# 70 FR 48804: Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Recreational Atlantic Blue and White Marlin Landings Limit; Amendments to the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks and the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Billfish

> Federal · Regulations · In force

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_05-15965

## Section

- **Citation:** 70 FR 48804
- **Heading:** Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Recreational Atlantic Blue and White Marlin Landings Limit; Amendments to the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks and the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Billfish
- **Jurisdiction:** Federal
- **Kind:** Regulations
- **Status:** In force
- **Text as of:** August 14, 2026
- **Source:** Compiled text
- **Location:** Federal Register / Vol. 70 / 70 FR 48804

## Text

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Parts 300, 600, and 635 [Docket No. 050805217-5217-01; I.D. 051603C] RIN 0648-AQ65 Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Recreational Atlantic Blue and White Marlin Landings Limit; Amendments to the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks and the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Billfish AGENCY:
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION:
Proposed rule; availability of the Fishery Management Plan (FMP); petition for rulemaking; proposed rule withdrawal; request for comments; public hearings.

SUMMARY:
NMFS proposes to consolidate the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks and the FMP for Atlantic Billfish, to change certain FMP management measures, to adjust regulatory framework measures, and to continue the process for updating essential fish habitat. The alternatives described in this proposed rule could impact fishermen and dealers for all Atlantic highly migratory species (HMS) fisheries. The range of alternatives examined includes those to: establish mandatory workshops for fishermen and dealers; consider methods of modifying and establishing time/area closures; address rebuilding and overfishing of northern albacore tuna, finetooth sharks, and Atlantic billfish; modify bluefin tuna (BFT) General Category subperiod quotas and simplify the management process of BFT; change the fishing year for tunas, swordfish, and billfish back to a calendar year; authorize additional fishing gears; and clarify numerous existing regulations, particularly in 50 CFR part 635. This proposed rule also announces the receipt of a petition for rulemaking regarding bluefin tuna and describes the analyses conducted as part of this rulemaking, in response to the petition, to consider closure areas in the Gulf of Mexico
swordfish, and billfish back to a calendar year; authorize additional fishing gears; and clarify numerous existing regulations, particularly in 50 CFR part 635. This proposed rule also announces the receipt of a petition for rulemaking regarding bluefin tuna and describes the analyses conducted as part of this rulemaking, in response to the petition, to consider closure areas in the Gulf of Mexico. In this proposed rule, NMFS also formally withdraws a proposed rule published September 17, 2003, to establish an annual domestic recreational landing limit of 250 Atlantic blue and white marlin and other measures.

DATES:
Comments on this proposed rule and draft FMP must be received no later than 5 p.m. on October 18, 2005.
Public hearings on this proposed rule and draft FMP will be held in September and October 2005. For specific dates and times see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
The September 17, 2003, proposed rule (68 FR 54410) is withdrawn as of August 18, 2005.

ADDRESSES:
The public hearings will be held in Port Aransas, TX; New Orleans, LA; Orange Beach, AL; Panama City, Madeira Beach, Key West, Fort Lauderdale, Fort Pierce, and Atlantic Beach, FL; Charleston, SC; Manteo, NC; Virginia Beach, VA; Ocean City, MD; Cape May and Barnegat Light, NJ; Islip and Montauk, NY; Narragansett, RI; New Bedford and Gloucester, MA; Portland, ME; St. Thomas, USVI; and San Juan and Mayaguez, PR. For specific locations see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION of this document.
Written comments on the proposed rule and draft HMS FMP may be submitted to Karyl Brewster-Geisz, Highly Migratory Species Management Division:
• Email: SF1.060303D@noaa.gov . Include in the subject line the following identifier: Atlantic HMS FMP.
• Mail: 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Please mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on Draft HMS FMP.”
• Fax: 301-427-2592.
• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov
e submitted to Karyl Brewster-Geisz, Highly Migratory Species Management Division:
• Email: SF1.060303D@noaa.gov . Include in the subject line the following identifier: Atlantic HMS FMP.
• Mail: 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Please mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on Draft HMS FMP.”
• Fax: 301-427-2592.
• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov .
Copies of the draft HMS FMP and other relevant documents are available from the Highly Migratory Species Management Division website at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms or by contacting Karyl Brewster-Geisz at 301-713-2347.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Karyl Brewster-Geisz, Margo Schulze-Haugen, or Heather Stirratt at 301-713-2347 or fax 301-713-1917; Russ Dunn at 727-824-5399 or fax 727-824-5398; or Mark Murray-Brown at 978-281-9260 or fax 978-281-9340.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Atlantic HMS fisheries are managed under the dual authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA). The FMP for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks, finalized in 1999, and the FMP for Atlantic Billfish, finalized in 1988, are implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 635.
Since the 1999 final rule (May 28, 1999; 64 FR 29090) that consolidated Atlantic HMS regulations and implemented the 1999 Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Shark FMP and Amendment 1 to the Atlantic Billfish FMP, a number of management issues have arisen that require further reconsideration or action. Many of these actions are linked to each other and are best analyzed in conjunction with other actions. This proposed rule and draft HMS FMP cover many of these issues and topics including: minimizing bycatch or bycatch mortality, rebuilding overfished fisheries, and modifying existing management strategies. Some of the alternatives proposed relate to regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Act or the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
to each other and are best analyzed in conjunction with other actions. This proposed rule and draft HMS FMP cover many of these issues and topics including: minimizing bycatch or bycatch mortality, rebuilding overfished fisheries, and modifying existing management strategies. Some of the alternatives proposed relate to regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Act or the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Other proposed actions would improve the clarity and effectiveness of existing regulations or the process to be followed when taking action, consistent with the FMPs. Some of the actions proposed in this rule would amend the FMP while other actions would adjust the management measures without amending the FMP. The need for each action is described later in this document with the analyses of each alternative.
NMFS announced its intent to conduct an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) amending the two current fishery management plans on July 9, 2003 (68 FR 40907). On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23730), NMFS announced the availability of an Issues and Options Paper and nine scoping meetings. On May 26, 2004 (69 FR 29927), NMFS extended the comment period on the Issues and Options Paper, and announced an additional scoping meeting. During this time, NMFS also presented the Issues and Options Paper to the New England, Mid-Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Councils and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. A summary of the major comments received during scoping was released in December 2004 and is available on the HMS Management Division website or by requesting a hard copy (see ADDRESSES ). During scoping, NMFS referred to this project as Amendment 2 to the existing FMPs. Starting with the Predraft stage, NMFS has referred to this project as the draft HMS FMP.
In February 2005, NMFS released the combined Predraft to the Consolidated HMS FMP and annual Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Report
HMS Management Division website or by requesting a hard copy (see ADDRESSES ). During scoping, NMFS referred to this project as Amendment 2 to the existing FMPs. Starting with the Predraft stage, NMFS has referred to this project as the draft HMS FMP.
In February 2005, NMFS released the combined Predraft to the Consolidated HMS FMP and annual Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Report. NMFS presented the Predraft document to all five Atlantic Fishery Management Councils, both the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico States Marine Fisheries Commissions, and to ADDRESSES ).
This proposed rule and the accompanying draft HMS FMP are the culmination of the analyses of the comments received on the Issues and Options paper and the Predraft document. In addition, the draft HMS FMP continues the process to conduct a five-year review of essential fish habitat (EFH) consistent with the EFH guidelines (the process started with the release of the Issues and Options Paper in April 2004). At this time, NMFS is reviewing the information available for all HMS, including billfish, and will determine which species need updates to their EFH identifications. Any updates or resulting changes in management will be done in a future rulemaking.
As described below, NMFS is also taking additional actions in this proposed rule: (1) a formal withdrawal of the 2003 proposed rule to implement the ICCAT 250 fish limit (September 17, 2003; 68 FR 54410) and (2) a formal decision not to include in the draft HMS FMP the exemption to the “no sale” provision for the artisanal handline fishery in Puerto Rico as outlined in the 1988 Billfish FMP. NMFS has also reviewed a petition for rulemaking from Blue Ocean Institute et al. that requested NMFS look at a particular BFT spawning area in the Gulf of Mexico (copies of the petition can be requested, see ADDRESSES ). An additional consideration was a settlement agreement related to white marlin that is awaiting court approval in the Center for Biological Diversity v. NMFS , Civ. Action No
MP. NMFS has also reviewed a petition for rulemaking from Blue Ocean Institute et al. that requested NMFS look at a particular BFT spawning area in the Gulf of Mexico (copies of the petition can be requested, see ADDRESSES ). An additional consideration was a settlement agreement related to white marlin that is awaiting court approval in the Center for Biological Diversity v. NMFS , Civ. Action No. 04-0063(D.D.C). The petition and settlement agreement are discussed further in the Time/Area Closures section below.
Consolidation of FMP for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks and FMP for Atlantic Billfish
Currently, management of Atlantic HMS is accomplished through two different FMPs: the FMP for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks and the FMP for Atlantic Billfish. The 1999 decision to maintain two different FMPs was based on the idea that the billfish fishery is recreational only while the tuna, swordfish, and shark fisheries are both commercial and recreational. Despite this decision, the regulations for both of these FMPs were consolidated under 50 CFR part 635 in 1999.
Since that decision, NMFS has further recognized the interrelated nature of these fisheries and the need to consider management actions collectively. For example, anglers fishing for Atlantic tunas, swordfish, sharks, or billfish must obtain an HMS Angling permit and must follow the recreational bag and size limits for all these species. Additionally, any management measures enacted for billfish recreational fishermen will likely have impacts on recreational fishermen for other HMS and vice versa. Thus, in the draft HMS FMP related to this rule, NMFS consolidates the two FMPs into one FMP, the consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP
must obtain an HMS Angling permit and must follow the recreational bag and size limits for all these species. Additionally, any management measures enacted for billfish recreational fishermen will likely have impacts on recreational fishermen for other HMS and vice versa. Thus, in the draft HMS FMP related to this rule, NMFS consolidates the two FMPs into one FMP, the consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP.
Consolidating the FMPs will allow NMFS to take a more ecosystem-based approach to these fisheries whose recreational fishermen often fish for tunas, swordfish, sharks, and billfish on the same trip and are required to have the same permit, and whose commercial fishermen catch billfish as bycatch while targeting other HMS. NMFS does not expect the consolidation of the FMPs to have an impact on the existing regulations because the regulations have been combined since 1999. NMFS also does not expect any impact on the priorities of the agency or on the composition of the Advisory Panels as a result of the consolidation.
Unless specifically proposed in this rule or in the HMS FMP, the draft HMS FMP, in itself, would not change existing provisions of either the 1999 Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Shark FMP (and its 2003 amendment), the 1988 Billfish FMP (and its 1999 amendment), or any implementing regulations. However, the 1988 FMP for Atlantic Billfish contained a prohibition on the sale or purchase of Atlantic billfish, and simultaneously included a limited exemption from the “no sale” provision to accommodate a small-scale artisanal fishery in Puerto Rico that occasionally landed blue marlin
FMP (and its 2003 amendment), the 1988 Billfish FMP (and its 1999 amendment), or any implementing regulations. However, the 1988 FMP for Atlantic Billfish contained a prohibition on the sale or purchase of Atlantic billfish, and simultaneously included a limited exemption from the “no sale” provision to accommodate a small-scale artisanal fishery in Puerto Rico that occasionally landed blue marlin. The exemption to the “no sale” provision was subject to a number of conditions and restrictions, including: only billfish caught on handlines having fewer than six hooks could be retained for sale; vessels retaining billfish for sale could not have a rod and reel onboard; billfish could be sold only in Puerto Rico; a maximum of 100 billfish per year could be landed and sold; if more than 100 billfish per year were landed under the exemption, the Councils would consider removing the exemption; all existing fishermen wishing to sell billfish would be required to obtain a permit; the Caribbean Fishery Management Council, in cooperation with the Government of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, would develop and implement a system for tracking billfish landings under the exemption; and the exemption would not be in effect until the permitting and tracking systems were operative, pending approval by the five involved Councils at that time.
The exemption from the “no sale” provision for the Puerto Rican artisanal handline fishery has never been implemented because the aforementioned conditions have not been met, either prior to or following transfer of the FMP to Secretarial authority
emption would not be in effect until the permitting and tracking systems were operative, pending approval by the five involved Councils at that time.
The exemption from the “no sale” provision for the Puerto Rican artisanal handline fishery has never been implemented because the aforementioned conditions have not been met, either prior to or following transfer of the FMP to Secretarial authority. NMFS is proposing not to carry forward the exemption to the no sale provision for the Puerto Rican artisanal handline fishery into the draft HMS FMP based on the overfished status of Atlantic billfishes, non-fulfillment of the conditions necessary to implement the exemption to the no sale provision and resultant non-implementation of the provision over a period of 18 years, public comment, and the support of the involved fishery management councils (specifically the Caribbean Council, which would be most directly impacted by the potential elimination of the exemption provision).
Analyses of Alternatives
The following is a summary of the alternatives analyzed in the DEIS for the HMS FMP. These elements are arranged in the following sections: Bycatch Reduction, Rebuilding and Preventing Overfishing, Management Program Structure, and EFH Update.
1. Bycatch Reduction
Under National Standard 9 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS is required, to the extent practicable, to minimize bycatch and, to the extent that bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize bycatch mortality. In this proposed rule, NMFS examined two strategies specifically aimed at reducing bycatch and bycatch mortality: conducting workshops to teach handling/release techniques and species identification, and examining the effectiveness of time/area closures in reducing bycatch. As described below, other sections (e.g., Section 2 regarding finetooth sharks) in this proposed rule also consider the requirement to minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality. Detailed analyses of bycatch reduction alternatives are presented in the draft HMS FMP
o teach handling/release techniques and species identification, and examining the effectiveness of time/area closures in reducing bycatch. As described below, other sections (e.g., Section 2 regarding finetooth sharks) in this proposed rule also consider the requirement to minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality. Detailed analyses of bycatch reduction alternatives are presented in the draft HMS FMP. Only a summary of the major points addressing workshops and time/area closures are described below.
A. Workshops
NMFS is proposing at 50 CFR 635.8 two types of workshops for participants in HMS fisheries. The first type would instruct participants in the safe handling, release, and identification of protected resources. The second type would instruct participants in the correct identification of HMS, particularly Atlantic sharks. The alternatives for and discussion of these workshops is provided below. Regardless of the requirements, any fishermen, dealer, or interested party would be welcome to attend any or all protected species or HMS identification workshops.
i. Protected Species Workshops
On October 29, 2003, a Biological Opinion (BiOp) was issued in conjunction with Atlantic shark fishery management measures implemented in a final rule for Amendment 1 to the 1999 HMS FMP (December 24, 2003; 68 FR 74746). Among other requirements, the 2003 BiOp included a requirement for workshops or other training programs to disseminate information regarding protocols and equipment for safe release and disentanglement of protected species, including information specific to smalltooth sawfish and sea turtles. The 2003 BiOp specifically required that the workshops concentrate on ways to reduce the potential for serious injury or mortality should incidental capture via hooking or entanglement occur.
On June 1, 2004, a BiOp for the HMS pelagic longline fishery concluded that the continued operation of the pelagic longline fishery is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of leatherback sea turtles
The 2003 BiOp specifically required that the workshops concentrate on ways to reduce the potential for serious injury or mortality should incidental capture via hooking or entanglement occur.
On June 1, 2004, a BiOp for the HMS pelagic longline fishery concluded that the continued operation of the pelagic longline fishery is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of leatherback sea turtles. In order to achieve the target post-release mortality rates for sea turtles specified in the 2004 BiOp, it is imperative that NMFS ensure all participants are aware of, and are proficient with, the safe release and disentanglement gears and protocols outlined in the BiOp. Mandatory workshops that would provide this type of training for vessel operators are required in the 2004 BiOp.
In addition to addressing safe handling and disentanglement protocols, the workshops in this proposed rule would also disseminate information specific to the identification of protected resources commonly encountered during longline and gillnet fishing activities. Providing fishermen with the skills necessary to properly identify protected resources that are encountered during fishing activities would increase the likelihood that they employ the proper release and disentanglement protocols, improve the accuracy of logbook data and extrapolated take estimates, and assist fishermen in complying with the reporting regulations in 50 CFR part 635.
The preferred alternatives for the protected resources workshops would implement one-day mandatory workshops and certification for HMS pelagic and bottom longline and shark gillnet vessel owners and operators by January 1, 2007. Mandatory vessel owner attendance would provide a link to vessel permit issuance and renewal ensuring that workshops are well attended and ensuring that vessel owners, if they are not the vessel operators, know what should be happening on their vessels
one-day mandatory workshops and certification for HMS pelagic and bottom longline and shark gillnet vessel owners and operators by January 1, 2007. Mandatory vessel owner attendance would provide a link to vessel permit issuance and renewal ensuring that workshops are well attended and ensuring that vessel owners, if they are not the vessel operators, know what should be happening on their vessels. Shark and directed or incidental swordfish limited access permits would not be renewed without a copy of the certificate if logbooks indicate that longline or gillnet gear were used on at least one trip for that vessel in the preceding year or, in the case of vessels that were transferred in the preceding year, since the transfer. Mandatory operator attendance ensures that there is at least one person on board the vessel during fishing activities that is adept at the safe handling and release protocols and protected resource identification. Additionally, all owners and operators that attended and successfully completed industry certification workshops (held on April 8, 2005, in Orlando, Florida, and on June 27, 2005, in New Orleans, Louisiana), as documented by the workshop facilitators, are proposed to receive automatically valid protected species workshop certificates prior to the effective date of January 1, 2007. These workshops were attended by NMFS personnel, sponsored by industry representatives with experience in sea turtle handling and release protocols and fishing gear, and well-attended by pelagic longline fishermen.
The preferred one-day workshops are not expected to result in excessive economic impacts, as they will be scheduled at numerous locales along the Atlantic coast, including the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean, minimizing travel and lost fishing time
industry representatives with experience in sea turtle handling and release protocols and fishing gear, and well-attended by pelagic longline fishermen.
The preferred one-day workshops are not expected to result in excessive economic impacts, as they will be scheduled at numerous locales along the Atlantic coast, including the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean, minimizing travel and lost fishing time. Requiring HMS longline and shark gillnet owners and operators to attain recertification every three years would balance the ecological benefits of maintaining familiarity with the protocols and the economic impacts of travel costs and lost fishing opportunities due to workshop attendance.
NMFS considered a range of alternatives for these protected species workshops including voluntary workshops (no action). NMFS felt that voluntary workshops could limit the dissemination of the safe release, disentanglement, and protected resources identification information, and, therefore, would not guarantee compliance with the BiOps.
NMFS also considered mandatory workshops for the owners, operators, and the crew of all HMS longline vessels. This alternative would require the greatest number of participants to become skilled in the release protocols and protected resource identification. This alternative was not preferred due to the level of economic impacts to the longline fishery and the transient nature of vessel crew members. Under the preferred alternatives, because operators would be required to attend the workshops, the operators would be responsible for ensuring that the appropriate crew members were proficient at the release techniques and protected resource identification.
In addition to the three-year mandatory recertification for the protected species workshops, NMFS also considered mandatory recertification every two or five years. Recertification every two years may yield the most positive ecological impacts, however, this alternative would also have the greatest economic costs to the industry
nt at the release techniques and protected resource identification.
In addition to the three-year mandatory recertification for the protected species workshops, NMFS also considered mandatory recertification every two or five years. Recertification every two years may yield the most positive ecological impacts, however, this alternative would also have the greatest economic costs to the industry. Recertification every five years may allow a more extensive period of time to lapse between certification workshops than necessary to maintain proficiency and provide fishermen with updates on research and development of handling and dehooking protocols.
ii. HMS Identification Workshops
The second type of workshops would aim to improve HMS identification skills. NMFS considered these workshops due in part to comments received from the HMS Advisory Panel and members of the general public stating the need for improved identification skills of participants in HMS fisheries, especially shark dealers. The preferred alternatives would require anyone federally permitted to receive, trade, purchase, or barter sharks from a vessel (shark dealers), or a suitable proxy, to attend an HMS identification workshop for certification before January 1, 2007. If a dealer opts to send a proxy, the dealer must designate a proxy from each place of business covered by the dealer's permit. The proxy would need to be a person who is employed by a place of business covered by the dealer's permit; is a primary participant in identification, weighing, or first receipt of fish as they are offloaded from a vessel; and is involved in filling out dealer reports.
NMFS considered a range of alternatives for these identification workshops including voluntary HMS identification workshops for dealers, recreational fishermen, and all commercial vessel owners and operators (no action)
ealer's permit; is a primary participant in identification, weighing, or first receipt of fish as they are offloaded from a vessel; and is involved in filling out dealer reports.
NMFS considered a range of alternatives for these identification workshops including voluntary HMS identification workshops for dealers, recreational fishermen, and all commercial vessel owners and operators (no action). From previous voluntary workshops on other topics, NMFS has found that voluntary workshops are generally not well attended and therefore are often not an efficient use of resources.
NMFS also considered mandatory identification workshops for all HMS dealers. However, requiring all HMS dealers to attend may be inappropriate as swordfish and tuna dealer permit holders generally only see a relatively limited number of HMS species and are not faced with the same identification difficulties as the shark dealers. NMFS felt that other alternatives, such as mandatory workshops for commercial longline owners and/or operators, are a lower priority because these individuals observe the fish intact, thereby facilitating a positive species-specific identification. While these fishermen may need workshops in the future, in this proposed rule and draft HMS FMP, NMFS felt requiring shark dealers, whose data are used for both quota monitoring and stock assessments and who must identify more numerous and difficult species, was a higher priority at this time. Generally, logbook data is used for stock assessment purposes and to verify dealer reports, not quota monitoring. Alternatives to expand participation to include owners and/or operators in the charter headboat, general category, and handgear/harpoon fisheries could result in extensive negative economic impacts due to travel and lost fishing time as it would involve a much larger portion of the fishery. Mandatory workshops for all HMS Angling permit holders would result in the most extensive negative economic impacts as it would affect the largest single group of permit holders
rs in the charter headboat, general category, and handgear/harpoon fisheries could result in extensive negative economic impacts due to travel and lost fishing time as it would involve a much larger portion of the fishery. Mandatory workshops for all HMS Angling permit holders would result in the most extensive negative economic impacts as it would affect the largest single group of permit holders.
NMFS also considered recertification every two, three, and five years. Recertification every two years has a greater economic impact to the dealers and a slightly positive impact on species identification. Since the identification of the species is not likely to change in the two years (species names do occasionally change as scientific information improves) and the dealers are interacting with the species on a regular basis, the certification renewal could take place with less frequency. Decreasing the frequency of renewal to every five years could introduce greater error in the species identification if the dealer begins to confuse similar species. Requiring the shark dealers to attain recertification every three years would balance the ecological benefits of maintaining the ability to properly identify the sharks and the economic impacts of workshop attendance due to travel costs and lost fishing opportunities.
B. Time/Area Closures
Time/area closures were first implemented for Atlantic HMS beginning in 1999 in order to reduce bycatch and bycatch mortality while minimizing the reduction in target catch. As described in the draft HMS FMP, these closures have proven to be effective at reducing bycatch. Nonetheless, several HMS such as blue and white marlin and bluefin tuna are overfished with overfishing still occurring, and protected species such as leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles continue to interact with HMS gears. As a result, NMFS considered a range of alternatives to implement additional closures and/or modify existing closures, as necessary
oven to be effective at reducing bycatch. Nonetheless, several HMS such as blue and white marlin and bluefin tuna are overfished with overfishing still occurring, and protected species such as leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles continue to interact with HMS gears. As a result, NMFS considered a range of alternatives to implement additional closures and/or modify existing closures, as necessary. As reflected in the HMS FMP, NMFS conducted extensive analyses regarding the impact of closures on all bycatch, particularly white and blue marlin, sea turtles, and bluefin tuna, in developing alternatives and selecting preferred alternatives. Also, as noted earlier, the analyses took into account the BFT spawning ground petition and the white marlin settlement agreement. NMFS is proposing to implement two alternatives that would: (1) complement the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council's (GMFMC) time/area closures regarding Madison-Swanson and Steamboat Lumps closed areas and (2) establish criteria to be considered when contemplating regulatory framework adjustments to implement new time/area closures or make modifications to existing time/area closures.
The first preferred alternative would implement HMS management measures in the Madison-Swanson and Steamboat Lumps closed areas, consistent with a September 2003 GMFMC request to NMFS. The proposed rule would prohibit all HMS fishing from November through April in the Madison-Swanson and Steamboat Lump closures, and allow recreational surface trolling only from May through October. If implemented, the HMS management measures would expire on June 16, 2010, consistent with GMFMC recommendations. Both of these closures are located just shoreward of the current DeSoto Canyon Closed Area for pelagic longline fishing in HMS fisheries.
These closed areas were implemented in 2000 by the GMFMC in order to provide protection for spawning aggregations of gag grouper
.
The second preferred alternative would establish criteria at 50 CFR 635.34(d) to be considered when implementing new time/area closures or making modifications to existing time/area closures. These criteria would provide a more definitive process for the establishment or modification of time/area closures while allowing for greater transparency and predictability in the decision-making process. Criteria that would be considered may include the following: any ESA-related issues, concerns, or requirements, including applicable Biological Opinions; bycatch rates of protected species, prohibited HMS, or non-target species both within the specified or potential closure area(s) and throughout the fishery; bycatch rates and post-release mortality rates of bycatch species associated with different gear types; new or updated landings information, bycatch, and fishing effort data; applicable research;
Besides implementing new time/area closures, NMFS may also consider modifying existing closed areas using these same criteria. The current time/area closures were implemented to meet specific management objectives relevant at that time and were intended to be reviewed and modified as appropriate, over time as those objectives were met or other management issues arose. Specifically, NMFS intended to modify existing closures, as necessary, to allow utilization of a given fishery once the objectives of the time/area closures had been met. Additionally, modifications may be needed if data showed the desired impact was not being met or oceanographic conditions changed. Additionally, because fisheries, fishing gear, fishing practices, and stock status change over time, occasionally NMFS must examine the continued need for existing time/area closures. One method of doing this would be for NMFS to conduct, fund, or support research, such as testing methods for reducing bycatch of protected, prohibited, and non-target species
met or oceanographic conditions changed. Additionally, because fisheries, fishing gear, fishing practices, and stock status change over time, occasionally NMFS must examine the continued need for existing time/area closures. One method of doing this would be for NMFS to conduct, fund, or support research, such as testing methods for reducing bycatch of protected, prohibited, and non-target species. Such research would need to be part of a scientifically justified research plan, identifying the rationale, objectives, methodology, and experimental design of the research, and it would be limited in scope and magnitude in terms of ecological and socio-economic impacts. Research in both open and closed areas may be warranted to collect data on the spatial and temporal relationship between target and bycatch species and to provide data for use in considering the criteria listed above. Such research could be cooperative in nature to include different stakeholders in the research process.
Ultimately, the criteria above are aimed to develop smaller, more focused time/area closures that maximize bycatch reduction while minimizing reductions in catch of target species. The criteria themselves would not be expected to have any ecological, economic, or social impacts. Rather, the appropriate use of the criteria would be expected to have overall positive ecological impacts; NMFS would minimize, to the extent practicable, economic and social impacts.
As a clarification, the primary goals of time/area closures are to maximize the reduction of bycatch of non-target and protected species while minimizing the reduction in the catch of target species and minimizing the social and economic impacts. However, closures are not the only means of addressing bycatch, and in some cases, may increase bycatch (see analyses in the HMS FMP of many of the time/area closure alternatives)
imary goals of time/area closures are to maximize the reduction of bycatch of non-target and protected species while minimizing the reduction in the catch of target species and minimizing the social and economic impacts. However, closures are not the only means of addressing bycatch, and in some cases, may increase bycatch (see analyses in the HMS FMP of many of the time/area closure alternatives). Bycatch in and of itself would not necessitate implementation of a time/area closure but could if the HMS stock was either overfished and/or experiencing overfishing; the bycatch is a prohibited, threatened, or an endangered species; and no other option exists to reduce interactions in the time period required. In such cases, time/area closures could be part of a rebuilding plan for overfished species and/or serve as a method for decreasing interactions with protected species.
Besides the two preferred alternatives described above, NMFS considered a number of additional alternatives including: (1) Maintaining the existing time/area closures (no action alternative); (2) prohibiting the use of pelagic longline gear in HMS fisheries in the central portion of the Gulf of Mexico from May through November; (3) prohibiting the use of pelagic longline gear in HMS fisheries in the Northeast during the month of June; (4) prohibiting the use of pelagic longline gear in HMS fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico from April through June; (5) prohibiting the use of pelagic longline gear in HMS fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico west of 86° W. Long. year-round; (6) prohibiting the use of pelagic longline gear in HMS fisheries in an area of the Northeast to reduce sea turtle interactions; (7) modifying the existing Charleston Bump time/area closure to allow the use of pelagic longline gear in all areas seaward of the axis of the Gulf Stream; (8) modifying the existing Northeastern U.S. time/area closure to allow the use of pelagic longline gear in areas west of 72°47′ W. Long
se of pelagic longline gear in HMS fisheries in an area of the Northeast to reduce sea turtle interactions; (7) modifying the existing Charleston Bump time/area closure to allow the use of pelagic longline gear in all areas seaward of the axis of the Gulf Stream; (8) modifying the existing Northeastern U.S. time/area closure to allow the use of pelagic longline gear in areas west of 72°47′ W. Long. during the month of June; (9) prohibiting the use of bottom longline gear in an area off the Florida Keys to protect endangered smalltooth sawfish; and (10) prohibiting the use of pelagic longline gear in HMS fisheries in all areas. All of the alternatives above could be implemented alone or in combination with any of the other alternatives. In the draft HMS FMP, NMFS describes the impacts of some of the most likely combinations of alternatives.
The no action alternative has been effective at reducing bycatch and bycatch mortality in HMS fisheries. However, maintaining the existing closures would not protect spawning areas of gag grouper, per the GMFMC request. The various alternatives to close portions of the Gulf of Mexico or mid-Atlantic could have some ecological benefit for some target and non-target species and protected species and negative ecological impacts for other species. Detailed analyses of each alternative are provided in the HMS FMP. As reflected in those analyses, NMFS did not find any closure or group of closures that would have positive ecological benefits for all species examined, particularly marlin, sea turtles, and BFT. Even when combining the alternatives, the ecological benefits for some species were minimal at best with increases in discards of other species. Additionally, the economic and social impacts of the additional closures considered could be substantial. Thus, NMFS is not preferring any new closures at this time, but may consider these closures again in the future if additional protections for a specific species or group of species is needed
ecological benefits for some species were minimal at best with increases in discards of other species. Additionally, the economic and social impacts of the additional closures considered could be substantial. Thus, NMFS is not preferring any new closures at this time, but may consider these closures again in the future if additional protections for a specific species or group of species is needed.
One of the Gulf of Mexico alternatives that NMFS considered was suggested in a petition for rulemaking from Blue Ocean Institute et al. as a means of protecting western Atlantic BFT that return to the Gulf of Mexico to spawn. This alternative would prohibit the use of pelagic longline gear in HMS fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico bluefin tuna spawning area from April through June (101,670 nm 2 ; 3 months). Assuming no redistribution of effort (i.e., all hooks set in the proposed closure area are removed and not set in any open areas), the logbook data indicate that this alternative would potentially reduce discards of all of the species being considered from a minimum of 0.8 percent for pelagic sharks to a maximum 21.5 percent for bluefin tuna. However, assuming that effort is redistributed to open areas (i.e., all hooks set in the proposed closure area are replaced by hooks set in remaining open areas),
NMFS also considered alternatives that would modify existing closures. As with the analyses of new closures, the analyses of the modifying existing closures showed mixed results in terms of ecological benefits and economic impacts. In some cases, the modified areas would result in captures of smaller sized swordfish or in higher levels of bycatch. For these reasons, NMFS does not prefer any modifications to the existing closures at this time. However, because the ecological impacts were generally minimal, these alternatives could be considered as a means to offset any negative ecological or economic impacts resulting from any future time/area closures
areas would result in captures of smaller sized swordfish or in higher levels of bycatch. For these reasons, NMFS does not prefer any modifications to the existing closures at this time. However, because the ecological impacts were generally minimal, these alternatives could be considered as a means to offset any negative ecological or economic impacts resulting from any future time/area closures.
NMFS considered but is not preferring a closure of an area off Florida to protect smalltooth sawfish, at this time. While the area examined contains the largest number of smalltooth sawfish observed caught in the bottom longline fishery, only five smalltooth sawfish have been observed caught there. It is possible that closing this area could displace fishing effort into an area that has higher smalltooth sawfish catch rates or that is more critical toward the recovery of the species. A Smalltooth Sawfish Recovery Team is working to produce a recovery plan for smalltooth sawfish and to designate critical habitat. In order to better ensure positive ecological impacts on sawfish and to minimize any economic impacts on fishermen, NMFS would prefer to wait until the recovery plan is complete before taking action.
NMFS also considered prohibiting the use of pelagic longline gear in all HMS fisheries. This alternative could have some ecological benefits for any non-migratory species that remain within the U.S. EEZ. However, for species that travel outside the U.S. EEZ, such as HMS or sea turtles, this alternative could have negative ecological benefits because these species need to be internationally managed. In the case of HMS, the United States takes only a small portion of the total allowable catch (TAC). In the case of sea turtles, unlike many other countries, the United States interacts with a minimal number of turtles and releases all of those caught
EEZ, such as HMS or sea turtles, this alternative could have negative ecological benefits because these species need to be internationally managed. In the case of HMS, the United States takes only a small portion of the total allowable catch (TAC). In the case of sea turtles, unlike many other countries, the United States interacts with a minimal number of turtles and releases all of those caught. If the United States reduces the amount of HMS taken commercially by a significant amount by prohibiting pelagic longline fishing, other countries likely would take the U.S. portion of the TAC and would export those fish to U.S. consumers. Many of those countries do not have the bycatch reduction measures that the United States does. Furthermore, the United States is one of the few countries that supply much of the research on HMS and other species that interact with pelagic longline gear. Additionally, prohibiting the use of pelagic longline gear would have significant negative economic impacts on fishermen, fishing communities, suppliers, and dealers in all Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico states. Thus, NMFS prefers to seek other commercial and recreational management measures that could reduce bycatch without the adverse international or economic impacts of prohibiting pelagic longline.
2. Rebuilding and Preventing Overfishing
The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS to rebuild overfished species and to prevent overfishing. The draft HMS FMP addresses alternatives for three stocks (northern Atlantic albacore tuna, finetooth sharks, and Atlantic billfish) that have been determined to be either overfished or experiencing overfishing.
A. Northern Albacore Tuna
The U.S. fishery for northern Atlantic albacore is essentially dominated by two sectors. The commercial longline sector harvests albacore tuna as incidental bycatch in the swordfish and tunas pelagic fisheries. The recreational rod and reel sector targets albacore and other tunas out of northeast coastal ports
mined to be either overfished or experiencing overfishing.
A. Northern Albacore Tuna
The U.S. fishery for northern Atlantic albacore is essentially dominated by two sectors. The commercial longline sector harvests albacore tuna as incidental bycatch in the swordfish and tunas pelagic fisheries. The recreational rod and reel sector targets albacore and other tunas out of northeast coastal ports. In the October 1999 Report to Congress on the Status of U.S. Fisheries, NMFS identified the northern albacore tuna stock as overfished. International fishery management efforts are needed for northern albacore tuna as the United States actually contributes to only a small portion of northern albacore tuna mortality. It is likely that preventing all U.S. mortality would not prevent overfishing from occurring on this stock. Alternatives for developing a rebuilding plan for northern albacore were published in a proposed rule issued on May 24, 2000 (65 FR 33519), and were discussed in the EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for that proposed rule. In the final rule (December 12, 2000; 65 FR 77523), NMFS indicated that, in establishing the foundation for an international rebuilding program, it would work through ICCAT to adopt a target stock size together with a time frame for rebuilding that included flexibility. Since the final rule, the U.S delegation to ICCAT has advocated a TAC for northern albacore tuna set at a level less than the current estimate of replacement yield (34,500 mt ww). Other ICCAT members have not shared the U.S. position that immediate catch reductions were needed to rebuild the spawning stock biomass to levels that would support MSY. Consequently, ICCAT has responded by adopting a series of recommendations (annually for 2000-2003) to set a TAC at the replacement yield level of 34,500 mt through 2006, together with country specific allocations in order to control compliance. In addition, the 1998 recommendation on limiting vessel capacity for northern albacore tuna has remained in force
biomass to levels that would support MSY. Consequently, ICCAT has responded by adopting a series of recommendations (annually for 2000-2003) to set a TAC at the replacement yield level of 34,500 mt through 2006, together with country specific allocations in order to control compliance. In addition, the 1998 recommendation on limiting vessel capacity for northern albacore tuna has remained in force. Irrespective of the established TAC, reported catches have been significantly below the replacement yield level in recent years. Major harvesters (European Union countries) have attributed the decline in catches to gear changes (shifting from banned gillnets to trolling) and to availability (fish concentrations further offshore under prevailing oceanographic conditions) rather than further declines in abundance. If true, the low catches in recent years may have allowed some rebuilding to occur. Depending on the results of the scheduled 2007 stock assessment, the United States will continue to seek an international northern albacore tuna rebuilding program with a target stock level, a time table, and reference points. Because the formal rebuilding plan was not included in the 1999 Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks FMP, it is considered here for inclusion in the FMP. NMFS considered three different alternatives: establish a foundation for an international rebuilding program (the preferred alternative), no action, and establish a unilateral rebuilding plan. No regulatory text is proposed or required for this alternative. Regulatory text would be proposed, as warranted, once a international rebuilding plan is established.
ICCAT has determined that the northern albacore tuna stock is below the biomass necessary to sustain maximum sustainable yield (MSY)
ilding program (the preferred alternative), no action, and establish a unilateral rebuilding plan. No regulatory text is proposed or required for this alternative. Regulatory text would be proposed, as warranted, once a international rebuilding plan is established.
ICCAT has determined that the northern albacore tuna stock is below the biomass necessary to sustain maximum sustainable yield (MSY). Management advice from ICCAT's Standing Committee for Research and Statistics (SCRS) noted a stable stock at annual catches of 34,500 metric tons (mt) whole weight (ww), while spawning stock biomass could be
The preferred alternative would seek to establish a foundation that can be used in negotiations with ICCAT to develop a rebuilding program for Atlantic northern albacore tuna, including targets for recovery, fishing mortality rate limits, and explicit interim milestones expressed in terms of measurable improvements of the stock. If successful, an Atlantic-wide revised TAC for northern albacore tuna, along with other conservation and management measures, would be adopted by ICCAT to rebuild the stock. The United States would then implement the ICCAT Rebuilding Program for albacore through appropriate measures (such as quotas, effort limitations, size and retention limits), in concert with the ICCAT recommendations, in the domestic fisheries.
The United States is responsible for only two percent of Atlantic-wide albacore landings; thus, the rebuilding plan would rely heavily on international cooperation and compliance with management measures. U.S. domestic fleets could experience short term negative economic impacts if harvest or effort restrictions become necessary; however, under current effort levels, the United States fleet would have to be restricted by more than 25 percent on average of the current TAC before an impact would be felt
ding plan would rely heavily on international cooperation and compliance with management measures. U.S. domestic fleets could experience short term negative economic impacts if harvest or effort restrictions become necessary; however, under current effort levels, the United States fleet would have to be restricted by more than 25 percent on average of the current TAC before an impact would be felt. If minimum size or retention limits were part of the ICCAT rebuilding plan, the United States pelagic longline fleet could be negatively impacted by having to discard a portion of the albacore catch. This may also result in an increase of dead discards if individual fish do not survive capture and release. The recreational fleet could also be impacted, as catch limitations might have a negative impact on the angler consumer surplus, but the extent is unknown, as many recreational trips targeting albacore often target other tunas or coastal pelagic species. This also may result in an increase of dead discards. The other alternatives of no action or unilateral action are not expected to rebuild northern albacore tuna. Thus, they are not preferred.
B. Finetooth Sharks
Finetooth sharks are small coastal sharks (SCS) found in shallow, inshore waters of the south Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. The 2002 stock assessment for SCS determined that overfishing of finetooth sharks is occurring but that other species in the SCS complex were not overfished or experiencing overfishing. The next SCS stock assessment will take place in 2007. These sharks are primarily caught with gillnet, bottom longline, or recreational gear.
There are currently only five vessels that specifically target sharks with gillnet gear in the South Atlantic. These vessels contribute less than 10 percent to the overall commercial finetooth shark landings. The majority of finetooth shark landings are occurring in other commercial fisheries that are not targeting sharks but landing them incidentally to other species
line, or recreational gear.
There are currently only five vessels that specifically target sharks with gillnet gear in the South Atlantic. These vessels contribute less than 10 percent to the overall commercial finetooth shark landings. The majority of finetooth shark landings are occurring in other commercial fisheries that are not targeting sharks but landing them incidentally to other species. These fisheries include fisheries in state waters, fisheries managed by the Regional Fishery Management Councils, Interstate Marine Fisheries Commissions, and/or fisheries that are not currently managed by either state or Federal regulations. NMFS considered four alternatives to address overfishing of finetooth sharks.
Under the preferred alternative, NMFS would identify sources of finetooth shark fishing mortality by: (1) contacting the Atlantic Fishery Management Councils, Interstate Marine Fisheries Commissions, and states to collect more data on finetooth landings outside of HMS fisheries, (2) expanding existing observer coverage in the existing directed shark gillnet fishery observer program to include all incidental and directed shark permit holders fishing with gillnet gear, and (3) ensuring that finetooth sharks are included as a select species for bycatch sampling in the shrimp trawl fishery observer program. NMFS would use this information on how and by whom finetooth sharks are caught and/or landed, in a new stock assessment and in guiding additional management measures. No regulatory text is proposed or required for this alternative at this time. Regulatory text would be proposed, as warranted, in a separate rulemaking.
The no action alternative would not result in obtaining the additional information on finetooth shark landings necessary to determine which fisheries may be contributing to fishing mortality. This alternative would result in negative ecological impacts because it would not enable NMFS to determine which fisheries are catching finetooth sharks
be proposed, as warranted, in a separate rulemaking.
The no action alternative would not result in obtaining the additional information on finetooth shark landings necessary to determine which fisheries may be contributing to fishing mortality. This alternative would result in negative ecological impacts because it would not enable NMFS to determine which fisheries are catching finetooth sharks.
NMFS also considered an alternative enacting commercial management measures including trip limits, a reduction in the SCS quota, closing the directed shark gillnet fishery, and/or gear restrictions. These measures could result in additional dead discards as finetooth sharks are susceptible to a broad range of gillnet mesh sizes, are generally dead at harvest, and appear to be caught in gillnet fisheries that are not targeting sharks and that would continue to fish for their target species while discarding finetooth sharks. Reducing the SCS quota would have limited conservation benefits as finetooth sharks only comprise 35 percent of commercial landings and the SCS quota is not fully utilized. Based on comprehensive observer data, the five vessels that use gillnet gear to target sharks are only responsible for a small portion of the finetooth shark fishing mortality. Therefore, closing this fishery would not likely prevent overfishing. Under this alternative, fishermen targeting sharks would likely experience economic impacts as a result of having to switch gear, having to spend more time traveling to and from offloading sites as a result of reduced soak times or a trip limit, or as a result of being prevented from fishing.
NMFS considered a fourth alternative that would require the use of circle hooks on recreational trips targeting SCS and/or increasing the minimum size for finetooth sharks. NMFS does not have any conclusive evidence that use of circle hooks would decrease post hooking mortality of sharks, although, they have proven effective at reducing post hooking mortality for other HMS species
from fishing.
NMFS considered a fourth alternative that would require the use of circle hooks on recreational trips targeting SCS and/or increasing the minimum size for finetooth sharks. NMFS does not have any conclusive evidence that use of circle hooks would decrease post hooking mortality of sharks, although, they have proven effective at reducing post hooking mortality for other HMS species. Thus, NMFS is not preferring this alternative, but is encouraging recreational fishermen to use circle hooks and is considering requiring the use of circle hooks in billfish tournaments (see Section C Atlantic Billfish below). Finetooth sharks only comprise 1.5 percent of the recreational harvest of SCS, therefore, measures directed at the recreational fishery would likely have limited conservation benefits especially since the current minimum size limit is already above the total length at which finetooth sharks are sexually mature. The commercial and recreational management measures described in the non-preferred alternatives may be necessary once NMFS has determined which fisheries are contributing to finetooth shark fishing mortality and/or further information on finetooth shark status is attained.
C. Atlantic Billfish
Atlantic blue and white marlin are overfished with overfishing continuing. West Atlantic sailfish are also overfished. The most recent stock assessments for Atlantic blue and white marlin indicate that total marlin stock abundance is at approximately 40 percent and 12 percent, respectively, of biomass levels necessary to support maximum sustainable yield (B MSY ). The assessments further indicate that the fishing mortality rates for Atlantic blue and white marlin are estimated to be approximately 4 and 8.25 times higher, respectively, than rates which would allow achievement of the maximum sustainable yield (F MSY ). The most recent stock assessment for west Atlantic sailfish was unable to estimate B MSY or F MSY , however the assessment considered current catch levels sustainable
indicate that the fishing mortality rates for Atlantic blue and white marlin are estimated to be approximately 4 and 8.25 times higher, respectively, than rates which would allow achievement of the maximum sustainable yield (F MSY ). The most recent stock assessment for west Atlantic sailfish was unable to estimate B MSY or F MSY , however the assessment considered current catch levels sustainable. Current Atlantic-wide stock status of Atlantic blue and white marlin, including biomass levels and fishing mortality rates, as per the most recent population assessments, do not appear to be consistent with achieving domestic management goals of 1.3 B MSY for Atlantic blue and white marlin. The United States is proposing management measures that will help in achieving this goal, and will continue to work with ICCAT on Atlantic billfish rebuilding efforts.
Given the primarily catch-and-release nature of the U.S. recreational Atlantic billfish fishery, and the resultant low level of domestic landings, it is appropriate to focus management efforts on reducing aggregate fishing mortality, including post-release mortality and mortalities associated with landings, rather than reducing landings alone. The proposed management measures are anticipated to provide further reductions in domestic billfish mortalities in the directed recreational Atlantic billfish fishery while minimizing and mitigating adverse socio-economic impacts to the extent practicable. These proposed management measures are described below under: gear restrictions and landings restrictions.
i. Gear Restrictions
NMFS considered three gear restriction alternatives, including a no action alternative. NMFS is proposing at 50 CFR 635.21(e)(2) to limit participants in Atlantic billfish tournaments to deploying only non-offset circle hooks when using natural bait or natural bait/artificial lure combinations, effective January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2011
ions and landings restrictions.
i. Gear Restrictions
NMFS considered three gear restriction alternatives, including a no action alternative. NMFS is proposing at 50 CFR 635.21(e)(2) to limit participants in Atlantic billfish tournaments to deploying only non-offset circle hooks when using natural bait or natural bait/artificial lure combinations, effective January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2011. This would mean that no person participating in an HMS fishing tournament for Atlantic billfish would be allowed to deploy a J-hook or offset circle hook in combination with natural bait or a natural bait/artificial lure arrangement.
Circle hooks have been shown to significantly reduce injuries and post-release mortality as compared to J-hooks for billfish and other species. Under certain assumptions, NMFS estimates that requiring circle hooks with natural bait or natural bait/artificial lure rigs in billfish tournaments could provide a 23-percent absolute reduction in the post-release mortality rate for white marlin released in tournaments, which equates to a 65.7-percent reduction relative to J-hooks. Again, under certain assumptions, requiring circle hooks could result in an estimated 302 Atlantic white marlin surviving a catch-and-release event during an average year, that would otherwise be expected to die after release. NMFS anticipates that this alternative would also provide unquantified positive mortality benefits for other species with which billfish tournament participants interact, including, but not limited to, sailfish, blue marlin, tunas, dolphin, and wahoo. Additional ecological benefits may also accrue outside of tournaments as anglers become proficient and comfortable with circle hooks and increase voluntary use outside of tournaments.
NMFS anticipates that socio-economic impacts of this alternative would be limited. Hooks represent a minor capital investment relative to other costs associated with participating in the billfish fishery
and wahoo. Additional ecological benefits may also accrue outside of tournaments as anglers become proficient and comfortable with circle hooks and increase voluntary use outside of tournaments.
NMFS anticipates that socio-economic impacts of this alternative would be limited. Hooks represent a minor capital investment relative to other costs associated with participating in the billfish fishery. NMFS estimates that requiring circle hooks may result in a minor positive economic impact for billfish tournament participants as information suggests that circle hooks cost slightly less than comparable J-hooks, on average. Impacts on hook manufacturers, retailers, and anglers would also likely be limited given that J-hooks would still be permitted outside of tournaments, and within tournaments if paired with artificial lures. Further, the delay in date of effectiveness should provide anglers, hook manufacturers, and hook retailers, adequate time to utilize stocks of J-hooks that might otherwise be used by, or sold to, tournament participants.
The preferred alternative would allow Atlantic billfish tournament participants to continue to use J-hooks with artificial lures on the same trip that they are using circle hooks with natural bait. NMFS received public comment during scoping and on the predraft document that fishermen tend to target white marlin and sailfish with natural baits while either drifting or slow trolling and target blue marlin by trolling at a higher rate of speed with the fish striking at the lure. What is known about hooking mechanics, as well as fishing practices and feeding preferences for blue marlin, indicates that trolling circle hooks at high speed would likely be ineffective at capturing these striking fish. Blue marlin are more likely to be captured as they strike at a fast moving lure, as opposed to deeply ingesting a bait or lure
r rate of speed with the fish striking at the lure. What is known about hooking mechanics, as well as fishing practices and feeding preferences for blue marlin, indicates that trolling circle hooks at high speed would likely be ineffective at capturing these striking fish. Blue marlin are more likely to be captured as they strike at a fast moving lure, as opposed to deeply ingesting a bait or lure. This is believed to result in increased rates of hooking in the mouth or jaw with less resultant damage to vital tissues or internal organs and, ultimately, lower rates of post-release mortality. Known rates of post-release mortality for Atlantic white and blue marlin captured on recreational gear using J-hooks, 35 percent and 11 percent, respectively, supports this contention. As such, NMFS is not proposing to eliminate the use of J-hooks with artificial lures.
The no action alternative would maintain existing recreational management measures such as minimum sizes, limiting allowable gear to rod and reel only, permitting requirements, and reporting requirements. As described above, these measures, in addition to those on the commercial fishery, have not been effective at to reducing fishing mortality to the appropriate levels. As such, additional actions, including international actions, are needed. Furthermore, while minimum size limits can constrain landings and associated mortalities by limiting the universe of potential fish that qualify for landing, they have little effect on post-release mortality.
NMFS also considered requiring circle hooks with natural baits for all participants in all segments of HMS recreational fisheries. While this alternative could reduce mortality rates on billfish, it was not preferred at this time because there are only limited data on the impacts of circle hooks on other HMS species, including effects on post-release mortality and catch rates. As such, the impacts of this alternative on anglers targeting species other than billfish could not be adequately analyzed at this time
onal fisheries. While this alternative could reduce mortality rates on billfish, it was not preferred at this time because there are only limited data on the impacts of circle hooks on other HMS species, including effects on post-release mortality and catch rates. As such, the impacts of this alternative on anglers targeting species other than billfish could not be adequately analyzed at this time. As billfish anglers become more familiar with circle hooks and begin using them to target other HMS, NMFS will likely gather additional information on any potential impacts on other species. Similar to the preferred alternative, this alternative would allow anglers to continue to use J-hooks with artificial lures.
ii. Landings Restrictions
Currently, NMFS has no measures in place, other than minimum sizes, that directly limit landings of Atlantic
At the 2000 ICCAT annual meeting, the United States agreed to limit recreational landings of Atlantic blue and white marlin to 250 fish, combined, on an annual basis. To codify and implement this recommendation, the first preferred alternative would provide for inseason minimum size adjustments, effective January 1, 2007. The current minimum size limits restrict marlin landings by reducing the pool of available legal-sized fish. However, increased effort or changes in angler behavior could result in increased landings and mortality. Under this alternative, NMFS could increase the minimum size of Atlantic blue and white marlin, if necessary, to between 117 - 138 inches (297 - 350.5 cm) and 70 - 79 inches (178 - 201 cm), respectively, during a fishing year to slow landings.
Allowing for inseason minimum size increases could minimize potential adverse socio-economic impacts on late season tournament operators and fishery participants by slowing landing rates and allowing landings to continue over the entire fishing year
if necessary, to between 117 - 138 inches (297 - 350.5 cm) and 70 - 79 inches (178 - 201 cm), respectively, during a fishing year to slow landings.
Allowing for inseason minimum size increases could minimize potential adverse socio-economic impacts on late season tournament operators and fishery participants by slowing landing rates and allowing landings to continue over the entire fishing year. Nevertheless, if the 250-marlin limit is achieved or projected to be achieved, despite inseason increases in size limits, no Atlantic blue or white marlin would be permitted to be taken, retained, or possessed from the date at which the limit is achieved or projected to be achieved. Minimum size limits would return to the current minimum size limits at the start of the subsequent fishing year. Possession of marlin would also be permitted at the start of the next fishing year, subject to the 250-limit adjusted for any prior overharvest. Consistent with ICCAT recommendations, NMFS would subtract any overharvest from the subsequent fishing year's landing limit and may carryover any underharvest to the subsequent fishing year.
Prior to the start of each fishing year, NMFS would file with the Office of the Federal Register an action establishing the annual landing limit for recreationally-caught Atlantic blue and white marlin. The need for inseason action and the specific action taken (minimum size increase or shift to catch-and-release) would be based upon a review of landings, time remaining until conclusion of the current fishing year, current and historical landings trends, and any other relevant factors. Inseason adjustments would be made by filing an adjustment with the Office of the Federal Register. In no case should the adjustments be effective less than five days after the date of publication
shift to catch-and-release) would be based upon a review of landings, time remaining until conclusion of the current fishing year, current and historical landings trends, and any other relevant factors. Inseason adjustments would be made by filing an adjustment with the Office of the Federal Register. In no case should the adjustments be effective less than five days after the date of publication.
Codification of ICCAT landing limits for Atlantic blue and white marlin, as well as the attendant compliance mechanisms and carryover procedures, are anticipated to have limited positive ecological impacts, in and of themselves, given the relatively low level of known United States landings. The United States was within the marlin landing limit for two of three reported years, and the 2002 exceedence was fully offset by carrying forward prior underharvest. These regulations may prevent otherwise unrestricted future increases in mortalities associated with known landings.
Difficulties associated with quantifying current marlin landings, uncertainty regarding the number of marlin fishermen and absolute effort, and uncertainty regarding changes in angler behavior when faced with increased minimum sizes or a catch-and-release fishery make quantifying the potential socio-economic impacts of this alternative difficult. Nevertheless, NMFS believes that the proposed measures minimize the adverse socio-economic impacts by improving the likelihood of allowing marlin landings for the entire fishing year, while complying with international obligations. Impacts associated with implementation of the ICCAT landings limits are anticipated to range from none to modest, depending on catch rates, angler responses to inseason action, and inseason management measures implemented, if any
ze the adverse socio-economic impacts by improving the likelihood of allowing marlin landings for the entire fishing year, while complying with international obligations. Impacts associated with implementation of the ICCAT landings limits are anticipated to range from none to modest, depending on catch rates, angler responses to inseason action, and inseason management measures implemented, if any. Areas that have late season fishing activity could be impacted to a greater extent by increased minimum sizes, however, these impacts are expected to be less substantial than if a total prohibition on the landing of Atlantic blue and white marlin was required to be implemented. If the ICCAT landing limit is achieved despite inseason adjustment of the minimum sizes and a total prohibition on possession and landings is implemented until new landings are available the following season, NMFS estimates that impacts for the fishery as a whole would be minor given the catch-and-release nature of the fishery and that a landings prohibition would most likely occur late in the fishing year. However, communities that might lose tournaments as a result of a landings prohibition could experience larger, localized impacts. The delay in the date of effectiveness should allow tournament operators time to adjust to the new regulations by modifying tournament rules and formats. Thus, the delay in effective date further mitigates the potential impacts of an inseason shift to catch-and-release only.
NMFS's second preferred alternative proposes to decrease landings and the mortalities associated with landings by allowing only catch-and-release fishing for Atlantic white marlin. Under this proposed management measure, no Atlantic white marlin would be taken, retained, or possessed for five years from January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2011, inclusive.
The ecological impacts of allowing only catch-and-release fishing for Atlantic white marlin would be limited to modest on its own
iated with landings by allowing only catch-and-release fishing for Atlantic white marlin. Under this proposed management measure, no Atlantic white marlin would be taken, retained, or possessed for five years from January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2011, inclusive.
The ecological impacts of allowing only catch-and-release fishing for Atlantic white marlin would be limited to modest on its own. Known landings of Atlantic white marlin ranged between 23 and 116 fish for the period 2001 to 2003. Mortality benefits from this alternative would be expected to accrue from elimination of landed white marlin, as this alternative would not directly impact post-release mortality. However, the ecological impacts of this alternative in combination with the other preferred alternatives in this rule would likely contribute to a noticeable decrease in domestic mortality. For example, this preferred alternative coupled with mandatory use of circle hooks when using natural baits in billfish tournaments could substantially reduce mortality by reducing landings to zero and reducing the post-release mortality rate by 23 percent overall or 65.7 percent relative to J-hooks.
The ecological benefits of this preferred alternative for other species may vary in response to angler behavior. If anglers continue catch-and-release fishing for white marlin, there would likely be little change in impacts on other species. However, anglers can shift effort to target other species, such as sailfish, blue marlin, dolphin, and wahoo, to some extent. If this occurs, interactions with those species could increase.
NMFS anticipates that any adverse socio-economic impacts stemming from this alternative would be small relative to the fishery as a whole, but would likely be heightened in localized areas
s on other species. However, anglers can shift effort to target other species, such as sailfish, blue marlin, dolphin, and wahoo, to some extent. If this occurs, interactions with those species could increase.
NMFS anticipates that any adverse socio-economic impacts stemming from this alternative would be small relative to the fishery as a whole, but would likely be heightened in localized areas. The primarily catch-and-release nature of fishing for Atlantic white marlin (approximately 90 to 99 percent of
NMFS also considered: (1) A no action alternative; (2)establishing larger minimum size limits for Atlantic blue and white marlin; (3) implementing a recreational bag limit of one Atlantic billfish per vessel per trip; and (4) allowing only catch-and-release fishing for Atlantic blue marlin. The no action alternative would maintain the current recreational minimum size measures that provide some limits on fishing mortality. The no action alternative would not address post-release mortality of Atlantic billfish in the recreational fishery, which is now estimated to be significantly higher for white marlin than it was when Amendment 1 to the Atlantic Billfish FMP was published in 1999.
While providing some additional conservation benefit to these overfished species, the second alternative by itself would have limited ecological benefit because minimum size limits alone cannot directly address post-release mortality issues or directly limit effort. In addition, further reductions from the already low level of known domestic landings would provide only limited mortality benefits.
The third alternative, while potentially restricting occasional landings of more than one billfish from a single trip, would provide only limited mortality reductions because bag limits cannot directly limit post-release mortality and fishing trips landing multiple billfish are rare events
ctions from the already low level of known domestic landings would provide only limited mortality benefits.
The third alternative, while potentially restricting occasional landings of more than one billfish from a single trip, would provide only limited mortality reductions because bag limits cannot directly limit post-release mortality and fishing trips landing multiple billfish are rare events.
The fourth alternative could provide some positive ecological benefits for Atlantic blue marlin, but could have noticeable adverse socio-economic impacts on fishery participants and associated shore side businesses.
The suite of preferred gear and landings alternatives to reduce billfish mortality by the directed fishery are expected to achieve the goals and objectives of this rulemaking at this time. However, the non-preferred alternatives may be considered in a future rulemaking, if necessary and appropriate.
3. Management Program Structure
NMFS considered the alternatives described below in order to clarify existing regulations and improve management of Atlantic HMS. In and of themselves, many of these actions would have few ecological, social, and/or economic impacts. However, all should improve the management of Atlantic HMS.
A. Bluefin Tuna Quota Management
The suite of management measures proposed at 50 CFR 635.27 for the management of BFT are not likely to have any ecological impacts. The quotas themselves are established by ICCAT, in accordance with the BFT 20-year rebuilding plan. All of the alternatives considered, which modify how the quota is allocated among domestic fishermen, maintain the current ICCAT-recommended quota. These proposed small orders of change, quantified in either numbers of fish or in weight (metric tons), or time and/or location of harvest, compared to overall U.S. harvest levels, equate to ecological impacts that are unlikely to be measurable in terms of variability in the data used to conduct the BFT stock assessment
ocated among domestic fishermen, maintain the current ICCAT-recommended quota. These proposed small orders of change, quantified in either numbers of fish or in weight (metric tons), or time and/or location of harvest, compared to overall U.S. harvest levels, equate to ecological impacts that are unlikely to be measurable in terms of variability in the data used to conduct the BFT stock assessment. The goal of these alternatives is to clarify both the regulations and NMFS' responses to the inherent variability of the fishery in order to minimize any social or economic impacts. The management measures are split into three sections: time-periods and subquotas, annual quota allocations and effort controls, and inseason management.
i. Time-periods and Subquotas
NMFS explored several possibilities for amending and/or clarifying the annual BFT subquota allocation schemes in both the General and Angling categories. Currently, using the ICCAT-recommended U.S. BFT TAC, NMFS divides the U.S. allocation into several domestic quota categories, which are then further subdivided into more finite temporal, geographic, and/or BFT size class categories to meet the objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, and the FMP. NMFS proposes to codify specific General category time-periods and associated subquotas (in percentage and whole weight) in the regulatory text. NMFS is proposing in this rule to codify the following time-periods and subquota allocations: June - August, 50 percent (345 mt); September, 26.5 percent (182.8 mt); October - November, 13 percent (89.7 mt); December, 5.2 percent (35.9 mt); and January, 5.3 percent (36.5 mt). NMFS also proposes to clarify the procedures for calculating the Angling category school size-class BFT subquota allocation. Finally, NMFS is proposing to remove the north/south Angling category dividing line and the General Category New York Bight set-aside, which are not effective management tools at this time
ercent (89.7 mt); December, 5.2 percent (35.9 mt); and January, 5.3 percent (36.5 mt). NMFS also proposes to clarify the procedures for calculating the Angling category school size-class BFT subquota allocation. Finally, NMFS is proposing to remove the north/south Angling category dividing line and the General Category New York Bight set-aside, which are not effective management tools at this time.
These preferred alternatives enhance NMFS's ability to address the inherent variability in the BFT fishery. These alternatives also respond, in part, to the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries's (NCDMF) petition for rulemaking (November 18, 2002; 67 FR 69502) by proposing to allow for a General category winter BFT fishery while still recognizing the historical General category BFT allocation schemes.
In addition to these preferred alternatives, NMFS considered maintaining the current time-periods, subquota allocations, and geographic set-asides for the General and Angling categories as established in the 1999 FMP (the no action alternative). This alternative hinders NMFS' ability to adapt BFT management measures to account for variations inherent in the fishery. Additionally, the current regulations do not allow for a winter BFT fishery in the South Atlantic region. The General Category New York Bight set-aside has not been used in the past several years. This geographic set-aside tends to complicate the subquota allocation of the General Category quota and creates the misperception that geographic set-asides are an effective management tool in a dynamic fishery. The recreational north/south line creates the perception that NMFS has the ability to use this management tool to provide fair and equitable recreational fishing opportunities. However, NMFS does not currently have the necessary real-time data for this to be an effective management tool
and creates the misperception that geographic set-asides are an effective management tool in a dynamic fishery. The recreational north/south line creates the perception that NMFS has the ability to use this management tool to provide fair and equitable recreational fishing opportunities. However, NMFS does not currently have the necessary real-time data for this to be an effective management tool.
NMFS also considered an alternative that would establish the General category time-periods, subquotas, and geographic set-asides annually via framework action(s). This alternative would increase the administrative burden to implement the annual specifications prior to the start of the fishing year, and would not provide the
Finally, NMFS considered three different alternatives for allocating the General category time-periods and subquota allocations. None of these alternatives were selected because the allocations did not adequately balance the need to preserve historical General category BFT allocations, to the extent practicable, while providing for a formalized winter BFT fishery in the South Atlantic.
ii. Annual Quota Allocations
According to an ICCAT recommendation, if a Contracting Party exceeds the annual or biannual BFT quota, then the Contracting Party must reduce its catch to compensate for the overage. ICCAT eventually modified this recommendation to state that unused quota or an overage from the previous year shall be added or subtracted, as appropriate, to the current year's retainable catch. To maintain consistency with the ICCAT recommendations while streamlining the annual domestic BFT quota adjustment process, NMFS considered several alternatives.
Under the preferred alternative, NMFS would modify the current procedures to calculate annual under- and overharvest adjustments so that the analysis of the baseline quota and subquotas occur only when ICCAT alters the recommended U.S. BFT TAC
tain consistency with the ICCAT recommendations while streamlining the annual domestic BFT quota adjustment process, NMFS considered several alternatives.
Under the preferred alternative, NMFS would modify the current procedures to calculate annual under- and overharvest adjustments so that the analysis of the baseline quota and subquotas occur only when ICCAT alters the recommended U.S. BFT TAC. Additionally, NMFS proposes to establish a carryover limit for each category equaling no more than 100 percent of that category's baseline allocation for the individual quota category (i.e., no more than the baseline allocation would be allowed to roll from one year to the next), and to authorize the transfer of any category's quota that exceeds this limit to the Reserve category or another domestic quota category, while maintaining the status quo overharvest provisions. This preferred alternative would have positive ecological impacts by limiting the amount of unharvested quota that could be rolled from one year to the next. This alternative would minimize the impacts of stockpiling in any one category, and provide NMFS the flexibility to redistribute the overall quota available and to provide reasonable fishing opportunities to harvest the overall quota in the timeframe it was designated. Under these preferred alternatives, NMFS could provide the fishery with a stable baseline quota allocation on a timely basis from one year to the next; address under- and overharvests from the previous year; establish the General category effort controls and any recreational and commercial handgear daily retention limits for the upcoming season; enhance flexibility to adapt these management measure, if warranted; and streamline the annual rulemaking process. Additionally, implementing a cap on the amount of quota that can be carried over to the next fishing year would allow NMFS to manage the BFT harvest with more finite precision and minimize the occurrence of “stockpiling” in any one quota category
ention limits for the upcoming season; enhance flexibility to adapt these management measure, if warranted; and streamline the annual rulemaking process. Additionally, implementing a cap on the amount of quota that can be carried over to the next fishing year would allow NMFS to manage the BFT harvest with more finite precision and minimize the occurrence of “stockpiling” in any one quota category.
NMFS considered two other alternatives to modify the annual BFT management measures. Under the no action alternative, NMFS would continue to conduct a full analysis of the impacts of implementing the baseline quotas every year regardless of whether ICCAT recommended any changes to the BFT TAC. NMFS also considered eliminating the carryover provisions for unharvested quota where the unharvested quota would not be transferred to another category. Rather, that portion of the quota would remain unharvested. Under this alternative, the overharvest provisions would maintain the status quo.
iii. Inseason Management
NMFS currently performs inseason management actions to adjust BFT management measures, such as daily retention limits, inseason quota transfers, and fishery closures/reopenings to the adapt to the changing conditions of each fishing season. Prior to making an inseason adjustment, NMFS must consider a set of criteria to ensure the actions comply with the objectives of the FMP. NMFS considered maintaining the existing inseason action procedures (no action alternative), which include analyzing different sets of criteria for each particular type of inseason action. Under the preferred alternative, NMFS would have a set of consistent criteria at 50 CFR 635.27(a)(8) to apply to all types of inseason actions for BFT. The proposed criteria are essentially the same as the current regulatory text at §§ 635.27(a)(7) and 635.28(a)(3) with some revision to eliminate overlapping considerations. This alternative would ensure reasonable fishing opportunities for all of the BFT fishery participants
ive, NMFS would have a set of consistent criteria at 50 CFR 635.27(a)(8) to apply to all types of inseason actions for BFT. The proposed criteria are essentially the same as the current regulatory text at §§ 635.27(a)(7) and 635.28(a)(3) with some revision to eliminate overlapping considerations. This alternative would ensure reasonable fishing opportunities for all of the BFT fishery participants. Allowing for these opportunities is considered when establishing the baseline quota and should not have any additional ecological impacts. These criteria provide the necessary tools for meeting the draft HMS FMP's objectives in a consistent manner, while balancing the resource's needs with users' needs. Further, the criteria would allow NMFS to adapt management measures to the inherent variability in the fishery and to provide for maximum utilization of the BFT quota. The preferred alternative provides transparency and consistency in the conditions considered prior to taking action. Because there are several sets of criteria to consider before taking action, the no action alternative is not as transparent as the preferred alternative and could lead to inconsistencies in analysis between the types of inseason actions.
NMFS also considered an alternative that would eliminate BFT inseason actions. While this alternative would simplify management, eliminating inseason actions would constrain NMFS's ability to adjust management actions due to fluctuations in catch rates and to prevent premature closures or overharvest of a domestic quota category. Because this type of variability or lack of variability is considered when setting the overall TAC, this alternative is unlikely to have any ecological impacts.
B. Timeframe for Annual Management of HMS Fisheries
Many aspects of HMS management, including quota distributions and specifications, are implemented on an annual basis
nt premature closures or overharvest of a domestic quota category. Because this type of variability or lack of variability is considered when setting the overall TAC, this alternative is unlikely to have any ecological impacts.
B. Timeframe for Annual Management of HMS Fisheries
Many aspects of HMS management, including quota distributions and specifications, are implemented on an annual basis. This proposed rule considers three alternatives to modify the current management timeframe for HMS fisheries with the intent of simplifying the HMS management process. The no action alternative maintains the status quo, with sharks managed on a calendar year (January 1 - December 31) and tunas, swordfish, and billfish managed on a June 1 through May 31 fishing year. The preferred alternative would shift HMS management to a calendar year. A third alternative would shift all HMS fisheries to a June 1 - May 31 fishing year management cycle.
Under the preferred alternative, the Atlantic shark management timeframe would remain as it currently is (calendar year), whereas tunas, swordfish, and billfish would shift from a June 1 - May 31 fishing year to a calendar year. An abbreviated 2006 season from June 1 through December 31, 2006, would be established to transition bluefin tuna and swordfish from a fishing year to a calendar year. The specifics of the abbreviated season for bluefin tuna and swordfish would be implemented under a future fishery specification process, as appropriate.
The preferred alternative would simplify the regulatory process by managing all HMS fisheries on a calendar year. Currently, reports of U.S. landings are presented to ICCAT on a
Under the no action alternative, Atlantic tunas, swordfish, and billfish would continue to be managed on a June 1 - May 31 fishing year timeframe, and Atlantic sharks would continue on a calendar year basis. This alternative was not selected as the preferred alternative because it does not meet the intent of simplifying HMS management
rrently, reports of U.S. landings are presented to ICCAT on a
Under the no action alternative, Atlantic tunas, swordfish, and billfish would continue to be managed on a June 1 - May 31 fishing year timeframe, and Atlantic sharks would continue on a calendar year basis. This alternative was not selected as the preferred alternative because it does not meet the intent of simplifying HMS management.
In addition, NMFS considered shifting all of the HMS fisheries to the June 1 - May 31 fishing year management timeframe. The management timeframe for Atlantic tunas, swordfish, and billfish would remain as is, whereas sharks would shift from the calendar year to the fishing year. This alternative is not preferred because it would not simplify international reporting and could cause short-term confusion in the shark fishery, which has operated on a calendar year basis since 1993.
C. Authorized Fishing Gears
The revised list of authorized fisheries (LOF) and fishing gear used in the listed fisheries became effective on December 1, 1999 (64 FR 67511). The rule applies to all U.S. marine fisheries, including Atlantic HMS. As stated in the rule, “no person or vessel may employ fishing gear or participate in a fishery in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) not included in this LOF without giving 90 days advance notice to the appropriate Fishery Management Council (Council) or, with respect to Atlantic HMS, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary).” The LOF is updated periodically and can be found at 50 CFR 600.725.
Innovative fishing gears and techniques are essential to increasing efficiency and reducing bycatch in fisheries for Atlantic HMS. As current or traditional gears are modified and new gears are developed, NMFS needs to be cognizant of these advances to gauge their potential impacts on target catch rates, bycatch rates, and protected species interactions, all of which can have important management implications
ishing gears and techniques are essential to increasing efficiency and reducing bycatch in fisheries for Atlantic HMS. As current or traditional gears are modified and new gears are developed, NMFS needs to be cognizant of these advances to gauge their potential impacts on target catch rates, bycatch rates, and protected species interactions, all of which can have important management implications. New fishing gears and techniques need to be evaluated by NMFS for qualification as authorized gear types.
In this rule, NMFS is proposing at 50 CFR 635.21(e) and (f) to authorize speargun fishing gear as a permissible gear-type in the recreational Atlantic tuna fishery, authorize green-stick fishing gear for the commercial harvest of bigeye, albacore, yellowfin, and skipjack (BAYS) tunas, authorize buoy gear in the swordfish handgear fishery, and clarify the allowance of hand-held cockpit gears.
At the public hearings on the proposed list of authorized gears in the Atlantic tuna fisheries, no comments were received from spearfishermen and the regulations were made final without listing speargun fishing gear as an authorized fishing gear. Since implementation of the final rule, NMFS has received written requests and public comment requesting that NMFS authorize the use of speargun fishing gear in the Atlantic tuna fishery. The public comments suggest that relatively few individual fishermen compared to the number of existing angling permit holders (approximately 22,000) would be expected to use this gear type, and that spearfishermen expect low encounter rates with target species. Based on public comment and anecdotal information, NMFS anticipates that between 50 and 1,000 individual U.S. fishermen may have an interest in using speargun fishing gear to target tunas
dividual fishermen compared to the number of existing angling permit holders (approximately 22,000) would be expected to use this gear type, and that spearfishermen expect low encounter rates with target species. Based on public comment and anecdotal information, NMFS anticipates that between 50 and 1,000 individual U.S. fishermen may have an interest in using speargun fishing gear to target tunas. Relative to the current number of participants in the recreational Atlantic tuna fishery, and taking into account the estimated low encounter rates for target species, the additional anticipated effort from spearfishermen would likely result in minimal negative ecological impacts on Atlantic tunas.
The authorization of speargun fishing gear in the recreational Atlantic tuna fishery would likely result in minor positive economic impacts. Under the preferred alternative, tunas taken with speargun fishing gear in the Angling category would not be eligible for sale. However, for consistency purposes, vessels that possess an Atlantic HMS charter/headboat (CHB) permit would be allowed to sell their recreational Atlantic tunas, except for BFT, while on a for-hire trip, provided they do not exceed the daily recreational retention limits for any BAYS tunas and abide by sale restrictions as outlined in 50 CFR 635.31. Regardless of whether CHB fishermen are operating in a for-hire or non-for-hire manner, BFT harvested by speargun fishing gear may not be sold. The CHB sector may experience some positive economic impacts as spearfishermen may increase their use of for-hire vessels, increasing revenues to those vessels. Prohibiting the sale of BFT taken with spearfishing gear from CHB vessels could result in some perceived negative social and economic impacts. However, this activity is not currently allowed under existing regulations, therefore no additional adverse social or economic are anticipated for the CHB sector
pearfishermen may increase their use of for-hire vessels, increasing revenues to those vessels. Prohibiting the sale of BFT taken with spearfishing gear from CHB vessels could result in some perceived negative social and economic impacts. However, this activity is not currently allowed under existing regulations, therefore no additional adverse social or economic are anticipated for the CHB sector. Additionally, the authorization of spearfishing gear could increase the club-nature or camaraderie associated with spearfishing and may result in positive social impacts.
NMFS is proposing at 50 CFR 635.21(e) to authorize green-stick fishing gear for the commercial harvest of Atlantic BAYS tunas. Commercial vessels utilizing or possessing green-stick gear would be prohibited from possessing or retaining BFT. There is a potential for increases in landings of other Atlantic HMS, but NMFS cannot quantify anticipated landings for this gear, at this time, due to the limited amount of landings information available. However, because this gear has been used in the HMS fisheries for several years but classified as longline (due to the number of hooks involved) or handgear (due to the use of rod and reel), authorizing this gear type would likely not result in increased effort, landings, or landing rates. The authorization of green-stick gear may result in positive social and economic impacts for those fishermen who wish to employ the gear to target BAYS tunas commercially. This gear type is fairly selective for BAYS tunas because of the fishing technique. As such, the gear is unlikely to interact with any sea turtles or other protected species. An increase in BAYS tuna landings could provide positive economic impacts to fishermen as well as benefits for fish houses, gear supply houses, and other associated businesses
mploy the gear to target BAYS tunas commercially. This gear type is fairly selective for BAYS tunas because of the fishing technique. As such, the gear is unlikely to interact with any sea turtles or other protected species. An increase in BAYS tuna landings could provide positive economic impacts to fishermen as well as benefits for fish houses, gear supply houses, and other associated businesses. Some commercial tuna fishermen utilizing green-stick gear may experience negative social and economic impacts due to the prohibition on the possession or retention of BFT, however, since available data indicate that few BFT have been reported captured using this gear type, NMFS anticipates that any negative impacts would likely be minor.
NMFS is also proposing to authorize buoy gear in the commercial swordfish handgear fishery, as reflected in proposed regulatory changes to 50 CFR 600.725(v), 635.2, and 635.21(e)(4). Under current regulations, the swordfish handgear fishery may utilize individual handlines attached to free-floating buoys. This rule proposes to require that handlines used in HMS fisheries be attached to a vessel (see Regulatory Housekeeping Measures below). Further, this rule proposes to change the definition of individual free-floating buoyed lines, that are currently considered to be handlines, to “buoy gear,” allowing the commercial swordfish handgear fishery to continue utilizing this gear type. This rule would also limit the number of buoys that can be deployed to 35 buoys per vessel and require that each buoy have fixed monitoring equipment such as radar reflectors, beeper devices, lights, or reflective tape with a spotlight on the vessel in order to facilitate finding the gear. This preferred alternative would likely continue affording positive social and economic benefits to current fishery participants. Currently, a maximum of 282 permit holders (93 swordfish handgear and 189 swordfish directed) would be authorized to utilize this gear type to target swordfish
er devices, lights, or reflective tape with a spotlight on the vessel in order to facilitate finding the gear. This preferred alternative would likely continue affording positive social and economic benefits to current fishery participants. Currently, a maximum of 282 permit holders (93 swordfish handgear and 189 swordfish directed) would be authorized to utilize this gear type to target swordfish. This alternative could result in perceived negative social impacts by recreational fishermen by continuing to allow commercial swordfish fishing in areas closed to HMS pelagic longline gear.
Additionally, NMFS is preferring an alternative to clarify the use of secondary hand-held cockpit gears at 50 CFR 635.21(b) and (e). These gears may include, but are not limited to, dart harpoons, gaffs, flying gaffs, tail ropes, etc., and are used at boat side for subduing HMS captured on authorized primary fishing gears. In recent years, NMFS has become aware of some confusion regarding the allowable use of hand-held cockpit gears. In 50 CFR 635.21(e), NMFS lists the authorized primary fishing gear types that Atlantic HMS permit holders are allowed to use, based on the species being targeted and the permit category of the particular vessel. It is NMFS' intent to authorize only the primary fishing gear types used to harvest HMS, meaning the gears used to bring an HMS to the vessel. This alternative would clarify that secondary gears could be used to subdue HMS after they are brought to the vessel using a primary gear type. Under this proposed action, cockpit gears would not be allowed to be used in any way to capture free-swimming HMS, but only to gain control of HMS brought to the vessel via an authorized primary fishing gear type
e gears used to bring an HMS to the vessel. This alternative would clarify that secondary gears could be used to subdue HMS after they are brought to the vessel using a primary gear type. Under this proposed action, cockpit gears would not be allowed to be used in any way to capture free-swimming HMS, but only to gain control of HMS brought to the vessel via an authorized primary fishing gear type.
In addition to a no action alternative, NMFS also considered alternatives to authorize speargun fishing gear as a permissible gear-type in both the commercial tuna handgear and the recreational Atlantic tuna fisheries, and to authorize buoy gear in the commercial swordfish handgear fishery and limit vessels to possessing and deploying no more than 50 buoys with each buoy having no more than 15 hooks or gangions attached. NMFS did not prefer authorizing speargun fishing gear in the commercial tuna handgear fishery because, according to feedback received from HMS Advisory Panel (AP) members and the estimated low encounter rates, NMFS does not believe the commercial handgear sector would utilize this gear type. NMFS did not prefer the authorization of buoy gear with limits of 50 buoys possessed or deployed and up to 15 hooks or gangions attached to each gear because of potential negative ecological and social impacts such as lost gear.
D. Regulatory Housekeeping Measures
The proposed actions referred to as “regulatory housekeeping measures” include several minor revisions to existing regulatory text and 11 substantive actions. The minor revisions include: minor and nonsubstantive clarifications to reporting, permitting, and vessel upgrading requirements; and removal of duplicative reporting requirements, obsolete cross-references, and expired regulations. Also, the title of the “Northeast Distant closed area” is proposed to be changed to the “Northeast Distant gear restricted area” to reflect recent regulatory actions. See Section 2.3.4.1 of the draft HMS FMP for a table describing these minor revisions
rmitting, and vessel upgrading requirements; and removal of duplicative reporting requirements, obsolete cross-references, and expired regulations. Also, the title of the “Northeast Distant closed area” is proposed to be changed to the “Northeast Distant gear restricted area” to reflect recent regulatory actions. See Section 2.3.4.1 of the draft HMS FMP for a table describing these minor revisions. In addition, NMFS is proposing a change to 50 CFR 635.4(f)(1) to include a rebuttable presumption that a vessel that possesses swordfish in excess of recreational retention limits intends to sell the swordfish. This change would make § 635.4(f)(1) consistent with shark provisions at § 635.4(e)(2), and shift the burden of proof to the vessel to show compliance with applicable regulations. This change would facilitate enforcement and would not impose any additional economic impacts on fishermen. As all of the above changes are minor technical additions, corrections, or changes to existing regulations, per the NOAA Administrative Order 216-6, they are categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare and Environmental Assessment or EIS.
For the 11 more substantive proposed measures, alternatives have been developed and analyzed. Several of these alternatives would not implement new regulatory requirements and include: (1) a clarification that the sale or purchase of HMS in excess of current retention limits is prohibited; (2) a correction to a coordinate specified for the East Florida Coast closed area that would extend it 1.02 km (0.55 nm) eastward to the outer boundary of the EEZ to match with the list of coordinates given; (3) a measure to reinforce and clarify the recreational nature of the billfish fishery by prohibiting vessels issued commercial permits from possessing billfish; (4) a measure to provide an option for Atlantic tunas dealers, who engage in both domestic and international trade of HMS (see 50 CFR part 300 subpart M and 50 CFR part 635), to submit required BFT reports using the Internet once a sy
en; (3) a measure to reinforce and clarify the recreational nature of the billfish fishery by prohibiting vessels issued commercial permits from possessing billfish; (4) a measure to provide an option for Atlantic tunas dealers, who engage in both domestic and international trade of HMS (see 50 CFR part 300 subpart M and 50 CFR part 635), to submit required BFT reports using the Internet once a system is designed and put in place; (5) a clarification of the deadlines for submitting “no-fishing” and “cost-earnings” reporting forms; (6) a clarification that vessel owners, not anglers, must report non-tournament recreational swordfish and billfish landings; and (7) a clarification to the procedure for specifying the annual 25 mt northeast distant (NED) BFT PLL allocation. The preferred alternatives described above are expected to produce minimal positive ecological impacts, with no significant adverse social or economic impacts. Extending the East Florida Coast closed area by 1.20 km (0.55 nm) is not expected to impact fishing effort, as vessels will likely relocate to nearby areas with similar catch rates. In summary, these alternatives are preferred over the no action alternatives because they would improve compliance by reinforcing and clarifying existing regulations and facilitate modernized reporting procedures. Unlike the above alternatives, several regulatory housekeeping measures would implement new regulations and are discussed in more detail below.
The HMS time/area closures currently in effect apply specifically to either PLL or bottom longline (BLL) gear. Therefore, it is optimal for the two gear types to be clearly differentiable to determine compliance with the applicable restrictions. NMFS has developed alternatives to amend the
Species identification of sharks can be enhanced by the presence of fins. NMFS considered alternatives to amend the regulations governing commercial shark landings to facilitate shark identification for enforcement and data collection purposes
for the two gear types to be clearly differentiable to determine compliance with the applicable restrictions. NMFS has developed alternatives to amend the
Species identification of sharks can be enhanced by the presence of fins. NMFS considered alternatives to amend the regulations governing commercial shark landings to facilitate shark identification for enforcement and data collection purposes. The preferred alternative would require that the second dorsal and anal fins remain on all sharks through landing. Although this alternative could have some minor economic and social impacts, it is expected to have ecological benefits and, in the long-term, aid in rebuilding the large coastal shark population. NMFS also considered an alternative that would require these fins to remain on all sharks, except for lemon and nurse sharks, through landing. This alternative would have similar economic and social impacts as described above, but could confuse the issue of identification because fishermen could remove all fins from a shark log and, incorrectly, report the shark as a nurse or lemon shark. If fishermen were to do this, the alternative might have adverse ecological impacts compared with the no action or the preferred alternative. Another alternative was considered that would require the retention of all fins on all sharks through landing. This alternative would have the largest ecological benefits but could also have fairly large adverse economic and social impacts. Therefore, it was not preferred.
Currently, handlines are not required to be attached to, or in contact with, vessels. As a result, some vessel operators have been deploying numerous unattached handlines. This practice may circumvent the original “concept” of handline gear and could potentially result in an unintended increase in fishing effort. NMFS is preferring an alternative that would require that handlines be attached to, or in contact with, vessels
ot required to be attached to, or in contact with, vessels. As a result, some vessel operators have been deploying numerous unattached handlines. This practice may circumvent the original “concept” of handline gear and could potentially result in an unintended increase in fishing effort. NMFS is preferring an alternative that would require that handlines be attached to, or in contact with, vessels. However, as described under Authorized Fishing Gears (above), NMFS prefers an alternative that would define unattached handlines as “buoy gear,” and authorize their use in the commercial swordfish handgear fishery. As a result, the preferred alternative in this section would primarily impact recreational fishermen and commercial fishermen that do not possess a directed commercial swordfish permit. There are no data indicating the prevalence of this practice, but public comment suggests that the use of unattached handlines may be increasing in the recreational sector. Therefore, this alternative could create some minor adverse social impacts on the recreational sector. Because fish caught recreationally cannot be sold, no direct adverse economic impacts are expected. However, some unquantifiable level of adverse economic impacts could be realized by charter vessels and gear suppliers. This alternative could produce ecological benefits by preventing uncontrolled expansion of the recreational handline fishery. The no action alternative was not preferred because it would not address the potential expansion of the handline fishery.
Currently, vessels fishing recreationally for sharks, swordfish, billfish, and tunas (in some states) are able to fish under state regulations while in state waters, and under Federal regulations when in Federal waters. This has been problematic for NMFS, and has caused confusion on behalf of anglers, due to the differences between state and Federal regulations and the inability to verify whether a fish was caught in state or Federal waters
r sharks, swordfish, billfish, and tunas (in some states) are able to fish under state regulations while in state waters, and under Federal regulations when in Federal waters. This has been problematic for NMFS, and has caused confusion on behalf of anglers, due to the differences between state and Federal regulations and the inability to verify whether a fish was caught in state or Federal waters. Thus, NMFS is preferring an alternative that would require recreational vessels with an HMS Angling, HMS Charter/Headboat (on a for-hire trip), or Atlantic Tunas General Category (participating in a registered HMS tournament) Federal permit to abide by Federal regulations as a condition of their permit, regardless of where they are fishing, unless a state has more restrictive regulations. Such a permit condition is already in place for commercial shark and swordfish Federal permit holders under 50 CFR 635.4(a)(10). This alternative is expected to facilitate improved management of HMS and result in less confusion on behalf of fishermen and improved compliance. Compared with the no action alternative, the preferred alternative would produce greater ecological benefits with few resulting adverse social and economic impacts. However, the few HMS anglers who generally fish in states with less restrictive regulations would notice some adverse social impacts due to the more restrictive Federal regulations.
4. EFH Update
EFH guidance that published on January 17, 2002 (67 FR 2343), requires NMFS to periodically review and update the EFH provisions, as warranted, based on the best scientific information available. The EFH regulations further require NMFS to review all EFH information at least once every five years. EFH, including habitat areas of particular concern (HAPCs), for HMS were identified in the 1999 Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Shark FMP (and its Amendment) and the 1999 Amendment 1 to the Billfish FMP. This draft HMS FMP continues the comprehensive five-year review of EFH for all HMS
available. The EFH regulations further require NMFS to review all EFH information at least once every five years. EFH, including habitat areas of particular concern (HAPCs), for HMS were identified in the 1999 Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Shark FMP (and its Amendment) and the 1999 Amendment 1 to the Billfish FMP. This draft HMS FMP continues the comprehensive five-year review of EFH for all HMS. This process began with the release of the Issues and Options Paper (April 30, 2004, 69 FR 23730). The purpose of the EFH review is to gather any new information and determine whether modifications to existing EFH descriptions and boundaries are warranted. While NMFS has presented new information relative to HMS EFH in the annual SAFE reports and Amendment 1 to the 1999 FMP, this is the first comprehensive look at all new information related to HMS EFH.
NMFS does not intend to modify any of the existing EFH descriptions or boundaries in this draft HMS FMP. Rather, NMFS is presenting new EFH information and data collected since 1999 and is requesting public comment on any additional data or information that may need to be included in the five-year review. Based on an assessment of the data collected thus far, NMFS has made a preliminary determination that modifying existing EFH for some HMS
Additionally, NMFS is required to identify fishing and non-fishing activities that may adversely affect EFH. Each FMP must include an evaluation of the potential adverse impacts of fishing on EFH, including the effects of each fishing activity regulated under the FMP, other Federal FMPs, and non-federally managed fishing activities (i.e., state fisheries). FMPs must describe each fishing activity and review and discuss all available relevant information such as the intensity, extent, and frequency of any adverse effects on EFH; the type of habitat within EFH that may be adversely affected; and the habitat functions that may be disturbed (50 CFR 600.815(a)(2))
, other Federal FMPs, and non-federally managed fishing activities (i.e., state fisheries). FMPs must describe each fishing activity and review and discuss all available relevant information such as the intensity, extent, and frequency of any adverse effects on EFH; the type of habitat within

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

## Nearby sections

- [70 FR 735 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 777-200 Series Airplanes](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_05-170.md)
- [70 FR 1216 Chemical Weapons Convention Regulations](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_05-287.md)
- [70 FR 1397 Proposed Establishment of Class E2 Airspace; and Modification of Class E5 Airspace; Ames, IA](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_05-373.md)
- [70 FR 1400 Security Zone; Port of Mobile, Mobile Ship Channel, Mobile, AL](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_05-379.md)
- [70 FR 1403 Assistant Secretary for Technology Policy; Licensing of Government Owned Inventions](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_05-338.md)
- [70 FR 1837 Grapes Grown in a Designated Area of Southeastern California; Increased Assessment Rate](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_05-470.md)
- [70 FR 1841 Eligibility for Health Care Benefits for Certain Filipino Veterans in the United States](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_05-493.md)
- [70 FR 2067 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A330, A340-200, and A340-300 Series Airplanes](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_05-612.md)
- [70 FR 2072 Requirement for Reporting the Kimberley Process Certificate Number for Exports (Reexports) of Rough Diamonds](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_05-597.md)
- [70 FR 2074 Notice of Intent To Request Public Comments](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_05-593.md)
- [70 FR 2080 Electronic filing-Annual Financial and Actuarial Information; Correction](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_05-635.md)
- [70 FR 2081 Assessment of Civil Penalties for Misuse of Words, Letters, Symbols, and Emblems of the United States Mint](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_05-543.md)
- [70 FR 2101 Proposed Approval of Waste Characterization Activities at the Hanford Central Characterization Project for Disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_05-618.md)
- [70 FR 2108 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Monkfish Fishery; Amendment 2 to the Monkfish Fishery Management Plan; Correction](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_05-625.md)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_05-15965. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.