?  If the amount of vessels under 40ft in the Southeastern US shrimp fisheries fleet were to steadily increase due to lack of regulation, is there a maximum capacity that could be established before significant losses occur? 

3. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 

As a result of decades long conservation work, turtle populations are growing in a number of areas, particularly Florida and along the Pacific coast of Mexico, which is particularly notable within the context of past, steep declines. The last few years of reported growth have to be interpreted cautiously because a decade of more, depending on longevity, might be required to measure a real change in a population (source: Decline of the Sea Turtles: Causes and Prevention, National Academies Press).

It is not possible to determine if the current positive trajectory of turtle populations will remain constant in the future since there are many factors that threaten to suppress growth rates and the importance of these factors will increase over time. Threats include climate change, artificial light, magnetic interference, oil spills and pollution, boats, plastic and other marine debris, tourism, invasive plant species, disease, coastal developments and predators.

The lack of population data and the difficulty of estimating turtle population growth makes the decision concerning the various TED options much more critical. If option 8 is compared with the most comprehensive plan, option 7, the difference in the maximum number of turtles protected is 1,342. In other words, option 8 could result in the loss of 1,342 turtles.  How critical is this number? Could the loss of 1,342 turtles have an important impact on the population dynamics of sea turtles?

4. Often, public policy decisions involve high levels of uncertainty and risk. A common strategy employed in situations of this type is to increase safety margins in order offset risks level that are not clearly defined. Has it been determined that option 8 includes a safety margin sufficient to meet the level of risk?

5. Regulated fisheries are expected to incur losses through anticipatedly smaller catches and TED costs.  Alternative 8 is preferred because it poses the least severe economic impact on affected fisherman.  The concern for vessels under 40ft and 26ft is described as smaller scale operations not being able to generate enough revenue to create net income after buying TEDs.  How might the cost of TEDs be subsidized so that a stricter alternative such as alternatives 5 could be implemented to require all skimmer trawls to be outfitted with TEDs?

6. The large degree of uncertainty of population sizes and trends of the different species of sea turtles in the South Atlantic is concerning.  Section 5.4.1 notes significant population growth of Green Sea Turtles in the North Atlantic, yet there is very little data in the South Atlantic to indicate population growth.  More data needs to be collected in the South Atlantic order to avoid presuming population sizes.  Additionally, if population sizes and trends are unclear, requiring vessels greater than 26ft to use TEDs (alternative 2) or any vessel using skimmer trawls to use TEDs (alternative 5) would prove to be more pragmatic in ensuring population recovery.

7. One of the problems with table I is that costs are presented in some detail while none of the  benefits gained by protecting turtles are listed. This implies that the option selection is based entirely on cost minimization.  Some attempts are made later in the document to discuss benefits but the broad level interest and public support for sea turtles does not seem to be considered. Florida, for example, has made significant investment in conservation efforts related to sea turtles and other marine inhabitants because these activities are  directly related to tourist revenue. Some effort should be made to quantify these benefits.  

Please direct all responses to these comments to the following email address: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.    

Sincerely, 

Matthew Coughlin

Environmental Reviewer (Associate in Maryland)

Environmental Review Inc.

1792 Rogers Avenue

San Jose, California  95112