Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Spatial Fisheries Management; Amendment 15 to the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 635

[Docket No. 260205-0038]

RIN 0648-BI10

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Spatial Fisheries Management; Amendment 15 to the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan

AGENCY:

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This final rule implements Amendment 15 to the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan (HMS FMP) (Amendment 15). This final action modifies the timing of the Mid-Atlantic shark closed area, modifies the boundaries of the Charleston Bump and East Florida Coast closed areas to create low- and/or high-bycatch-risk areas, and maintains the current boundaries and timing of the DeSoto Canyon closed area. This action also establishes a process to collect data from all the spatial management areas and review that data as needed and on a regular basis, while also renaming the closed areas to more closely reflect their intended uses. This rule does not implement a fleet-wide requirement for vessel owners to pay for electronic monitoring sampling costs as proposed but requires pelagic longline vessel owners to pay for the electronic monitoring sampling costs if their vessels choose to fish within the low-bycatch-risk areas of the Charleston Bump and East Florida Coast spatial management areas. This final action directly affects bottom and pelagic longline fishermen who hold Atlantic HMS fishing permits.

DATES:

This final rule is effective April 3, 2026.

ADDRESSES:

Copies of the supporting documents, including the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) and its Record of Decision, the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), the Issues and Options for Research and Data Collection in Closed and Gear Restricted Areas in Support of Spatial Fisheries, the peer-reviewed journal article regarding the predictive modeling program used in support of this rulemaking, the detailed spatial management StoryMap, and the HMS FMP and amendments are available from the HMS website at

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/atlantic-highly-migratory-species.

Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this final rule may be submitted to the HMS Management Division and to

www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

Find these particular information collections by selecting “Currently under 30-day Review—Open for Public Comments” or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steve Durkee (

steve.durkee@noaa.gov

), Larry Redd, Jr. (

larry.redd@noaa.gov

), Randy Blankinship (

randy.blankinship@noaa.gov

), or Karyl Brewster-Geisz (

karyl.brewster-geisz@noaa.gov

) at 301-427-8503.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Atlantic HMS fisheries are managed under the HMS FMP and its amendments, pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act or MSA; 16 U.S.C. 1801

et seq.

) and consistent with the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA; 16 U.S.C. 971

et seq.

). HMS are defined at 16 U.S.C. 1802(21) and the provisions for their management are at 16 U.S.C. 1854(g)(1). ATCA is the implementing statute for binding recommendations of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). HMS implementing regulations are at 50 CFR part 635. More information regarding the authorities for this rule can be found in the “Statutory Authority” section below.

On May 5, 2023, NMFS published a proposed rule (88 FR 29050) and released Draft Amendment 15 (which included a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), draft RIR, and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a Notice of Availability of the DEIS (88 FR 29127). The proposed rule and Draft Amendment 15 contain background information on the potential changes to the fishery that is not repeated here. The original comment period on the proposed rule ended on September 15, 2023. Based on public requests, the comment period was extended until October 2, 2023 (88 FR 62044, September 8, 2023). NMFS held 5 public hearings and webinars between June 15 and September 18, 2023, and also briefed the Gulf, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, New England, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils. NMFS held 2 discussions on Amendment 15 with the HMS Advisory Panel (May 9, 2023 and September 6, 2023). During the comment period, NMFS received 166 written comments from individual members of the public and a variety of entities including industry associations, environmental organizations, and states. A summary of these comments and NMFS' responses is found below.

Taking into consideration public comment, NMFS prepared Final Amendment 15, which included an FEIS, final RIR, and FRFA, and which analyzed the anticipated environmental, social, and economic impacts of a range of alternatives. On May 6, 2024, NMFS released Final Amendment 15 and the EPA published a Notice of Availability of the FEIS (89 FR 40481, May 10, 2024). NMFS received three written comments on the FEIS during the 30-day period after publication of the FEIS. A summary of the preferred alternatives is provided below. The full list of alternatives and their analyses are provided in Final Amendment 15 and are not repeated here.

Overall, the objectives of this final rule are to: (1) use spatial management tools to minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality, to the extent practicable, while also optimizing fishing opportunities for U.S. fishing vessels; (2) develop methods of collecting target and non-target species occurrence and catch rate data from HMS spatial management areas for the purpose of assessing area performance; (3) broaden the considerations for the use of spatial management areas as a fishery management tool, including to provide flexibility to account for the highly variable nature of HMS and their fisheries, manage user conflicts, facilitate collection of information, address the need for regular evaluation and performance review, and plan for the changing environment and access to fishery resources; (4) evaluate the effectiveness of existing HMS spatial management areas, and if warranted, modify them to achieve an optimal balance of ecological, social, and economic benefits and costs; and (5) modify the HMS electronic monitoring (EM) program as necessary and appropriate to augment spatial management and address the requirements of relevant NMFS policies regarding EM. This final rule implements the preferred alternatives identified in Final Amendment 15.

In developing the final measures, NMFS considered the objectives identified above, public comments on Amendment 15 and the proposed rule, input from the HMS Advisory Panel (AP), and the FEIS, RIR, and FRFA analyses. After reviewing this information, NMFS has concluded that further analyses are needed to modify the HMS EM program fleet-wide as appropriate to address the requirements of relevant policies regarding EM, including the EM Cost Allocation Policy. To ensure that other spatial management and EM measures are finalized as expeditiously as possible, NMFS has decided to conduct additional analyses regarding the fleet-wide industry payment of EM costs in a separate future action. Comments that have already been submitted on the EM program during the proposed rule stage of this current action will be considered in that future action, and there will be an additional comment period.

This final action implements Amendment 15 to the HMS FMP. In brief, the final management measures implemented in this rule are: (1) a modification of the Mid-Atlantic shark closed area timing; (2) a modification of the Charleston Bump and East Florida Coast closed areas to create high- and low-bycatch-risk areas; (3) the establishment of effort caps for the low-bycatch-risk areas, also known as monitoring areas, in the Charleston Bump and East Florida Coast spatial management areas; (4) the requirement that pelagic longline vessels that choose to fish within the boundaries of a monitoring area pay for the sampling costs and arrange for additional EM video review of the portion of the trip in the monitoring area; (5) the allowance for data collection through cooperative research via an exempted fishing permit for high- and low-bycatch-risk areas in the Charleston Bump, DeSoto Canyon, and East Florida Coast spatial management areas; (6) the requirement to evaluate the effectiveness of the four spatial management areas regularly once three years of catch and effort data is finalized and available, or earlier if warranted; and (7) the addition of regulatory provisions for creation and review of spatial management areas. Additionally, NMFS intends to consider the matter of funding of the HMS EM program (both administrative and sampling costs) fleet-wide, as appropriate, in a future action.

As described in the Responses to Comments below, NMFS made several changes to the preferred alternatives between the proposed and final rule, based in part on public comments. The specific changes are described below in the section titled “Changes from the Proposed Rule.”

Statutory Authority

This final rule to implement Amendment 15 to the HMS FMP is issued pursuant to, and subject to requirements of, the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Specifically, 16 U.S.C. 1853(b)(2) provides for the designation of zones where fishing activities may be limited or prohibited (discussed throughout this rule as “spatial management areas”) in an FMP. 16 U.S.C. 1853(a)(1) requires NMFS to include in an FMP measures, such as those establishing requirements for vessels fishing in the monitoring areas established in this rule, necessary for the conservation and management of the fishery that are consistent with the National Standards (NS) set forth in 16 U.S.C. 1851(a). Among other things, the NSs state that measures must prevent overfishing while achieving optimum yield from the fishery (NS1), be based on the best scientific information available (NS2), and shall minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality to the extent practicable (NS9). To collect data on catch (including bycatch) and monitor for potential bycatch or overfishing issues, this final rule requires industry to pay for electronic monitoring sampling costs if they choose to fish within two monitoring areas that had previously been closed to fishing for over 20 years. This monitoring is authorized by 16 U.S.C. 1853(b)(8) and (b)(14).

See also

16 U.S.C. 1802 (defining “observer information”). VMS, authorized under 16 U.S.C. 1853(b)(4), has been a longstanding requirement in Atlantic HMS fisheries. More information can be found in Amendment 15 itself.

Response to Comments

During the comment period on the proposed rule, NMFS received 166 written comments from individual members of the public and a variety of entities including industry associations, environmental organizations, State agencies, local governments, and members of the U.S. Congress. All written comments can be found at

https://www.regulations.gov/

by searching for “0648-BI10.” NMFS also received comments during the public hearings, including the webinars, the Council meetings, and the HMS AP meetings. NMFS received three written comments on the FEIS in the 30 days after publication of the FEIS. Responses to comments are below and are organized according to subject.

Modification, Data Collection, and Evaluation of the Spatial Management Areas General Comments

Comment 1:

NMFS received comments, including from North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries (NCDMF), Maryland Department of Natural Resources, and some non-governmental environmental and recreational fishing organizations that were supportive of evaluating the effectiveness of the existing bottom longline and pelagic longline closed areas in meeting conservation and management goals. Some commenters supported the efforts of evaluating the existing closed areas and noted that the areas continue to be closed without any evaluation since implementation. Some commenters supported evaluating the existing closed areas but expressed concerns with using longline gear to collect data. Some commenters, including the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission, stated that pelagic longline gear should not be used to collect data in pelagic longline closed areas and that other gear types with lower bycatch concerns should be used instead. Other commenters suggested that the Agency use data from recreational gears that provide long, continuous time series from within the closed areas. After issuance of the FEIS, NMFS received a comment further noting the importance of utilizing other fishery-dependent sources of catch data from other gear types. Commenters suggested that NMFS explore ways to utilize all fisheries dependent data rather than one gear type in the closed areas.

Response:

NMFS agrees that the assessment of and the collection of data in spatial management areas is critical to ensure that conservation and management needs are being achieved. As discussed in the Amendment, many of the existing closed areas have been in place for approximately 20 years, with little or no evaluation. Understanding this need, NMFS developed alternatives in the Draft Amendment 15 to guide data collection efforts to evaluate whether the spatial management areas are effective in meeting their respective conservation and management goals.

Based on public comment and further analysis and consideration, NMFS has different preferred alternatives for the spatial management areas in the Final Amendment 15 than in the Draft. For the Mid-Atlantic Shark Spatial Management Area, NMFS is finalizing no change to the area boundaries and a shift of the closure period to November 1 through May 31 (Sub-Alternative A1b). The Draft Amendment 15 and proposed rule had preferred the same

period change, but with extension of the eastern boundary of the area (Sub-Alternative A1d). For the Charleston Bump Spatial Management Area, the preferred alternative in the Final Amendment is new Sub-Alternative A2f, which shifts the eastern boundary of the high-bycatch-risk area preferred in the Draft Amendment 15 (Sub-Alternative A2c), resulting in an increase in the monitoring/low-bycatch-risk area. Sub-Alternative A2f also changes the timing of the high-bycatch-risk area to February 1 through April 30, which retains the timing of the current closed area, instead of year-round under Sub-Alternative A2c. For the East Florida Coast Spatial Management Area, the preferred alternative in the Final Amendment 15 is new Sub-Alternative A3f, which shifts the northeastern boundary of the high-bycatch-risk area preferred in the Draft (Sub-Alternative A3d), resulting in an increase in the monitoring/low-bycatch-risk area. For the DeSoto Canyon Spatial Management Area, NMFS is finalizing no action (Sub-Alternative A4a), instead of modifying the area boundaries per the Draft preferred Sub-Alternative A4d.

Under the Final Amendment 15 preferred measures, NMFS will evaluate each spatial management area once three years of catch and effort data are finalized and available. However, if specific concerns were to arise, which might include but may not be limited to unexpectedly high or low bycatch, high or low data collection efforts, temporally or spatially overly-clustered fishing effort, changed conditions within the fishery as a whole, or changed status of relevant stocks, NMFS may review the spatial management areas earlier.

NMFS disagrees that other gear types could be used to characterize expected pelagic (or bottom) longline catch. In evaluating the effectiveness of the closures for longline gear, NMFS is not trying to determine if the bycatch species are present in the closed areas. Rather, NMFS is evaluating the rate at which various bycatch species are likely to be caught on longline gear in those areas. As some of the commenters noted, catch rates of bycatch species are different across each gear type. Without extensive site-specific calibration experiments, catch rates across gear types are not directly comparable. No such calibrations exist between commercial longline and other gear types, including recreational gears. Without such calibrations, NMFS could not use recreational or other non-longline gear catch rates or data to calculate the likely catch rates of longline gear in the closed areas. Additionally, different gear types have different reporting requirements and methodologies that could bias data in certain directions, reducing applicability for cross-fishery conclusions. For example, rod and reel fishermen are not required to report protected species interactions, while pelagic longline fishermen are. Therefore, the only way to accurately assess species catch rates and other characteristics is to use the specific gear that has been restricted (in this case longline gear), with additional safeguards to provide for monitoring and managing of bycatch and incidental catch to the extent practicable.

Comment 2:

NMFS received comments from a commercial fishing organization expressing concern about the future viability of the fishery given current declining trends in fishing effort and pointing out that because of this reduced fishing effort, current bycatch levels in the fishery are lower relative to historical levels. Some comments stated that active pelagic longline vessels and effort have dropped dramatically since the closed areas were implemented and that the reduction in effort in combination with better fishing techniques have provided far more bycatch reduction than originally intended when the areas were implemented.

Response:

NMFS acknowledges that there have been changes in the commercial longline fisheries, including reduced effort, since the closed areas were originally implemented. These changes, in addition to biological changes in target and bycatch species populations and oceanographic changes, further necessitate an evaluation of catch rates within the spatial management areas. When the closed areas were implemented, the designs were static, and there was no guidance on how to review or evaluate the efficacy of the closed areas on bycatch reduction and environmental conservation. Through the preferred “C” and “E” alternatives, Amendment 15 provides a flexible framework for the design, review, and modification of spatial management areas to respond to the changing environment, developments in fisheries modeling, dynamic fisheries management, changing regulations, and changes in the techniques and behavior of the commercial fishing industry. Within this framework, the reductions in fishing effort and improved fishing techniques that lead to bycatch reduction can be incorporated into analyses that provide for more adaptive spatial area management.

Comment 3:

NMFS received comments, including from Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, opposing increased access for pelagic longline gear and vessels in closed areas to collect data. Many of these comments pointed to the successful conservation and/or rebuilding of many species, including swordfish and billfish species, and stated that increased access for pelagic longlines in currently closed areas could jeopardize that success. Some commenters stated that allowing pelagic longline effort in closed areas could affect the conservation of important recreational target species such as billfish, negatively affecting recreational fisheries, charter fishing, tourism, and support services.

Response:

NMFS agrees that implementation of the closed areas has contributed to the conservation and rebuilding of many species. However, the continued utility of the static areas in meeting current conservation and management needs, particularly in the context of changing ocean and fishery conditions, is unknown due to the lack of data from and formal evaluation of the closed areas. NMFS disagrees that allowing limited data collection using pelagic longline gear and vessels in the proposed monitoring areas would jeopardize swordfish and billfish conservation or would negatively affect recreational fishing for these species. The stock statuses of some of these species have improved since the closed areas were established and closed areas are not the only bycatch mitigation measure. Additional bycatch mitigation measures, such as circle hook requirements and bait restrictions, have been implemented. Additionally, pelagic longline fishing effort and participation has declined dramatically since implementation of the closed areas. For example, in 2000, there were 11,065 pelagic longline sets, whereas in 2019 there were only 4,188 sets. Furthermore, consistent data collection within the footprint of current closed areas would occur only in low-bycatch-risk areas designated as monitoring areas and only with enhanced reporting requirements and effort controls. If the data being collected indicated that bycatch rates were higher than expected, NMFS could close the monitoring areas and conduct further review to determine next steps. It is also possible that data collection could occur in the high-bycatch-risk areas if a researcher applied for and received an exempted fishing permit (EFP). To be considered covered under and consistent with the impacts analyses in the FEIS, an application should

incorporate effort caps, bycatch caps, monitoring, and other elements under Alternative B4. Researchers could also apply for and receive a scientific research permit (SRP). EFPs and SRPs are issued for similar activities, however, NMFS generally issues an EFP when the research activity is conducted on a recreational and/or commercial fishing vessel and issues an SRP when the research is conducted on a scientific research vessel.

See

50 CFR 635.32(b)(SRPs) and 600.10 (defining scientific research activity, scientific research vessel, and related terms).

Comment 4:

NMFS received a comment that the specific goals, including specific bycatch level goals, of the original closures need to be included and analyzed to determine if the closures have achieved the intended purpose.

Response:

Information regarding the original objectives and specific bycatch goals of the closed areas can be found in Section 4.11 of the Amendment and in the original documents implementing the closed areas. However, a comprehensive review of the closed areas was needed. As discussed in the response to Comment 2 above, since the implementation of the original closures, there have been changes in the commercial longline fisheries, biological changes in target and bycatch populations, oceanographic changes, and changes in fishing techniques (

e.g.,

deep set pelagic longline gear; see Comment 37 below). Thus, this Amendment considered not only the species addressed when the current closed areas were adopted (see Section 4.11), but also current species protection needs, current conditions of the oceanographic environment, and current fishery conditions (

e.g.,

changes in regulatory requirements, stock status of managed species,

etc.

). In Amendment 15, see Section 2.3 (Selection of Species) and Chapter 2 (Methods and Development of Spatial Management Area Alternatives). One of the specific goals of Amendment 15 is to provide flexibility to account for variations and changes in fishery and environmental conditions. As such, Amendment 15 is designed to allow NMFS to consider not only the species of concern when the closed areas were implemented, but also the present and future conditions and critical needs of the U.S. fisheries and the oceanographic environment, when re-evaluating various spatial management areas. Furthermore, the approach in Amendment 15 allows NMFS to consider any ancillary benefits or concerns associated with the closed areas, which may be relevant regardless of the stated original objectives of any particular area. As discussed in Section 9.1.2 of Amendment 15, these aspects of Amendment 15 also help bring the spatial management areas more in line with Section 303(b)(2)(C) of the MSA.

Comment 5:

NMFS received comments that Amendment 15 should undergo formal review by NMFS's Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC). Commenters noted that SEFSC review would ensure Amendment 15 is based on the best scientific information available, consistent with NS2.

Response:

As stated in Chapter 9 of the Amendment and consistent with NS2, Amendment 15 uses the best scientific information available. Formal review by the SEFSC is not necessary or required to demonstrate compliance with NS2. NMFS has published guidelines for complying with NS2 at 50 CFR 600.315. Among other things, these guidelines state that fishery conservation and management require high quality and timely scientific information to evaluate the potential impact on living marine resources, essential fish habitat (EFH), marine ecosystems, fishery participants, fishing communities, and the nation, and also require identifying areas where management measures are needed (see § 600.315(a)(1)). NMFS consulted with and obtained input and expertise from personnel from several NMFS offices during the development of Draft and Final Amendment 15, including the SEFSC, and determined that the amendment is based on the best scientific information available. More information about the consistency of Amendment 15 with NS2 may be found in Chapter 9. More information about the agencies, organizations, and persons consulted may be found in Chapter 10.

Comment 6:

NMFS received a comment stating that Amendment 15 violated the following NMFS Policies: 01-101-01 (

Procedures for Initiating Secretarial Review of Fisheries Management Plans and Amendments

), 01-101-106 (

Communication of Regional Fishery Management Council Meeting Actions

), and 01-101-09 (

Procedures to Determine Stock Status and Rebuilding Progress

).

Response:

NMFS disagrees. NMFS Policies 01-101-01 and 01-101-106 are procedures related to regional fishery management councils. The Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments are not developed through council processes but by the agency itself as provided under sections 304(c) and (g) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. NMFS Policy 01-101-09 describes an administrative procedure regarding stock status and rebuilding progress decisions under Magnuson-Stevens Act section 304(e). Stock status determination and rebuilding progress is not within the scope of Amendment 15; thus NMFS Policy 01-101-09 does not apply. As described throughout Amendment 15 and this rule, Amendment 15 is consistent with all required applicable laws and policies.

Comment 7:

NMFS received comments about the species that should be considered when developing spatial management measures in Amendment 15. Some commenters stated that undersized swordfish and ESA-listed species such as giant manta rays and oceanic whitetip sharks should be considered when designing spatial area modifications. The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) commented that dolphinfish catch should be considered, especially as the Council considers stricter regulations given concerns about that fishery.

Response:

NMFS has considered the expected ecological impacts on target and non-target species, including swordfish, dolphinfish, and ESA-listed species, in the Amendment. For swordfish, the stock is fully rebuilt and landings are currently far below the scientifically-derived total allowable catch. Locations of dolphinfish catch were considered and presented in Sections 5.4.2 and 5.4.3 of Amendment 15 and further discussed in the response to Comment 10 below, along with potential impacts to the stock. All HMS commercial fisheries, including pelagic and bottom longline fisheries, have undergone consultation under section 7 of the ESA with the most recent Biological Opinions issued in May 2020. The fisheries operate under a variety of Reasonable and Prudent Measures (RPMs) and Incidental Take Statements consistent with the 2020 Biological Opinions. Interactions with ESA-listed species, including sea turtles, sperm whale, giant manta ray, scalloped hammerhead shark (Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment), and oceanic whitetip shark are monitored quarterly by the HMS Management Division in coordination with the SEFSC and the Southeast Regional Office's Protected Resources Division. On July 8, 2022, the Office of Sustainable Fisheries requested reinitiation of consultation under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) on the HMS pelagic longline fishery due to new information on giant manta ray since completion of the 2020 Biological Opinion. The consultation is ongoing. Pending completion of consultation, the fishery continues to operate consistent with the RPMs and Terms and Conditions specified in the

May 2020 Biological Opinion. See Section 4.10 of Amendment 15 for more details. Finally, in 2024, ICCAT adopted Recommendation 24-12 regarding mobulid rays of the family Mobulidae. As a result, in a separate action, NMFS will be considering whether to prohibit the retention of mobulid rays, including giant manta rays, in HMS fisheries, to require mobulid rays to be released unharmed in HMS fisheries, and to implement mobulid ray handling practices for vessels fishing with pelagic longline gear.

Amendment 15 is not expected to increase fishing effort, and in fact, bottom longline and pelagic longline effort have been declining. Moreover, nothing in Amendment 15 is expected to change the characteristics of the fishery such that overfished or ESA-listed species would be affected in a manner not considered in previous analyses for the HMS FMP or the 2020 Biological Opinions. Furthermore, the final action includes numerous measures to continue to monitor and minimize bycatch, including closing areas if bycatch is higher than expected.

Comment 8:

NMFS received a comment that blue marlin remain overfished and should receive additional protections. The comment also opposed the preferred Charleston Bump, East Florida Coast, and DeSoto Canyon Spatial Management Area modifications in the DEIS, noting that they do not increase protections for blue marlin. The commenter stated that Sub-Alternative A3b for East Florida Coast offers better protection for blue marlin than the Sub-Alternative A3d that was preferred at the draft stage, but not as good as status quo. After issuance of the FEIS, NMFS received comments reiterating that the preferred spatial management area modifications do not offer protections for blue marlin and another comment stating concerns about white marlin bycatch in the monitoring areas.

Response:

Data collection by pelagic longline vessels in the preferred monitoring areas will likely improve our understanding of the contribution of closed areas to reducing blue marlin fishing mortality. Without this data collection, it is difficult to assess the impact of closed areas on blue marlin rebuilding. The goal of Amendment 15 is to collect data on the effectiveness of existing closed areas and improve the data available for making HMS spatial management decisions, while continuing to minimize bycatch for multiple species.

As summarized in response to Comment 1, NMFS is preferring different alternatives in the Final Amendment 15 than in the Draft for the spatial management areas. NMFS is finalizing no action for the DeSoto Canyon Spatial Management Area (Sub-Alternative A4a). This is due in part to the proposed critical habitat designation for Rice's whale and also due to public comments expressing concern about reduced fishing opportunities if the area was expanded.

The East Florida Coast preferred sub-alternative (A3f) shifts the boundary of the high-bycatch-risk area (year-round) relative to the sub-alternative preferred at the draft stage (Sub-Alternative A3d) in response to public comment about encouraging more data collection in the monitoring/low-bycatch-risk area. In doing so, the scope value (size of the area x applicable number of months) of the high-bycatch-risk area decreased to 41 percent, with a corresponding increase in the low-bycatch-risk area scope value to 41 percent. Even with the increased effort cap for the monitoring area (Sub-Alternative B3a), impacts on bycatch species modeled by HMS PRedictive Spatial Modeling (PRiSM) are generally expected to be moderate beneficial in the short- and long-term. This is because of the conditions and restrictions applicable to the monitoring area (Sub-Alternative B3a effort cap, Sub-Alternative B3e electronic monitoring) and low fisheries interactions with modeled bycatch species in that area. See Section 5.2.3.1 of Amendment 15 for further explanation. In addition, fishermen who choose to fish within the monitoring area will be required to report interactions with additional species, including blue and white marlin, via vessel monitoring systems (VMS). If bycatch is higher than expected in the monitoring area, NMFS will have discretion to close the area. If additional conservation and management measures become necessary for blue or white marlin, NMFS may consider these in a future action evaluating all sources of mortality in commercial and recreational fisheries.

Metric scores compare the relative impacts of high-bycatch-risk areas and provide information about conservation and conservation efficiency in those areas and allow for ranking of options. A higher score indicates a higher level of conservation protection relative to the size of the area and effective time period. The species-specific billfish metric score for the preferred East Florida Coast Spatial Management Area modification sub-alternative (Sub-Alternative A3f) is lower than the status quo and Sub-Alternative A3b metric scores. However, the billfish metric scores for all of the sub-alternatives is low (ranging from 6 to 10 with highest possible score of 48), the overall metric score for all modeled bycatch species is higher for Sub-Alternative A3f than the status quo, and the range in overall metric scores between the sub-alternatives (43 to 49) is small and low compared to the highest possible overall score of 192. See Sections 5.1.3.7 of Amendment 15 (providing table comparing metric scores) and 5.1.3.6 (providing notes under table explaining highest possible metric scores). We also note that metric score is not the only consideration in spatial management modifications. As explained in Section 5.1.3.7, metric scores do not address or speak to the broader regime of conservation and management measures—beyond spatial management areas—implemented under the Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments and implementing regulations. Blue marlin, white marlin, and other billfish are subject to various conservation and management measures, which are described at the end of this response. None of the preferred alternatives that will be implemented through this final rule, including for the East Florida Coast Spatial Management Area, will allow normal commercial fishing in the low-bycatch-risk areas; instead, they implement monitoring areas, which are special access areas with effort limits and enhanced reporting requirements for those who choose to fish there. Additionally, species-specific metric scores for leatherback sea turtles and shortfin mako sharks, as well as the overall metric score, are higher for the Preferred Sub-Alternative A3f than the no action sub-alternative.

Although NMFS analyzed Sub-Alternative A3b, it was not selected as a preferred sub-alternative because it would identify low-bycatch-risk areas close to shore along much of the east coast of Florida, potentially increasing gear conflict concerns with other fisheries including offshore recreational fisheries. Furthermore, Sub-Alternative A3b would only implement a monitoring area during portions of the year, and year-round data collection is important to assess the areas.

The Charleston Bump preferred sub-alternative (A2f) shifts the boundary of the high-bycatch-risk area and modifies the timing of the area to February 1 through April 30, which maintains the same timing as the current overall closed area. NMFS made these changes in response to public comment, as the larger, year-round high-bycatch-risk area designated under the Draft preferred sub-alternative (A2c) would have unnecessarily resulted in a large

reduction in fishing opportunities and effort. In comparison to the no action sub-alternative, Sub-Alternative A2f provides more efficient conservation protections as despite the change in scope of the area, the sub-alternative did not result in changes to the metric score (0) for the billfish species group, which includes blue marlin and white marlin, had slightly higher scores for leatherback sea turtles, and overall is expected to have neutral indirect ecological impacts for billfish and other modeled bycatch species. We note that billfish metric scores for all the sub-alternatives is low (ranging from 0 to 5 (Sub-Alternative A2c) with a highest possible score of 48). As explained above, fishermen will also be required to report blue marlin and other species via VMS, and NMFS has discretion to close the monitoring area or high-bycatch-risk area as needed.

NMFS notes that spatial management areas are not the only measures that offer protections for blue marlin and white marlin. The United States prohibits commercial landings and sale of billfish, including blue marlin and white marlin (50 CFR 635.19(c), 635.31(b), 600.10 (billfish definition)). In addition, the United States specifies minimum sizes for billfish (§ 635.20(d)), requires circle hooks and specific baits for tournament participants (§ 635.21(e)(1)), and requires release of billfish without removing them from the water (§ 635.21(a)(1)-(2)). Annually, the United States limits landings to 250 recreationally-caught Atlantic blue and white marlin/roundscale spearfish, combined, pursuant to a binding measure that the United States and other countries adopted at the ICCAT. See Section 1.1 for more information on ICCAT. International cooperation is needed to conserve and manage these species, given the number of countries that catch and land them throughout the Atlantic Ocean. Based on the 2019 white marlin/roundscale spearfish stock assessment and the 2024 blue marlin stock assessments conducted by ICCAT's Standing Committee on Research and Statistics, blue marlin and white marlin are overfished with overfishing not occurring. NMFS domestically manages blue marlin and white marlin/roundscale spearfish consistent with its ICCAT obligations, and Amendment 15 does not change the above-described management measures.

With respect to the comment about white marlin received after issuance of the FEIS, all of the above existing domestic and international measures offering protections to blue marlin also provide protections to white marlin. Additionally, the measures required under Amendment 15, including near-real time reporting of interactions in monitoring areas through VMS set reports, also apply to white marlin.

Comment 9:

NMFS received comments about changes to spatial management areas. One comment stated that any increase in the size or timing of closed areas would destroy the pelagic longline industry. Other comments stated that caution is warranted when reducing the spatial or temporal coverage of closed areas so as not to undermine conservation efforts and progress. One commenter stated general support for all four of the proposed spatial management area modifications. A few commenters supported simply reopening all pelagic longline closed areas.

Response:

One of the objectives of Amendment 15 is to augment data collection in the spatial management areas to improve the ability to assess and manage these areas. NMFS agrees that caution should be taken when changing areas and that any changes should be consistent with FMP objectives and applicable laws, including MSA NSs. As such, NMFS developed a spatial modeling tool that predicts where and when fisheries interactions with longline gear are likely to occur. This tool was needed because longline catch information is lacking within the closed areas. Based on the model's prediction of fishery interactions, NMFS is preferring alternatives to implement monitoring areas in low-bycatch-risk areas of the Charleston Bump (Sub-Alternative A2f) and East Florida Coast (Sub-Alternative A3f) Spatial Management Areas. Monitoring areas will have additional reporting requirements and enhanced monitoring. In the Mid-Atlantic Shark Spatial Management Area (closed from November 1 through May 31), fishing and data collection will proceed in the area outside of the closure period and current data collection programs in the area, including the shark research fishery, will continue. The DeSoto Canyon Spatial Management Area will be closed year-round, but NMFS may consider requests for exempted fishing permits on a case-by-case basis.

The above-described approaches, coupled with regular evaluations of the areas, should allow NMFS to make changes as needed based on the incoming data. Overall, the designation of more efficient spatial management areas and improved access to pelagic and bottom longline target species in areas with lower bycatch-risk is expected to help achieve optimum yield, consistent with NS1 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, without jeopardizing sustainability of any species or increasing bycatch.

Comment 10:

The SAFMC expressed concern about conflicting regulations applicable to pelagic longline HMS and other fisheries. Currently, the dolphinfish/wahoo pelagic longline closed area regulations match the HMS pelagic longline closed areas. If they become misaligned, it could make compliance and enforcement difficult. If dolphinfish or wahoo are caught on pelagic longline gear in the monitoring areas, they would have to be discarded, increasing regulatory discards. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) commented that additional pelagic longline access to closed areas would negatively affect the dolphinfish stock for which the Commission has recently implemented more restrictive recreational catch limits in state waters to address stock status concerns.

Response:

NMFS agrees that if dolphinfish or wahoo were to be caught on pelagic longline gear in the monitoring areas and retention is not allowed under applicable regulations, those species must be discarded. Although dolphinfish and wahoo are targeted by some vessels with an Atlantic Tunas Longline permit, these species are not managed under the HMS FMP. Nevertheless, because HMS and dolphinfish/wahoo are targeted with different pelagic longline gear configurations and fishing techniques, dolphinfish and wahoo comprise a relatively low portion (by weight) of the total landings in the HMS pelagic longline fishery based on 2016 through 2018 pelagic logbook data (6 percent and 1 percent, respectively; Section 2.1.2.3, Amendment 13 to the HMS FMP). Additionally, a key assumption of the modifications to the spatial management areas is that overall fishing effort will not change, and therefore should not result in increased pelagic longline effort overall. Thus, NMFS does not believe that pelagic longline access to the monitoring areas, strictly monitored and limited, would result in large changes to dolphinfish catch and negatively affect the stock, particularly since total pelagic longline effort is unlikely to increase and, if recent trends continue, may decrease. However, NMFS acknowledges that, as has been shown in a variety of existing regulations, including regulations regarding closed areas and differences in gear types, mismatches between HMS-specific regulations and other Federal fishery regulations or state-specific regulations can make compliance and enforcement more difficult. Such mismatches can affect

the efficacy of the regulations. Further consideration of the impacts of these types of mismatches in light of these comments resulted in some of the modifications in the Amendment 15 preferred alternatives regarding geographic and temporal changes to spatial areas as noted in the responses below. NMFS will continue to work with the councils and states on developing complementary measures to the extent practicable.

Comment 11:

Several commenters suggested that NMFS prohibit pelagic longline gear in all areas, expressing that longline gear indiscriminately kills target and non-target species. One commenter that supported prohibiting longline gear noted the potential impact of longlines on recreational fishing tournaments on the East Coast. After issuance of the FEIS, we received a comment expressing concerns that Amendment 15 does not adequately consider the social or economic impacts on HMS and non-HMS recreational fishing communities in the southeastern U.S. Another FEIS commenter disagreed that keeping the East Florida Coast monitoring area 45 nautical miles (nmi) from shore was far enough to minimize gear conflict with the recreational fisheries.

Response:

NMFS disagrees with prohibiting pelagic longline gear in all areas, as this would be inconsistent with the objectives of Amendment 15 and is not necessary for purposes of compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law. As set forth in Section 1.4, the objectives of Amendment 15 include developing methods of collecting from, and evaluating the effectiveness of, existing spatial management areas; optimizing fishing opportunities; and minimizing bycatch and bycatch mortality to the extent practicable. The U.S. Atlantic pelagic longline fishery has numerous regulations, including gear restrictions, that conserve and manage target and non-target species. In Amendment 15, see Sections 6.1.2 (pelagic longline regulatory history) and 9.1.1 (addressing Magnuson-Stevens Act NS1 (overfishing and optimum yield) and NS9 (bycatch)). NMFS acknowledges that pelagic longline gear catches non-target finfish with little or no commercial value as well as species that cannot be retained by commercial fishermen due to regulations. Pelagic longline gear may also interact with protected species such as marine mammals and sea turtles. The pelagic longline fishery has been classified as a Category I fishery (frequent incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals) with respect to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and is subject to reporting, monitoring, and other requirements pursuant to MMPA regulations. Bycatch of ESA-listed species has been evaluated under section 7 of the ESA, and the pelagic longline fishery operates under a variety of RPMs and an Incidental Take Statement consistent with a 2020 Biological Opinion, as noted in the response to comment 7 and in Section 4.10 of Amendment 15. Any catch of non-target species or undersized permitted species that cannot be landed due to fishery regulations is required to be released regardless of whether the catch is dead or alive, and with a minimum of harm if the catch is alive.

Regarding potential impacts of pelagic longline fishing on recreational fishing, including tournaments, any increased access for the gear type would occur in two monitoring areas within the Charleston Bump and East Florida Coast Spatial Management Areas that are predominantly further than 45 nmi from shore. Although offshore recreational fishermen, including tournament participants, can operate that far offshore, doing so is not as common as near-shore fishing. Additionally, the pelagic longline and offshore recreational fisheries have access to the same areas along most of the Atlantic and Gulf of America coasts, and gear conflicts are not common. Gear conflicts are possible in some areas where recreational fishing effort is concentrated such as off of South Florida. However, the Amendment 15 preferred monitoring areas were specifically designed to not include such locations. For example, Amendment 15 does not change closed areas south of approximately Sebastian Inlet, FL (

see

Section 3.4.3). A full discussion on impacts to recreational fisheries is also available in Section 5.4.6 in Amendment 15, including impacts to communities in the southeast U.S. The discussion focuses on HMS recreational fisheries, though there is significant overlap in recreational fishermen permitted to fish for HMS and recreational fishermen permitted to fish for pelagic species managed under other FMPs such as dolphinfish and wahoo. Given the goals in Amendment 15 to optimize the spatial management areas to better protect bycatch species, including billfish, NMFS reiterates its belief that the Amendment's measures should, in the long-term, provide more fishing opportunities for all fishermen.

With respect to the comment submitted after the release of the FEIS about gear conflict with recreational fisheries, NMFS understands that offshore recreational fishermen, including those targeting blue marlin and other billfish, can operate at distances greater than 45 nmi from shore. However, the number of recreational vessels operating in an area decreases the further the distance from shore and NMFS believes that the East Florida Coast Monitoring Area's distance from shore provides sufficient balance between minimizing gear conflict and providing areas for fishing where pelagic longline vessels are likely to voluntarily collect data—in alignment with the aspect of Objective 1's regarding optimization of fishing opportunity for U.S. fishing vessels.

Comment 12:

The FWC recognized that the current regulations do not contain provisions for regular review of the spatial management areas, and that in Amendment 15, NMFS proposed to add factors such as fishery metrics, social and economic data, biological information, and climate change impacts to consider when assessing the effectiveness of spatial management areas (Alternative E2). The FWC stated that they do not have concerns regarding the inclusion of those factors. They also stated that they would not support any future modifications that would negate the benefits the closed areas have had on numerous HMS species, protected species, and non-HMS species.

Response:

NMFS agrees that inclusion of additional factors is needed. The inclusion of additional factors should help ensure that any changes to spatial management areas would consider any benefits or impacts to species and the fishery.

Mid-Atlantic Shark Spatial Management Area

Comment 13:

NMFS received several comments, including from the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, in support of the proposed Mid-Atlantic Shark Spatial Management Area (Sub-Alternative A1d). Comments were received in opposition to the eastern expansion of the proposed Mid-Atlantic Shark Spatial Management Area noting the low level of shark bottom longline effort. Some commenters, including the NCDMF, asserted that the proposed spatial and temporal modifications for the Mid-Atlantic Shark Spatial Management Area could negatively affect bottom longline fisheries, including those for snowy grouper and blueline tilefish, that are managed under other FMPs.

Response:

Based in part on comments regarding the low level of shark bottom longline effort and the potential impacts on other bottom longline fisheries that operate in the Mid-Atlantic, NMFS is

now preferring Sub-Alternative A1b for the Mid-Atlantic Shark Spatial Management Area. This alternative keeps the current footprint and duration of the closure, while shifting the timing of the closure to November 1 through May 31. In the Draft Amendment 15, NMFS preferred Sub-Alternative A1d, which proposed the same shift in timing but with an extended eastern boundary. Maintaining the current spatial boundaries will limit impacts to bottom longline fishermen that hold HMS permits and engage in fishing in the area pursuant to other FMPs' regulations. Additionally, given the recent low fishing effort of HMS permit holders using bottom longline gear in the area, NMFS has determined that expanding the size of the area is not needed at this time. As supported by some commenters, NMFS continues to prefer a shift in the timing of the closure by two months to more closely align with the time period that has the highest likelihood of fishery interactions with sandbar, dusky, and scalloped hammerhead sharks, as evidenced by both the spatial model outputs, information from the shark research fishery, and other supporting information.

Comment 14:

NMFS received a comment from the NCDMF encouraging NMFS to continue the shark research fishery as a means to monitor bycatch and frequent evaluation of those data to determine the continued feasibility of the closure and timing.

Response:

NMFS agrees with continuing the shark research fishery as a data collection program. As mentioned in the Amendment, because some data is currently collected in the area through the shark research fishery, new data collection programs may not be necessary, and NMFS is finalizing no action for the data collection suite of alternatives (“B” Alternatives) for the Mid-Atlantic area at this time. NMFS will continue to collect and evaluate data through the shark research fishery to evaluate the Mid-Atlantic Shark Spatial Management Area as needed.

Charleston Bump Spatial Management Area

Comment 15:

NMFS received comments, including from the NCDMF and South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR), expressing concerns regarding the proposed Charleston Bump Spatial Management Area sub-alternative (Sub-Alternative A2c). Some commenters noted that closure of the Charleston Bump year-round or for certain months (

i.e.,

May and October through November) would have negative impacts on businesses. Some commenters noted the preferred sub-alternative would eliminate access to the western edge of the Gulf Stream along the 100-fathom shelf break year-round, preventing shorter day trips, increasing the need for fuel, and forcing fishermen to travel further to fish in more dangerous areas in the mid-winter months. Some commenters that operate in the area stated that they would need to relocate to other areas or exit the fishery completely. Some commenters noted that other sub-alternatives or a combination of sub-alternatives could allow the fishery to continue to operate in the area and support data collection, provided access to the 100-fathom shelf break is maintained. Many commenters stated that access to that area is critical for target catch with lower bycatch. Additionally, some commenters suggested using the 100-fathom shelf break as the boundary between high- and low-bycatch-risk areas instead of a straight line.

Response:

Based on public comments and additional analyses, NMFS reconsidered the boundaries of the Charleston Bump Spatial Management Area and designed a new sub-alternative (Sub-Alternative A2f) that is a combination of several of the other sub-alternatives considered. Since effort is unlikely to increase and because any fishing in the newly designated monitoring area would be closely regulated with enhanced monitoring and reporting requirements to support data collection, adoption of Sub-Alternative A2f is likely to have neutral direct and indirect ecological impacts. This now preferred sub-alternative moves the eastern boundary of the high-bycatch-risk area, relative to the current Charleston Bump closed area, westward, inside of the 100-fathom shelf break, to a diagonal line 45 nmi from shore for the majority of its length. The western boundary of this management area remains the same as the current western boundary of Charleston Bump closed area. The area inshore of the boundary is designated a high-bycatch-risk area and offshore of that boundary is designated a low-bycatch-risk/monitoring area. The temporal extent of both the high-bycatch-risk area and low-bycatch-risk area would be February 1 through April 30, which is the same time period as under the no action sub-alternative. Sub-Alternative A2f should not unduly limit fishing access, should reduce the potential for unintended limitations to fishing, including for species managed under other FMPs' regulations, and is expected to encourage data collection by providing access to desired fishing grounds within the monitoring area. Since Preferred Sub-Alternative A2f does not change the February 1 through April 30 timing of the Charleston Bump Spatial Management Area (whereas year-round timing had been proposed in DEIS preferred Sub-Alternative A2c), there will no longer be a reduction in fishing access and fishermen operating in the area will no longer experience negative economic impacts, nor will there be a need to travel further to access normal fishing grounds, alleviating safety-at-sea concerns expressed by the commenter. Furthermore, to the extent that fishermen are interested in fishing in the monitoring area, there could be fishing opportunities closer to shore, which would reduce transit times when traveling to and from fishing grounds. Such a reduction in transit times could reduce fuel costs and provide fishermen with more flexibility to fish in areas and at times when ocean conditions are more favorable. Note that with these changes to the proposed Charleston Bump Spatial Management Area and East Florida Coast Spatial Management Area (described below), NMFS will no longer create a single high-bycatch-risk area along the coast, which was called the South Atlantic Pelagic Longline Restricted Area in the Draft Amendment and proposed rule. However, the northern boundary of the East Florida Coast high-bycatch-risk area and the southern boundary of the Charleston Bump high-bycatch-risk area continue to connect with the same eastern and western boundary points.

Comment 16:

One commenter suggested that the Charleston Bump closed area should be opened to all pelagic longline vessels and should only reclose if there is too much bycatch or other conditions prompt a closure.

Response:

NMFS disagrees that it is appropriate to reopen the entire area without further data collection. Amendment 15 provides a conservation-oriented, risk-appropriate approach for data collection for all four of the areas it considered, including the Charleston Bump Spatial Management Area. The preferred measures will guide data collection efforts while also providing the ability to make modifications if there are indications that conservation needs are being jeopardized or indications that restrictions could be further reduced.

Comment 17:

NMFS received a comment from the SCDNR suggesting additional analyses for the Charleston Bump comparing the catch per unit effort (CPUE) for target and bycatch among the different areas (high-bycatch-risk area, low-bycatch-risk area, and areas outside the closed area).

Response:

The CPUEs of target species and bycatch for each spatial management area, not just the Charleston Bump, are listed in Chapter 5 of the Amendment. Comparisons across the reference areas are also provided in Chapter 5 of the Amendment. As NMFS collects additional data in portions of the closed areas, there will be more data on which to base CPUE estimates.

Comment 18:

One commenter noted that the Draft Amendment stated that the scope of the Charleston Bump closed area would increase by 122 percent, but they were concerned that any increase in protection would not apply to blue marlin. After issuance of the FEIS, NMFS received a comment expressing concern about the final, preferred alternative reducing the scope of the high-bycatch-risk area by 68 percent relative to the current Charleston Bump closed area.

Response:

As explained in Section 5.1.2.7 of Amendment 15, NMFS uses metrics and scope to compare the relative impacts of the spatial management area sub-alternatives.

See

Terminology before Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 (explaining development of sub-alternatives using PRiSM). The metric scores and scopes do not address or speak to the broader regime of conservation and management measures—beyond spatial management areas—under the Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments and implementing regulations. See response to Comment 8 (summarizing billfish measures beyond closed areas). In the Draft Amendment, scope values were only included for high-bycatch-risk areas. As discussed in Chapter 2, low-bycatch-risk areas have low probabilities of fisheries interactions with bycatch species modeled through PRiSM. For information purposes, though, NMFS decided to numerically illustrate scope values for low-bycatch-risk areas in Amendment 15. In Section 3.4.2 of the Draft Amendment, NMFS described that no areas (high-bycatch-risk or low-bycatch-risk areas) within the current Charleston Bump closed area would be fully opened to normal commercial fishing. Various restrictions and monitoring requirements would apply for low-bycatch-risk areas.

Regarding blue marlin, preferred Sub-Alternative A2f has the same metric score of 0 for billfish as the no action Sub-Alternative A2a and is expected to have neutral indirect ecological impacts on billfish and other modeled bycatch species. While Sub-Alternative A2c in the Draft Amendment 15 had a higher metric score of 5 for billfish, we note that billfish metric scores for all the sub-alternatives was low (ranging from 0 to 5) compared to the highest possible score of 48.

See

Section 5.1.2.7 (providing table of metric scores and scopes for the sub-alternatives). As stated in the response to Comment 8, the goal of Amendment 15 is to collect data on the effectiveness of existing closed areas and improve the data available for making HMS spatial management decisions, while continuing to minimize bycatch for multiple species. The final preferred alternatives for each of the spatial monitoring areas, including Charleston Bump, will allow for such data collection in a manner that is unlikely to increase blue marlin (or other species) bycatch. Data collection by pelagic longline vessels choosing to fish within in the preferred monitoring areas will likely improve our understanding of the contribution of closed areas to reducing blue marlin fishing mortality and provide NMFS with the ability to assess any impacts, positive or negative, that closed areas may have on blue marlin rebuilding. If the data indicates that additional conservation and management measures may be necessary for blue marlin, NMFS will evaluate all sources of mortality in commercial and recreational fisheries and address them in a future action.

East Florida Coast Spatial Management Area

Comment 19:

NMFS received comments concerned that the proposed East Florida Coast Monitoring Area did not include the western edge of the Gulf Stream along the 100-fathom shelf break where fishing often results in high target catch CPUEs and low bycatch rates. Similar to the comments received regarding the 100-fathom shelf break and the Charleston Bump, these commenters noted the importance of that shelf break to the fishing industry. These commenters suggested preferring a different modification sub-alternative or combination of sub-alternatives to allow for some data collection along the 100-fathom shelf break, particularly in the winter months when target fish are larger, bycatch is lower, and the area is closer to shore during bad weather. Some commenters stated that the southern boundary of the monitoring area could be moved north to around Ponce Inlet to reduce gear conflict with other fisheries.

Response:

Based on public comments and additional analyses, NMFS reconsidered the boundaries of the East Florida Coast Monitoring Area and designed a new sub-alternative (Sub-Alternative A3f) that is a combination of several of the other sub-alternatives considered. Since effort is unlikely to increase and because any fishing in the newly designated monitoring area will be closely regulated by enhanced monitoring and reporting requirements to support data collection, adoption of Sub-Alternative A3f is likely to have short- and long-term moderate beneficial indirect impacts to modeled species as evidenced by the higher overall metric score. This sub-alternative will move the eastern boundary of the high-bycatch-risk area, relative to the current East Florida Coast closed area, westward, to a diagonal line beginning inside of the 100-fathom shelf break in the north, extending southeast to a point at the eastern edge of the current closure around Sebastian, Florida. The area inshore of the boundary will be designated a high-bycatch-risk area and offshore of that boundary will be designated a low-bycatch-risk/monitoring area. This sub-alternative will not extend the monitoring area south of Sebastian Inlet, FL, where fishing gear conflict is more of a concern as multiple fisheries are operating in the same area and Federal waters, for purposes of fisheries management, are narrower due to the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) boundary between the United States and the Bahamas. Note that with the changes to the preferred Charleston Bump and East Florida Coast Spatial Management Areas, NMFS is also no longer creating a single high-bycatch-risk area along the coast that would include the East Florida Coast high-bycatch-risk area (called the South Atlantic Pelagic Longline Restricted Area in the Draft Amendment and proposed rule). However, the northern boundary of the East Florida Coast high-bycatch-risk area and the southern boundary of the Charleston Bump high-bycatch-risk area continue to connect with the same eastern and western boundary points.

Comment 20:

NMFS received several comments from the FWC in opposition to the East Florida Coast preferred sub-alternative in the Draft Amendment asserting that that alternative would not achieve objectives 1, 2, and 4 of Amendment 15. Specifically, the comments stated that the small increase in revenue from reopening the offshore portion of the East Florida Coast would not have significant impact on the future success of the pelagic longline fishery, but reopening the area to pelagic longline is likely to have large negative impacts on HMS and non-HMS bycatch species. After issuance of the FEIS, NMFS received comments from the FWC and other groups expressing concern about the final, preferred

alternative expanding the monitoring area to 41 percent (up from 26 percent in the proposed rule) of the current East Florida Coast closed area and the potential for high levels of bycatch and impacts to protected resources caught in pelagic longline gear. In their original comments on the Draft Amendment and proposed rule, the FWC also commented that the East Florida Coast Spatial Management Area is located in EFH for many HMS species that are either overfished and/or experiencing overfishing. Their comment further noted that the East Florida Coast Spatial Management Area is within federally-designated critical habitat for loggerhead sea turtles. The comment also stated that allowing use of pelagic longline in this area would likely increase bycatch and bycatch mortality of these species, counter to Amendment 15 Objective 1. The comment asserted that the creation of the South Atlantic Pelagic Longline Restricted Area would not ease confusion or aid in enforcement since the Charleston Bump and East Florida Coast areas are well-known and that combining the areas would actually cause confusion.

Response:

NMFS disagrees that Amendment 15 would not achieve Objectives 1, 2, and 4, which are: (1) using spatial management tools, minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality, to the extent practicable, while also optimizing fishing opportunities for U.S. fishing vessels; (2) develop methods of collecting target and non-target species occurrence and catch rate data from HMS spatial management areas for the purpose of assessing spatial management area performance; and (4) evaluate the effectiveness of existing HMS spatial management areas and, if warranted, modify them to achieve an optimal balance of ecological, social, and economic benefits and costs. No negative impacts on target and non-target species are anticipated from Sub-Alternative A3f since data collection-related fishing activities would be allowed only within low-bycatch-risk/monitoring areas within the East Florida Coast and Charleston Bump Spatial Management Areas with strict effort controls and enhanced reporting and monitoring. Furthermore, pelagic longline effort is unlikely to increase and, if current trends continue, may decrease, thus likely limiting negative impacts to target and non-target species. As described in all three of those objectives, the purpose of Amendment 15 is to collect data necessary to better characterize the impact of closed areas on target and non-target species. With this data, NMFS can assess the performance of closed areas in meeting conservation and management goals, consistent with the objectives of Amendment 15.

The preferred alternative in Final Amendment 15 for the East Florida Coast Spatial Management Area, Sub-Alternative A3f, increases the scope of the low-bycatch-risk area to 41 percent of the existing area.

See

Amendment 15 at Section 3.1.3 (providing table comparing scopes of A3 sub-alternatives). This area has low probabilities of fisheries interactions with bycatch species modeled through PRiSM. Moreover, metric scores across all six of the A3 Sub-Alternatives are similar: leatherback sea turtles ranged from 21-23 (compared to the highest possible score of 48), shortfin mako shark ranged from 12-18, and billfish species ranged from 6-10.

See

Section 5.1.3.7 in Amendment 15 (providing table comparing metric scores). As explained above in the response to Comment 8, Sub-Alternative A3f has a lower metric score (6) for billfish species in comparison to the no action alternative (10) and Sub-Alternative A3b (10), but the metric scores for all of the sub-alternatives are low for billfish, and metric scores and scopes do not speak to the broader regime of conservation and management measures in effect. Response to Comment 8 summarizes existing measures for billfish and also the conditions and restrictions applicable to the low-bycatch-risk/monitoring area. Given the above and other considerations, Sub-Alternative A3f is expected to have neutral ecological impacts on target species and generally moderate beneficial indirect impacts for bycatch species modeled by PRiSM.

See

Sections 5.1.3.6 and 5.4.3 of Amendment 15 for further explanation of impacts of the sub-alternative.

Per the 2020 Biological Opinions, the HMS pelagic longline fishery is not likely to cause an appreciable reduction in the likelihood of either the survival or recovery or to jeopardize the continued existence of the loggerhead sea turtle. Additionally, after inter-office discussions between the Atlantic HMS Division and the Southeast Regional Office's Protected Resources Division, NMFS determined that the preferred measures in Amendment 15 finalized through this final rule will not affect ESA-listed species or their critical habitat in a manner or to an extent beyond those effects considered in the 2020 Biological Opinions. The EFH for relevant HMS with an overfished or experiencing overfishing status extends far beyond the boundaries of the existing closed areas into areas where normal commercial fishing is allowed; there is no inherent link between the presence of EFH and closed areas.

See

Amendment 15 Sections 4.1 (describing HMS managed species and habitat) and 4.1.1 (providing information on HMS EFH and FMP amendments). Amendment 10 to the HMS FMP found that since most HMS reside in the upper part of the water column and habitat preferences are likely influenced by oceanic factors such as current confluences, temperature edges, and surface structure, most HMS gears do not pose any adverse effects on HMS EFH. For overfished stocks or stocks experiencing overfishing, NMFS utilizes a broad range of tools, beyond closed areas, notably rebuilding plans for overfished stocks and annual catch limits and accountability measures to prevent overfishing.

See

Amendment 15 Chapter 9.1.1 (providing references to relevant FMP amendments under NS1 discussion). Amendment 15 does not modify such measures and is not expected to affect efforts to prevent overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks. Chapter 5 provides detailed ecological impact analyses for all of the alternatives and sub-alternatives considered in Amendment 15. Regarding the proposed South Atlantic Pelagic Longline Restricted Area, with the preferred changes to the Charleston Bump and East Florida Coast Spatial Management Areas, NMFS is also no longer creating a South Atlantic Pelagic Longline Restricted Area. However, the northern boundary of the East Florida Coast high-bycatch-risk area and the southern boundary of the Charleston Bump high-bycatch-risk area continue to connect with the same eastern and western boundary points.

NMFS notes that vessels choosing to fish in the designated monitoring areas under Amendment 15 may gain revenue depending on the catch rates in the specific portions of the monitoring area they fish in. However, revenue increases as a result of that fishing are not a primary objective. Rather, an important objective is the data collection that results from that fishing in order to assess the performance of overall spatial management areas; as discussed in Section 3.2.3 of Amendment 15, controlled fishing activity in the monitoring area is an effective way to get the data needed to assess the spatial management areas. In the case of the East Florida Coast Spatial Management Area, the preferred modification sub-alternative, Sub-Alternative A3f, is not expected to provide much additional revenue for vessels that choose to fish in the relevant monitoring area. Due to

the calculated decrease in tuna catch, Sub-Alternative A3f is estimated to result in −$10,453 total revenue fishery-wide compared to the no action sub-alternative. However, fishermen are unlikely to fish in portions of the areas with lower catch rates, so reductions in revenue may not be realized. Revenue estimates used a single calculated CPUE across the entire monitoring area because catch rates are not available in areas that are currently closed to fishing. In reality, CPUEs likely differ across the area with, for example, higher CPUEs near important bathymetric features. Thus, vessels fishing in the monitoring area and thereby supporting data collection due to the relevant requirements would likely fish in portions of the monitoring area with a profitable CPUE and avoid those portions with a lower CPUE.

DeSoto Canyon Spatial Management Area

Comment 21:

NMFS received comments about the proposed DeSoto Canyon Spatial Management Area modification sub-alternative (Sub-Alternative A4d). Some commenters stated that access for pelagic longlines in the southern half of the southern box of the current closure would allow fishermen to target larger swordfish in the loop current. Other commenters stated that new closures in the areas between the two boxes would significantly limit productive fishing grounds and that access to portions of the southern box was not worth the trade-off. Some commenters requested shifting the proposed southern boundary of the DeSoto Canyon high-bycatch-risk area further north to allow for additional pelagic longline access.

Both the Gulf Fishery Management Council (GFMC) and the FWC requested more information about how the proposed sub-alternative would affect species, including king mackerel and cobia, that are managed under other FMPs.

The FWC commented that they do not support the DeSoto Canyon proposed sub-alternative because it would allow increased pelagic longline effort in areas that are currently closed. The FWC asserted, similar to their comment regarding the East Florida Coast sub-alternative (see Comment 20 above), that the areas that would be opened include EFH for some HMS, many of which are overfished, experiencing overfishing, and/or prohibited.

The FWC cautioned that the proposed DeSoto Canyon Spatial Management Area modification would negatively affect many HMS and non-HMS tournaments which are important economic drivers in coastal communities.

The Environmental Protection Agency, noting the possible adverse economic impact of the DeSoto Canyon spatial management area modification in the Draft Amendment 15, commented that additional analyses should be done to determine how the reduction in revenue, if realized, would affect fishermen and to identify potential mitigation strategies for the loss of income.

Response:

In Amendment 15, NMFS is preferring no action (Sub-Alternative A4a) for the DeSoto Canyon Spatial Management Area, instead of the Sub-Alternative A4d, which was preferred in the Draft Amendment. NMFS made this change in response to public comments and other considerations, including the proposed rule for designation of Rice's whale critical habitat. NMFS issued a proposed rule regarding the critical habitat designation for Rice's whale (88 FR 47453, July 24, 2023), and the proposed critical habitat extends across the DeSoto Canyon Spatial Management Area. NMFS may revisit potential changes to the DeSoto Canyon area after finalization of the designation of critical habitat. Because NMFS now prefers the no action modification sub-alternative for the DeSoto Canyon Spatial Management Area, there will be no impacts to current pelagic longline fishing opportunities, other HMS fisheries including offshore recreational tournaments, or species managed under other FMPs' regulations. Nevertheless, see response to Comment 20 addressing EFH and describing measures other than closed areas for species that are overfished and experiencing overfishing.

Comment 22:

The GFMC also asked if the proposed sub-alternative would overlap with the closures of Madison-Swanson, Steamboat Lumps, and the Edges.

Response:

Preferred Sub-Alternative A4a will not affect or overlap Madison-Swanson, Steamboat Lumps, or the Edges 40 Fathom Contour closed areas in the Gulf of America. All three of these areas prohibit all HMS fishing, except surface trolling in Madison-Swanson and Steamboat Lumps from May through October, and lie wholly outside of the area under Sub-Alternative A4a. Madison-Swanson and Steamboat Lumps were originally established to protect Gulf reef fish in 2000 with a four year expiration date, though they were permanently implemented on May 2, 2004 (69 FR 24532). Edges 50 Fathom Contour closed area was implemented on June 24, 2009 (74 FR 30001). After considering a request from the GFMC, NMFS implemented compatible regulations for HMS fisheries in the three areas (74 FR 66585, December 16, 2009). Since then, all fishing managed under Gulf FMPs has been prohibited in these three areas, including surface trolling, and the GFMC has requested NMFS to consider compatible regulations for HMS fisheries to prohibit surface trolling. The Agency may consider the request after Amendment 15 (which includes, under the “E” alternatives as described below, criteria to consider when reviewing spatial management areas) is finalized.

Comment 23:

The FWC disagreed with the assertion in the Draft Amendment that the proposed DeSoto Canyon Spatial Management Area modification would achieve Amendment 15 objectives 1, 2, and 4.

Response:

Although NMFS is finalizing the no action modification sub-alternative for the DeSoto Canyon Spatial Management Area, progress will still be made in meeting objectives 1, 2, and 4 (see response to Comment 20 for the objectives). In the DeSoto Canyon area, the entire footprint of the spatial management area will be designated a high-bycatch-risk area, and NMFS is finalizing data collection Alternative B4 regarding cooperative research via an EFP. EFPs are a mechanism used by NMFS to allow highly controlled and monitored fishing activities that would otherwise be prohibited. EFPs are therefore useful for conducting research and collecting data in a very precautionary manner. Conducting research and data collection in spatial management areas under an EFP may be especially useful in areas of higher ecological concern, including those areas designated by PRiSM as high-bycatch-risk areas. Such data could assist NMFS in ensuring the DeSoto Canyon Spatial Management Area is meeting conservation and management goals, consistent with the objectives of Amendment 15.

Data Collection Alternatives (“B” Alternatives)

Comment 24:

Several commenters, including the SCDNR and the NCDMF, stated that the calculated effort caps in the proposed monitoring areas are too low to collect adequate data to inform an assessment of the area. Some commenters stated that most of the sets would be made in a short period of time providing limited information over the duration of the monitoring area timing. Furthermore, once the effort cap is close to being reached, fishermen would be unlikely to embark on additional data collection trips to avoid broken trips

(

i.e.,

the effort cap is reached on the way to the fishing grounds or while fishing), reducing the effective size of the effort cap. The SCDNR stated that the effort cap calculation is slightly flawed and offered two suggestions for a more appropriate effort cap calculation: (1) an average of monthly sets in the monitoring area during open times could be applied to the monitoring area or (2) the reference area in the current calculation could exclude areas that are not fished, including the closed areas within the reference area. The FWC commented that effort caps should not be calculated based on the ratio of monitoring area to reference area and instead should be based on an analysis determining minimum sample size to meet program goals. After issuance of the FEIS, NMFS received a comment requesting an explanation about the final, preferred alternative to expand the effort cap for the Charleston Bump and East Florida Coast monitoring areas.

Response:

Based in part on public comments and through inter-office coordination within NMFS, including with the SEFSC, NMFS refined the effort cap calculations. For the Charleston Bump, we used fishing effort data from January and May, the months surrounding the time when the spatial management area has been closed (February through April). For the East Florida Coast, similar data are not available given that the area has been closed year-round for over 20 years. As such, we modified the proposed calculations so that the reference area included only areas open for fishing. See Sections 3.2.3.1 and 5.2.3.1 of the Final Amendment for details and explanations on effort cap calculations. NMFS considered sample size analyses similar to that suggested by the SCDNR but determined that they were not feasible. In consultation with the SEFSC, it was determined that without fishery-dependent data from the areas, it is not possible to calculate minimum sample size of effort caps

a priori

at a sufficient level to characterize the fishery. Once some data is collected, NMFS can consider whether adjustments to effort caps are warranted. Under the preferred alternative, NMFS will use effort caps (Sub-Alternative B3a) in combination with real-time reporting (Alternative B3 and Sub-Alternatives B3a and B3e) to allow for real-time monitoring of bycatch. As a special access area, monitoring areas could be closed early and/or not reopened if conditions warrant, and real-time bycatch monitoring will provide critical data to inform such decisions. The revised calculations, described above, resulted in higher effort caps than what was proposed. For the Charleston Bump monitoring area, the effort caps increased from a proposed 69 sets (February 1 through April 30/each year) to 380 sets (same time period). For the East Florida Coast monitoring area, the effort caps increased from a proposed 124 sets per year to 250 sets per year. Additionally, we have modified the preferred alternative to provide that, through separate rulemaking, NMFS may consider apportioning effort caps across different time frames (

e.g.,

quarterly or monthly) to ensure enough data to assess the areas throughout the time frame of the relevant spatial area is collected.

See

Section 5.2.3.1 in Amendment 15 for further explanation. The ecological impacts of the changes in effort caps levels in monitoring areas are likely to be neutral because of the conditions and restrictions associated with the monitoring areas and the fact that the spatial and temporal aspects of the monitoring areas are specified locations and times for which the risk of interactions with the PRiSM-modeled bycatch species are relatively low. See Section 5.2.3 and 5.2.6 in Amendment 15 for more information on the ecological impacts of effort caps in monitoring areas.

Comment 25:

NMFS received a comment that effort caps (Sub-Alternative B3a) should not be implemented in the monitoring areas and that more direct bycatch controls such as bycatch caps (in other words, a bycatch threshold level for closing the monitoring area) (Sub-Alternative B3b) or per-trip set limits (Sub-Alternative B3c) should be used instead. Bycatch caps in particular would more closely match those of the Northeastern United States Pelagic Longline Monitoring Area and the Spring Gulf of America Pelagic Longline Monitoring Area. After issuance of the FEIS, NMFS received a comment expressing concerns that the FEIS did not include bycatch caps or threshold levels that would trigger closure of the monitoring areas.

Response:

NMFS disagrees. While bycatch caps worked for the Northeastern United States Pelagic Longline Monitoring Area and the Spring Gulf of America Pelagic Longline Monitoring Area, bycatch caps would not work for preferred monitoring areas that would be established under Amendment 15 for a number of practical reasons. First, interactions between the pelagic longline fishery and bycatch species are relatively rare events in comparison to interactions with target species, and the rate of interactions varies. The uncertainty regarding the likelihood of interactions with various species makes it difficult to select which species should have bycatch caps and to determine the appropriate level of each bycatch cap. As more species are included, as is the case in these monitoring areas, the complexity and difficulty of monitoring and administering bycatch caps increases. Second, the calculated bycatch caps for some species are so small as to not be practical. For example, the calculated bycatch cap for some species, such as longbill spearfish, would be one fish in some areas. It is likely that species would not be encountered for multiple years, but in the instance where it was, the area would close contrary to the goals of Amendment 15. In other words, such a small bycatch cap would be difficult to enforce even with the enhanced rate of EM monitoring in the monitoring areas under this action and would not provide flexibility for rare events. In a situation where there are bycatch caps for several species, and the catch of any of the caps would result in terminating access to the area, the smallest cap would function as the default cap. Third, although VMS reporting of catch is relatively quick, other reporting methods that may need to be used to corroborate VMS reports have a longer time frame. Data from logbooks, observer reports, or electronic monitoring systems are not available until well after the trip has been completed. Given that there may be incentives to underreport bycatch, corroboration of VMS data may be required to provide a full accounting of bycatch events. If there is a time delay between the catch events and full accounting for bycatch, the effectiveness of a specific numerical bycatch cap at actually limiting catch would be reduced. If attainment of a bycatch cap were to result in closing access to the monitoring area, highly mobile species may no longer be in the area by the time the monitoring area is closed. While the above issues were also considered when developing the Northeastern United States Pelagic Longline Monitoring Area and the Spring Gulf of America Pelagic Longline Monitoring Area, in those areas, NMFS was primarily concerned with one species, bluefin tuna. Because of the single-species application of the stringent reporting requirements for fishermen and dealers regarding bluefin tuna compared to other pelagic longline catch, bycatch caps (called incidental catch limits in the case of bluefin tuna) were a reasonable option at that time. With the breadth of species that need to be monitored in the areas under

consideration in Amendment 15 and the small bycatch caps for some species, bycatch caps are not practicable at this time.

Trip-level effort controls in monitoring areas (

i.e.,

limiting the number of hooks and sets an individual vessel operator may take in a monitoring area), as with bycatch caps, would also be impracticable at this time. While the trip-level effort controls would likely be set at a level near the average number of hooks per set and sets per trip, NMFS found that these limits could still result in data collection that does not match normal fishing practices. This mismatch could reduce the utility of comparing spatial management catch rates and composition with those that occur outside the area. Trip-level effort controls also do not limit total effort; rather, they slow the rate of effort, and they may limit target catch, contrary to the intention of Amendment 15. Regarding the FEIS comment, NMFS emphasizes that the use of effort caps in combination with VMS reporting still provides NMFS the ability to monitor bycatch in near real-time. As stated in Amendment 15, as a special access area, monitoring areas could be closed early, even before relevant effort caps are reached and even without a numerical bycatch cap, if warranted by conservation and management needs such as unexpectedly high bycatch. The various reporting requirements associated with the monitoring areas will provide critical data to inform such early closure decisions, as well as potential decisions to not reopen the monitoring areas, or modify their effective time periods, in following years. Further, as described in Amendment 15, the preferred E alternative, in conjunction with the preferred C alternatives, provides for NMFS to further modify of the spatial management areas as needed based on ongoing review of bycatch levels through the data that comes out from the monitoring areas.

Comment 26:

NMFS received comments supporting the use of cooperative EFP research in high- and low-bycatch-risk areas to collect data for analysis.

Response:

NMFS agrees that EFPs provide opportunities for high quality data collection while ensuring conservation goals are met. NMFS is finalizing Alternative B4, which would allow for EFP research in high- and low-bycatch-risk areas of Charleston Bump and East Florida Coast Spatial Management Areas and the entirety of the high-bycatch-risk DeSoto Canyon Spatial Management Area. Alternative B4 sets forth elements for such EFPs, including effort caps, bycatch caps, a study plan, and observer or EM coverage. To be considered covered under and consistent with the Amendment 15 impacts analyses for Alternative B4, an EFP application should incorporate these elements. This final rule also continues the shark research fishery and issuance of shark research permits (Alternative B1) and allows EFPs and SRPs for the Mid-Atlantic Shark Spatial Management Area.

Comment 27:

NMFS received comments that NMFS would not be able to issue cooperative research EFPs (Alternative B4) in high-bycatch-risk areas since they have been unable to issue EFPs for closed area research in the past.

Response:

NMFS disagrees. As described in Chapters 1 and 4 of the Amendment, from 2008 through 2010, NMFS approved a research project that collected data in the East Florida Coast closed area from three vessels over three years (73 FR 450, January 3, 2008). In 2017 NMFS approved another research project for that area (82 FR 37566, August 11, 2017), but that research did not occur. Additionally, NMFS regularly issues shark research fishery permits, which are a type of cooperative research EFP, for research in the Mid-Atlantic Shark closed area. As stated in the Amendment and in preferring Alternative B4, NMFS is willing to consider applications for and issuance of EFPs and SRPs that meet the appropriate requirements for research in closed areas.

Comment 28:

NMFS received comments stating that closed area EFP research should employ proper experimental design and be subject to robust scientific review to ensure projects provide useful results.

Response:

NMFS agrees. Under preferred Alternative B4, NMFS will accept EFP applications to perform gear-specific research in a spatial management area to gather data that would be useful in assessing spatial management areas. The current application and reporting forms would not change and applicants would use the same procedure for application submission. However, consistent with Amendment 15, applicants would be informed that, in order to be considered covered under and consistent with the FEIS impacts analyses, an EFP application should incorporate elements set forth in Alternative B4 (

i.e.,

effort caps, bycatch caps,

etc.

). These elements ensure research activities do not jeopardize conservation goals or result in excessive gear conflicts with other user groups. As with the current EFP program, submission of an application would not guarantee approval. Instead, each application would be considered independently and in the context of Agency objectives and other research applications.

Comment 29:

NMFS received comments, including from the FWC, asserting that the proposed cooperative EFP data collection alternative circumvents the established public review and comment process for EFPs, reducing transparency. The FWC commented in opposition of reopening any formerly closed areas for pelagic longline harvest for the purpose of data collection, stating that the fishery-dependent data that would be collected under the EFP program would not provide sufficient data to assess the performance of spatial management areas given the effort caps. The FWC also commented that previous EFP research in closed areas has been insufficient to inform spatial management area performance. The FWC also stated that there has not been an adequate NEPA review of impacts to streamlining the EFP process as provided in the proposed rule. After issuance of the FEIS, NMFS received a comment reiterating concerns that preferred Alternative B4 reduces public transparency and scrutiny of EFP proposals in spatial management areas.

Response:

NMFS disagrees that the proposed cooperative EFP data collection alternative circumvents the established public review and comment process for EFPs. The preferred cooperative EFP data collection alternative (Alternative B4) will follow the established public review and comment process that applies to all HMS EFPs under regulations at 50 CFR 600.745 and 635.32. NMFS publishes a notice of intent to issue EFPs and similar permits for research annually with opportunity for public comment. This annual notice is general and provides information on the types of EFP applications NMFS expects to receive (

e.g.,

tagging of HMS, capture of HMS for public display, collection of biological samples). The HMS FMP and its amendments anticipate and include analyses for routine EFPs. For example, some EFPs request exemptions from specific regulations but result in catch within established quotas. Ecological, economic and social impacts of the quotas were addressed in the HMS FMP and its amendments and the associated NEPA analyses. If NMFS receives EFP applications that are consistent with the analyses in Amendment 15 but are known to be controversial or sensitive in nature, due in part to public comment on the annual notice, NMFS

may provide an opportunity for additional public comment on that specific EFP application. However, if the EFP requires consideration and analyses beyond what has already been reviewed by the public in the HMS FMP and its amendments (including Amendment 15), NMFS will conduct those analyses and provide an opportunity for public comment. These are the same steps NMFS takes for every EFP application and are the steps that would be used for the EFPs discussed above in the response to Comment 27. The preferred Alternative B4 will facilitate the consideration of research and data collection EFPs in spatial management areas by standardizing components that applicants must address in their applications. However, the EFP regulations at 50 CFR 600.745 and 635.32, including the requirements related to public review and comment, still apply. Note that, while Amendment 15 refers to EFPs under the preferred Alternative B4, as discussed in Comment 3, such activities also include those permitted through EFPs and SRPs, which are issued for similar activities. NMFS generally issues an EFP when the research activity is conducted on a recreational and/or commercial fishing vessel and issues an SRP when the research is conducted on a scientific research vessel. See 50 CFR 635.32(b)(SRPs) and 600.10 (defining scientific research activity, scientific research vessel, and related terms).

Comment 30:

Several comments were submitted about using monitoring areas to collect data within existing closed areas. NMFS received comments stating that modifications to spatial management areas should be accompanied by enhanced monitoring and data collection. Commenters stated that monitoring areas should be implemented in any newly-opened areas with 100-percent EM coverage, effort caps, bycatch caps, and trip-level effort controls to reduce the potential for negative conservation impacts. One commenter stated that Sub-Alternatives B3d (100-percent observer coverage in monitoring area) and B3e (100-percent EM in monitoring areas) would be important to collect timely, high-quality data. After issuance of the FEIS, NMFS received a comment requesting justification on the final, preferred alternative to implement a 50-percent video review rate in monitoring areas.

Response:

NMFS agrees that monitoring areas provide an opportunity for data collection within currently closed areas while ensuring management and conservation goals are not jeopardized. NMFS also agrees that enhanced monitoring ensures conservation and management goals are not compromised and provides opportunities for enhanced data collection. NMFS is using the term “monitoring area” to describe spatial management areas that allow commercial fishing and have associated restrictions that result in a relatively high level of information and precautionary management. Under the preferred alternatives, monitoring areas would be designated within low-bycatch-risk areas (

i.e.,

areas with low fisheries interactions with bycatch species modeled using PRiSM) of the Charleston Bump and East Florida Coast Spatial Management Areas (Sub-Alternatives A2f and A3f). Commercial pelagic longline vessels who choose to fish inside the monitoring areas will be permitted to do so, subject to certain conditions and other applicable regulations. The purpose of a monitoring area is to collect data from within the spatial management area and provide fishing opportunities consistent with the objectives of the spatial management area. More specifically, access to the area is intended to provide data on the costs and benefits of the spatial management area and the status of achievement of relevant objectives. To the extent practicable, the monitoring area would allow commercial fishing gear and practices similar to that employed outside the area, in order to be comparable to fishing using routine practices. Because fishing has not occurred in the monitoring area during the closure months, there is uncertainty regarding the type and level of bycatch that may occur if normal commercial fishing were to occur there. Therefore, fishing in the monitoring area will be subject to conditions and restrictions to ensure that bycatch and bycatch mortality is minimized to the extent practicable and incidental catch is monitored and managed. Various tools to ensure that the monitoring area meets its objective will be implemented, including enhanced EM video review and effort caps.

In the Draft Amendment, the preferred alternative provided for video data from 100 percent of sets to be reviewed, as this would provide the most detailed level of information and the cost of video review ($1,680 per vessel for a typical ten day trip/six sets) was not expected to deter interest in fishing. However, as described in Comment 31 below, NMFS received a number of comments that indicated that because of costs, fishermen would not fish in the monitoring areas if they had to pay for 100 percent of the EM video review. After considering public comment and consistent with the goal of data collection, NMFS is lowering the EM video review rate in the monitoring areas to 50 percent to ensure that conservation and management objectives in Amendment 15 are met. Under the revised Sub-Alternative B3e, NMFS anticipates that some vessels will choose to fish in the monitoring areas, and the 50-percent video review rate will provide detailed information on bycatch and incentivize accurate bycatch reporting by fishermen. Before deploying sets in a monitoring area, vessel owners and/or operators will be required to indicate their intention to do so during the pre-trip or in-trip VMS hail-out. The agency has the authority to further restrict or end access to the monitoring areas for those vessels if warranted by conservation and management concerns raised by unexpectedly high bycatch, high data collection efforts, fishing effort that is overly clustered temporally or spatially, or other relevant considerations. Based on these concerns, access to the monitoring areas could be prohibited during its effective time period in a given calendar year, and the Agency could choose to keep the area closed during its effective time period in the following calendar year as well if the concerns still exist. Final Sub-Alternative B3e (the establishment of monitoring areas with EM and 50-percent video review) is expected to have neutral short-term and minor beneficial long-term ecological impacts for bycatch and incidentally caught species. This is because of the conditions and restrictions also associated with the monitoring areas (effort caps under preferred Sub-Alternative B3a and cooperative research via exempted fishing permit under preferred Alternative B4) and the fact that monitoring areas are specified locations and times for which the risk of interactions with the PRiSM-modeled bycatch species are relatively low. See Ecological Impacts in Section 5.2.3 of Amendment 15 for other ecological impacts; Section 5.1 of Amendment 15 for detailed analyses of ecological, economic and social impacts of spatial management areas; and Section 2.5 of Amendment 15 for explanation of identification of high-bycatch-risk areas.

Comment 31:

The SCDNR commented that the requirement to pay for expanded EM review in the Charleston Bump Monitoring Area may dissuade fishermen from collecting data in the area. They suggested looking for ways to decrease the cost through a lower review rate or a combination of

observers and EM on a subset of trips. NMFS received a comment that the 100-percent EM video data review requirement in monitoring areas (Sub-Alternative B3e) would be too expensive and would result in low data collection because less fishing would occur. Another commenter noted that, because the costs are unsustainable for smaller operations, Sub-Alternatives B3d (100-percent observer coverage paid by the vessel) and B3e are inconsistent with Executive Order (E.O.) 13985: Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government.

Response:

NMFS acknowledges that the requirement for fishermen to pay for expanded EM review if choosing to fish within monitoring areas may dissuade individuals from entering into the East Florida Coast or Charleston Bump monitoring areas. Monitoring areas provide opportunities for voluntary access for vessels to fish in previously closed areas. NMFS believes that owners of vessels choosing to fish in these monitoring areas should pay for the additional review that is required for the benefit of special access. As described above in Comment 33, NMFS has lowered the EM video review rate in the monitoring areas to 50 percent to ensure that conservation and management objectives are met. Monitoring areas are special access areas, wholly located within currently closed areas. Any fishing that would occur there is different from the fishing practices of the past 20 years while the spatial management areas were completely closed to fishing. Those vessels that wish to fish in monitoring areas would need to comply with the applicable requirements. Thus, any vessel owner who does not wish or is not able to incur the costs of enhanced EM video review could avoid such costs by maintaining current fishing practices and locations. On January 20, 2025, E.O. 13985 was rescinded and succeeded by E.O. 14151, which renounced the reasoning of E.O. 13985 and established the current directive against all “equity” actions, initiatives, and programs.

Comment 32:

NMFS received a comment suggesting monitoring of shortfin mako shark and leatherback sea turtle bycatch year-round in the Charleston Bump Monitoring Area.

Response:

Monitoring shortfin mako shark and leatherback sea turtle bycatch is important. However, NMFS does not agree that those species warrant extending portions of the Charleston Bump Spatial Management Area to year-round monitoring. Fishermen are already required to report catches of these species year-round in logbooks, regardless of where they are caught. They are also required to carry observers (if selected) who collect information on those species. Additionally, vessels must have working EM installed and powered on at all times when fishing to monitor shortfin mako shark disposition in addition to bluefin tuna interactions. As such, there are currently a number of ways for NMFS to collect data on those species in all areas, not just in the Charleston Bump. Additional monitoring is not needed at this time.

Comment 33:

NMFS received comments that data collection activities should include backstops to reverse course in the event of unexpected conservation impacts. After issuance of the FEIS, NMFS received a comment stating that the FEIS was unclear in how frequently bycatch in the monitoring areas would be reviewed.

Response:

NMFS agrees that there should be backstops in case of unexpected conservation impacts. As discussed in Comments 3 and 25, the preferred alternatives for all the monitoring areas include ways for NMFS to monitor the data in near real-time via VMS reports and to close the relevant monitoring area in the event of unexpected conservation impacts such as high levels of bycatch (Alternative B3). Additionally, NMFS will review all the data (

e.g.,

logbooks, EM video reports, observer reports) more fully at least every three years (Alternative C2) or sooner if specific concerns such as unexpectedly high bycatch arise (Alternative C4) and could initiate rulemaking to modify the areas if appropriate.

Comment 34:

NMFS received a comment that low-bycatch-risk areas should be opened to normal commercial pelagic longline fishing.

Response:

NMFS disagrees that the areas should be opened without further data collection and backstops. The Charleston Bump, East Florida Coast, and DeSoto Canyon Spatial Management Areas were closed to reduce bycatch in the pelagic longline fishery over 20 years ago. Since that time, as described in the Amendment, there have been many changes in the environment, the species involved, fishing methods, and regulations. While NMFS developed a predictive spatial modeling tool (PRiSM) to assist in identifying low-bycatch-risk areas, NMFS requires data to confirm the results of the model. As data are collected, the model will be improved. Those improvements to the model will provide information that NMFS will use to inform pelagic longline access in the future. Over time, if the data collected confirm that fishing in the areas would not hinder conservation needs, NMFS could consider reopening the areas. Alternatively, the data could show that the areas continue to remain important in reaching the conservation and management goals of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and NMFS could modify the areas or keep the areas closed.

Evaluation Timing Alternatives (“C” Alternatives)

Comment 35:

Some commenters, including the SCDNR and the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, indicated support for NMFS's preferred approach of Alternative C2 to evaluate spatial management areas once three years of data are available.

Response:

NMFS agrees. NMFS believes scheduling regular evaluations of spatial management areas would allow for more adaptive management and ensure that the objectives of the monitoring area are met on a continuing basis. Specifying a time for a future evaluation addresses the future status of a spatial management area and reduces uncertainty. An interval of three years between evaluations, which is relatively short, would address potential concerns that spatial management areas would be in place for long periods of time before the costs and benefits are evaluated. The three-year evaluation time interval would be used in combination with triggered evaluation to more frequently assess spatial management areas if conservation concerns arise.

Comment 36:

NMFS received a comment that future analyses of spatial management areas should include target-to-bycatch ratio goals in each area to allow for comparison across areas on bycatch impacts.

Response:

NMFS acknowledges the recommendation to include target-to-bycatch ratios and will consider this suggestion when evaluating spatial management areas in the future.

The Spatial Model, PRiSM

Comment 37:

NMFS received comments that the time series of catch data inputs used in the predictive spatial modeling tool, PRiSM, ends in 2019 and does not incorporate more recent changes in fishing techniques since that time. Specifically, some pelagic longline fishermen have, since 2019, begun deploying deep-set pelagic longline gear in deeper water below the thermocline. Some fishermen report better target catch and reduced bycatch when deploying deep sets, and such changes in catch are not incorporated into the model. Other commenters noted that COVID-related impacts, particularly landings and fishing effort in 2020,

could impact model predictions and impacts assessments.

Response:

As explained in Section 2.1 of Amendment 15, PRiSM is a modeling tool that uses fishery observer data and environmental data to make predictions about fishery interactions with modeled bycatch species. NMFS agrees that because this fishing practice is relatively new, few deep-set pelagic longline observer reports were included in the model, and changes in catch composition due to the new fishing technique may not be included. This would be the case even if NMFS used fishery observer data from after 2019 since use of the technique was adopted by only a few fishermen at first, and the use expanded in subsequent years. For pelagic longline, NMFS used observer data that was available when the agency conducted its PRiSM modeling work. NMFS believes that this data from a 20+ year period (1997 through 2019) is appropriate for purposes of predictive modeling in PRiSM and consistent with MSA requirements under NS2. The recent use of deep setting the longline is one of many changes in techniques that has occurred in the fishery since the areas were first closed. These types of changes constitute one of the reasons why Amendment 15 prefers alternatives that would allow for both evaluation of the efficacy of the areas on a regular basis and modification of the areas depending on the results. If vessels that choose to fish in the newly established monitoring areas under Amendment 15 use the deep-set technique, and if the deep-set technique shows lower bycatch, then future analyses of the data from the monitoring areas would likely show lower bycatch rates, and any future management changes would take them into consideration.

COVID-related changes to landings and fishing effort are evident in the data, particularly in 2020. However, those changes are unlikely to affect the analyses in Amendment 15. While PRiSM analyses and predictions used data from 1997 through 2019, impacts analyses for the spatial management area sub-alternatives used more recent information (including 2020 information) (Chapter 5) on effort, CPUE and catch estimates, in order to inform the agency's understanding of potential economic and social impacts. Even before COVID-related interruptions to the fishery, there was a trend of declining effort. See Section 4.5.3 for more information about pelagic longline effort.

Comment 38:

NMFS received comments that PRiSM is complicated, may not be fully understood by the public, and should not be used as the sole scientific basis for management changes. The commenter further stated that predictive spatial models are not usually applied in HMS management, but one was used in Amendment 15 without explanation. After issuance of the FEIS, NMFS received an additional comment further noting that PRiSM should not be used as the sole scientific basis for management changes.

Response:

NMFS agrees that spatial modeling is complicated, as are many other statistical analyses and models used for fisheries management (

e.g.,

stock assessments). Although the models in PRiSM are complex, the science behind spatial modeling is not new, nor is its application in fisheries management. For example, NOAA has used similar spatial models including EcoCast in NOAA's West Coast Regional Office and Distribution Mapping and Analysis Portal in NMFS's Office of Science and Technology to identify the distribution of a variety of species, including bycatch species that fishermen should avoid. Additionally, NMFS has used other types of spatial models over the course of decades in order to define EFH or when first establishing the closed areas discussed under Amendment 15. Recognizing that this particular use may be unfamiliar to many, NMFS created a series of additional outreach materials, beyond those typically prepared for management actions, to better inform the public. These materials include a PRiSM manuscript explainer, a detailed spatial management StoryMap, and an additional chapter in the Amendment (Chapter 2). StoryMaps are an interactive, multimedia presentation that uses maps to provide a narrative, often helping to communicate complex spatial information. See Chapter 2, paragraph 2 for information about communication and outreach about PRiSM for a wide range of audiences, including links to the website explaining PRiSM and the StoryMap website.

PRiSM is not the sole scientific basis for management changes in Amendment 15. As described in Chapter 2 of the Amendment, PRiSM was used as a tool to help define potential options to consider for initial changes to the spatial management areas. As described in Chapter 5 of the Amendment, NMFS used other data and analyses to determine the impacts of the alternatives analyzed and made final decisions after considering potential impacts and public comment. NMFS disagrees that PRiSM was used in Amendment 15 without explanation. As described above and in Amendment 15, NMFS began this rulemaking with scoping, including public hearings, in 2019. PRiSM was developed after scoping based on the need identified in the comments received during scoping. During its development, NMFS presented the idea and the results several times to the HMS Advisory Panel and considered their concerns and comments to further develop the model. After publication of Draft Amendment 15, NMFS continued to provide information about PRiSM at Advisory Panel meetings and during public hearings and webinars. Lastly, both the scientific journal (

Marine Biology

) article that describes PRiSM and Amendment 15 itself describe the need for PRiSM and how it was used.

See

Amendment 15 Section 2.9 (providing citation to

Marine Biology

article).

Comment 39:

NMFS received a comment that the pelagic longline interaction rate table in Appendix 1 gives an inaccurate representation of the pelagic longline fishery's impact on billfish. NMFS received a separate comment that cited this table to support a request for increased protections for billfish since the interaction rate for those species is higher than those for shortfin mako sharks, leatherback sea turtles, and loggerhead sea turtles.

Response:

The interaction rates in the Appendix 1 tables in Amendment 15 do not speak to and are not intended to make inferences about impacts on species. The purpose of the table is to demonstrate which species have a large enough sample size so that the relationship between environmental variables and catch could be calculated. In order to determine a relationship between two variables, a minimum sample size must be used. The minimum sample size largely depends on the variance of the data, but generally, a larger number of samples would more robustly establish the relationship between two variables then a smaller number of samples. To that end, the pelagic longline interaction rate table in Appendix 1 simply lists the occurrence rate (proportion of sets in which at least one individual was caught) of each species in observed pelagic longline sets (15-year time series) in the Atlantic and Gulf of America regions without breaking out locations, months, or years. As described in Section 2.3, the occurrence rate was used to select species that could be modeled through PRiSM, and the purpose of the table is to demonstrate which species have a large enough sample size that the relationship between environmental variables and catch can be calculated. No further inferences from the tables regarding the

conservation or sustainability impact of the pelagic longline fishery are appropriate. In addition, the billfish interaction rate reflects the total occurrence rate of five species (blue marlin, white marlin, roundscale spearfish, longbill spearfish, and sailfish), which can make the rate seem higher. Individually, billfish species occurrence rates are much lower. In the Atlantic, occurrence rates for individual billfish species are 14 percent for blue marlin (meaning that 14 percent of all observed pelagic longline sets across all areas from 1997 through 2018 had a catch of at least one blue marlin), 25 percent for white marlin/roundscale spearfish, 1 percent for longbill spearfish, and 9 percent for sailfish. As described in more detail in Comment 40 below, billfish were aggregated in PRiSM to improve the sample size. See response to Comment 8, which provides information on existing billfish conservation and management measures.

Comment 40:

NMFS received a comment that billfish should not be combined and modeled together in PRiSM since all five species have unique behaviors and distribution. One commenter expressed concerns that blue marlin were grouped together with other billfish species since it is the only billfish species that is overfished. After issuance of the FEIS, NMFS received comments reiterating concerns regarding the grouping of blue marlin with other billfish species.

Response:

NMFS agrees that all five billfish species have unique behaviors and distribution, though blue marlin is not the only overfished billfish species (white marlin, roundscale spearfish, and sailfish are also overfished). However, as described in the response to Comment 39 above, not all of the billfish species have a high enough occurrence rate to calculate the relationship between environmental variables and catch. Combining all five species improves the sample size for modeling and provides for more statistical confidence in the results. Additionally, combining all five species generally results in a more temporally and spatially expansive (

i.e.,

more conservative) high-bycatch-risk area, providing more conservation-cautious interaction predictions. Based on a 2024 stock assessment, the status of blue marlin is now overfished with no overfishing occurring; this status is a change from the status during the comment period, which was overfished with overfishing occurring. The white marlin/roundscale spearfish stock assessment is ongoing, and the results are expected at the 2025 ICCAT annual meeting in November. Blue marlin and other billfish are subject to various measures, beyond spatial management areas, that conserve and manage the species. Amendment 15 does not change those management measures. See response to Comment 8, which provides information on existing conservation and management measures for blue marlin and other billfish.

Furthermore, as described in the response to Comment 38 above, the preferred management actions are not based solely on PRiSM results. Instead, PRiSM was used only as a tool to help define potential options to consider for initial changes to the spatial management areas.

Comment 41:

NMFS received comments stating that PRiSM should incorporate fishery-dependent data from other gear types, including recreational hook and line.

Response:

NMFS disagrees. Because the four spatial management areas considered in Amendment 15 (Mid-Atlantic Shark, Charleston Bump, East Florida Coast, and DeSoto Canyon closed areas) are all specific to commercial longline gear, gear-specific fishery interaction predictions are necessary. Recreational gear (or other gear types) are not directly comparable to pelagic or bottom longline gear; therefore, their use in PRiSM to measure longline interactions would be inappropriate. In other words, if fishery managers want to know what would be caught on pelagic longline gear, catch data from pelagic longline gear (derived from logbooks, observers, EM, and other reporting) would be more informative than catch data from rod and reel gear since each gear type is fished differently and catches different species at different rates.

See generally

Section 4.9.1 of Amendment 15 (describing use of survey- and census-based approaches, as well as tournaments information, to estimate recreational landings). Furthermore, there is no source of recreational fishery-dependent data off the southeastern United States that would be comparable to the commercial fishery observer data used in PRiSM. In the context of Amendment 15, PRiSM helps guide conservation-risk-appropriate, gear-specific consideration of areas of high and low bycatch risk. For example, PRiSM informs preferred pelagic longline data collection inside the Charleston Bump closed area where pelagic longline is prohibited during portions of the year. For this purpose, it is critical that PRiSM provides pelagic longline-specific fishery interaction predictions.

Comment 42:

NMFS received a comment that the PRiSM metrics used two different time periods without explanation (1997 through 2019 and 2017 through 2019) and raised questions about the validity of the model and metrics.

Response:

As explained in Section 2.1 of Amendment 15, PRiSM used two different time periods: (1) a longer period was used to address environmental variables and variability, and (2) a shorter, recent period was used to address current fishery conditions. First, as fully described in the peer-reviewed, scientific journal (

Marine Biology

) article regarding PRiSM and in Chapter 2 of the Amendment, NMFS used observer data from 1997 through 2019 to calculate the relationship between environmental variables and catch. These data can be considered a source of actual catch data because these data are not predictions or model outputs. Once the relationship between environmental variables and catch is established, the model can predict fishery interactions in any area or time period. Second, in the context of Amendment 15, PRiSM is used to predict what fishery interactions would be if longline fishing were allowed in areas and times that currently prohibit longline fishing. Since we want to better understand what fishery interactions would be now, we need to apply the model relationships to more recent environmental conditions to understand recent fishery conditions and predicted catch. Additionally, due to natural fluctuations in environmental conditions (

e.g.,

warmer and cooler years), using an average across multiple years smooths out anomalies. To accommodate the need for recent environmental data across multiple years, PRiSM used average conditions across 2017 through 2019 to provide current predicted fishery interactions. In summary, metrics that compare actual catch data to predicted fishery interaction will necessarily, and appropriately, use different time periods.

Comment 43:

One commenter suggested that instead of solely using interactions, PRiSM should incorporate mortality to allow for refined predictions on impacts to target stocks and bycatch populations. After issuance of the FEIS, NMFS received a comment suggesting that the number/frequency of interactions with bycatch species from the video monitoring data be compared to the PRiSM interaction frequencies in each spatial management area.

Response:

Incorporating mortality could further refine PRiSM and provide usable information for future iterations and related management decisions. NMFS may consider this suggestion in

future iterations of PRiSM. At this time, Amendment 15 uses the less complex presence/absence information since a mortality-specific model is unlikely to produce widely different relative predictions on interaction locations and times. A mortality-specific model would likely have nearly identical interaction location and time predictions as the current iteration of PRiSM but would add additional prediction information about catch disposition and/or post-release mortality. NMFS may consider the utility of such predictions in future iterations of PRiSM.

As suggested in the comment submitted after release of the FEIS, NMFS intends to further validate PRiSM using actual catch data from the monitoring areas. Such data will provide increased tuning of the model and will further inform future iterations of the model and spatial management measures.

Comment 44:

One commenter stated that PRiSM is used only to narrow the scope of closed areas and not to expand them into areas of high billfish bycatch. Another commenter stated that PRiSM was used to rationalize reintroducing pelagic longline gear into closed areas rather than to rationalize expanding the closed areas into areas with high bycatch risk. The commenter noted that PRiSM predicted a higher rate of billfish interactions with pelagic longline gear outside of the Charleston Bump closed area compared to within it. The commenter questioned the intention of using PRiSM to inform broadening or shrinking the boundaries of closed areas.

Response:

At the draft stage, NMFS preferred some sub-alternatives that considered expanding the closed areas. After considering public comment, including comments that provided information on locations within the spatial management areas that could incentivize data collection, NMFS changed those sub-alternatives. As a result, the final preferred sub-alternatives in Amendment 15 focus on data collection inside low-bycatch-risk areas of the Charleston Bump and East Florida Coast Spatial Management Areas to improve spatial management in the future and maintain the status quo for the DeSoto Canyon and Mid-Atlantic Shark Spatial Management Areas. PRiSM model outputs provided bycatch predictions for areas both inside and outside of spatial management areas; however, Amendment 15 focuses on assessing bycatch risk within spatial management areas during times when they are closed. As data is collected within spatial management areas, NMFS will have more information to compare relative bycatch risk among different areas including inside and outside closed areas. Preferred Alternatives C2 and C4 provide for the timing of such analyses and Alternative E2 provides considerations for the review of spatial management areas. We note that billfish are subject to various measures, beyond spatial management areas, that conserve and manage the species. See response to Comment 8 (providing information on existing billfish measures).

Comment 45:

NMFS received a comment that the rulemaking process is too slow to employ PRiSM since dynamic ocean conditions change by the time actions are implemented.

Response:

PRiSM is capable of providing valuable information and predictions in light of the duration of the rulemaking process. In Amendment 15, PRiSM was used to help assess closed areas that have not been changed in decades. The flexible design of PRiSM allows for fishery interaction predictions across a range of time periods, including near real-time predictions, which will be more responsive to dynamic ocean conditions. Even at slightly longer time scales than near real-time (such as recent average conditions over three years), PRiSM predictions can provide more responsive management to changes in bycatch locations in comparison to the static closure of areas that have been in effect. Additionally, as detailed in the “C” and “E” alternatives, Amendment 15 establishes a flexible framework that will give NMFS the ability to make adjustments to the spatial management areas as a result of a changing environment or changes in the industry in a timelier manner than was previously available.

Comment 46:

NMFS received comments that PRiSM is a valuable tool to assess and modify areas. One commenter said that PRiSM is a scientifically-sound tool to help evaluate and modify spatial management areas. Other commenters noted that the pelagic longline fishery uses sophisticated software to avoid bycatch, similar to the information provided by PRiSM.

Response:

NMFS agrees that PRiSM and similar spatial models are valuable tools for fishery management. Such models use many of the same environmental data and principles employed by the fishing fleet to select fishing locations.

Comment 47:

NMFS received a comment that publication of the PRiSM methodology paper in the journal,

Marine Biology,

raises conflict of interest questions because one of the authors is an Associate Editor at the journal.

Response:

NMFS disagrees. It is common practice for associate editors to continue to publish in journals they serve, and doing so in no way represents a conflict of interest so long as they are not assigned to handle the review of their own papers, which is a basic practice at any reputable journal, including

Marine Biology.

The author complied with the journal's Submission Guidelines regarding Competing Interests, which state: “Where an Editor or Editorial Board Member is on the author list they must declare this in the competing interests section on the submitted manuscript. If they are an author or have any other competing interest regarding a specific manuscript, another Editor or member of the Editorial Board will be assigned to assume responsibility for overseeing peer review. These submissions are subject to the exact same review process as any other manuscript. Editorial Board Members are welcome to submit papers to the journal. These submissions are not given any priority over other manuscripts, and Editorial Board Member status has no bearing on editorial consideration.” NMFS reviewed the PRiSM methodology paper and determined that it is consistent with NS2 (best scientific information available) and, after the independent peer review described in comment/response 48, determined that application of the PRiSM approach in Amendment 15 is also consistent with NS2.

Comment 48:

NMFS received comments about the Center for Independent Experts (CIE) review of sections of the Amendment. The comments stated that CIE review does not lend credibility to Amendment 15 since the reviewers were instructed to not focus on the PRiSM methodology. Additionally, the commenters identified several suggestions and comments from the reviewers that appeared to be serious concerns and that NMFS did not address or respond to.

Response:

NMFS disagrees that the CIE review was inappropriately focused and that the agency failed to address reviewer suggestions and comments. On July 8, 2022, NMFS submitted portions of the Draft Amendment 15 to CIE for review by three independent experts. NMFS requested that the reviewers provide comments on the description and communication of the spatial management alternatives and the application of the analytical approach including PRiSM's use in developing the alternatives and analyzing impacts. The portions of the Amendment

selected for CIE review were those applicable to this request for reviewer comment. Because the PRiSM methodology had already been peer-reviewed and published in the scientific journal

Marine Biology,

we requested that reviewers not focus on the specific PRiSM methodology. However, NMFS did provide background material and answered questions to ensure the reviewers had a complete understanding of the spatial modeling tool. On August 24, 2022, NMFS received review reports from the three CIE-selected independent experts. In general, all three reviewers were supportive of the analytical approach in Amendment 15. Each reviewer also found that the approach was well-described and communicated. In addition to the overall supportive findings, each reviewer also provided suggestions for near-term and long-term improvements in the approach and communication of the alternatives. Most of the suggestions were incorporated into the Amendment. Appendix 6 to Draft and Final Amendment 15 provides responses and/or actions taken to address each of the comments, suggestions, or questions in the reviewer reports.

Comment 49:

NMFS received a comment expressing concern that PRiSM was intended to benefit recreational fishing at the expense of pelagic longline fishing.

Response:

The intent of using PRiSM was not to reduce pelagic longline fishing access. Rather, NMFS used PRiSM as a tool to help define potential options to consider for initial changes to the pelagic and bottom longline spatial management areas.

Electronic Monitoring Cost Allocation

Comment 50:

NMFS received many comments, including from state agencies, local governments, U.S. Senators, pelagic longline industry groups, EM vendors, and pelagic longline fishermen, expressing concerns with the proposed EM alternative (Alternative F2) and the practicality of the proposal. Generally, commenters noted that requiring pelagic longline owners to fund the EM program fleet-wide could have negative economic impacts, and one commenter stated that the proposed measure would likely “devastate local, state, and coastal communities along the east coast” and Gulf of America. Many commenters suggested that NMFS either continue to fund the EM program or remove the requirement from the current HMS regulations (Alternative F3), with several commenters stating that the EM Cost Allocation Policy appears inconsistent with various NSs, the Magnuson-Stevens Act Limited Access Privilege Program cost recovery threshold, and E.O. 13985.

The Environmental Protection Agency, noting the adverse economic impact of the fleet-wide EM cost allocation preferred alternative (F2) in the draft Amendment 15, commented that additional analyses should be done to determine how the reduction in revenue, if realized, would affect fishermen and to identify potential mitigation strategies for the loss of income.

Response:

The proposed EM cost allocation alternative (Alternative F2) was changed to no action (Alternative F1) based in part on public comment. As noted in Section 3.6.1, many of these comments, particularly from industry participants and representatives and from EM vendors, indicated that the proposed alternative to modify the EM program fleet-wide presented practical implementation impediments that NMFS believes warrant further consideration. For example, commenters noted fleet-wide implementation difficulties like billing individual vessel owners and on-vessel support with a dispersed fleet. With respect to Alternative F3, the EM program continues to be needed to support compliance with the bluefin tuna IBQ program. Thus, NMFS is not requiring fleet-wide vessel owner payment for EM at this time (Alternative F3 is not preferred) due to uncertain impacts on compliance with IBQ reporting requirements. NMFS may initiate future rulemaking to consider modifications to the HMS EM program as appropriate. Additionally, as described in numerous comments above, the FEIS preferred alternative to implement monitoring areas inside the Charleston Bump and East Florida Coast Spatial Management Areas requires pelagic longline vessels voluntarily choosing to fish in monitoring areas to abide by enhanced EM requirements and for vessel owners to pay the associated sampling costs. On January 20, 2025, E.O. 13985 was rescinded and succeeded by E.O. 14151, which renounced the reasoning of E.O. 13985 and established the current directive against all “equity” actions, initiatives, and programs.

General Miscellaneous Comments

Comment 51:

Many commenters, both in support of and in opposition to Amendment 15, stated that the U.S. pelagic longline industry provides U.S. and international consumers access to important food sources. Many commenters noted that the pelagic longline fishery is already heavily regulated and that Amendment 15 would add more and unsustainable regulations. Some of these commenters requested that NMFS not add more regulations on the pelagic longline industry and/or lift regulations. Some commenters noted NOAA's National Seafood Strategy and encouraged NMFS to prioritize the resilience and longevity of the pelagic longline fleet. Other commenters noted that Amendment 15 would likely lead to a decrease of seafood exports and an increase of imported seafood. One commenter noted that NMFS created an unfair marketplace by importing seafood from foreign countries that do not meet U.S. standards. One commenter requested that NMFS improve regulations in other countries outside of the United States for better environmental conditions. One commenter noted that the United States imports over 90 percent of its seafood. One commenter noted that declining U.S. catch will lead to a reduction of U.S. quota and more imports from foreign countries resulting in a decrease of price for U.S. fishermen.

Response:

The seafood supplied by the pelagic longline fleet is valuable as both a source of food and income supporting local jobs, communities, and the broader economy. The context in which vessels operate, including current regulations, was a relevant factor NMFS considered in determining whether new regulations are justified. NMFS took into consideration many factors in selecting preferred measures that address the diverse objectives of Amendment 15 in a balanced manner. Chapter 6 of the Amendment contains a cumulative impacts analysis which is broad in scope and takes into consideration past, present, and reasonably foreseeable factors. In addition, Chapter 2 of the Amendment contains a description of methods used to develop the spatial management alternatives, and Chapters 3 and 5 describe and provide analysis of the impacts of the alternatives. The Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis includes a description of the steps taken to minimize the economic impacts on small entities, and the reasons for the preferred measures. The United States manages fisheries within its EEZ in accordance with applicable U.S. laws and in response to the unique characteristics of its fisheries, and therefore the U.S. regulations regarding Atlantic HMS are different from the rules affecting citizens of other countries, which operate under different laws and circumstances. NMFS also actively engages in international fora, such as ICCAT, where decisions

regarding HMS conservation and management are agreed to, and is dedicated to improving sustainable fishing practices beyond the U.S. EEZ.

Comment 52:

NMFS received comments noting that Amendment 15 would decrease the viability of the pelagic longline industry and that such a decrease would also have a resulting significant negative impact on shoreside businesses (including restaurants and supply shops) and fishing businesses overall along the coast. Commenters suggested that vessel owners are proactively trying to sell boats and remove themselves from the fishery before the implementation of Amendment 15.

Response:

Comments referencing adverse economic impacts largely focused on impacts from the Draft Amendment 15 preferred EM cost allocation alternative (Alternative F2) and preferred Charleston Bump and DeSoto Canyon Spatial Management Area Sub-Alternatives A2c and A4d that would have reduced fishing access. Amendment 15 preferred alternatives have changed to Alternative F1 (no action for EM cost allocation fleet-wide) and Sub-Alternatives A2f (Charleston Bump Spatial Management Area) and A4a (no action for DeSoto Canyon Spatial Management Area). As a result, the large economic impacts described in the Draft Amendment regarding alternatives preferred therein are no longer expected. In the Final Amendment, NMFS has updated the economic analyses for the preferred spatial management areas and for the sampling costs of EM for owners of vessels that choose to fish in the monitoring areas (

See

Sections 5.2.3 and 5.6 of Amendment 15 for those economic analyses). Those analyses found that more limited industry funding of voluntary fishing and data collection would provide net economic benefits to those fishermen that choose to engage in monitoring area data collection. A future rulemaking will likely consider the cost of shifting the sampling costs of EM to the pelagic longline fishery fleet-wide.

Comment 53:

NMFS received mixed comments regarding the complexity of Amendment 15. Numerous commenters stated that Amendment 15 contained too much information, was too complex, and was difficult to understand. Others were concerned that the online version of Amendment 15 was unusable and limited the ability for stakeholders to provide comments, suggesting that NMFS should have provided hard copies of the Amendment to pelagic longline constituents, particularly those in rural communities with more limited internet access. Other commenters stated that the complexity is indicative of a well-considered action with clear logic, strategy, and thorough consideration of a range of alternatives that would result in a high likelihood achieving the diverse objectives of the Amendment. Some environmental organizations expressed appreciation of the Agency's outreach and communication efforts, particularly the StoryMap, and requested that NMFS use StoryMaps more frequently in the future.

Response:

Recognizing that Amendment 15 is a complex and nuanced action, at the draft stage, NMFS created several supporting outreach materials to simplify and more effectively communicate the contents of the action. These materials included a StoryMap, an electronic monitoring cost allocation infographic, and public hearing posters. All of these materials were accessible on the NMFS Amendment 15 website. See Chapter 2, paragraph 2 for information about communication and outreach about PRiSM for a wide range of audiences, including links to the website explaining PRiSM and the StoryMap website. Posters and hard copies of the Amendment were provided at the four in-person hearings held in Manteo, NC; Jupiter, FL; Panama City, FL; and Houma, LA. These locations for public hearings were selected to provide as broad outreach as possible to communities in proximity to the spatial management areas and in areas with a large number of affected permit holders. Additionally, per usual practice, NMFS printed and shipped numerous hard copies of the Amendment to stakeholders in response to specific requests. NMFS conducted several public hearings, both in person and via webinar. These hearings were designed to inform the public of the proposed measures in a readily understandable format, as well as provide opportunities for the public to comment and ask questions. To the extent possible, NMFS facilitated communication with the public via the internet and website and, where specifically requested, had individual discussions with stakeholders to walk through the Amendment and the proposed measures. The amount and complexity of information in the Amendment reflect the scope of the objective of Amendment 15 and the number of alternatives analyzed. The complexity is also due to the diversity of the pelagic and bottom longline fisheries and the number of applicable laws and processes. In finalizing the Amendment, NMFS has attempted to describe things more simply in response to these comments. NMFS will also be providing a small entity compliance guide (as required under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act) and will be updating some of the outreach materials created for the Draft Amendment and proposed rule. NMFS will consider using StoryMaps more in the future as needed.

Comment 54:

A commenter requested that the Agency withdraw Draft Amendment 15 and restart the rulemaking process with an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR). Some commenters requested that NMFS extend the public comment period to allow more time to understand the Draft Amendment 15 and to provide public comment. After issuance of the FEIS, NMFS received a comment requesting that NMFS re-propose Amendment 15 with a revised DEIS.

Response:

NMFS disagrees that withdrawing or re-proposing Amendment 15 and restarting the rulemaking process is needed. On May 16, 2019, NMFS provided formal notice to the public that NMFS intended to prepare an environmental impact analysis, announced the availability of an Issues and Options paper and the start of the public scoping process (with a comment period of May 16 through July 31, 2019), and solicited public comments (84 FR 22112). NMFS held five scoping meetings, including a webinar, and conducted scoping during the spring HMS Advisory Panel meeting pertaining to spatial management research. During the development of the proposed rule, NMFS considered public comments received on the Issues and Options paper, including comments provided at the May 2019 HMS Advisory Panel Meeting. Between 2019 and the release of the proposed rule in 2023, NMFS developed the PRiSM spatial model and presented it several times to the HMS Advisory Panel (Fall 2020, Fall 2021, Spring 2023, and Fall 2023 HMS Advisory Panel Meetings), which is conducted in meetings open to the public. In 2020 and 2021, the meetings were fully online; the meetings in 2023 had both in-person and online options. Transcripts of all meetings are available online (see

ADDRESSES

). Those Advisory Panel discussions helped NMFS develop the proposed rule and Draft Amendment. NMFS published the proposed rule and Draft Amendment 15 on May 5, 2023 (88 FR 29050). In that proposed rule, NMFS announced that the public comment period would end on September 15, 2023. Due to requests from multiple constituents, NMFS extended the comment period for this

action to October 2, 2023 (88 FR 62044, September 8, 2023). The five-month duration of the comment period provided reasonable opportunity for the public to comment on the proposed management measures.

As stated in Amendment 15 and this final rule, the preferred modifications to the Charleston Bump and East Florida Coast spatial management areas in this action were developed based on public comments and additional analyses and is a combination of modification sub-alternatives analyzed in Draft Amendment 15. These measures strike a balance between collecting fishery-dependent data to assess closed areas, minimizing bycatch, and reducing gear conflict while increasing access to productive fishing grounds in order to fulfill Amendment 15's objectives. Given the robust public comment on the Draft Amendment 15 alternatives and proposed rule, which directly led to the development of the Final Amendment 15-preferred alternatives, NMFS does not believe re-proposal of the Amendment is necessary.

Comment 55:

Noting the complexity of the document, some commenters stated that Amendment 15 should be split into separate actions. One commenter suggested that NMFS implement the EM Cost Allocation policy prior to establishing the spatial management areas.

Response:

NMFS included spatial management areas and EM cost allocation components together in Amendment 15 because of the link between the monitoring areas and EM. In Final Amendment 15, NMFS is finalizing changes to spatial management areas, including enhanced EM requirements in the East Florida Coast and Charleston Bump Monitoring Areas. To monitor those areas, many of the proposed EM cost allocation measures (Alternative F2) are being finalized in Amendment 15. NMFS is not finalizing the broader EM measures to switch sampling costs to the pelagic longline fleet overall. See response to Comment 50 for further explanation.

Comment 56:

NMFS received comments noting the proposed measures protect fish stocks ocean-wide. Some commenters suggested that NMFS maintain the current closed areas to allow fish stocks to continue to rebound. One commenter noted that tuna are abundant. Another commenter stated that Amendment 15 fails to protect Atlantic billfish, including marlins.

Response:

NMFS agrees that these closed areas have played an important role in rebuilding overfished species, conserving protected species, and maintaining sustainable stocks. The goal of this Amendment is to enhance management and conservation goals of existing closed areas by collecting data and reassessing the areas. As described in Amendment 15, in the future, NMFS will regularly, and on an as-needed basis, evaluate these areas to consider what potential modifications need to be made to balance conservation and management requirements, including any conservation needs of tunas and billfish. See response to Comment 8 for information on billfish conservation and management measures.

Comment 57:

NMFS received a comment expressing concern that the Agency has not provided the stock assessment status of sailfish. This comment further noted that the stock assessment worked on in 2023 was not released to the public.

Response:

West Atlantic sailfish is assessed internationally through the Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS), the scientific body of ICCAT, a regional fishery management organization established by treaty of which the United States is a member. U.S. scientists participate in SCRS stock assessments. The most recent stock assessment for West Atlantic sailfish was conducted at the 2023 Atlantic Sailfish Data Preparatory and Stock Assessment Meeting held in June 2023, which was during the proposed rule comment period for Amendment 15. The results were not formally accepted until the annual ICCAT meeting in November 2023. No new measures regarding sailfish were adopted at the 2023 ICCAT annual meeting; the current measure adopted in 2016 (Recommendation 16-11) remains in place. The results of the stock assessments indicated that the West Atlantic sailfish stock is overfished with B2021/BMSY = 0.96 (0.59−1.49), but not experiencing overfishing with F2021/FMSY = 0.59 (0.36−0.95). More information regarding the 2023 Atlantic Sailfish stock assessment can be found in the 2023 ICCAT SCRS Report available at

https://www.iccat.int/Documents/Meetings/Docs/2023/REPORTS/2023_SCRS_ENG.pdf

and the stock assessment meeting report available at

https://www.iccat.int/Documents/Meetings/Docs/2023/REPORTS/2023_SAI_ENG.pdf.

The schedule of all SCRS meetings as well as meeting reports are made publicly available on the ICCAT website

(https://www.iccat.int/

). In addition, SCRS stock assessment results and scientific advice were presented during the October 2023 U.S. ICCAT Advisory Committee meeting, during the session open to the public (88 FR 67731, October 2, 2023). There were no changes to the Amendment 15 analyses needed based on the Atlantic sailfish stock assessment.

Comment 58:

Comments were submitted stating that the recreational fishery has a larger impact on billfish than the pelagic longline fleet.

Response:

The purpose of Amendment 15 is to address spatial management regulations on the commercial longline fishery. Management of the recreational billfish fishery is outside the scope of this action. While this Amendment would not change any regulatory requirements for recreational fishermen, NMFS recognizes and describes potential impacts on and by recreational fisheries in Chapter 4 of the Amendment.

Comment 59:

NMFS received a comment opposed to Amendment 15 asserting that offshore wind farms cause ecosystem effects that can benefit and harm marine environments, and undersea cables from wind farms have the potential to alter the movements and migrations of fish. The comment stated that resources should be directed toward studying environmental stressors and assess the physiological and behavioral responses of fish to offshore wind farms.

Response:

Amendment 15 considers the modification, data collection, and assessment of longline spatial management measures in the Atlantic and Gulf of America, as well as changes to the administration and funding of the HMS EM program. This comment is outside the scope of this action. However, information about related potential impacts to HMS can be found in Chapter 6 on cumulative impacts. Information regarding renewable energy, including offshore wind energy, can be found at

https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy.

NMFS agrees that resources should be directed towards studying the impacts of offshore wind on fish, and information regarding NMFS's role in offshore wind development, including various research efforts, can be found at

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/offshore-wind-energy.

Comment 60:

NMFS received several comments that Amendment 15 is unconstitutional.

Response:

The commenters do not specify what constitutional concern they believe Amendment 15 raises. NMFS disagrees that Amendment 15 is unconstitutional. It complies with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws as described in Chapter 9 of Amendment 15.

Comment 61:

NMFS received a comment requesting a moratorium on

new recreational vessels entering the fishery.

Response:

This comment is outside of the scope of this action. The purpose of Amendment 15 is to collect data to assess whether spatial management measures are meeting conservation and management goals.

Comment 62:

Some commenters noted that reporting requirements for pelagic longline fishermen are unfair compared to those for other commercial and recreational HMS fisheries.

Response:

This comment is outside of the scope of this action. The purpose of Amendment 15 is to collect data to assess whether certain spatial management measures affecting longline gear are meeting conservation and management goals. NMFS has undertaken separate actions to address reporting more broadly. On May 12, 2023, NMFS released and took comment on an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking regarding electronic reporting (88 FR 30699). Furthermore, on September 6, 2024, NMFS published a proposed rule regarding electronic reporting (89 FR 72796) which considers the reporting requirements across all HMS fisheries, both commercial and recreational.

Changes From the Proposed Rule (88 FR 29050, May 5, 2023)

This section explains the changes in the regulatory text from the proposed rule to the final rule. The changes are being made in response to public comment and/or refined analyses or to clarify text. For the Charleston Bump and East Florida Coast spatial management areas, we developed new sub-alternatives A2f and A3f, respectively, based on public comment and additional analyses, that are combinations of other sub-alternatives analyzed in Draft Amendment 15. These new sub-alternatives and modifications to other proposed measures, which are finalized in this rule, fall within the scope of, or are a logical outgrowth of, the alternatives in the proposed rule and Draft Amendment 15. The changes from the proposed rule include changes to the boundaries and/or timing of the Mid-Atlantic shark, Charleston Bump, East Florida Coast, and DeSoto Canyon spatial management areas, changes to the monitoring area requirements, removal of the proposed fleet-wide vessel owner payment for of EM program sampling costs, and revisions to the proposed EM requirements for application within monitoring areas. The changes from the proposed rule text in the final rule are described below.

1. Modification to the Spatial Management Areas (§§ 635.2, 635.9, 635.35)

Mid-Atlantic Shark Spatial Management Area

NMFS proposed modifications to both the geographic boundary and closure timing of the current Mid-Atlantic shark closed area. These proposed modifications extended the eastern boundary of the current closed area and shifted the closure timing to begin on November 1 of one year and end on May 31 of the following year. This proposed area was designated as a high-bycatch-risk area named the “Mid-Atlantic Bottom Longline Restricted Area.” This final rule maintains the current geographic boundary of the existing Mid-Atlantic shark closed area as a high-bycatch-risk area and finalizes the proposed shift in timing (November 1-May 31) and name change. There will be no new data collection methods instituted through this final rule for the Mid-Atlantic area, with data collection continuing to be conducted as it is currently via shark research permits and exempted fishing permitted activities under the scope of § 600.745. Such activities include EFPs and SRPs per § 635.32.

Charleston Bump Spatial Management Area

NMFS proposed modifications to both the geographic boundary and closure timing of the current Charleston Bump closed area. The proposed geographic modifications included delineating high- and low-bycatch-risk areas with a diagonal bisect from the northeastern corner of the current closure southwest to a point near the Charleston Bump bathymetric feature on the southern boundary; the overall footprint of the current Charleston Bump closed area was not proposed to change. The area inshore of the boundary was proposed to be designated as a high-bycatch-risk

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.