Final environmental impact statement on the negotiation of a regime for conservation of Antarctic marine living resources

1978·13.7 MB·English

by  United States. Dept. of State

SHI^
U.S. Dept. of- 1
Jun i^^6
^^4TES O^
Final
Environmental
Statement
Impact
a
for Possible Regime
Conservation
for of
Antarctic Marine
Living
Resources
June 1978
30°,W
W
60°
W
90°
120''W 120°E
\
ion
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
ON THE NEGOTIATION OF A REGIME FOR CONSERVATION OF
ANTARCTIC MARINE LIVING RESOURCES
June 1978
/-»
3-
3-
Woods
CD i:-.;: ^.„^ano;iraphic
rD-=l insutuiion
m

SUMMARY
STATEMENT TYPE Final Environmental Impact Statement
:
PREPARED BY: Department of State
(Attention: Mr. William Mansfield, III
Office of Environmental Affairs
(Room 7820)
Department of State
Washington, D. C. 20520)
1. Type of Action: Negotiation of a treaty
2. Brief Description of Proposed Action:
The United States will participate in the negotiation
of a regime to conserve Antarctic marine living resources.
All living resources in waters south of the Antarctic
Convergence, except whales and except seals south of 60
degrees south latitude, are affected. The purpose of the
regime would be to ensure that any harvesting of Antarctic
marine living resources take place in accordance with
sound conservation principles. There are no present or
proposed commercial fishing operations by the United States
in Antarctic waters.
3. Summary of Environmental Impacts and Adverse Environ-
mental Effects:
Commercial harvesting will result in the continuing
and increasing removal of fish and krill from Antarctic
waters. Future harvesting may include squid, birds and
seals as well. It is anticipated that krill will be the
most heavily exploited resource. Populations of organisms
which feed on krill and are themselves potentially harvest-
able resources will be reduced as krill availability de-
clines due to harvesting. The recovery rate of protected
baleen whale species may be slowed. Under the proposed
conservation regime, harvesting would be regulated to
minimize the impact on the Antarctic ecosystem. The
adverse impacts of a controlled harvest would be consider-
ably less than impacts of uncontrolled harvesting which
is anticipated in the absence of an international agree-
ment on a conservation regime. Increased harvesting will
increase shipping traffic in the Antarctic region. Ship
or shore based factory facilities may cause local pollu-
tion problems. Increasing human activity will increase
disturbance of the Antarctic marine ecosystem which is of
1.1
scientific interest in part because it is the least dis-
turbed of marine habitats. The proposed conservation
regime, if effective, will moderate adverse environmental
impacts in accordance with the objective of maintaining
the health and long term productivity of the Antarctic
marine ecosystem.
4. Summary of Major Alternatives Considered:
Alternatives to the proposed negotiation of a complete
conservation regime are: (a) to seek no action to conserve
Antarctic living resources, (b) to pursue national action
for conservation of Antarctic resources with coordination
among nations, (c) to negotiate an international agreement
to collect, exchange and analyze data on the Antarctic
ecosystem with a commitment to later establishment of a
conservation regime, (d) negotiation of a conservation
regime, plus imposition of specific conservation measures
in the language of the agreement or imposition of a mora-
torium on harvesting until such measures are developed,
and (e) to negotiate an agreement prohibiting all harvest-
ing of living resources in Antarctic waters.
5. Agencies and Parties from Which Comments Have Been
Requested;
Comments on the draft statement were received from
the following:
Federal agencies and Offices
;
U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency
Central Intelligence Agency
Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
Council on Environmental Quality
Department of Energy
Department of the Interior
Marine Mammal Commission
National Science Foundation
Department of Transportation
U.S. Coast Guard
XXX
Private Organizations
;
American Cetacean Society, Orange County, Ca. Chapter
Center for Law and Social Policy
Committee for Humane Legislation, Inc.
International Institute for Environment
and Development
Monitor (Comments endorsed by:
Society for Animal Protection Legislation
Animal Welfare Institute
Humane Society of the United States
International Fund for Animal Relief
Rare Animal Relief Effort
Washington Humane Society
International Private Protection League
Fund for Animals
Defenders of Wildlife
Sierra Club
Let Live)
National Audubon Society
New York Zoological Society
Individual Comments
:
David G. Ainley, Ph.D., Point Reyes Bird Observatory
J.R. Beddington, University of York, England
Hugh H. DeWitt, University of Maine
M.D. McWhinnie, Ph.D., DePaul University
Donald A. Scott, Oceanographic Services, Inc.
Drs. Rudiger Wolfrum and Frederick S. Tipson,
University of Virginia
6. Date Draft Statement made available: February 1, 1978
Date Final Statement made available: June 17, 1978
7. Preparation: The draft and final environmental impact
statements were prepared by Katherine A. Green, Ph.D.
in cooperation with officials of the Department of State,
IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary Sheet i
Table of Contents iv
List of Figures vii
List of Tables vii
List of Appendices viii
I. PROPOSED FEDERAL ACTION 1
A. Description 1
...
B. Concepts Underlying the Proposed Action 3
1. Health of the Ecosystem 3
2. Conservation Objectives 4
3. Management Options 6
II. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION 9
A. No Action 9
B. National Action 10
C. Negotiation of an International Agreement
for Collection, Exchange and Analysis of
Data 11
D. Negotiation of an International Agreement
Establishing a Complete Conservation
Regime 12
E. Negotiation of an International Agreement
Establishing Specific Conservation
Measures or a Temporary Moratorium 13
F. A Total Ban on Harvesting 14
G. Area Covered by the Regime 15
V
III. RELATIONSHIP OF THE PROPOSED FEDERAL ACTION TO
INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR
THE ANTARCTIC ENVIRONMENT 16
A. Agreements Pertaining to the Antarctic
Region 16
B. Agreements Pertaining to the Marine
Environment 16
C. Fisheries Bodies 16
IV. RELATIONSHIP OF THE PROPOSED FEDERAL ACTION TO
DOMESTIC LEGISLATION WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR THE
ANTARCTIC ENVIRONMENT 19
V. DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT 21
A. Physical Environment 21
1. Antarctic Convergence 21
2. Currents 21
3. Ice 22
4. Factors Affecting Primary Production • • 24
B. Species in the Antarctic Marine Ecosystem 24
.
1. Krill 25
2. Squid 28
3. Fish 29
4. Birds 29
5. Seals 30
6. Whales 3
C. Food Web 31
...
D. Areas of Special Biological Importance 33
E. History of Commercial Harvesting 3 4
1. Whales 34
2. Seals 34
3. Fish 35
4. Krill 35
5. Penguins 36
F. Scientific Investigation 36
VI
G. Shipping Traffic 37
H. Ecosystem Responses to Disturbance 3 7
I. Potentially Harvestable Resources 37
J. No Native Peoples 38
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ACTION AND
ALTERNATIVES
3 9
A. Impacts of Commercial Harvesting 3 9
1. Impacts Unaffected by Proposed Action 3 9
....
2. Direct Impacts on Exploited Stocks 40
3. Indirect Impacts on Dependent Species 4 2
.
4. Local Impacts of Harvesting Operations 44
.
5. Disturbance of the Marine Ecosystem .44
.
B. Environmental Impacts of Proposed Federal
Action and Alternatives 45
1. Ban on Harvesting 46
2. No Action 47
3. National Action 47
4. Data Reporting Now, Conservation
Measures Later 58
5. Complete Conservation Regime
(Proposed Federal Action) 59
6. Conservation Regime with Specific
Conservation Measures or Interim
Harvesting Moratorium 6
VII. SHORT VS. LONG TERM PRODUCTIVITY 62
VIII. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 63
IX. COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES 64
X. CONCLUSIONS 65
....
XI. CONSULTATION AND COOPERATION WITH OTHERS 66
XII. REFERENCES 69